Group items tagged

There have been a number of research programs that have investigated students' thinking and beliefs about the nature of knowledge and knowing, including definitions of knowledge, how knowledge is constructed, and how knowledge is evaluated. However, these different research programs have pursued varying definitions and conceptual frameworks and used quite different methodologies to examine students' epistemological beliefs and thinking. In the first section of this article, we provide a critical and comprehensive review of these different research programs. In the second part of this article, we identify nine crucial theoretical and methodological issues that need to be resolved in future research on epistemological theories. As these issues are addressed in future research, there will be more consensus regarding the nature of epistemological theories, and their relation to cognition, motivation, and learning will be made more explicit.

Scroll down and read the discussion forum paper, "Child Protection and Freedom of Expression Online". The report aims to open discussion and reframe the debate surrounding child protection by bringing together, rather than isolating, advocates of online child protection and those of freedom of expression. It rejects the current moral panics that dominate the debate, particularly in the media, which over-represents the likelihood of harm to children online. It highlights the unproductive nature of framing online protection as a moral panic because it obscures and undermines the work of both freedom of expression and child protection advocates. Rather than keeping these two parties as diametrically opposed the discussion laid the first steps in finding common ground between the two. From here they can work together to advance both of their agendas and therefore achieving a more desirable balance between defending the rights of children and maintaining freedom of expression.

I found this article and its links really interesting - it discusses the fusion of the city and technology, and uses the concept of ubiquitous technology/urban informatics to explain and describe 'smart cities'. Also, it raises the idea of the 'searchable city' and that cities need to be considered on earily they are searchable. This raises the issue of reputation - which is referred to here: not only consumable items being reviewed by the citizenry and available on iphone apps, but also traffic routes, places to live etc.

SeeClickFix is a free mobile phone and web app that enables citizens to take care of their neighborhoods by seeing non-emergency issues in their neighborhoods, clicking to create 'tickets' describing the issue and how to resolve it, and fixing the issue or reporting it to whoever can. This article discusses the technology and tools working to help citizens get involved in their communities and their governments. It also discusses the Gov 2.0 Expo held recently in the US. I found the discussion of mobile citizen governance apps particularly interesting, as it would be something that could be rolled out fairly easily.

As per DeNardis, the first question is who is the board, then what are their interests, how are they funded, who do they represent, by what process are decisions made and implemented, are objections public etc. If, as the press release suggests, this is the first of many more simple and stringent security and safety features, then what are they and who decides? "The Facebook Safety Advisory Board comprises five leading Internet safety organizations from North America and Europe that serve in a consultative capacity to the company on issues related to online safety. The organizations on the board are Common Sense Media, ConnectSafely, WiredSafety, Childnet International and The Family Online Safety Institute (FOSI). "

PJFenwick is doing a PhD on facebook privacy and his explorations have shown that even when you lock up your settings, your friends (and friends of) can leak your information all over the place. "But by far the most interesting part of all of this have been dark users. Like dark matter, these users are not directly observable, usually because they've completely disabled API access. In fact, some of these users are completely dark unless you're a friend. They don't show up in search results. They don't show up on friends' lists. You can't send them messages. If you try to navigate to their user page (assuming you know it exists), you get redirected back to your homepage. These users have their privacy settings turned up real high, and are supposed to be hard to find. However like dark matter, dark users are observable due to their effects on the rest of the universe. If a dark user comments on a stream entry, I can see that comment. More importantly, I can see their user-ID, and I can generate a URL to a page that will contain their name. I can then watch for their activities elsewhere. Granted, I can't directly search for their activity, but I can observe their effects on my friends. For want of a better term, I've been calling this "dark stalking". What makes this all rather chilling is that I'm doing all of this via the application API. If your friend has installed an application, then it can access quite a lot of information about you, unless you turn it off. If your friend has granted the application the read_stream privilege, then it can read your status stream. Even if a friend of a friend has done this, and you comment on your friend's status entries, it's possible to infer your existence and retrieve those discussions through dark stalking."

2005 exhibition and edited collection curated by Bruno Latour "From Realpolitik to Dingpolitik - or How to Make Things Public" seems to be simultaneously critiquing and creating Habermas's 'bourgeois public sphere'. Amongst many, many other 'things', Dingpolitik references the work of Walter Lippmann "The Phantom Public" and John Dewey's "The Public and Its Problems". "What Is the Res of Res publica? By the German neologism Dingpolitik, we wish to designate a risky and tentative set of experiments in probing just what it could mean for political thought to turn "things" around and to become slightly more realistic than has been attempted up to now. A few years ago, computer scientists invented the marvelous expression of "object-oriented" software to describe a new way to program their computers. We wish to use this metaphor to ask the question: "What would an object-oriented democracy look like?"

I found this recent pamphlet about "MicroPublicPlaces" from situatedtechnologies.net while hunting down Latour's Dingpolitik. Arendt's theory of acting (as opposed to Heidegger's thinking) in "The Human Condition" foreshadows Habermas's Theory of Communicative Action, in my opinion, and is seen here as operating in parallel with Latour's object-oriented democracry. Beginning with a critique of the current state of the public realm, they follow two trajectories: one through Hannah Arendt's "vita activa" and Bruno Latour's "dingpolitiks", and another through the history of information and computation technologies. Through the former they establish an understanding of the "public" as a space of difference that is held in common, while through the latter they formulate an infrastructure that could support such a contestable space. This leads them argue for a new public realm built on specific architectural programs (water purification plants, zoos, kindergartens, repair shops, chapels) and adaptive learning environments that initiate collaborative relations between people and machines. Their goal is to foster a manifold public through the participatory structures of MicroPublicPlaces.

Some great analysis and summary from Fast Company on Google pulling the plug on their Chinese search engine, and how this relates to their submission to the Australian Government regarding their proposed ISP filtering. If you're not familiar with Fast Company, this is how they modestly describe themselves: "Fast Company sets the agenda, charting the evolution of business through a unique focus on the most creative individuals sparking change in the marketplace. By uncovering best and "next" practices, the magazine and website help a new breed of leader work smarter and more effectively. Fast Company empowers innovators to challenge convention and create the future of business."

A Crikey article on DBCDE's proposal of mandatory filtering and the "Submissions on measures to increase accountability and transparency for Refused Classification material". The Government's courting of mandatory filtering has drawn widespread criticism from such stakeholders as Google, the Internet Industry Association and highly regarded academics such as Professors Catherine Lumby, Lelia Greean and John Hartley. One of the main concerns is that the scope of the filtering is too wide and will have major implications on what content is available online. This article also helpfully provides links to some of the submissions.

"I used to track my work hours, and it was a miserable process. With my spreadsheet, I inadvertently transformed myself into the mean-spirited, small-minded boss I imagined I was escaping through self-employment. " This NY Times article (recapped poorly in today's SMH) epitomises Foucault's concept of biopower. It's a great run down of multitude of ways constant self tracking is already part of our lives and the psychological pros and cons. Unfortunately it doesn't give a sociopolitical analysis. This is Weber's iron cage of rationalisation in the age of the self. Self employed, self actualised, self interested man. And typically, the irrationality of rationalism means we spend much of our life recording and measuring ourselves rather than living.

Describes how twitter is being used for citizen participation and "democracy" in various countries from Moldova, Iran and now China. The author proposes that the best way to reduce censorship and promote "democracy" is not political pressure, but to "flood the Chinese market, and those of other countries that restrict freedom of expression, with cutting-edge technology". My opinion: Although Twitter seems to be good at allowing citizens to organise and to create consensus, it does not seem to translate well to actual policy outcome. 

Very interesting article about people being marked in social networks even if they are not a member - can Facebook and the like be made responsible? An Italian court recently sentenced three Google executives because of a video posted by a user. Swiss and German privacy watchdogs further discuss the matter, many other EU nations are also involved. Google asks where to draw the line between censorship (controlling users' content being an invasion of their privacy) and free speech. There could be a conflict between US Web Giants and EU authorities. Only mentioned in passing that American media companies only react very slowly to European concerns "given the close relationship between Silicon Valley and the administration of President Obama".

As mentioned in the tutorial: Sharleen spent 16 years under 24/7 house arrest in NSW. No one is actually sure what legislation she was detained under. Many other people were, and still are, doing exactly what she did. However, she broadcast the fact on national television and became a scapegoat. The intersection of media and politics, the forcing of action and then lack of transparency around the forced actions are very reminiscent of the Internet Filter and Black List debate.

Watch the live debate from Intelligence squared -Governments should not Censor the Internet? Intelligence Squared uniquely provides a forum for debate on crucial issues within Australia. On the Affirmative Antony Loewnstein- freelance journalist, author and blogger Ross LaJeunesse-head of Public Policy and Government Affairs for Google David Marr- reporter for Fairfax, broadcaster ABC On the Negative ELizabeth Handsley- specialist in media law as it affects children Kaiser Kuo- Beijing-based columnist and commentator on tech and politics. Alastair MacGibbon- founder of the Internet Safety Institute and Manageing Partner of internet consultancy the Surete Group.

This study explores an under-studied layer of Chinese Internet censorship: how Chinese Internet companies censor user-generated content, usually by deleting it or preventing its publication. Systematic testing of Chinese blog service providers reveals that domestic censorship is very decentralized with wide variation from company to company. Test results also showed that a great deal of politically sensitive material survives in the Chinese blogosphere, and that chances for its survival can likely be improved with knowledge and strategy. The study concludes that choices and actions by private individuals and companies can have a significant impact on the overall balance of freedom and control in the Chinese blogosphere.

Ilse Aigner, Germany's minister of food, agriculture and consumer protection, who usually concentrates on issues over rotten meat, genetically engineered corn and imitation cheese, recently took on a different kind of issue: the Internet and data privacy. Suddenly Aigner finds herself facing online giants Amazon, Facebook and, above all, Google. Soon Google plans to send cars equipped with cameras out onto Germany's roads once again for the company's Street View project. Aigner is now insisting that Google should ask permission before violating the privacy of German citizens. The minister's attack and the following discussions reveal just how divided the German government is when it comes to the online world. The debate revolves around questions of national security and individual self-determination on the Internet. But it also concerns the power of the large giants such as Apple, Microsoft, Amazon and MySpace, as well as the question of what these companies are doing with the records of our everyday data, and how they will be able to obtain information from us, influence us or perhaps even control us in the future. It seem like, once again, a German politician is exploiting the popular issue of internet privacy and censorship in a superficial way in the hope of scoring political points.

The Anita Borg Institute has several initiatives to promote and celebrate women in technology. The 2010 Women of Vision awards celebrate women who have made significant achievements in 3 areas. For Innovation: Kathleen McKeown, Henry and Gertrude Rothschild Professor of Computer Science, Columbia University For Social Impact: Lila Ibrahim, General Manager, Emerging Markets Platform Group, Intel Corporation For Leadership: Kristina Johnson, Ph.D., Under Secretary for Energy at the Department of Energy This excerpt of a post from Katy Dickinson at SanJose.MetBlogs.com shows why this is important! "I have referred dozens of young women to the 2008 WOV talk by Helen Greiner. Any girl geek who feels too alone in her love of technology will be encouraged by the amazing founder of iRobot saying that when she was young "not one person told me I should be an Engineer" and "we need diversity of perspectives … more women's life experiences influencing our directions and designs".