Textbook Publishers Sue Open Source Alternative

Textbook publishers Pearson, Cengage Learning, and MacMillan Higher Education are suing open source textbook startup Boundless for copyright infringement.  Boundless offers their texts as a free, open-source alternative to specific textbooks by collecting free information from across the web and organizing them into an approximation of the copyrighted textbooks.  The claims of the publishers focus less on direct quotation or paraphrasing (which Boundless doesn't do), but rather copying the format of the published texts too closely.  This is an interesting case to watch concerning copyright that you can read more about it in the Chronicle of Higher Education.

I can't say for sure that what Boundless is doing constitutes copyright infringement, but as a student I welcome any open source alternative to pricey educational materials.

Copyright Length: How Long is Too Long?

Argument:  While the exact length copyrights should apply is arguable, it should not extend past the life of the author.

In the Unites States the current length copyright applies is 70 years after the death of the author.  This length was established with the Copyright Term Extension Act in 1998, which extended copyright 20 years longer than the previous extension.

The following video discusses some of the history and issues surrounding copyright extension:

Why it shouldn't extend:

• Shouldn't benefit beyond author: Obviously, authors can no longer benefit from works after they are dead, so why should others benefit from a creators specific work?   There is a strong individualistic bent in America that would suggest that you should earn money off of your own work. That is part of the justification of the 50% estate tax.

• Main beneficiaries are often companies: Often the primary beneficiary of copyright after the death of creators is their company.  It's one thing if a creators children benefit, but does everybody that now works at the Walt Disney company really have a right to profit from and control a cartoon Walt Disney made in 1928?  

• It would encourage new works: When works go into public domain, others are able to use those works to create new works and derivatives.

• Follow Constitution: The U.S. Constitution authorized copyright " To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries".  Some advocate extending copyright to "forever less a day" in order to technically circumvent the Constitutional requirement of a "limited time".  If you are circumventing constitutional requirements on technicallities, you are probably not following the spirit of the law, in this case the promotion of works.

Why it should extend:

• Economic benefit in foreign markets: The proponents of the most recent extension said one of the primary reasons for the expansion was to promote profitability of American works in foreign markets.

• Encourage creation of new works:  On a basic level, copyright still encourages the creation of new works by ensuring the rights of the creators.

• Preserves the value of works:  Some said that the extension preserved the value of works by ensuring that creators could controlling the distribution of works ( the supply) and keep the market from become oversaturated and the value of the work dropping.

• Copyright doesn't discourage creation:  Proponents of copyright extension point out that only certain expressions can be copyrighted, but not the ideas therein.  So potential creators can still draw inspiration from copyrighted works.

Discussion:

Essentially, those that make money off of specific works want to keep making money. As it turns out it's often corporations and companies that can spend a great deal of resources to lobby for the extension of copyright.  On the flip side, people that could potentially benefit from works becoming public domain either a.) don't know they could benefit and/or b) don't have the resources to lobby congress.  So it's a safe bet that copyright will keep being extended like it always has.

But there is a line somewhere.  People and corporations don't have the right to benefit of of specific works in perpetuity.  If they did, either the Constitution would have ensure that or and of the congresses since then would have.  I feel we have already crossed the line between encouraging the creation of new works by allowing the profitability of the author through control of their works and grarifying those who unjustly profit off of the work of others, to the detriment of society.

Reflection: Copyright

March 29th class

What I liked:  Our march 15th class very briefly touched on disruptive technology and copyright infringement.  I'm interested in issues surrounding copyrights so I used that as a basis for last weeks argument.  Needless to say, I was excited to see that copyright was the main focus for this weeks class.  As an information professional and a consumer of entertainment, I'm interested in how the digital age is affecting copyright and copyright infringement.  It's important for those of us in the information profession to understand the somewhat complex, sometimes ambiguous subjects of copyright and fair use, not only for ourselves, but for those that we serve.

What I agree with:  I agree that we need copyrights.  I've encountered some who argue that we don't need copyright protections, that they only serve corporate interests, and even go so far as to say copyright is evil.  That's certainly an extreme position, but it is an indicator of the growing dissatisfaction with current copyright laws.  Copyright originated as a way to promote the creation of new works by allowing creators to profit from creating.  I believe it still serves this purpose.

What I disagree with:  I don't necessarily think copyright law is perfect.  It should adjust to meet the needs of society.  That happens for the most part.  Copyright laws are created and amended on a somewhat regular basis.  One trend that I'm cautious of, however, is the extension of the life of copyrights.  The original length of copyright was 14 years in 1787, but it been extended several times throughout history to its current length of 70 years after the death of the author.  If the trend continues, it's not hard to believe that eventually copyright will be extended indefinitely.  I think there is a point in which extending the life of copyright no longer serves the purpose of encouraging the creation of new works.

What I'm still curious about: The future is a mystery to me.  We are at the beginning of the digital age, and no doubt there will be sweeping changes in the future.  Will we still need copyright in the future? Will it continue to be extended?  Can/will copyright be reformed or will we have some other mechanism to encourage creation?  I don't know.  It seems that so much of the future relies on the technologies that will be available.

Google's Project Glass

In an earlier post I mentioned that Google was developing augmented reality glasses that may release this year.  Well, today they have released a teaser trailer showing how the glasses might work and affect how an individual receives and shares information.  All in all it's pretty exciting stuff:

Edit: It didn't take long for internet parodies to start popping up, highlighting the potential downsides of the technology such as mis-sent information, advertisements, privacy, and not looking where you're going:

 

And here are what google glasses wearers will likely see when the inevitable advertisements begin.

The Effect of Piracy

Argument: Like previous studies concerning disruptive technologies, we may find that pirating of movies, books, and games through the internet may not have an adverse affect of the profits of the producers.

Evidence in support:

• In 1999 researchers Shapiro and Varian, authors of Information Rules, concluded that book publishered made more money because of book lending and also movie production companies make more money because of rentals.

• In 1985 S.J. Leibowitz found that "the unauthorized copying of intellectual properties need not be harmful and may actually be beneficial" after studying the copying of journal articles.

•  Many content producers claim a severe loss of revenue due to piracy (a total of 250 billion); however, many claim those statistics are non accurate and often exaggerated.

Evidence against:

• Content producers and organizations like the Recording Industry Association of America claim substantial loss due to piracy.

• The think tank Institute for Policy Innovation claims that copyright infringement not only causes substantial loss for producers but for the entire U.S. economy in terms of lost economic output, jobs, earnings, and tax revenue.

 

 Balanced discussion: Pirating happens.  However, whether it is too extensive or morally wrong is a different issue. The question is does it effect the profits of those who produce the content (which is generally their largest complaint).  As a producer it's an easy conclusion to come to that unauthorized access to your content is losing you money.  However, there is historical evidence that that is not always the case.  "Free" access to content can generate interest in that content which can lead to future sales not only by the the original infringer but by others that the infringer introduces the content to.

However, the digital world is a different beast.  It's much easier now to avoid paying for content.  In the past, getting illegal copies often included a trip somewhere and then making an imperfect copy.  Now we can have near-instant, perfect copies.  So it would make sense that it would happen more often.

There are extreme arguments on both sides: either piracy is killing the economy or piracy is good both economically and ethically.  The truth is probably somewhere in the middle and we should keep observing and researching to find the true effect of piracy.  Despite the effects, it's a safe bet that we won't eliminate it completely and it would be wise for companies to learn to cope by changing business models to thrive in the new digital information age.

Reflection: Information Economy

March 15th class

What I liked most: I enjoyed starting the class off by exploring the current technological context of rapid change.  It's exciting and concerning at the same time.  Technology and new media are being used to bring information to people more efficiently and to bring people closer together.  However, as an information professional, (or any worker, really) it also signifies the need to keep up with new technology or have an obsolete set of skills.

A lot of economics goes over my head most of the time, but I found it interesting that Google has developed its own price index to measure web transactions.  I like the idea that some of the largest and most forward-thinking companies are making efforts to better understand and measure the new information economy.

I also found the discussion of "disruptive technologies" fascinating.  I'm interested in the issue of digital piracy and its effects, and I think it is valuable to see how similar issues played out in the past such as the effect of photocopying on the profits of academic journals.

What I agree with:  I agree that the new and evolving information based economy will neccessitate changes in business models.  Due to the nature of digital information, how its, acquired and emerging consumer expectations businesses will need to adapt or fail.  Newspapers are a prime example of this.

What I disagree with:  I don't think that all information needs to be priced.  I understand that as our economy shifts toward information, people will want to monetize the work that produces information, but I think that at least some information should be free.  I may just be scared of the idea of having to pay a blogger because their post inspired me to some economic benefit.  At some point monetizing information becomes absurd.  I encourage working out how to economically value information, but I don't want that to be put into practice by monetizing ideas or knowledge spillover.

I'm still curious about: A lot, really.  However I'm most interested in how we will decide to handle current disruptive technologies, particularly entertainment piracy.  Is there a way to stop piracy?  Should we? Is piracy ethical?  Will it get worse or plateau? Is DRM worth it?  Does piracy hurt or help producers?  I think these are good question to ask about this issue that could have major effects on the future of the information economy.

Collective Cataloging: the Future of Cataloging?

Argument: Crowdsourcing elements of collective cataloging should be utilized in traditional cataloging environments.

Tim Spalding, creator of LibraryThing, gave a presentation at the 2008 ALA conference explaining LibraryThing and highlighting its collective cataloging elements.  Here is part 1:

In the video, Spalding points out several interesting elements of LibraryThing.  Starting at 4:08 he mentions the "common knowlege" section of a books record that displays information not commonly in a traditional catalog including places, characters, awards the book has won, and unique series information.  This information allows access and collocation of works not previously possible in a catalog.  On LibraryThing, one can retrieve a list of books that have the character Darth Vader, a legitimate and natural choice of access point for Darth Vader fans.

Then at 4:42 we see the series page for Star Wars books that collocates all the books from the Star Wars universe.  Thanks to the collective cataloging of information not found in traditional catalogs, unique series information and relationships between the books are able to be shown.  One section of the Star Wars series page on LibraryThing shows the list of Star Wars books according to when they take place within the Star Wars timeline.  This information is very valuable to an interested reader of Star Wars books, but something that doesn't happen in library catalogs.  Spalding states, "This page encapsulates more accurate information about the Star Wars books and how they relate to each other than...has ever been assembled."

Spalding makes a third point that is perhaps the strongest element of collective cataloging: "Who is the expert when it comes to the Star Wars books? It's these guys."  Experts on the works and their aboutness are those that read the works.  Catalogers cannot read every information item they catalog so they assign subject headings according to supplementary material often provided by publishers.  One example in the video shows subject headings assigned to a book based off the flap copy don't accurately reflect the work.  Cataloging done by those who read the books are much more likely to accurately reflect the subject of the work.

Tags and tagging are also a big part of the collective cataloging model of LibraryThing.  Through tags, users are able to create unique access points to collocate works.  The video shows some of the effects of tagging: unique genres (paranormal romance), more natural language (cooking vs. cookery), "tagmashing" for complex subjects (France+wwII), & built in relevancy due to # of tags.  About some of the more non-traditional genres on LibraryThing, Spalding says, "This is as real as anything in the Library of Congress".


Part 2 of the presentation:

Part two of the video points out some of the shortcomings of current, physical-based cataloging:

• limited subjects (3-6)
• all subjects are equally true
• subject headings never change
• only librarians add subjects: only one interpretation
• classification must be hierarchical
• only items are cataloged (as opposed to works, expressions, or series)
• must be done in a library
• libraries aren't good at sharing metadata (but are good at getting metadata from a central source)

Clearly, traditional cataloging in non-ideal in many ways.  New methods of collective cataloging and tagging can help to overcome many of the short comings and help users to search in more ways and retrieve information objects more effectively.  Libraries would benefit from adopting some collective cataloging practices.  Traditional cataloging has many strengths, so I'm not at all advocating getting rid of MARC and/or AARC2 (soon RDA), but instead we should either change specific cataloging rules integrate crowdsourcing into the current systems.

Reflection: Library 2.0

 March 8th class


What I liked: "An attitude, not technology"  This adage brings into focus the essence of library 2.0.  Library 2.0 isn't about what technologies libraries have adopted but how they apply the philosophies of web 2.0 into a new service model.  It's a classic "can't see the forest for the trees" situation that I, myself, have a tendency to slip into.  Instead of being concerned with what tech fads to jump on, we should be continually aware of how to incorporate the concepts of openness, sharing, participation, content creation, and user-centeredness.  Technology isn't the goal, it's the medium.

What I agree with:  I very much agree with the idea that libraries are in the midst of a necessary change, and that libraries that do not change become obsolete and risk closure.  Libraries have always been an information provider, a place to serve information needs.  For a long time, libraries enjoyed the security that came from relatively unchanged information behavior and environment -- wanted to learn something?  Then you needed to go to the library to get a book.

But now, thanks to a new information environment through the internet, information behavior has drastically and irrevocably changed.  Libraries are now a secondary (or tertiary) source of information - but that's OK (it has to be).  Libraries now have to adjust their missions and find their new service models, not to compete with the internet, but to compliment it.

What I disagree with:  Even though libraries should adopt new library 2.0 service models, I don't think it should completely eschew traditional services.  The libraries brand is still books and we should not forsake that perception.  Even though there is a definite shift to digital, there will always be at least some demand for traditional services.  Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

I'm still curious about:  Libraries are still in midst of change, so like most library professionals, I'm curious what the library will look like when the dust settles (or if it ever does).  From now on will libraries be in a constant state of flux due to continually adjusting to meet evolving information needs or will it find a relatively stable niche?

Microfinance: a balanced approach

Argument: Microfinance isn't always a good thing, but it's not bad either. It can have have both positive and negative effects, varying greatly by context.

Microfinance is good:  MFI's have done well in establishing that microfinance is a boon to the poor.  It is fairly easy to see and is basically the popularly accepted position:

• Most MFI's report positive effects and extol the virtues of microfinance.  See the Grameen Bank, Bandhan, or Kiva websites to get an idea of the noble intentions behind the service as well as some positive figures.  For instance, Grameen points out that over 9.4 million people have been helped through their MFI partners and that more than 1.1 million micro-loans have been generated.

• Research such as "Measuring the impact of microfinance in Hyderabad, India"generally shows positive effects of microlending, particularly starting or investing in a business.

• Muhammad Yunus, founder of Grameen Bank anda major innovator in microfinance won the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize.

Microfinance is bad:  No one is really arguing that microfinance is bad, but several have questioned it's effectiveness:

• In their paper "The miracle of micro…nance? Evidence from a randomized evaluation" Banerjee, Duflo, Glennerster, and Kinnan conclude "While microcredit succeeds in affecting household expenditure and creating and expanding businesses, it appears to have no discernible effect on education, health, or womens' empowerment."

• In another randomized evaluation, Karlan and Zinman has a few surprising finds: marginally creditworthy microentrepreneurs who randomly receive credit actually shrunk their businesses, access to credit increased profits for male but not for female microentrepreneurs, and increased access to credit didn't improve subjective well-being

• Chuck Waterfield's research points out the difficulties in understanding microfinance prices due to misleading information and how lenders can end up paying far more than is initially apparent.

• Media reports including this Boston Globe article draw on research to paint a negative picture of microfinance, saying things such as "by most measures, microcredit does not offer a way out of poverty"

Balanced approach: Generally speaking, providing financial services to people is a good thing.  However, it may not be effective as some theorize and may even have negative consequences in some circumstances.  Even though research may call into question the effectiveness of microfinance, the same researchers point out the difficulty of generalizing the results and the need for more long term evaluation.  The 2010 Grameen Foundation report "Measuring the Impact of Microfinance: Taking Another Look" provides a balanced look at the current studies concerning the impact of microfinance and encourages further research by posing important unanswered questions:

• Do the business investments evidenced in the existing research lead to additional development outcomes over a longer time?  Will incomes rise and poverty rates fall as borrowers continue to operate their businesses?  Will new studies be able to replicate earlier positive results about social outcomes?

• To what extent do loans and savings programs alleviate the day-to-day uncertainty of life below the poverty line?

• Will additional studies in alternative settings find similar positive results of microsavings programs?

• Can insightfully designed lending programs lead to positive outcomes for the very poorest borrowers?

• What about the macroeconomic effects of microfinance program? Is there convincing evidence of effects on poverty rates, rates of inequality, and economic growth in a variety of settings?

Reflections: Financial Inclusion

March 1st Class

What I liked: As someone who is financially stable in a developed country it's easy to take financial inclusion for granted.  Checking, savings, direct deposits, debit cards, online, and mobile banking are all a fixture in my life.  Class this week helped me to understand the severity behind the widespread issue of being "unbanked". 2.9 billion people in the do not hold bank accounts, making it more difficult for them to fully participate in the economy.  However, in class we didn't just discuss the problem, we also took a look at an innovative solution: microfinance.  Through small loans and other financial services coupled with innovative collection techniques, microfinance institutions have been able to extend financial services to those in poverty who did not previously have access.  I enjoyed being introduced to these innovations.

What I agree with:  I agree that those in poverty can (and should) benefit from financial inclusion.  Being able to save, loan, and electronically send money is economically empowering and may be one way to improve the condition of the poor on a large scale.  I also agree that providing financial services to the poor in remote areas can also be a challenge for finance institutions who need incentives and profitability to expend the resources on "last-mile" services.

What I disagree with:  Many hold the opinion that microfinance should not be a charity and that developing countries do not need the benefaction of the West for microfinance to be viable and effective.  This sentiment was made popular by C.K. Prahalad in his book "Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid".  I agree that microfinance can stand on its own apart from charity, but I think microfinance through a charitable lens is also a good thing.  I understand that for sustainability and longevity microfinance needs to be a financially viable investment, but charitable giving can also have a large positive impact on the poor.  Pride may also be a factor in the eschewing of charity, but pride shouldn't get in the way of helping more people.  Besides, low to no-interest loans are only a small form of charity, unlike traditional charitable donations. 

Before this class, I was aware of Kiva, a charitable MFI, and the way they have been enabling individuals to provide loans to people in developing nations is inspiring.  I am hard pressed to criticize their methods.

I'm still curious about:  I'm still curious about the overall effectiveness of microfinance.  Financial inclusion is a good thing, but does it lift people out of poverty?  Microfinance is most prevalent in developing countries (where there is the most need), but is microfinance in effect here in America?  Also, why are women the primary targets of microfinance?  Does is just happen that way or are they the intended recipients? I would have thought that men, who traditionally are the ones to pursue business ventures would be more likely to take advantage of micro credit.

Something to watch: Branch

Branch, a new discussion-based social network from the creators of Twitter is set to be released soon.  According to Biz Stone, one of the creators:


"[It] enables a smart new brand of high quality public discourse. Curated groups of people are invited to engage around issues in which they are knowledge[able]. This service holds the promise of a new platform for dialogue on the web – a necessary departure from the monologues we have grown so accustomed to reading online."


This innovation has to potential to positively influence the way people communicate and learn online and it's worth keeping up with in the coming months.  For more information on Branch, check out the official Branch statement.

Participate in E-government

I attempted to formulate an argument this week based on e-governance issues, however, I struggled.  I'm usually later in posting than my classmates and they made the same arguments I was thinking of discussing (in a much better way than I would have).  I wanted to explore how governments need to respect the freedom of its citizens before social media protests could be effective, but L. Khoury already made a thought-provoking post on that topic.  I also wanted to point out that the digital divide needed to be solved before e-governance could be effective, however, Laura Buell already brought that issue to light.  I encourage the reading of both my classmates' blogs.

Instead of drumming up an academic argument, I want to share the results of my personal reflection.  In my reflection I explored why I didn't participate in e-government more often.  From that thought, I set out to find out how I could participate, and now I want to share the resources I've found in my research.  So, I guess my argument is "You should take this opportunity to participate in your government by accessing these resources"

E-government Participation Resources:

Register to vote:  Register to exercise your basic civic duty. Hosted by U.S. Election Assistance Commission

Learn how to support federal candidates:  A guide to supporting Federal candidates.  Hosted by U.S. Election Assistance Commission

Become a poll worker:  Volunteer to help at the polls. Hosted by U.S. Election Assistance Commission\

Find your representative: Find and contact your representative.  From U.S. House of Representative's website

Find your senator:  Find and contact your congressperson.  From the U.S. Senate's website

Contact elected officials:  Find contact info for any elected official.  Hosted by USA.gov

"Like" the government:  USA.gov's Facebook page

Follow the government: USA.gov's Twitter account

Social network the government:  A wiki where you can discover the social media outlets of government agencies and officials

Petition: Create, discover, and sign petitions.  Hosted by the White House

Affect regulations:  Comment on proposed Federal regulations at Regulations.gov

Join data communities: Connect and network with research communities. Hosted by Data.gov

Solve challenges:  Propose ideas and solutions to Federal challenges.  Provided by U.S. General Services Administration

Request records:  Thanks to the Freedom of Information Act and its related website, you can request Federal agencies records

Access government from your phone:  List of government apps and mobile sites. Hosted by USA.gov

Reflection: E-governance

February  23rd class

This week we talked about issues related to electronic governance.  Much of the focus of the class was from an technical perspective: technology decisions, failures, and lessons.  However, for me, its hard to talk about political participation without considering my role in it.  Political participation is certainly a social issue, but it's also deeply personal.

It was shared that around 80% of government electronic initiatives are failures (similar to the amount of initiatives that don't make it to market - is it too easy for government initiative to "make it to market", perhaps?).  This statistic leads us to examine the reasons behind the general failure of e-government to take hold.  No doubt the major reason is lack of participation.  No doubt the reasons why most Americans don't participate can be complex, so I start by examining myself.

I'm a young, tech-savvy person who votes and is generally interested in politics (I'm no die-hard, but I like to know what's going on).  I don't participate much in the political process offline, where it's considered a bit more time and energy consuming.  However, I don't really "participate" in the political process online either.  I semi-frequently use government provided information and statistics services online, but I don't communicate with my representatives online, I don't follow politicians or government organizations through social media.  I guess the reason why is I'm busy doing other things, or not necessarily busy, but I find more value in doing other things.  Whether its working, schooling, or just watching T.V., I'd rather be doing that than e-mailing my representative or checking the governors twitter.

In a way, that's OK.  That's partly the purpose of a representative system: we send people to represent us in the political world to free us up to do other, oftentimes productive things.  On the other hand, thanks to the internet it's easier than ever to be connected. So traditional excuses don't hold up so well, anymore.

Whether I have more of an obligation to participate politically, it's good to know that when I want to, it's there.  Perhaps I (an other people) just need to get fired up about something before I jump.

Augmented Reality Coming Soon

Argument:  Technology that will allow us to overlay information to the world around us will become widespread for personal use within the next 2 years.

Evidence in Support:

• Some personal augmented reality technology is already available:  Thanks to the iPhone we already have some augmented reality apps available. The Nintendo 3DS and the Playstation Vita handheld gaming systems also incorporate augmented reality features.

• Groundbreaking smart technologies are set to be released soon:  Google is set to release heads-up display glasses this year.  From the article:  "The glasses will have a built-in camera that will be able to monitor the world in real time and overlay information about locations, surrounding buildings and friends who might be nearby."  And as mentioned in a previous post SixthSense is doing amazing AR work with major implications, although it's still in the prototype phase.

• Upcoming technologies will be relatively affordable:  The New York Times reports that, according to Google, their upcoming HUD glasses will cost "around the price of current smartphones".  Also, SixthSense says their prototype can be made for approximately $350.

Evidence Against:

• New technology might not take off: Google has a long history of innovations that don't take off and certainly don't revolutionize.  See: Google Plus, Chromebooks, and the list of Google flops.

• Easier said than done:  John Parkinson's CIO Insight article "Enterprise Mobility: a Fresh Perspective" offers technical challenges that must be overcome before AR technology to become reliable.  Concerns include: coverage, bandwidth, security, synchronization, multi-user viewing, and pricing.

Balanced Discussion:

The argument could be made that augmented reality technology is already widely used and accepted for personal use.  However, I think AR applications and use has nowhere near hit its peak and will gain more traction soon due to Google's upcoming release.

The dreamers among us see the possibilities of the technology and may be tempted to think it will be easy to implement, however, the realist see several issues that must be addressed before the technology can be valuable and efficiently implemented.  Companies are no doubt working on solving the technical concerns, but we may very well be in the early days, far from having all the kinks worked out.

I have no doubt the kinks will get worked out.  Admittedly 2 years is just a wild guess on my part, but at this point in the development of AR technologies the hardest argument to make is that AR technology won't be revolutionary in the future.

Reflection: ICT's and Learning

February 16th class

What I liked most:  It was hard not to like the TED presentation by Pranav Mistry detailing the use of his augmented reality technology.  Augmented reality technology is a concept that I have been aware of for a few years, but mostly through science fiction, so to actually see someone physically manipulate digital information projected onto a wall is exciting.  The techie in me relishes the idea of these near-magical technological innovations coming to market, but Mistry ends his presentation with a poignant thought: this technology will help us to be more connected with our physical world instead of "machines sitting in front of machines", it will help us to be more human.  It's easy to become too physically dedicated to technology and machines so that we are less connected to the world around us (think texting and driving).  This technology will help us find a more healthy balance between the digital and physical worlds.

What I agree with:  I agree with the statement "smart technology will bring the classroom to the world".  It seems that we are experiencing a shift towards informal and non-formal learning.  With personal technology becoming more prolific, now people have the potential to learn anywhere at anytime thanks to smart technologies.

However, I don't think that non-formal learning will take the place of formal learning.  In fact, the same smart technologies that benefit anywhere, anytime learning also benefit formal learning environments.  Interactive whiteboards, SMS surveys, mobile learning, and other smart technologies have been successfully implemented in many schools.  I think, in general, the more innovative technology schools adopt, the better.

What I disagree with:  It's going to take some more convincing for me to see t-learning (television learning) as an influential learning tool in the future.  I easily see the value of e-learning and m-learning (mobile learning) and why learners would be persuaded to use the technology.  However, because of the nature and perceptions of television, I don't think it will take off as a learning device.  Televisions provide (relatively) non-interactive, entertainment media and I think it will be near impossible to break that tradition.  I can see televisions being given the capabilities to provide interactive learning media, but it seems that to achieve that you would have to turn the television into a computer with internet connectivity.  In that case would it then just be e-learning?  It would a least blur the line.  I could be completely wrong.  I just need to see it to believe it.

I'm still curious about:  I wonder how or if technology will change K-12 education in the United States. I'm under the perception that the education system is stuck using outdated models of learning and that making substantial changes to the system are nearly impossible.  Will there be a point in the future where, due to the effects of new technologies, schools will be forced to fundamentally change?  Will schools someday only provide distance education?  Will new technologies enable schools to provide true one-on-one education?  Will schools continue to exist as we've always known them, or will they become some new institution that provides education in a radically new (presumably better) way?

The U.S. is doing OK With Gender and Tech

Argument:  In the United States gender disparities in information and communication technologies are not a major issue, and, in general, women enjoy access to the benefits of ICT's as much as men.

Evidence in Support:

• More women use social networking than men:  according to a 2011 Pew Internet report 69% of women use social networking sites compared to 60% of men. 

• As early as 2001, women engage in the same variety of online activities as men according to a Pew survey.

• More women earn associate's, bachelor's, master's and doctors degrees than men according to the most recent statistics from the National Center for Education Statistics.

Evidence Against:

• Women are underrepresented in Science and Engineering degrees conferred according to recent NCES data.

• Women are underrepresented in STEM jobs according to a report of the Economics & Statistics Administration.

Balanced Discussion:

It seems that women in America are every bit the users that men are.  Women are free to participate fully in the web and all it has to offer.  However, despite women's usage of ICT's, women don't pursue technology-focused careers.  In a sense, women are technology users, not creators.  In the United States we don't have a problem with discouraging women to use technology, but it does seem that women are discouraged (or at least not encouraged from entering STEM careers.

So our problem in this country is not striving to make sure women have access to technology (they already do according to the statistics), but to assure them that they are perfectly capable in technology fields and as technology creators.  If we do that, in time, the disparity will disappear.  Until then though, we also must recognize the validity of women in whatever field they choose and not see women in non-STEM fields as a failure.

Reflection: Gender Issues in an Information Society

February 9th Class


What I liked most:  I appreciated having this issue brought to my attention. I've never seriously reflected on how ICT's affect different genders or how gender issues are relevant to the development of new technologies.  Although I'm still reflecting on how gender issues should affect ICT's, I feel that it is important to recognize the instances that new ICT's can actually disadvantage women.  In general, I think that new technologies (particularly web technologies) are a great equalizer that benefits everyone.  However, I now see that when women are discouraged from or denied access, women can become disadvantaged -- to the detriment of society as a whole.

What I agree with:  I agree that biases of the old media often translate to new media.  If a society or culture doesn't value women as highly as men it is unreasonable to think that new technologies will erase those biases. However, I do think that ICT's play an integral role in the process of eliminating old biases, but this change will happen gradually.

I also agree that gender issues in the information society is a worthwhile issue to address. I don't think there will be a major paradigm shift towards ICT's from a gender perspective, but I do think that it is a topic that should be continuously monitored and addressed so that new technologies benefit all genders.

I agree that women should be encouraged to study STEM subjects.  Young women should be know that women are absolutely capable of pursuing any career they wish and that traditional gender roles and views should dictate women's field of study.  However, I don't think it should be viewed as a failure when a woman decided to study a non-STEM subject.

What I disagree with:  I don't agree with the assumption (in the readings and in class) that all technologies everywhere benefit men and not necessarily women.  Although the topic for the week was "gender issues" it was addressed solely as women's issues.  I'm not saying women's issues shouldn't be addressed, but I think in a discussion of gender issues it is falsely assumed that men's issues are always perfectly addressed and need not be discussed.

Despite the criticism this "traditional" view received in some of the reading I do think ICT's are (and should be) gender-neutral. When disparities based on gender arise due to ICT's (and I agree that it is almost always women who are disadvantaged), they should certainly be addressed.  However, I don't think always developing ICT's from a gender perspective is the best practice.  There are many groups and market segments that should be considered when developing new technologies and I think it would be short-sighted to focus on only one.

I'm still curious about:  I wonder how gender disparities in ICT's compare among different counties/societies.  We didn't get to see any hard data on the subject, but it's my guess that in the United States we have far fewer disparities that other countries with developing women's rights.  I don't want to say that the United States doesn't have any gender problems in ICT's, but I feel like whatever issues we have are not widespread nor indicative of our mostly equally empowering technologies.  One indicator is the amount of women who use ICT's.  In the case of social networks, women high higher rates of usage than men according to a Pew Internet study.

Fascinating Design

I wanted to share a fascinating design I ran across this week.  Vitamin Design has created an interactive starter manual for a Samsung phone.  It's not directly related to the topics we've been covering, but it it certainly an innovative take on how to introduce new technologies to users.

Out of the box from Vitamins on Vimeo.

For more information on the design philosophy, visit the project's page at: http://vitaminsdesign.com/projects/out-of-the-box-for-samsung/

Can libraries weather the closing of the digital divide?

I work in a library so I will often relate what we talk about in class to libraries.  Libraries certainly play a part in the digital divide.  They help provide access to those who do not have access.  However, libraries provide a temporary solution, not a permanent one.  The permanent solution, and usually the goal of those addressing the digital divide, is that everyone has the technology to access the internet in their own home.  That solution, however, is well outside the bounds of what libraries do.  Libraries can't provide computers and internet to everyone in their home.  So libraries help bridge the digital divide, but they are not (nor will be) responsible for closing the gap.

That in itself is not my argument, but an assumption of it.  I wondered what would happen to libraries as the digital divide narrows and eventually is gone.  My initial thought was that as more people get computers and internet access in their home the libraries patronage would drop.  That was going to be my argument, but as I started to think of arguments against this idea, I eventually persuaded myself that libraries won't see a substantial drop in patronage as more users gain internet access in their homes.

I'll start with the why someone would think that libraries will lose patrons as they get their own personal internet access:

• Computer and internet usage has become one of the primary services in libraries, particularly to the low-income patrons who do not have personal access.  In fact, 45% of all library patrons use the libraries computers to connect to the internet according a 2010 U.S. IMPACT study on the impact of library computer and internet services.  If all patrons had internet access in their homes, libraries could stand to lose a substantial portion of their users.

Really, that's about it.  It was my initial reaction and so it could be the initial (and perhaps permanent) reaction of others.  But as I began to think about how the library is valuable and researched, I came to a different conclusion:  even if everyone had their own internet access, the library would still be valuable and would not lose substantial patronage.  Here's why:

• The same U.S. IMPACT study also found that of the library users that accessed internet (45% of all users), 75% of them had internet access elsewhere.  Admittedly, elsewhere could be at work or a friends house, but this still shows that people use the library (and its internet access) despite having home connections. Some of the reasons given for this in the study were the increased speed of the library's connection, not having to compete for internet time at home with other, and the library's quiet environment.
• Libraries provide value elsewhere.  Libraries provide a full range of services aside from computer and internet access.  Just because someone doesn't need to use a library computer that doesn't mean they won't use the library at all.
• Libraries can still provide technology value.  Even though users have home computers and internet access they may not have certain hardware or software that the library can provide.  Video editing software, copy machines, and projectors are just a few examples.
• Libraries can (and have been) adapting to user needs to provide value. The digital divide won't disappear overnight, it will be gradual.  Even if it is foreseeable that users will slowly no longer need computer and internet access, libraries can provide services users do need instead.  It wouldn't be the first time libraries have eliminated or severely scaled back services that were no longer in demand (think microfilm, CD-ROM databases)

So I think it's clear that the closing of the digital divide won't spell doom for libraries.  They will however need to be vigilant.  There will probably be a small segment of users who won't see as much value in the library when they gain personal internet access, but the library can mitigate that through other services and developing new services by being continually attuned to user needs.

Reflections: Digital Divide

Last weeks class was all about the digital divide: what is it, why it happens, who it affects, where it is in effect, and how we can  overcome it.  The concept of a digital divide is not a new one to me, but I learned much more about it through the lecture.

The most interesting part of the class, to me, was the wealth of statistics that were shared concerning the digital divide. I appreciated seeing up to date data on internet and broadband access, but I wasn't surprised by the information: generally, lower income and rural people have less/slower access than their wealthy/urban counterparts (that's what the digital divide is).  There were some statistics, though, that I wouldn't have predicted.  First, while households with householders over 65 use the internet significantly less than younger age groups, the householder age ranges of 16-44 and 45-64 have relatively the same access.  This shows that perhaps computers & internet have become a necessity for younger and older Americans alike, and that we may see more people having access in the coming years just due to the fact that those who use the internet now are getting older.

One statistic that was particularly interesting concerned the reasons for not having home internet access.  It seems that one of the assumptions behind the digital divide discussion is that internet access is a good thing that people should have and that if people don't have internet access it is because of some barrier to access that must be overcome.  Most would guess that the primary reason people don't have home internet access is because of the cost (especially given that lower income Americans have a much lower rate of internet access).  However, 47% report that the main reason for not having internet access is because they don't want it or don't need it.

What does this do to the basic digital divide discussion?  Does this mean that we (as information professionals or at least those who do have internet access) need to change their perceptions?  Is that part of the goal?  I do believe that everyone can be better of with internet access, but I feel it is presumptuous to try to force technology on people.  Or is this not the case?  Is the goal then not to achieve 100% internet access for everyone, but to achieve roughly 92% usage and 8% who don't want it?  I guess, practically, the goal is for everyone that wants access to have it and eventually those who don't want it will "see the light", eventually leading to 100% access.

Innovation and Libraries

I. Reflection:

Last week’s class focused on the concept of innovations.  The word innovation brings to mind high-tech inventions like this transparent smart window.  However, innovations aren’t restricted to just high technology; they can be any new creation like Heinz’s new ketchup packet or Groupon's marketing and discount system.  I was interested to see the different types, or "zones", of innovation: product leadership, customer intimacy, operational excellence, and category renewal.  Discussing specific types of innovations helped me to gain a more focused understanding of innovation instead of the general, fuzzy idea I started with.

One particular idea that stuck with me from the class was that in order for innovations to succeed there must be a system in place to allow ideas to fully develop into innovations.  This idea hit close to home because on several occasions I’ve had workplace ideas that fell flat because of no system for development or implementation in place.  After the weeks lecture I understand how important nurturing ideas can be for innovation and companies in general.  I'll talk more on this in part II of this post.

During the class some examples of innovations were shared and one example I made sure to bookmark for later: the ESP game.  As I mentioned in an earlier post I'm a gaming enthusiast so I was excited to see this innovation in gaming.  The ESP game like all of the seven games from the developer Gwap serve a purpose beyond entertainment.  Each game creates a contest around generating metadata about images, video, and sounds then that metadata is used to improve search engine results.  For example, the ESP game pairs two people together who try to guess tags for a specific image until the two people guess the same tag and the more matches the players can get within the time period the higher the score.  I was aware of the concept of making work into games (and vice versa) and have even had a few ideas on the subject myself, but it's nice to see successful working example.

II. Argument: It is vital for libraries to have an innovation system

Again, one relevant idea from the class that stuck with me was that there has to be a system to develop ideas into innovations.  This concept was brought to light in two videos.  The first video titled "Why 88% of ideas fail to make it to market" highlights the need for a system and discusses why innovations are important to companies:

The second video that was shared details the innovation cycle that helps bring innovation to fruition:

As these videos suggest, innovation and its accompanying system are important to companies.  I feel this is especially so for libraries.  There is a growing sentiment among some that libraries are becoming irrelevant in the face of a growing internet.  One of the key ways to combat this sentiment is to offer new services and products to library patrons -- in other words: innovate.

The way people find and use information is changing.  The OCLC's most recent library perceptions report looks as some of these trends in information consumer technologies.  No surprise: major growth in social networking, mobile phone usage, web searches, e-books.  Libraries should be compelled to help user meet their information needs regardless of the technology used, which means libraries have to adopt new technologies.  It is vital.

As shown in the second video, for innovations to happen there must be a system in place to allow four steps: thinking, sharing, developing, and implementation.  It has been my personal experience that ideas nearly always fail without a similar system.  I work in an academic library and I have ideas from time to time about a new service or new way of doing things that I think is worth sharing.  There are no restrictions on either thinking or sharing where I work, however where the system fails is at development and implementation.  I share ideas that are well received, but often because of lack of funding, time, and in some cases motivation, the idea doesn't go much further.  Ideas do get developed from time to time through meetings or trials, but nearly always fall short of implementation.  There is just no system in place to make all the changes. 

For instance, I had an idea for a new way to do inventory that would  more reliably update bibliographic information and be faster to do.  I shared this idea, it was approved, then I went on to test out how the new system work on a small section of books.  I worked out the details along with concerns and requirements then reported what I found.  Then the idea died because the necessary steps of acquiring the appropriate hardware, communicating with the IT department, and informing/training the staff just didn't happen for whatever reason.  Unfortunately, this scenario gets repeated more often than I would like and sometimes I feel like my institution is falling behind the times.

Libraries that do have a system in place for all four steps of the innovation cycle can generate new innovations that meets users needs and helps the library stay relevant.  Not all innovations will "stick", but many will, and trying new things is the only way to find out what works.

Some may content that it isn't necessary for libraries to innovate, but to adopt the innovations of others.  This may be true for hardware or devices such as iPads or Kindles, but libraries should innovate in service areas.  Some examples may be e-book lending, bike lending, bake pan lending, virtual reference (via Second Life), information commons, and more.

Some may also say that libraries don't need to innovate because libraries are (and should be) about books.  It's true that books are still the libraries primary brand according to the OCLC library perceptions report.  However the report also show a greater reliance on web sources and search engines coupled with high self efficacy concerning finding information.  Unless libraries tap into how people are finding and using information (meaning innovate) they will have to resign themselves to being a leisure reading space, still in danger of becoming irrelevant due to e-books.

Measuring Social Interaction in Video Games

I'm a video game enthusiast and anytime information science and video games overlap I'm particularly fascinated.  I recently ran across this interesting article that discusses research on social interaction in video games.  The original study the article refers to is the combined efforts of researchers Voida, Carpendale, and Greenberg.  Particularly interesting in the study were the defined categories of interaction and player types:

Categories of interaction

Voida et al.'s Original Category	Revised Social Interaction Category	Description
Constructing Shared Awareness	Shared Awareness	Shared Awareness includes building a shared awareness of the game state, and can include collaborative working out, giving hints, or making another player aware of something within the game, such as game mechanics or "what to do". It can also include reporting to other players what activities you are performing within the game. "Let me have the health pack, I'm low on health"
	Requesting Information	Requesting Information typically includes asking about what is happening in game, how the game works, or how to achieve their goal. It can also include asking other players to report their status. It is often combined with a period of shared awareness. "How do I solve this puzzle?"
Reinforcing Shared History	Shared History	Shared History includes discussing what happened earlier in the game, or in a prior play session. May include links to other games, or with players not present. "Remember when we beat that boss?"
Sharing in Success and Failure	Shared Success	Shared Success includes celebrating a group success, or congratulating another player on their success. It can include a group celebration despite being in a competitive situation. "Well done, that was really hard!"
	Shared Failure	Shared Failure includes taking group responsibility for failing a task, offering reassurance, or commiserating with a player who has failed a task. It does not include blame (which may be more appropriate under Trash Talk). "It's not your fault, it was a difficult question!"
Engaging in Interdependence and Self-Sacrifice	Team Optimization	Team Optimization includes discussing the group dynamics, or negotiating an individual's contribution to the group. It can include assessing the ability of others, and discussions over who is leading or in control. Can also include denying players the chance to join in. "Let me do this bit, I'm better at math!"
Talking Trash	Trash Talk	Trash Talk includes celebrating your own success over the other players, or laughing at their failure. This can be in competitive or collaborative game types, and often involves put downs or insults. "You suck!"
Falling Prey to the computer's holding power	Self Indulgence	Self Indulgence includes not playing the game at the expense of other players' enjoyment, making up one's own meta-game, or not participating fully, leading to a disruption of the flow of the game. It can include repeatedly performing the same action (i.e. viewing a hidden in-game feature or Easter egg). "My character's going to have a nap now."
N/A	Off Topic	Off Topic includes discussing non-game based interaction or discussion "Nice weather we're having!"

Types of players

Player Type	Description
Killers (Clubs)	Killers are interested in combat/competition with other human players, and prefer this over interaction with non-player characters.
Achiever (Diamonds)	Achievers are most interested in gaining points or alternative in-game measurements of success. These players will often go out of their way to gain items that have no in-game benefit besides prestige, such as Achievements' or Trophies.
Explorer (Spades)	These players are interested in discovering the breadth of a game, and will explore new areas or take non-optimal routes to explore. They do not like time limits, since this limits the potential to explore options.
Socializers (Hearts)	These players are interested in the social aspect of game play, rather than the game itself. They enjoy interacting with other players, and use the game primarily as a means of communication.

Check out the full article to see the breakdown of what type of interaction the different types of players typically engaged in.


References:

Voida, A, S Carpendale, and S. Greenberg. "The Individual and the Group in Console Gaming." CSCW '10  Proceedings of the 2010 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work, 2010

Ackermann, J. Playing computer games as social interaction – an analysis of LAN-Partys. In: Fromme, J. Computer Games / Players / Game Cultures Berlin: Springer, 2011

Facebook: Users vs. Non-users

It seems to be a common perception among non-Facebook users that regular users of the social networking site do not value face-to-face interactions and are missing out on human interaction.  It has become a popular enough sentiment that is has popped up in national television commercials.  Take a look at this commercial for the Toyota Venza:

The message of this commercial is clear: facebook isn't real living.  The young woman in the ad believes (mistakenly) that older people are anti-social and criticizes her parents for their low virtual friend count.  All the while her parents are shown living it up with their real life friends in their new Toyota. No doubt this ad is targeted at those who have negative or ambivalent attitudes toward social networking.

However, the article "Grooming, Gossip, Facebook and Myspace: What can we learn about these sites from those who won't assimilate?" by Zeynep Tufekci tells a different story.  The article reports on in-depth research of college student users and non-users of social media.  The results showed that "the non-users reported similar numbers of very close and somewhat close friends as compared with SNS [social networking site] users." and furthermore "the number of friends kept in touch with weekly was significantly higher among SNS users."  So according to this study not only do social network users have just as many close friends (to enjoy their new Toyota with) as non-users, but that they also keep in touch with more friends than non-users.

Another interesting find in the study was that "that non-users display an attitude towards social grooming (gossip, small-talk and generalized, non-functional people-curiosity) that ranges from incredulous to hostile."  It's not hard to imagine that the creative minds behind the Toyota commercial are some of the same people that are antagonistic towards social networking.  Hopefully, as more research is done it will show that neither users or non-users are missing out on fundamental elements of living and the misconceptions between the two  groups will disappear.

Reference:

Zeynep Tufekci (2008): GROOMING, GOSSIP, FACEBOOK AND
MYSPACE, Information, Communication & Society, 11:4, 544-564

First Post: Hello

Hello, this is my personal blog dedicated to issues related to social informatics.  I'm currently enrolled in a social informatics course at the University of Tennessee, so I am new to the subject.  In the coming weeks as I learn more through my coursework, I will post regular thoughts, observations, and reflections.  Discussion is encouraged so feel free to comment.