Media in Transition 5: how did I miss this motherlode?

.flickr-photo { border: solid 2px #000000; }
.flickr-yourcomment { }
.flickr-frame { text-align: left; padding: 3px; }
.flickr-caption { font-size: 0.8em; margin-top: 0px; }



clouds, originally uploaded by dltq.

Preparing for my Friday talk at this week’s Open Education Conference I have been mulling over something that one of last year’s keynoters, Erik Duval, said in conversation. If I understood him correctly — and Erik is one of those scary-smart people I never presume to fully comprehend — one of the primary challenges of the emerging media environment is dealing with an overwhelming abundance of resources.

On a basic day-to-day information overload level I think this is something we can all understand. (Cole wrote a post on that theme today.) But every now and then something comes along that really brings the problem home to me.

Case in point, last year’s Media in Transition conference at MIT, on creativity, ownership and collaboration in the digital age. The site is chock full of fantastic resources on numerous subjects that have been very much on my mind the past few years. The site is something of a model on how to document a conference, with links to papers, podcasts of the plenary sessions, and well written summaries of the sessions that are ideal for skimming and scanning. Everything I’ve sampled so far has been first rate.

The conference was last April, so how am I only coming across this site now? I like to think of myself as fairly plugged in, I’m online a lot, and read a lot of amazing people who work in this field — some of them must have linked to this. I subscribe to MIT’s Emerging Technologies newsletter. I’m an admirer of Henry Jenkins. So how is it that I didn’t see MIT5 until Dean Giustini linked to it? (BTW, Dean’s always-fine blog has really kicked it up a couple notches of late, I highly recommend you add it to your newsreader.)

This post might simply be an admission of my own cluelessness. But I can’t help but think this oversight is symptomatic of a broader condition of information abundance. Now, with my talk only a few days away, and with those days packed with work and sociality, the new challenge posed by abundance is taking in all this relevant and exciting stuff and somehow managing to process and account for it. (Those text summaries are tremendously helpful in that respect.)

And I gotta keep an eye out for next year’s 6th Media in Transition event. I would love to see what next year has in store.

Posted in Uncategorized | 8 Comments

Exploitive corporate scum love Creative Commons

I’ve already acknowledged my fuzziness around the implications of the various clauses of a Creative Commons license. In my hyper-simplistic way I have come to be convinced by the likes of David Wiley and others I respect in the open culture movement that in too many instances the Non-Commercial (NC) clause created an unnecessary barrier to reuse.

For instance, I know some people (disclosure: one of them is mother to my son) who are passionate about teaching the principles of permaculture, to promote techniques that will decrease energy consumption and promote sustainable food production. Among their activities are workshops in which practitioners share their knowledge with an informal, generally hands-on approach. The instructors get a small honorarium for their time, and there are overhead costs, so a nominal fee (usually $25) is charged to participants. I can assure you that nobody is making money out of this arrangement, it’s just an attempt not to lose money. When I talk with open education types, I often ask how online educational resources could be shared in a way that is relevant and useful to this type of use case. A common theme that emerges in these discussions is that NC-licensed resources are effectively copyrighted against this type of use. Sure, the permaculture people could ask permission. But they could ask permission to use a copyrighted item too. Creative Commons is supposed to promote frictionless adaptability.

On the other hand, you have the position of Stephen Downes and others, who essentially argue that allowing commercial use will inevitably be exploited by corporate creeps in ways that will be contrary to the spirit of Creative Commons. Perhaps the process will even be a lever to move open content into the proprietary domain. (I’m radically simplifying here, but hopefully got the spirit right. I really don’t have time to write this post, I’ve got spam to suck.)

Well, add a point to Stephen’s column.

Via Twitter, I read Vicki Davis’s post which describes how <a href=”a Virgin Mobile ad swiped a picture of a girl (check out the comments) at a car wash, and apparently used the CC-attribution license as justification to use the kid as an unpaid model. Apparently a lawsuit is pending. More swiped images and discussion here.

There may well be more to this, so in the absence of further research I’ll hold my vitriol. But on the surface it seems like a fairly straightforward case of a corporation using an open artifact for aggressive marketing… I’m fairly sure Virgin had lawyers consider whether or not they needed to get permission from the subject of the photo. They did provide attribution in the bottom corner, and there may well be nothing anyone can do (unless the CC license is found not to carry any weight, which could get ugly for a lot of people).

I suppose I could boycott Virgin, but I’ve been avoiding them for years anyway. Richard Branson and his self-obsessed hipster billionaire act put him high on my hatelist long ago. He manages to combine what I despise most about Bono and Donald Trump into one smarmy package.

Posted in Uncategorized | 8 Comments

Hi! I can’t come to the blog right now…

.flickr-photo { border: solid 2px #000000; }
.flickr-yourcomment { }
.flickr-frame { text-align: left; padding: 3px; }
.flickr-caption { font-size: 0.8em; margin-top: 0px; }



Lost in Transmission, originally uploaded by Lawrence Whittemore.


…as every spare moment I’ve had this week has been engaged in a futile battle against an automated spambot that is gradually but relentlessly overgrowing the work of thousands of UBC citizens on a wiki service we support. My usual tech support network here is mostly occupied with a higher stakes project (and NOBODY wants me messing with a server), and my energy is spent reverting vital pages, researching response strategies and cajoling anyone I can find to implement them, and offering endless apologies to increasingly frustrated users.

We briefly froze the creation of new accounts only to be bombarded by requests from concerned students who were unable to complete course assignments (ten emails to me during one ninety minute period away from my desk). It is gratifying to know the system is being used much more extensively than I thought, but less exciting to ponder what all these users are thinking about their work being replaced by obscene linkage every time they look away.

Missing in action: my presence in an online course I’m co-teaching; my sense of humour; my attention to every other thing I’m supposed to be doing; my ability to interact pleasantly with family, co-workers and friends. On its deathbed: my professional sense of purpose; my will to live.

I had hoped to spend some time this week preparing for my keynote (YIKES! Don’t look down!) at next week’s Open Education Conference. At this point, all I’m prepared to offer up are demented ravings about Texas Hold ‘Em, Viagra, and terrible things to do to animals.

Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments

My Twitter feed…

… pointed me to this new short film demonstrating Google docs put together by Lee Lefever et al, the same folks who’ve been building the wonderful CommonCraft series of short films demonstrating the principles of Web 2.0.

Via the same thread, we learn about the new Google Presentation tool, we can only hope it does to PowerPoint what Writely Google Docs did to Word.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Must see: John Willinsky @ UBC, September 18

.flickr-photo { border: solid 2px #000000; }
.flickr-yourcomment { }
.flickr-frame { text-align: left; padding: 3px; }
.flickr-caption { font-size: 0.8em; margin-top: 0px; }



John Willinsky, originally uploaded by D’Arcy Norman.


I’ve blogged a couple of John Willinsky’s talks before, and hopefully made my admiration unmistakably clear. So it is with genuine excitement that I plug his presentation here at UBC next week, September 18 at 10 AM.

It is something of an extra-special treat to have Dr. Willinsky here, as he has just begun his new gig at Stanford University (though he is maintaining a part-time appointment at UBC).

It is with considerably less enthusiasm I note that I will be speaking as well. Sharing a bill with Dr. Willinsky is the very definition of a tough gig. But anticipation is stronger than trepidation for once. Here’s the blurb:

“Teaching for a World of Increasing Access to Knowledge”

This session will review the opportunities and initiatives resulting from the emergence of open source, free culture, open access and open educational resources. Discussion will focus on how weblogs support knowledge reviews and foster communities, how wikis can be used to build knowledge resources while providing a platform for authentic learning experiences, and how open access research is equipping students for life-long learning even as they build expectations of a “right to know.” Special emphasis will be placed on describing the opportunities represented by prominent open education projects, and the challenges to developing an open educational culture.

This would be an apt moment to point to a bravura session Dr. Willinsky delivered at the most recent Northern Voice, concerning wikis and public education (and the notion of “intellectual properties”), using this project as a launching point. Audio was recorded – (28 minutes Download MP3 (23.3 MB) This was one of the very best received sessions of the conference.

Non-UBCers are more than welcome. Free registration is appreciated for planning of catering, etc…

Tagged | 5 Comments

OpenEd: Already dissembling on fundamentals

The questions that Professor Wiley poses for discussion to open the course seem straightforward enough, but I have found them vexing. I have to recognise that I don’t necessarily have a firm grip on some fairly fundamental issues.

I have to acknowledge that I don’t have a tight grasp on what a “basic human right” means. Jim goes into this question with characteristic zeal and insight, and with an attention to critical theory that I am unwilling and unable to match. Presumably, we are talking about something stronger than a “right to expect quality service for my money.” The power in a term such as “human rights” is that it implies a set of enduring, essential and perhaps universal laws that stand somehow apart and above the laws made by governments of the day.

But in reality, what weight do “basic human rights” carry? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is full of noble sentiment, yet the objectives are rarely met, even in wealthy, putatively democratic societies. We accept that rights may compete with one another, and rights are defined and redefined by all sorts of entities with their own interests. We often see rights recognised or ignored seemingly at the whim of those with power. I recall a conversation with a colleague, who said something like “people don’t care if they have a right to shelter, they just care if they have a roof over their heads.” About a year later, I don’t have a satisfactory response to that…

Article 26 of the Universal Declaration is concerned with education. Shortly after declaring “everyone has a right to education” comes the assertion that “Elementary education shall be compulsory.” Which brings us to the second question of the week — “is open access to free, high-quality educational opportunity sufficient, or is it necessary to mandate education through a certain age or level?” I share some of D’Arcy’s misgivings about how education can be misused. Canadians bear the shame of what government-mandated residential schools did to First Nations children. (As an aside, just this week stories of bizarre abuse emerged at an expensive private school in Canada.)

I am inclined to acknowledge those concerns yet endorse the idea of some kind of mandated education anyway. The tragedy of untapped human potential and the urgency of struggling against ignorance in its many forms works powerfully on me. The denial of education is as grave an abuse as anything likely to be perpetuated in education’s name. Then again I recognise, as Catia Harriman observes, universal education isn’t just a matter of building schools and passing laws, there is a broad and perhaps intractably complex set of related economic and social conditions that must also be addressed.

Perhaps I am overthinking this stuff. But I wouldn’t be in this profession if I didn’t think that education was one of the very most vital concerns of the human race. If the appeal to basic human rights does not motivate us, an appeal to self-interest ought to suffice. Simply put, the ability for humans to share knowledge is necessary for survival in more ways than I could begin to catalogue. The provision of education has a clear connection to all sorts of benefits that enhance what we think of as “quality of life.” I cannot dismiss the critical concerns of those in the course who have written posts opposing compulsory education. I think educators have an obligation to subject assumptions and practices to relentless interrogation. But ultimately I fall back on what I suppose is a pragmatic impulse to get on with doing the best we can, and as much as we can. Doctors don’t let their inability to cure every ailment prevent them from trying to do their jobs, and the mission of educators is no less integral to human life.

I’ll confess I haven’t read all of my course-mates’ posts at this point, so I may need to follow up to account for ideas prompted by the ongoing discussion.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

A Sterling assertion

Rather belatedly, I’ve become quite a fan of Bruce Sterling’s work as trend-spotter and tech pundit. I can see why he’s a bit much for some people, he rubbed me the wrong way for some time, and I have yet to be taken with any his neologisms that he seems so proud of. But his last SXSW talk (thanks to Oook for convincing me to give it a listen) got me hooked, and I enjoy following his blog on Wired. He has a way of discussing some of the most exciting concepts and topics going with dramatic flair and winning irreverence.

Late night last week I was wandering the neighborhood with the dog and listening to a podcast (that’s become a nightly ritual, Dexter likes it when I get engrossed in a long one) of Sterling’s short talk at Pop! Tech last year. I was going to embed the video here, but it appears to start playback automatically when someone loads this page, and I love you readers way too much to force you to watch the clip without your consent. Though I’ll admit I gave it some thought.

Toward the end of the talk, Sterling relates an “anecdote” of an Engineering professor at Harvey Mudd College who apparently divided his class into two groups. One, the “John Henrys” were limited to using their library to do coursework, no internet allowed. The other, the “Baby Hueys” were only allowed to use the internet, and Sterling implies that Wikipedia was something of a core resource for this group. Sterling reports that this professor ended the experiment mid-semester, as the Hueys were “wiping the floor” with the Henrys, so dominant that it was unfair to continue.

The anecdote was reported by Kottke, but if it got significant traction in the education community as a talking point I missed it. It seems to me that a contrast such as this would be of vital interest to educators and students. Those of us who believe that emergent online media and culture can enhance learning are so often on the defensive. Surely further inquiry along this line would be worth pursuing. Then again, more experiments could run into ethical issues — after all, Wikipedia might be a hunk of junk written by unaccredited and unaccountable rabble, but we can’t fairly deprive students of access to it, can we? Not when grades are at stake.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Is it possible to audit an open course?

.flickr-photo { border: solid 2px #000000; }
.flickr-yourcomment { }
.flickr-frame { text-align: left; padding: 3px; }
.flickr-caption { font-size: 0.8em; margin-top: 0px; }



09 We must be free and open, originally uploaded by leighblackall.


Oh, so much of interest has piled up during my time off-line that I am tempted to declare a form of cognitive bankruptcy, which I suppose begs questions about how anyone could tell the difference.

So more or less at random, I dig up an invitation on David Wiley’s blog to his impending Introduction to Open Education course. I’m not surprised to see it looks fabulous, and am much intrigued (though again unsurprised) to learn that anyone, anywhere can join as it is “completely online, run completely in the open, and is welcome to all comers.”

Already, the course page represents a solid collection of links on the foundations of the open educational field. And man, I am looking forward to seeing how these discussions might play out. And given my current roles and interests, it’s hard to imagine how I wouldn’t benefit from participating.

Then again, Professor Wiley warns us that “the course is going to be a lot of work,” averaging 12 hours per week. My inner slacker is roused from stupor and vigorously raises a red flag of cowardice. I am already feeling over-committed, and I will be away traveling about half the time over the next two months. Oh yes, I learned just this week that I will once again be teaching a course this fall after all (a very good thing, that, but still…).

I’ve never been one to let good sense get in the way of a good time, especially when there’s learning to be had. I may be setting myself up for a crushing humiliation, a series of public debacles, but I just added my name to the participants section of the course wiki. It’s quite likely I will miss some deadlines (I always do), but at the very least the experience should generate some fodder to elevate the present shoddy character of this weblog.

Tagged | 3 Comments

New Forms Festival 07: Re:Use

I’ve had some intermittent fun with the New Forms Festival here in Vancouver over the years. Kinski were kind enough to melt my frontal lobe, and I had fun at Art Camp last year doing the cassette shuffle with Draggin and James.

This year’s event obviously aligns with a lot of the stuff I’ve been puzzling over lately:

Re:Use, encompassing a wide variety of artistic and intellectual practices including, but not limited to, sampling, collage, remixing, and appropriation. Whether it involves the recycling of equipment and changes in its function, the reprogramming of material, the sampling and mashing-up of sounds and images or the rethinking of ideas, the notion of re:use encapsulates the continuous growth and change in media and electronic arts.

Which reminds me, I’ve been meaning to do something with this provocative post by Rick Prelinger for some time… For now, an outline and a recommendation to read the elaborated version will have to suffice:

1 Why add to the population of orphaned works?
2 Don’t presume that new work improves on old
3 Honor our ancestors by recycling their wisdom
4 The ideology of originality is arrogant and wasteful
5 Dregs are the sweetest drink
6 And leftovers were spared for a reason
7 Actors don’t get a fair shake the first time around, let’s give them another
8 The pleasure of recognition warms us on cold nights and cools us in hot summers
9 We approach the future by typically roundabout means
10 We hope the future is listening, and the past hopes we are too
11 What’s gone is irretrievable, but might also predict the future
12 Access to what’s already happened is cheaper than access to what’s happening now
13 Archives are justified by use
14 Make a quilt not an advertisement

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on New Forms Festival 07: Re:Use

A trip to the mall, or food for the poor? Let’s hop in the truck!

.flickr-photo { border: solid 2px #000000; }
.flickr-yourcomment { }
.flickr-frame { text-align: left; padding: 3px; }
.flickr-caption { font-size: 0.8em; margin-top: 0px; }



Corn truck!, originally uploaded by Chuckumentary.

I’ve thought for a while that the way someone talks about ethanol as an alternative fuel source is a pretty fair litmus test for whether that person is serious about energy issues or if they are either deluded or wholly-owned corporate subsidiaries (I’m looking at you Tom Friedman). Not surprisingly, politicians love ethanol, and subsidize, propagandize and posture accordingly. It’s so much easier to shovel money at mega-agribusiness than it is to promote meaningful change in our energy consumption patterns.

Anyhow, I had read predictions that increased use of ethanol would have a powerful effect on the price of food, but I never expected it to happen so quickly. I’ve also been surprised to see that the business section of my morning paper has been covering the story so well. I don’t have the time or expertise to blog this issue properly, so I’ll post a few bits (emphasis mine) and encourage you to do your own follow up. Unless you have more important things to think about than food and energy.

* This month, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development said higher demand for biofuels is causing “fundamental changes” to agricultural markets that could drive up prices.

They see “structural changes” under way that could well keep prices for many agricultural products higher over the coming decade.

“We haven’t seen anything on this scale before,” Martin von Lampe, an agricultural economist in Paris at the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, told Bloomberg News.

Net food importing countries, as well as the urban poor, will likely be hardest hit, the OECD predicts. — Ethanol fuels global run-up in food prices

* “Ethanol indeed is too costly to be pursuing, which is why North American ethanol producers receive billions in subsidies. The fuel would not exist without the handouts. Now another cost has to be factored into the equation as ethanol production soars — the cost of the diverted land. More fuel crops mean less food crops. There is no doubt commodity food prices are rising and that agricultural land diversion is at least partly to blame. The ethanol lobby argues that higher commodity prices (which are still low by historic standards) are good news for farmers and non-industrial countries. Perhaps, but what about everyone else? Most consumers aren’t farmers.” – The ethanol boom

* “Several American scientists have concluded ethanol does nothing good for the planet. They measured the amount of energy used in the entire production cycle, from growing the corn crop to delivering the ethanol by truck to a fueling station, and found that producing a litre of ethanol can require as much, or more, energy than the amount of energy released when it’s burned (ethanol producers say the studies use the wrong inputs). If this is true, burning ethanol will not slow global warming. Also note that ethanol has a lower energy, or heat, content than the equivalent amount of gasoline or diesel fuel. In other words, you have to burn more of it to cover the same distance.” – – The ethanol boom

* Too much biofuel is coming to the market too quickly and the casualties might be the poor who can’t afford the sharply rising food prices. — What good is green if the poor go hungry?

* Mexico is in the grip of the worst tortilla crisis in its modern history. Dramatically rising international corn prices, spurred by demand for the grain-based fuel ethanol, have led to expensive tortillas. That, in turn, has led to lower sales for vendors such as Rosales and angry protests by consumers.

Tortilla prices have tripled or quadrupled in some parts of Mexico since last summer. On Jan. 18, Calderón announced an agreement with business leaders capping tortilla prices at 78 cents per kilogram, or 2.2 pounds, less than half the highest reported prices. The president’s move was a throwback to a previous era when Mexico controlled prices — the government subsidized tortillas until 1999, at which point cheap corn imports were rising under the NAFTA trade agreement. It was also a surprise given his carefully crafted image as an avowed supporter of free trade.

…In another place, a rise in the cost of a single food product might not set off a tidal wave of discontent. But Mexico is different.

“When you talk about Mexico, when you talk about culture and societal roots, when you talk about the economy, you talk about the tortilla,” said Lorenzo Mejía, president of a tortilla makers trade group. “Everything revolves around the tortilla.”

The ancient Mayans believed they were created by gods who mixed their blood with ground corn. They called themselves “Children of the Corn,” a phrase Mexicans still sometimes use to describe themselves.

Poor Mexicans get more than 40 percent of their protein from tortillas, according to Amanda Gálvez, a nutrition expert at the National Autonomous University of Mexico. Modern-day tortilla makers such as Rosales use “an ancient and absolutely wise” Mayan process called “nixtamalizacion,” Gálvez said.

…Gálvez said she believes the price increase is already steering Mexicans toward less nutritious foods. The typical Mexican family of four consumes about one kilo — 2.2 pounds — of tortillas each day. In some areas of Mexico, the price per kilo has risen from 63 cents a year ago to between $1.36 and $1.81 earlier this month.

With a minimum wage of $4.60 a day, Mexican families with one wage earner have been faced in recent months with the choice of having to spend as much as a third of their income on tortillas — or eating less or switching to cheaper alternatives.

Many poor Mexicans, Gálvez said, have been substituting cheap instant noodles, which often sell for as little as 27 cents a cup and are loaded with less nutritious starch and sodium.

“In the short term, the people who can buy food are going to get fatter,” she said. “For the poor, the effect is going to be hunger.” — A Culinary and Cultural Staple in Crisis

And do keep in mind that high fructose corn syrup is a staple in most processed food.

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments