A better — and very interesting, I thought — discussion this week, even though overall participation seems to have dwindled. Fortunately, however, those that remain have improved the timeliness and the quality of their participation — including more (slightly more) use of the sharedcopy functions.
Jeff did a very good job of incorporating the important pro team positions into his summary paper. (I would suggest, however, that spelling and grammar become a much higher priority for everyone — maybe not so much in the comments, but certainly in the papers.)
Evidence supporting the benefits (accuracy, convenience, speed of access) of online health information seemed mostly anecdotal — and/or provided by Google spokespersons — but convincing nevertheless. The main point of contention between the pro and con sides came down to not whether health information might be beneficially put online, but whether or not Google Health was the proper mechanism for doing so.
I note that the con side was at a severe numbers disadvantage this week: three submitted papers in support of the resolution, only one submitted a paper arguing against it.
Nevertheless, John, the lone voice of rebuttal, held his own. His original position paper focused heavily on Google Health implementation details, and his analysis of that implementation in his original and final paper raised serious questions regarding Google’s motives and allegiances. His argument directed our attention to the many potential ways in which Google’s business interests may not be in parallel with the rights and needs of doctors and patients.
Just as we saw regarding the Google Book Project, there seem many potentially grand benefits of new media, but the economic context in which those benefits are provided carries with it some potentially disastrous consequences. The Google Book project continues to be criticized because of the power and influence it awards Google’s present (and future) business interests. These week’s critique of Google Health raised a similar set of questions and concerns.
Numbers prevailed. +1 extra credit to the pro side this week. +.5 to John.
I look forward to a similarly energetic discussion next week regarding the very interesting and timely topic of civic journalism. The recent Iran election coverage should provide plenty of fodder for comment.
Resolved:Storing personal health information online (using a mechanism like Google Health) will be beneficial for doctors and patients.
Alvarez, Roberto J. pro
Beatty, Laura pro
Carson, Chad P. con
DeMatteo, John con/discussion ldr -- post final essay
Fedor, Lauren M. pro
Fraler, Jeffrey D. pro/discussion ldr -- post final essay
Gryder, Garlyn M. con
McRae, Keenan R. con
Myers, Megan pro
Note: If you can’t meet the deadline(s) for this week (and each week hereafter), better let me know in advance.
There has been talk for some time about the advantages (and disadvantages) of having RFID implants in humans. Yes, that goes quite a bit further than storing your medical info online with Google Health, but it’s certainly technologically possible.
Here’s the way the grading is falling out (roughly) each week:
10 pts. are now available each week, based on your completion of the weekly assignment as detailed on the CMMNX236 Blackboard site — and as updated and tweaked by me in my weekly blog postings.
6 pts. Post a position paper on your blog, on topic, on time, linked through Twitter.
+1pts. Post a well-reasoned position paper (e.g ., one that makes sense).
+1pts. Post a well-reasoned position paper in a proper online format with appropriate links showing evidence of having read and understood the required class readings (i. e., those linked through the class Blackboard site.)
+1 pts. Participate in the online discussion (e.g, at minimum, leave a comment).
+1 pts. Participate actively and *effectively* in the online discussion, including use of new media tools (such as sharedcopy), as appropriate, to articulate your position.
+1 pts. Be a member of the “winning” side. (This is essentially an extra credit point.)
Actually, up to now, I have been a little more lenient with the grading than the above indicates. This leniency was to make sure that everyone had overcome all technical difficulties, was aware of the class requirements, had registered their blog, etc. Hereafter, however, I see no reason to continue this leniency.
As you can see from the above, if you merely post a blog entry on time — and that’s all you do — you get 6/10pts. Six out of ten points = D. If you don’t post an entry at all, then you get less than a D. Less than a D would be an F.
Similarly, based on the above, if you post a well-reasoned and linked position paper (6+1+1 pts.), and then do not participate in the online discussion, you get 8/10 pts. Eight of ten points = B-. If you should then be lucky enough to be on the winning side, you might get 8+1 pts. = 9/10 = A-. Or you might not.
If you do nothing at all during the week, you get 0/10 pts. If you get 0/10 points during one week, then the max score you can get for the entire course is 90/100 points. If you get 0/10 points during two weeks, then the max score you can get for the entire course is 80/100 points. And so forth.
You should be able to inspect your current grades within the class Blackboard site.
This week’s assignments, with discussion leaders noted…
Resolved:Freedom of speech is properly restricted by the FCC in order to insure that public broadcasting in the United States properly serves the public’s interest, convenience, and necessity.
Alvarez, Roberto J. con/discussion ldr -- post final essay
Beatty, Laura pro
Carson, Chad P. con
DeMatteo, John pro
Fedor, Lauren M. con
Fraler, Jeffrey D. pro
Gryder, Garlyn M. con/
McRae, Keenan R. pro/discussion ldr -- post final essay
Myers, Megan con
Villares, Jason pro [without response, will drop]
For this week: Same grading criteria as previous weeks. Remember that you will post your initial essays on your individual blogs, with links to those blogs through the class Twitter account.
You should also be able to leave sharedcopy pages of your blog postings through the class Twitter account link — see examples from the previous week. You will now find a sharedcopy link in the list here.
While your position paper should refer directly to the FCC’s authority over over-the-air broadcasting in the USA, you may also wish to consider the now well-known Neda video as an example of potentially objectionable content broadcast globally. Should access to the Neda video be “properly restricted” in any way? (Equally relevant: liveleak.)
Note that the Neda video was initially censored by CNN — “out of respect for the family” — but that CNN’s position was subsequently reversed. The Neda video raises broad questions as to exactly what sort of authority, if any — moral, legal, or other — should restrict either news organizations or individuals from freely distributing whatever is available to them.
1. Judgement this week comes down on the “con” side.
Jeff’s summary, while it could have been more polished, picked up several important points from essays by Garlyn and Megan.
While copyright laws are currently under great pressure, Jeff argues that there is still strong and widespread support for giving artists incentives and rewards for producing works of social value. And, even if copyright laws should eventually be modified to allow information to be exchanged and manipulated more easily in new media environments, it is unclear whether Google should be the largest (or sole) beneficiary of this change.
While John’s and Lauren’s (original) essays presented evidence that the Google Book Search Project is a worthy and valuable endeavor, the “pro” side might have subsequently benefited from a more thorough explanation of those social values associated with modifying (or eliminating) existing copyright laws. And, of course, a greater level of participation and timeliness from all members assigned the “pro” position would have helped as well.
+1 extra credit to Jeff, Garlyn, and Megan.
***
2. Since Lauren and Keenan voted to retain posting the weekly essays on individual blogs rather than consolidating them here on my own blog (and since no one else voted at all), we will return to our original (Week 2) posting format hereafter. Post your essays to your individual blogs; post links to those essays through twitter.
Note that I will continue each week to occasionally introduce new media tools I would like you to try out. Next week, for instance, though we will be returning to our previous posting format, I ask that you make use of sharedcopy in the comments section of the individual blogs.
Hopefully, everyone is familiar with our weekly routine now, and we will face fewer difficulties moving forward.
I remain available for questions and aid during my scheduled office hours, though I am unlikely to continue to provide extended online chat time unless that time is scheduled in advance. If you would like to schedule a chat session during the week, let me know through twitter.
I also emphasize again here that it is becoming increasingly important to meet all posted deadlines for submitting essays.
All Week 3 readings are listed and linked for you on the Loyola Blackboard class site.
Here’s an update on this week’s schedule:
Monday-Tuesday: Read (and think), just like before. I’m posting the pro/con positions early again this week; you will find those below.
No later than Wednesday noon: Post your pro/con position paper on your blog, just like before. And link your blog post to the class twitter account, just like before.
SOMETHING NEW: Copy/paste your blog post to MY BLOG as a comment to this post. This week, our group discussion/comments will take place on my blog rather than scattered over several different student blogs. Let’s see if that works better.
Wednesday-Friday: Discussion. Post your comments, just like before, except leave them on my blog rather than on your own. Also, I am assigning the group discussion leaders/final essay posters early this time as well; you will find them indicated below.
No later than Friday noon: Group discussion leaders should post summary/final essays on their own blogs, with links — as always — to class twitter account. Final essays should be something of a TEAM effort — just like before.
***
Note that this week I will penalize late postings more severely (sort of gave you a bye on that last week). Also, I would like to see some evidence of your ability to post a *nice-looking* blog entry, with proper spelling, paragraphs, and links.
Individual Grading (10 pts avl, just like before): Posting on time and on topic. Use of class readings (and other supplemental materials) through links on blog and elsewhere. Ability to respond/defend/evolve argument. Participation in discussion. Clarity and forcefulness of ideas. (I will also tend to react favorably to the use of — or reference to — any new tech/web tools we’ve discussed so far. Try out sharedcopy, for instance.)
Suggested format for position papers: Four/five clearly distinguished paragraphs of about 100 words each. Opening/closing paragraph. Develop two/three points in the middle paragraphs, with documentation; each point should be explained and supported in its own paragraph. (These are suggestions only: do your own thing.) Also, if you have a problem posting your paper by noon, post it the night before, duh.
***
Resolved: The Google Book Search Project should not be subject to existing copyright laws.
Alvarez, Roberto J. pro
Beatty, Laura pro
Carson, Chad P. pro
DeMatteo, John pro
Fedor, Lauren M. pro/discussion ldr/fnl essay poster
Fraler, Jeffrey D. con/discussion ldr/fnl essay poster
Gryder, Garlyn M. con
McRae, Keenan R.* con
Myers, Megan con
Villares, Jason* con
*MIA. If you are still taking this class for credit, you need to contact me.
Individual grades (10 points available) for the week will be most largely determined by your timely posting of a well reasoned essay supporting your assigned position. Your participation in the week’s discussion is an important factor to consider as well, as is your ability to use new media tools (currently only your WordPress blog and Twitter account) to communicate effectively with your instructor and classmates.
The verdict.
After being very discouraged by the late and missing essays early during the week, I was very pleased with the ultimate outcome in John’s and Chad’s essays. Both made very reasonable and cogent points.
I note that the con side was at a disadvantage throughout the week in that fewer of the con team members posted essays or participated in the discussion.
John’s essay focused on two issues vital to Wikipedia’s credibility: verification and transparency. The matter of verification concerns what rules Wikipedia establishes for editing and approving articles. The matter of transparency concerns to what degree we can be sure that Wikipedia adheres to those rules. John questions both Wikipedia’s verification process and the ability of its editors to follow their own rules. The examples he gives and the information he provides regarding the relatively small number of Wikipedia editors and their somewhat sketchy identities and practices are persuasive.
Chad, of course, disagrees. He cites, quite rightly, the large number of rules Wikipedia editors have to guide their deliberations and how these editors must only rarely make controversial or harsh decisions regarding article content – as they did when they chose to ban IPs associated with the Church of Scientology. Chad then turns our attention from the process of Wikipedia article verification to the product: a wide variety of articles that have broad popularity and remarkable accuracy.
I note that Chad’s essay is formatted to be more easily read than John’s. (And Chad does get a few extra points for using the xkcd image.)
After reading both essays and considering the contributions of all class members, I am awarding this week’s extra credit (+1 point) to the (underdog) con side. The pro position essays had more style, perhaps, but substance was on the con side.
While I can be persuaded that the bulk of Wikipedia articles are popular, useful, and valuable, I remained concerned about those controversial topics and articles that are thrown into Wikipedia committee deliberations. In such cases, who watches the watchmen? While Wikipedia’s editing and approval process may be good enough for most things, it may not be good enough for the most important things; as John notes, cracks in that process have already begun to appear.
Since we have so few essays submitted this week (I’m so discouraged), I’ll go ahead and select this week’s compilers/consolidators now — in bf below.
Carson, Chad P. pro
DeMatteo, John con
Here’s how this will work: Each week two students, on opposites sides of the pro/con position paper assignment, will be asked to re-evaluate their essays in consideration of all other essays posted as well as all comments others have left concerning those essays.
These two students will then each submit a revised essay — posted to their respective blogs — that will incorporate (one would hope) some of the better ideas in the previously submitted essays and comments. This revised, summary essay should be posted no later than Friday noon.
Since there are, at the moment, so few additional ideas/posts/comments available to work with (I see only my own), this may be a less involved task this week than in coming weeks when, hopefully, the kinks of working with the tools I have asked you to work with are overcome.
***
Also, please note that if the interactive component of our class remains missing in action, I may well choose to up the requirements of the non-interactive portion: i.e., if we cannot generate a useful and active discussion on each of our weekly topics, I may require longer and more detailed individual weekly essays from each of you.
I’m moved to post about the reaction that Mike Arrington of Techcrunch has been receiving, via the supposedly egalitarian social media, as a result of Leo Laporte’s outburst on the June 6 edition of the Gillmor Gang. I’m so moved because this reaction is so similar to the reaction I received as Twixt within City of Heroes. (There’s a brief synopsis of the Twixt case here.)
The Laporte-Arrington situation is this: Michael Arrington was a guest inside a familiar talk show format wherein several people are supposedly having a round-table-like discussion. The topic of discussion in this instance was the (newly released) Palm Pre mobile phone. Leo Laporte, another of the “guests” (though his role in this particular show is much greater and more fundamental than Arrington’s), introduces the Palm Pre topic, Arrington questions whether Laporte received his Palm Pre for free, and this is then what happens:
Okay, talk show hosts lose it. Seen it before. Bill O’Reilly is probably the prototypical example. Not pretty, but it happens. That’s not really the interesting part.
The interesting part is, after the fact, the outcry. I would say that 90+% (easy) of all comments I read – and there were a LOT of comments, on a variety of sites — were pro-Laporte and anti-Arrington. These comments ran the gamut of name-calling (“douchebag” and/or “asshole” seemed the most common selections) to death threats.
The gist of the comments: Leo was justified; Michael got what he deserved. The reasoning behind the comments: Michael impugned Leo’s integrity; Leo is unimpugnable.
I beg to differ.
First of all, Arrington didn’t impugn anyone’s integrity. He didn’t really get the chance. There may have been some implicit impugning going on and/or going to happen, but, seriously, not yet and not that bad. Ostensibly, Laporte reacted not to the impugning but rather to Arrington’s “trolling,” or asking questions like the one he asked solely to elicit an emotional response (which Laporte then gives him — in spades).
But is the question that Arrington asked really a “troll” question, like Laporte wants us to believe? No, not at all. It’s a very reasonable question, actually. In fact, it’s a damn good question.
Tech companies – including computer game companies, btw – CAN control the reviews of their products by selectively choosing who receives early/preview copies of that product. It doesn’t matter if those products are given or “loaned” or simply made available. If some get that product and some don’t, then that sucks.
Now, did Palm really attempt to affect Laporte’s review? Did Palm really succeed in affecting Laporte’s review? Who knows and who cares, because it doesn’t matter. The point is that this practice of selectively allowing reviewers access to your product might, can, and does stink. And, the related and more pertinent point is this: Laporte is participating in – and benefiting from – this process.
Look at it like this: Journalists don’t have to play by company rules. Laporte could share his phone with other journalists, right? Oh, but there’s an NDA? Well then, Laporte could wait and review the phone when everybody else has access to it, right? After all, you can’t really do an in-depth review based on a seven-day trial. You can do some sort of review, I suppose, but it’s probably not going to be as in-depth or as accurate or as meaningful as a review based on more than a seven-day trial.
But, ah, Laporte wants to be timely; he wants to be first. And, so, if he wants to be first, then he plays ball with the tech companies; he plays by their rules. Even if he is a stand-up, non-impugnable guy. Even if he gains an unfair marketplace advantage by doing so. Even if the company rules he is playing by stink. Even if those rules he is playing by are not really rules at all, just a set of winks and nods distinguishing between those who are popular and likable (and want to stay that way), and those who aren’t.
Arrington doesn’t choose to play by those rules. Or maybe he just doesn’t get the chance.
What I’d like to think is that Arrington is playing by another set of rules entirely, a set of rules beyond the winks and nods. The real and valuable rules: Rules about what’s fair, what’s honest, and what’s bullshit. If Laporte wants to ignore this second set of rules and/or shrug them off as some sort of rude troll’s douchebaggery, he can do it. He can do it because he’s popular and likable, no problem. And, if he does it, then he will get his Pre the next time, and the time after that. No problem.
And, best of all, Laporte can ignore this second set of rules, and he doesn’t even have to be the bad guy while he’s doing it. He’s not the bad guy, after all; he’s the popular and likable guy. It’s the social media dog pack, the mindless fanboys, that do all the ripping and tearing of those who question the popular and the likable. All those good guy journalists and all those outstanding tech companies can just sit back and watch the ripping take place.
Yeah. Arrington got what he deserved. That douchebag. That asshole.
Wikipedia articles are produced by a structured debate that allows us to transcend the prejudices and self-interest of individuals.
Alvarez, Roberto J.
pro
Beatty, Laura
con
Carson, Chad P.
pro
DeMatteo, John
con
Fedor, Lauren M.
pro
Fraler, Jeffrey D.
con
Gryder, Garlyn M.
pro
McRae, Keenan R.
con
Myers, Megan
pro
Villares, Jason
con
Normally, I will post these assignments on Monday or early Tuesday of each week. However, since this is our first time around, I will give you some extra time to prepare.
Also, since this is our first time around, here are some ideas to prime the pump. You are NOT required to use any of these ideas in your position paper. However, your position paper SHOULD show evidence that you have read and understood the materials linked within the Blackboard class site.
Pro
Wikipedia articles achieve a level of accuracy comparable to other information sources. 1
Wikipedia’s popularity demonstrates its usefulness and validity. 12
The Wikipedia editing process protects its integrity when necessary, as the recent scientology incident demonstrates. 1
Con
Subjects of Wikipedia articles frequently question the accuracy and validity of those articles. 1
Wikipedia content is determined by political force (convention) rather than scientific accuracy (truth). 1
The Wikipedia editing process is no longer open to all, as the recent scientology incident demonstrates. 1
