Group items tagged

"Just as important as learning these helpful tools, however, is unlearning and avoiding the most common pitfalls of common sense. Reminding us of where society is most vulnerable to those, Sagan writes: In addition to teaching us what to do when evaluating a claim to knowledge, any good baloney detection kit must also teach us what not to do. It helps us recognize the most common and perilous fallacies of logic and rhetoric. Many good examples can be found in religion and politics, because their practitioners are so often obliged to justify two contradictory propositions.He admonishes against the twenty most common and perilous ones - many rooted in our chronic discomfort with ambiguity - with examples of each in action"

The 20 fallacies: "ad hominem - Latin for "to the man," attacking the arguer and not the argument (e.g., The Reverend Dr. Smith is a known Biblical fundamentalist, so her objections to evolution need not be taken seriously) argument from authority (e.g., President Richard Nixon should be re-elected because he has a secret plan to end the war in Southeast Asia - but because it was secret, there was no way for the electorate to evaluate it on its merits; the argument amounted to trusting him because he was President: a mistake, as it turned out) argument from adverse consequences (e.g., A God meting out punishment and reward must exist, because if He didn't, society would be much more lawless and dangerous - perhaps even ungovernable. Or: The defendant in a widely publicized murder trial must be found guilty; otherwise, it will be an encouragement for other men to murder their wives) appeal to ignorance - the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa (e.g., There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore UFOs exist - and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. special pleading, often to rescue a proposition in deep rhetorical trouble (e.g., How can a merciful God condemn future generations to torment because, against orders, one woman induced one man to eat an apple? Special plead: you don't understand the subtle Doctrine of Free Will. Or: How can there be an equally godlike Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in the same Person? Special plead: You don't understand the Divine Mystery of the Trinity. Or: How could God permit the followers of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam - each in their own way enjoined to

Wonderful post, Kim! These are great guidelines alongside which to test ideas.

I think, its really an expensive and unnecessary experiments, if the attendance of Harvard University is low, then they have to come up with different rule to attract the interest of students. Cameras should be there for security, but not for surveillance.

wondering if this would be a different conversation if the cameras were just picking up heat signals so that the identity of the people could not be known but they could still be counted. The technology is pretty basic and it might even be more efficient than the way they're using them now.

Can't believe Harvard can do this thing. I think informations are sharing and revealing on internet or others more and more serious. Harvard shouldn't secretly photograph students, they should ask permission first.

Why it "works" Network Effect Wikipedia benefits tremendously from the network effect. The network effect is when a user of a product benefits more from a product if other people also use the product. Telephones are a textbook example. If only a few dozen consumers have telephones, then the telephones aren't very useful. But if millions of consumers have telephones, they become more useful since each telephone owner can contact many people. The large number of Wikipedia users benefits Wikipedia. First, the more editors there are, the the higher the accuracy and quality of the articles. Secondly, it gives an incentive to users to edit. Since editors know the each article will be read by thousands of users, the sheer influence of each article is a strong enough incentive to edit, even though Wikipedia is free. Openness Wikipedia is free and open for any user to edit, even anonymously. This means there is a very large number of editors. This helps Wikipedia ensure accuracy since each mistake and inaccuracy will have to get by hundreds of editors. With so many writers, the scope of Wikipedia articles is very large, minimizing the amount of missing information. Although the openness of Wikipedia provides a powerful self-correcting method, it also makes Wikipedia vulnerable to vandalism. In addition, editors are anonymous and may have a conflict of interest, or might have inadequate knowledge of the article's subject. Yet, because Wikipedia is open to any edits, it is also likely to be corrected. It operates by a system of checks and balances from many editors. However, it has some guidelines to protect it against misinformation and bias: 1. Verifiability principle. To prevent bias and to protect the encyclopedic quality of its articles, all edits on Wikipedia must in theory be a verifiable fact. Moreover, it must have a reliable source to verify each fact. 2. No Original Research. As an encyclopedia, it is mean to be a secondary source of infor

By: Matthew LeBar Massively Open Online Courses (MOOCs) are often described as the future of education - or at least a significant part of it. But there may be a significant problem with them: a very small proportion of students who start them actually finish. This poses a serious threat to their legitimacy.

This brings up the question of what it means to complete something? And why is it so important to us? And why 'productivity', a thing somebody defined ages ago, is so important to our humanity? .. or is it anymore?

Because I am taking a MOOC course but also on campus at University, I receive credits and grades where this is definitely one of the motivations for me to contribute. Although I agree that completion of the course is not essential to attain knowledge, what about our motivations to learn? And what about our incentives? Not saying MOOCs are not interesting nor helpful, I like MOOCs, but I think people like recognition too. I think to just receive the "statement of accomplishment" is not enough to prove efforts made within the course. However MOOCs are not as well developed at this stage, there definitely will be adjustments in the near future.

This site explains why people choose to illegally downloads, even if some people know that they are breaking the copyright law.

Interesting read as I'm guilty of illegally downloading/streaming TV and music. Very surprised to see that the rich are the ones who illegally download on a regular basis.

"I'd have to wait too long to see it on TV" is the reason I hear the most about when it comes to illegal downloading. Those people generally do make an effort to watch it when it does officially come out on TV though, to off-set their piracy. The way companies will show something in one country and then sit on it for five months before letting someone in another country watch it seems silly to me at this point, though. Yes digital piracy is illegal, but it seems to be getting to the point of the Prohibition Era in the United States: yes, it's illegal, but everyone's doing it anyway. I think somebody's going to need to change things up here, and it seems doubtful that the companies producing these shows can alter the cultural norms without a lot more work than it seems they're willing to put in.

As we move toward an era of openness, where information is instant and infinite, it is not enough to simply have the tools and skills to access information. We must make meaning, not only through analysis and critical thinking, but also by engaging directly with knowledge, by taking it apart, putting it together, by sharing it, and by creating it.

It is an amazing presentation. Changing people attitude toward the value of knowledge and make them more involved in creating it is coming.

Of the 255 papers that underwent the entire editing process to acceptance or rejection, about 60% of the final decisions occurred with no sign of peer review. For rejections, that's good news: It means that the journal's quality control was high enough that the editor examined the paper and declined it rather than send it out for review.

This article is certainly controversial, and I believe in some way did a service to the Open Access community by highlighting the practice of predatory journals. However, the irony of Bohannon's article, being an example of the kind of "bad science" he describes in his own article is inescapable. First, there is no randomization of his "experimental group", and there is no control group; second, there was elimination of non-responders; third, there was no application of the intention to treat principle in the analysis; and finally there were no inferential statistics and no references! Using his own standard, there is nothing that can be concluded from his study. For the criticism regarding Bohannon's targeting of OA journals exclusively, it is important to note that this experiment has been done before with 'traditional' journals as well- and many of them failed the test of peer review. http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/02/27/how_nonsense_papers_ended_up_in_respected_scientific_journals.html

I think Bohannens "study" should be considered more "investigative journalism" than scientific study. While it may have some flaws if held against the standards of a scientific study, as a journalistic piece it goes a long way to justify its central accusation that there are predatory open access journals. He does not claim that there are no or evwen less predatory journals in the tradional sector (although it seems reasonable to believe that it might seem easier to predatory publishers to dupe unsuspecting scientists rather than subscription paying librarians). It demonstrates that open access is not a cure for all the problems besetting acacemic publishing. I think more deeply about it, it shows that author fees for publication may create a buisiness model just as open to abouse as the traditional subscription system. One answer might be to make the peer-review process more transparent, i.e. name the reviewers But that of course has other drawbacks.

Compares the cost of articles from society and non-profit publishers to those of the major commercial publishers.

Its crazy. The numbers (of profit and control) for the publishing companies is astronomical!

Universities have received a poor deal from the system of private, subscription-based access to knowledge production since the port WW2 commercialization of the scientific publishing industry. It is absurd that the university or research funder supplies the content (the research), pays for the authoring (the time of the researcher writing the article), and provides and pays for the time of peer reviewers and academic editors. In addition, it often pays page charges or formatting charges to publishers. It then cedes copyright and finally buys back its own research at prices that have escalated at four times the rate of inflation in the past decade and a half! Considering most of this research is conducted using public funds, it becomes a moral argument when public resources are used once again to purchase access to the outputs of this research. The commercial model of disseminating research does not obey the rules of supply and demand. A relatively small number of 'core' journals occupy monopoly positions, in that university libraries have to subscribe to access their content, whatever the cost, because these journals have been established as 'must-have' resources. While the practice of 'bundling' offers the advantage of bulk pricing, it reduces room for choice, as bundles consume large chunks of library budgets, making it difficult to subscribe to smaller, individual titles. In addition, the inflexibility of indexing systems makes it difficult for new journals to establish themselves; thus compromising the potential for smaller niche subjects and newer interdisciplinary areas. Thankfully the global inequalities engendered by the commercialization of scholarly publishing are being challenged by open access.

The Canadian Government promoting how sharing private content of someone is illegal. Having the internet and our social media tools, it is so easy to share and connect with people. It is great in many ways, like education, social life, work etc. but when it comes to personal life, maybe it is not as great. People like to share because it is easy and fast, there are no physical restrictions. There are consequences but because there are too many people doing it, it is hard to target everyone. With this digital age coming so quickly, maybe rules, regulations, and education are still trying to catch up. If I have not taken this course, I would not have known that sharing a screenshot on Whatsapp with friends is actually illegal. The point is when everyone is doing it now, and we were not deeply educated on this topic beforehand, how is this going to stop? When sharing screenshots has became a trend, how is it possible to stop?

I think this video does an excellent job of not victim-blaming, or casting any moral judgement. I think it's easy to say "don't take pictures", etc., but approaching it as a strictly legal matter may be a better route to take. Speaking of the general open access movement, I think some valuable lessons could be taken from this for raising awareness about appropriate uses of open access information. It reminds me of the Disney compilation copyright video we watched at the beginning of the course - using some very literal imagery to get a point across, and explaining what the law is, not what people are doing with it.

I think this PSA does a really good job of communicating a 'touchy' subject in a tasteful manner. The message is simple and very relatable for adolescents. Cyberbullying is a tremendous issue among youth in Canada and I am really glad to see the government taking preventative initiatives.

Text from 2011, still extremely timely, about privacy. The author, professor of Law, deconstructs the "nothing to hide" argument that says that we should not be scared to disclose private activities or information when we do nothing wrong.

"With regard to individual rights,.... there exists a private domain in man which should not be regulated or violated. This realm constitutes what is deepest, highest, and most valuable in the individual human being." http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Younkins/Social_Cooperation,_Flourishing,_and_Happiness.shtml

Privacy off course matters.It is right that if I have not done anything wrong then why should I hide it. On other hand we can not share our family relationship information with anyone.

Interesting reading in this Module, esp the article about having an additional anonymous online persona. It's interesting in that reddit not only allows users to register using obviously fake names, but also declines to require any authentication, but still offers it as an option. I participated in the reddit community for about a year, and in that time connected with numerous individuals, most of which I never learned 'who' they were. Personally, I was never harassed, bullied or otherwise hassled, save for one or two PMs from various mods when I had run afoul of their guidelines.

You beat me to it, i was planning on posting about reddit! Yeah, it's anonymous, and it's against its rules to post personal information, but it gets leaked and some people managed to get someone's information by reading old posts and connecting dots. The information you post, as a whole, its your footprint and can be tracked.

You beat me to it too! Reddit is a fascinating experiment. I actually mod a couple subreddits over there, and it's always interesting to read articles about it. In my two or so years on Reddit, I have: --Made friends (and lost touch with) with people from all over the world. --Been cyber-bullied and therefore witnessed exactly how good the moderators of certain subreddits can be. It was taken care of quickly and cleanly. I still love the community. --Seen people get "doxxed" (where their anonymity is broken, and often angry users track down the victim in a rather frightening way). --Seen the outrage the general community expresses at "doxxing", which was heartening. --Seen it used as an amazingly effective social networking and marketing tool. Posts and posters that come across and genuine, informed, and amicable are usually welcomed with open arms, even if they deal with a subject or product Redditors dislike. --Seen it completely backfire as a social networking and marketing tool, which happens when someone uses marketing "tricks" or comes across as anything less than genuine. --Gotten death threats for posting a picture of a squashed coin that made the front page. Reddit can be very weird. --Gotten beautiful, kind, completely random private messages for no reason at all on days where I really need them. Reddit can be very sweet. --Read articles in the Washington Post comparing Reddit to a democratic fiefdom. Sounds about right. --Been exposed to points of view I never would have seen before in my life, simply because of where I live and who I know. It's mind-blowing. The whole website just never ceases to amaze me. Honestly, it sort of reminds me of a MOOC: it's an ever-continuing event where people learn and argue and network.

"So what does knowledge mobilization mean for education? It asks us to reimagine what it means in exchanging knowledge. It requires us to embrace being open and unselfish in our learning and knowledge exchange. It requires admitting that a large part of what continues to happen in our world isn't good for our students, our teachers, our communities - or our world. It means creating change in our education systems or risk the return to the tragedies of the early 20th century."

More about KMbeing: http://www.knowledgemobilization.net/

The story of Aaron Swartz, incredible programmer and activist for internet rights, open access and open knowledge. Good documentary to learn a little more about the open access movement, see some important figures (Tim Berners-Lee, Lawrence Lessig, etc.) and the fight against the SOPA bill. A big part of the movie is about his personal life and legal battle over copyright infringement. Creative Commons license: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)

This was a great video! I enjoyed it very much and it was very touching. thank you for posting. @smoens - awesome blog too. thank you for the link.

For the Copyright section I recommend to watch this documentary: The Internet's Own Boy depicts the life of American computer programmer, writer, political organizer and Internet activist Aaron Swartz. It features interviews with his family and friends as well as the internet luminaries who worked with him.

Originally shared by Inez in the course Google Community. From the article, by Morozov: "For all its utopianism and scientism, its algedonic meters and hand-drawn graphs, Project Cybersyn got some aspects of its politics right: it started with the needs of the citizens and went from there. The problem with today's digital utopianism is that it typically starts with a PowerPoint slide in a venture capitalist's pitch deck."

An alternative perspective on some of the hype around makerspaces and hacking, looking into how it supports and extends the neoliberal agenda.

It is curious to see that everytime some new technology rises, there are someone saying that it will mean the end of the system (call it capitalism, for instance) and a new real democracy era will arise. Nevertheless, once and over again we see that the technology arrives to everyone's door, but always controlled by someone else. You might have your own car, which was almost imposible in the early 50's, but you depend on how expensive gas is and how many barriers you find in your way; you have internet in your pocket, but every movement you do and every site you visit are being saved in someone's server with we don't know what exact purposes. But we keep hoping and saying, once and over again, that democracy, the real one, will some day florish with a new magical device. I honestly think it is in human nature to try to control and manipulate others; even people that honestly see themselves as good collaborative human beens, when they are under a tense situation, they don't hesitate to hide the truth, manipulate or lie to find adepts to their cause. So only with a genetic mutation we will reach that golden dream!

Kevin you mentioned this article to me several weeks ago and I did read it and really appreciated the recommendation. I think it is important for us to think about other perspectives to makerspaces to really understand how libraries should (and do) fit into this changing landscape. The library landscape is definitely changing, and some are really latching on to this idea of makerspaces, and others latching on to the more traditional services that libraries offer. I think that we really need to understand how the concept of makerspaces can fit into developing strong civic skills, critical thinking and appreciation of the arts to really make it fit into libraries, and focus less on the "production" and "innovation" appeal that makerspaces have. I do think that skills that can be honed in makerspaces have the potential to create great global citizens, but only if it is accompanied by deep critical thinking and a broader understanding of the world.

The wonderful blog, Hack Library School, has recently posted a piece on open access publishing. This piece is a great overview, which covers many of the basic concepts covered in Module 6. The article discusses what open access is (and what it isn't) and some of the biggest discussion points on the issue today. It's a great overview and well worth the read if you want an overview or a refresher on the topic!

This blog covers a lot of relevant concepts related to OA, but a finer point need to be clarified. Regarding Google Scholar, not everything retrieved from GS is OA. GS is a web crowler, it crows wherever it is allowed, including references and citations to articles behind paywalls. On the other hand, many librarians are working to make their paid journals subscriptions available to their faculty and students via Google Scholar. So when faculty/students are on their universities' network, they can search GS, find articles from journals. If their library subscribes to that journal, there is a good chance a link to the full text will be available.

I agree with the point that "findability" for green OA articles is a current problem. We need a PubMed or Web of Science for green OA articles!

The pan-European data regulator group Article 29 has issued new opinion on how websites and advertisers can track users and the permissions they require. The new opinion dictates that "device fingerprinting" - a process of silently collecting information about a user - requires the same level of consent as cookies that are used to track users across the internet.

It is impossible to ban all tracking, just like if I am using Chrome, it is normal for me to think that I am tracked by Google. If I am using Safari, then it is normal for me to think I am tracked by Safari. I believe that there is not anything wrong with people collecting my "non-identifying material", since it is only data. But if it is more like personal information, it should be banned. Also, there are a lot of sites when we ban cookies, the photos or some content will not appear. So no cookies means no content. In the end would not there be no effect on how people uses the websites? If we do not accept it, we could not use the site, the only difference is we are informed about it, and we should assume every site or software once it is connected to the internet, it implies some kind of tracking.