Well, let’s see.
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.
Have a happy Fourth of July.
