Group items tagged

e good folks at Utah State University have a faculty opening in their Instructional Technology Departm

网络传媒对传统的"白纸黑字"的颠覆，即缘于各种原因，原先白纸上的好好黑字，一霎那就没没了。

开源软件是采用开源许可证规制软件开发和使用的新模式，保证了开发者和用户可以获取、修改和贡献软件源代码，并利用这些代码满足业务需求。开源软件的特点是在软件开发和使用的过程中，采用社区化和开放共享的方式，弥补了传统私有软件的公司化和封闭性的缺陷，更加适应大规模、网络化、创新型软件技术发展需求。基于开源软件建立起新的信息技术生态系统，与以私有软件为主体的现有生态系统进行竞争，在竞争中显示出低成本、高安全、易维护、促创新的优势，逐渐显示出生机勃勃的活力。

At first glance, this evolution might seem to be simply a shift in agency, from publication by a few to collective contribution by many. But in fact, the implications of Web 2.0 go much deeper: the tacit epistemologies that underlie its activities differ dramatically from what I will call here the “Classical” perspective—the historic views of knowledge, expertise, and learning on which formal education is based.

In contrast, the Web 2.0 definition of “knowledge” is collective agreement about a description that may combine facts with other dimensions of human experience, such as opinions, values, and spiritual beliefs. As an illustration, the Wikipedia entry on “social effect of evolutionary theory” wrestles with constructing a point of view that most readers would consider reasonable, accurate, and unbiased without derogating religious precepts some might hold. In contrast to articles in the Encyclopedia Britannica, Wikipedia articles are either undisputed (tacitly considered accurate) or disputed (still resolving through collective argumentation), and Wikipedia articles cover topics that are not central to academic disciplines or to a wide audience (e.g., the cartoon dog Scooby-Doo).

It is clear that users are not reading online in the traditional sense; indeed there are signs that new forms of “reading” are emerging as users “power browse” horizontally through titles, contents pages and abstracts going for quick wins. It almost seems that they go online to avoid reading in the traditional sense.

Wolf worries that the style of reading promoted by the Net, a style that puts “efficiency” and “immediacy” above all else, may be weakening our capacity for the kind of deep reading that emerged when an earlier technology, the printing press, made long and complex works of prose commonplace. When we read online, she says, we tend to become “mere decoders of information.” Our ability to interpret text, to make the rich mental connections that form when we read deeply and without distraction, remains largely disengaged.

As the media theorist Marshall McLuhan pointed out in the 1960s, media are not just passive channels of information. They supply the stuff of thought, but they also shape the process of thought. And what the Net seems to be doing is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation.