July 2011 - Air-L - lists.aoir.org

Inclusion of short links in academic publications?
by yana breindl 21 Aug '12

21 Aug '12

Thank you all for your comments! The reason I asked is not because of a word limit but because one of my committee members suggested I'd use short links to ease access for readers of the print dissertation. I do have quite a lot of electronic sources as footnotes in some of the chapters and he mentioned he'd have typed a shortened url but not a long one. An alternative would be to include short urls in the footnotes and add an appendix with corresponding long links. I'm not sure it's worth the hassle though. On 22 July 2011 16:39, Sharon Haleva Amir <sharon(a)trebcon.com> wrote: > > Yana, the only advantage I can think of regarding the usage of shortened > URL > is if you're writing an article and there is a words' limitation (as long > as > the limitation refers to the bibliography/footnotes as well as the article > itself), as sometimes the URLs can be quite long. > > I think that the need to shorten texts (for twitting etc.) was the basic > rational for establishing such services. > > > Best Wishes, > Sharon Haleva Amir, HCLT Fellow > (PhD Candidate) Faculty of Law, > University of Haifa, ISRAEL. > -------------------------------------------------- > http://www.coolcite.com/user/1694 > http://weblaw.haifa.ac.il/en/research/resstudents/pages/sharonha.aspx > > -----Original Message----- > From: air-l-bounces(a)listserv.aoir.org > [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of yana breindl > Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 11:27 AM > To: Air-L(a)listserv.aoir.org > Subject: [Air-L] Inclusion of short links in academic publications? > > Hello all, > > I was wondering what your thoughts were concerning the use of shortened > URLs > (e.g. tinyURL, bit.ly etc.) to reference electronic sources in a > dissertation or other academic publication (along with the title, date, > etc. > possibly an annexe with the long URL). Has this been done already? Is it > acceptable? Are there important differences between various shortening > sites? > > Thank you, > > Yana > > > --------------------- > Yana BREINDL > > Ph.D Candidate > Dépt des sciences de l'information et de la communication (SIC) > Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB) > > Tél.: + 32 (0)2 650 44 46 > E-mail: ybreindl(a)ulb.ac.be > _______________________________________________ > The Air-L(a)listserv.aoir.org mailing list > is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org > Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: > http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org > > Join the Association of Internet Researchers: > http://www.aoir.org/ > > -- Yana BREINDL Doctorante Dépt des sciences de l'information et de la communication (SIC) Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB) Tél.: + 32 (0)2 650 44 46 E-mail: ybreindl(a)ulb.ac.be -- Yana BREINDL Doctorante Dépt des sciences de l'information et de la communication (SIC) Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB) Tél.: + 32 (0)2 650 44 46 E-mail: ybreindl(a)ulb.ac.be

5 6

CFP: iConference 2012 | Culture * Design * Society
by Sara Grimes 18 Nov '11

18 Nov '11

Apologies for cross-postings. Please consider submitting to this upcoming conference, hosted by the Faculty of Information, University of Toronto. It's sponsored by iSchools, but open to all, and this year's theme of "culture, design, society" is particularly relevant to members of this list. It would be great to see a contingent of aoir members participate! Please pass this along to any lists, colleagues or students you think would be interested. Best, Sara --- Sara M. Grimes, PhD Assistant Professor FACULTY OF INFORMATION 140 St. George Street University of Toronto Toronto ON M5S 3G6 Canada Tel: +1 416 978-5269 | Fax: +1 416 971-1399 Email: sara.grimes(a)utoronto.ca<mailto:sara.grimes@utoronto.ca> Blog: http://gamineexpedition.blogspot.com<http://gamineexpedition.blogspot.com/> <please distribute widely> Call for Participation: iConference 2012 Toronto, Canada February 7-10, 2012 http://www.ischools.org/iConference12/2012index/ The iConference is an annual gathering of a broad spectrum of scholars and researchers concerned about critical information issues in contemporary society. The iConference pushes the boundaries of information studies, explores core concepts and ideas, and creates new technological and conceptual configurations -- all situated in interdisciplinary discourses. These issues will be tackled during our four-day event in downtown Toronto, February 7-10, 2012. The conference theme is: Culture * Design * Society. Please join us for a multitude of high quality papers, posters, workshops, along with interactive alternative events that will frame the conversation. In addition to these activities, there will be a Doctoral Colloquium and an Early Career Workshop at the conference, lots of social events, and many opportunities to mingle. The iConference series is sponsored by the iSchools, a growing association of more than 30 Schools, Faculties and Colleges in North America, Europe and Asia -- however, affiliation with the iSchools is not a prerequisite, and we encourage everyone to participate. * Conference: http://www.ischools.org/iConference12/2012index/ * iCaucus: http://www.ischools.org/site/ * Last Year’s Proceedings: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1940761 Submission types: * Papers: We’re looking for original research, six to eight pages; papers will be refereed in a double-blind process, and accepted papers will be published in the ACM Digital Library. Submission deadline: Monday September 12, 2011 Notification: Early November Final version due: Monday December 5, 2011 * Posters: We’re interested in posters presenting new work, preliminary results and designs, or educational projects. Poster abstracts will undergo a blind review, and accepted posters will have their abstracts published in the ACM Digital Library. Submission deadline: Monday September 26, 2011 Notification: Mid November Final version due: Monday December 5, 2011 * Workshops: These can be half- or full-day and can focus on any area within information. Submission deadline: Monday September 19, 2011 Notification: Early October Final version due: Monday October 31, 2011 * Alternative Events: These can include panels, fishbowls, performances, storytelling, roundtable discussions, wildcard sessions, demos/exhibitions, and more. All should be highly participatory, informal, engaging and pluralistic. Submission deadline: Monday September 19, 2011 Notification: Mid November Final version due: Monday December 5, 2011 * Doctoral Colloquium: This year’s colloquium will be organized around the theme of “inquiry.” Applicants will submit a 1,000 word abstract addressing the question, “What is the nature of inquiry in the information field, what makes it similar to or different from other areas of research, and what challenges have you met in your own research in this regard?” Visit our website for details. Application deadline: Friday September 30, 2011 Notification: Late November ORGANIZERS Conference Chair * Jens-Erik Mai, University of Toronto Papers Chair * Jonathan Furner, University of California, Los Angeles Posters Chair * Paul Marty, Florida State University Alternative Events Chair * Philippa Levy, University of Sheffield Workshops Chair * Kelly Lyons, University of Toronto Doctoral Colloquium Co-Chairs * Hamid Ekbia, Indiana University * Howard Rosenbaum, Indiana University Keynote Speakers Chair * Brian Cantwell Smith, University of Toronto Publication Chair * Yuri Takhteyev, University of Toronto Social Media Chair * Rhonda McEwen, University of Toronto Program Committee * Alessandro Acquisti, Carnegie Mellon University * Jack Andersen, Royal School of Library and Information Science * Nick Belkin, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey * Jean-François Blanchette, University of California, Los Angeles * Johan Bollen, Indiana University * Geoff Bowker, University of Pittsburgh * Amy Bruckman, Georgia Institute of Technology * Donald Case, University of Kentucky * Chen Chuanfu, Wuhan University * Paul Clough, University of Sheffield * Kevin Crowston, Syracuse University * Ron Day, Indiana University * Melanie Feinberg, University of Texas, Austin * Robert Glushko, University of California Berkeley * Sean Goggins, Drexel University * Sara Grimes, University of Toronto * David Hendry, University of Washington * Steven Jackson, University of Michigan * Jim Jansen, The Pennsylvania State University * Michelle Kazmer, Florida State University * Anita Komlodi, UMBC * Christopher (Cal) Lee, University of North Carolina * Bonnie Mak, University of Illinois * William Moen, University of North Texas * Bonnie Nardi, University of California, Irvine * Heather L. O'Brien, University of British Columbia * Ee-Peng Lim, Singapore Management University * Vivien Petras, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin * Kalpana Shankar, University College Dublin * Elizabeth Shepherd, University College London * Bo Xie, University of Maryland Learn more at http://www.ischools.org/iConference12/2012index/

1 2

Wikipedia survey for the Sztakipedia project
by Mihály Héder 05 Oct '11

05 Oct '11

Dear All, I would like to ask you a little, but important help. I'm doing research on the future of the Wikipedia editor interface. In order to understand better the view of the Wikiepedia users I compiled a survey. With filling the forms you can contribute to the survey, and your view will be taken into account assessing the general requirements of the editors of Wikipedia, and also that of the readers of Wikipedia. Please help me by filling the following form (it takes 3 minutes max): http://pedia.sztaki.hu/survey_en *and* by forwarding this mail to everyone you can think of. The more (and not only tech-savvy) people we reach, the better. So please, do not leave out anyone who has the slightest chance to use the internet (friends, family, students, mailing lists, neighbours, classmates, co-workers, etc.) The results will be available in raw form and explained by 31/03/2011 at: http://pedia.sztaki.hu , and also I will compile a white paper in the subject (strictly for an Open Access journal) (if this letter reaches you more than once it is my fault) Thank you very much: Mihály Héder Computer and Automation Research Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences + Budapest University of Technology, Philosophy of Science PhD student

1 1

EXTENDED: Open Faculty Position in Information Policy/Ethics at UW-Milwaukee School of Information Studies
by Michael Zimmer 23 Aug '11

23 Aug '11

[please distribute; apologies for cross posting - michael zimmer] The School of Information Studies (SOIS) at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (UWM) invites applications for a full-time tenure-track position in Information Studies at the rank of Assistant, Associate or Full Professor. The selected applicant will teach courses in the School’s graduate and, possibly, undergraduate programs. A PhD and MLIS (or comparable degree) are required as is demonstrated ability in research and teaching. Applicants should have a strong background in information policy, including, but not limited to, ethical, cultural, technological or political issues as they relate to the information professions, systems, and infrastructures that make up our global information society. Experience or demonstrated ability in design and delivery of courses in a variety of formats, including distance learning modes, is highly desirable. The Applicant should demonstrate the ability to teach in at least one of the core areas in the SOIS MLIS program and advanced graduate elective courses in her/his areas of expertise. Opportunities will also be available to teach in the School’s Bachelor of Science program in Information Science and Technology. The Applicant should be willing to work closely with doctoral students and to serve on dissertation committees. Experienced researcher a plus. Applicants who are eligible for a senior level appointment are especially encouraged to apply. The preferred expected start date is January, 2012, and no later than August 2012. For full details and to apply, visit the official posting (position #2730): https://jobs.uwm.edu/postings/6802 UWM is an AA/EEO Employer -- Michael Zimmer, PhD Assistant Professor, School of Information Studies Co-Director, Center for Information Policy Research University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee e: zimmerm(a)uwm.edu w: www.michaelzimmer.org

1 1

3 additional CITASA-ish sessions (fwd)
by Barry Wellman 30 Jul '11

30 Jul '11

This is about the forthcoming American Sociological Association annual meeting at Caesar's Palace, Las Vegas, August 19-23. Thought it would be of interest to some AOIR members, as well. "CITASA" = Communication and Information Technology section of the ASA. For info about CITASA's own sessions, go to asanet.org and menu to Event Calendar Barry Wellman _______________________________________________________________________ S.D. Clark Professor of Sociology, FRSC NetLab Director Department of Sociology 725 Spadina Avenue, Room 388 University of Toronto Toronto Canada M5S 2J4 twitter:barrywellman http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman fax:+1-416-978-3963 Updating history: http://chass.utoronto.ca/oldnew/cybertimes.php _______________________________________________________________________ ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2011 16:08:33 -0400 From: Barry Wellman <wellman(a)chass.utoronto.ca> To: communication and information technology section asa <citasa(a)list.citasa.org> Subject: 3 additional CITASA-ish sessions I was able to get 3 sessions for the Las Vegas ASA. They're "regular" sessions, in addition to the CITASA sessions. So I'm going to list them below. These are dynamite papers and speakers. And a great discussant. Alas, neither we nor CITASA do scheduling so there may be some clashes. --------------------------- Social Participant On and Off the Internet. Session Organizer: Barry Wellman (University of Toronto) Sunday 1030-12 The Active Few and the Sporadic Many: Making Sense of Opinion Dynamics in Online Review Systems *Fedor Dokshin (Cornell University) The Internet, Young Adults and Political Engagement around the 2008 Presidential Elections *Aaron Shaw (University of California-Berkeley), Eszter Hargittai (Northwestern University) Social movements' use of information and communication technologies: diffusion, usefulness and empowerment *Piotr Konieczny (University of Pittsburgh) *=presenter And no, we don't know what room. You gotta go and register for that. ----------------------------------- Regular Session. Networked Individuals On and Off the Internet Scheduled Time: Sun, Aug 21 - 2:30pm - 4:10pm Session Participants: Session Organizer: Barry Wellman (University of Toronto) Presider: Barry Wellman (University of Toronto) "If you're not texting me, you must be old:" Age Cohort Attachment to Mobile Phones *Amanda M. Warr (University of Alabama at Birmingham), Shelia R. Cotten (University of Alabama at Birmingham), William A. Anderson (University of Alabama at Birmingham) The Intersection of Gender and Place in Online Health Activities *Melinda Goldner (Union College), Timothy M. Hale (University of Alabama at Birmingham), Shelia R. Cotten (University of Alabama at Birmingham), Michael J. Stern (College of Charleston), Patricia Drentea (University of Alabama-Birmingham) Core Discussion Networks Over Time: How the Internet Reduces Social Isolation and Increases Network Diversity *Keith N. Hampton (University of Pennsylvania), Lauren Sessions Goulet (University of Pennsylvania) Social Network Sites, Social Ties, and Social Capital *Randy Lynn (George Mason University), *James C. Witte (George Mason University) Discussant: Barry Wellman (University of Toronto) ---------------------------------------------------------- Regular Session. Digital Divides in the Internet Age Scheduled Time: Mon, Aug 22 - 4:30pm - 6:10pm Session Organizer: Barry Wellman (University of Toronto) Presider: Barry Wellman (University of Toronto) Cyberasociality and the Online Sociality Divide: Third Level Digital Divide? *Zeynep Tufekci (University of Maryland-Baltimore County) (Tech) Culture in Action: Using a cultural framework to describe and explain differences in technological competency *Cassidy Puckett (Northwestern University) Does the "Do-it-yourself approach" reduce digital inequality? Lack of digital skills and infrequent Internet use *Uwe Matzat (Eindhoven University of Technology), Bert M. Sadowski (Eindhoven University of Technology) Stalled Digital Divide: Gender Differences in the Use of ICT in Taiwan *Yu-Hua Chen (National Taiwan University), Wen-Yin Chien (United Daily News) Discussant: Barry Wellman (University of Toronto) Barry Wellman _______________________________________________________________________ S.D. Clark Professor of Sociology, FRSC NetLab Director Department of Sociology 725 Spadina Avenue, Room 388 University of Toronto Toronto Canada M5S 2J4 twitter:barrywellman http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman fax:+1-416-978-3963 Updating history: http://chass.utoronto.ca/oldnew/cybertimes.php _______________________________________________________________________

1 0

Vote mirroring as a counter-monopoly measure
by Michael Allan 30 Jul '11

30 Jul '11

Please reply if you see a flaw in this argument. I'm hoping it's strong enough to underwrite our development plans, but I'm only a practitioner. I lack the resources to properly research the topic. VOTE MIRRORING AS A COUNTER-MONOPOLY MEASURE [0] Vote mirroring is arguably a sufficient measure in itself to preclude the formation of a monopoly in the provision of online voting services for participatory democracy. A vote mirror can unilaterally interconnect the voters of multiple service sites into a single "inter-network" of participation and thus reduce the network effects that might contribute to the dominance of a single provider. Social media in general is prone to monopolies, but their formation is not inevitable [1]. By posing an early challenge, vote mirroring can level the playing field and preclude a monopoly in voting media. Vote mirroring works by copying votes from multiple service sites (vote-servers) and reproducing them as images at another site (the mirror) [2]. The technique is illustrated in figure 1 below. The top half of the figure shows three vote-servers together with a sample of the votes cast on each. Vote-servers A and C are providing a communicative type of service in which votes are delegated transitively, while server B is providing a conventional mass type of service [3]. | | A | B | C | | | | (0) | | (0) (0) (0) | | | (0) | 1 / \ 1 | 1 | | \ | / 1 \ | | | \ 1 | / (0) (0) \ | | | \ | / (0) (0) \ 1 | \| | (0) | \ |/ | 1 / \ | 1 (2) | (0) | | (3) | / 1 \ | | | \ 1 | 1 (0) | | | / \| | 3 | \ | / | | 4 |/ (2) | | \ | / 1 | | (2) \ 3 | | \ | / | (0) | / (0) \ | (0) | (6)----(0) | \ 1 | / | \ | / | 1 / \ 1 | \ | / (0) | 1 \ | / 1 | / \ | \ | / 3 \ | \|/ | (0) 1 \ | \|/ 1 \| (7) | (0) | (8) (2) | | --------------------+--------------------+------------------------ (0) D (0) (0) (0) | (0) | 1 / \ 1 | 1 \ | / 1 \ | \ 1 | / (0) (0) \ | \ | / (0) (0) \ 1 | \| (0) \ |/ | 1 / \ | 1 (2) (0) | (3) | / 1 \ | | \ 1 | 1 (0) | | / \| | 3 \ | / | 4 |/ (2) | \ | / 1 | (2) \ 3 | \ | / (0) | / (0) \ | (0) (6)----(0) \ 1 | / | \ | / 1 / \ 1 \ | / 3 (0) | 1 \ | / 1 / \ \ | / \ | \|/ (0) 1 \ \|/ 1 \| (7) (0) (8) (2) FIG 1. Vote mirroring. Three separate vote servers (A, B, C) and a mirror that reproduces the votes of all three on a single server (D). Each number in brackets shows the quantity of votes received by a candidate. Note that a candidate may be a text, as well as a person. [4] The mirror (bottom) reproduces the votes of all three servers. This involves translating the votes from their various native formats on the original servers into the single format used on the mirror. Voting methods differ greatly and the translation may therefore entail a degree of information loss, making for an imperfect image. Such imperfections cannot invalidate the overall technique, however, because a best effort at an image is always a better reflection of reality than no image at all. For example, knowing that these particular votes (figure above) all concern a single issue, the mirror has represented the four end-candidates as rivals, with 7, 6, 8 and 2 votes respectively, because this gives a truer picture of the options available to the voters. [5] USES OF A MIRROR ---------------- This section concerns the direct uses of a vote mirror by a participant. The table below summarizes these uses for different categories of participant together with the associated costs and benefits. Of the four uses shown, three are of benefit to the users of any voting service, while the fourth is of benefit to users of mass type services in particular. Table 1. Uses, costs and benefits for different categories of participant. Use of original vote server Use of mirror ============================== ================================== SERVICE PARTICIPANT USE COST BENEFIT TYPE ROLE (if any) ======= =========== ========== ============ ===================== Any Candidate Soliciting [5] Overview of voters, votes Overview of rivals ----------- ---------- ------------ --------------------- Voter Comparing Overview of candidates candidates ---------- ------------ --------------------- Voting User Convenience registration ------- ----------- ---------- ------------ --------------------- Mass Trailing Delegation User Visibility to voters, candidate registration Viability as candidate ================================================================== Soliciting votes ---------------- A mirror may be used by a candidate as a tool for soliciting votes. It provides two benefits for this purpose: an overview of all the voters in a single interface, plus an overview of the rival candidates (compare top and bottom in figure 1). Seeing all the voters is especially beneficial, because online voting tends to be a continuous process in which voters are free to shift their votes. [5] Comparing candidates -------------------- A mirror may be used by voters as a tool for comparing candidates. The benefit it provides for this purpose is an overview of all the candidates, together with the "live" structure of their voter support. Only a mirror can provide such an overview. Voting ------ A mirror will typically provide a voting service of its own, making it a combined mirror and vote-server. This is a convenience for any voter who uses the mirroring part to compare candidates and then wishes to shift his vote. Rather than having to register as a user on the candidate's home server, he simply registers on whatever mirror/vote-server he prefers, which is most likely the one he is currently using. He can then shift his vote to any candidate. Delegation ---------- A mirror can provide a delegation service to a candidate on a mass voting site, where it would otherwise be unavailable. This may be particularly useful to a candidate who is trailing in votes, as it increases both her visibility and viability. A new voter will often explore upstream and inspect the supporting structure of votes before deciding where to place his own vote. A candidate who presents herself in that context is more likely to receive a vote than one who appears as number 29 (or 229) in an ordered list. | | A | B | C | | | | (0) | | (0) (0) (0) | | | (0) | 1 / \ 1 | 1 | | \ | / 1 \ | | | \ 1 | / (0) (0) \ | | | \ | / (0) (0) \ 1 | \| | (0) | \ |/ | 1 / \ | 1 (2) | (0) | | (3) | / 1 \ | | | \ 1 | 1 (0) | | | / \| | 3 | \ | / | | 4 |/ (2) | | \ | / 1 | | (2) \ 3 | | \ | / | (0) | / (0) \ | (0) | (6)----(0) | \ 1 | / | \ | / | 1 / \ 1 | \ | / 3 (0) | 1 \ | / 1 | / \ | \ | / \ | \|/ | (0) 1 \ | \|/ 1 \| (8)----(0) | (0) | (8) (2) 1 | | | | -----------------------+--------------------+------------------------ (0) D (0) (0) (0) | (0) | 1 / \ 1 | 1 \ | / 1 \ | \ 1 | / (0) (0) \ | \ | / (0) (0) \ 1 | \| \ |/ | 1 / \ | 1 (2) (3) | / 1 \ | | | | / \| | 3 | 4 |/ (2) | (0) | (2) \ 3 | (0) | (0) | / (0) \ | (0) \ 1 | 1 (0) \ 1 | / | \ | / \ | / \ | / 3 (0) | 1 \ | / 1 \ | / 1 \ | / \ | \|/ 7 \ | / \|/ 1 \| (14)------------(6)----(0) (8) (2) 1 / \ 1 / \ (0) 1 \ (0) FIG 2. Cross-server delegation in a mirror. A candidate on a mass server (B) has cast a vote using a communicative server (A). The mirror (D) recognizes this as delegation and carries the 6 votes of the first candidate to the second candidate for a total of 14. Note that up to three servers are involved. A delegate is both a candidate and a voter. Here the role of candidate is provided by the mass server (B) on which the delegate continues to receive her original votes, while that of voter is provided by the second server (A) on which she casts her own vote. The third server (D) is the mirror that combines both roles and reveals her as a delegate. If the mirror were to provide its own voting service, as well, then it would be more convenient to cast the delegating vote there directly. [6] COUNTER-MONOPOLY EFFECTS OF MIRRORING ------------------------------------- If the benefits outlined above are roughly accurate, then the counter-monopoly effects are clear. Votes will shift in favour of preferred candidates regardless of their home servers. Users will tend to migrate to those servers that provide a convenient combination of both mirroring and voting services rather than relocating with every vote shift. But any vote-server is capable of hosting a mirroring service and sharing equally in the full extent of voter participation [8]. A new server without any actual users, for example, would still have all the voters. Such an advantage cannot easily be dispensed with. Network effects are likely therefore to entrench vote mirroring as a practice; and with that, no imbalance in the distribution of users could ever tilt over into a monopoly [9]. Table 2. Non-defences against mirroring. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Defence Why it is likely to fail ---------------------- ------------------------------------------ Copyright Non-creative factual information is exempt Closing data APIs Data scraped from user interfaces Opaque client platform There is none, all can legally be hacked ------------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright --------- This defence is ineffective because non-creative, factual information is generally exempt from copyright protection. A vote conveys the simple fact of assent or agreement and people are free to inform others of that fact. Closing data APIs ----------------- Closing the data APIs is an ineffective defence because the data necessary for vote mirroring can instead be scraped from a user interface. This defence would have to be combined with an opaque client platform (below) in order to be effective. Opaque client platform ---------------------- This defence is ineffective because no such platform exists. The only opaque platforms with sufficent coverage to support a monopoly bid are Flash and Java, both of which have open source implementations on the client side [10]. An open source client can always be hacked and internally scraped. Table 3. Defences against mirroring. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Defence Cost ---------------------- ------------------------------------------ Secret ballot Lower credibility of results, De-socializing the medium ------------------------------------------------------------------ Secret ballot ------------- In this defence, the identity of the voter is kept hidden. This is an effective defence because votes cannot accurately be imaged without knowing the voters' identities [7]. One of the costs associated with this defence is a lower credibility of results. There are methods of verifying private votes, but none is so simple and credible as the method of full disclosure available to public vote-servers. Another cost is the de-socializing of the medium. This cost is more serious, because the social attractions of a medium are largely eliminated if the participants can no longer identify each other. It is unclear therefore how this defence could be reconciled with a competitive strategy, especially one in which the goal is a monopoly. CONCLUSION ---------- There is no viable defence against vote mirroring. The immediate effects of mirroring are sufficient in themselves to prevent the formation of a monopoly in voting services. [0] A working draft of this essay is posted at http://zelea.com/w/User:Mike-ZeleaCom/Vote_mirroring_as_a_counter-monopoly_… [1] Public telephone networks are an example of a social media monopoly. Online examples are Twitter, Facebook and Skype. Email is a counter example. [2] Vote mirroring is the invention of Thomas von der Elbe. See the original description: http://zelea.com/w/User:ThomasvonderElbe_GmxDe/Vote_mirroring [3] On the distiction between communicative and mass voting, see: http://zelea.com/project/votorola/d/theory.xht#medium [4] How a candidate may be both a person and a text is described at: http://zelea.com/project/votorola/d/theory.xht#candidate http://zelea.com/project/votorola/d/theory.xht#action-norm [5] Vote mirroring depends on knowing whether two sets of votes on otherwise distinct servers are concerned with a common issue. When they are, the candidates receiving the votes may faithfully be represented as rivals in a common pool of voters. The method of determining this on a case by case basis is still under active development (mid-2011), but probably the users of the mirror are the best qualified for the decision work, as they have the most at stake. In that case, it would have to be accounted as a cost of using the mirror. [6] If the vote were cast instead on mirror D, then the total for the end candidate on server A would have remained 7. It would be incorrect in any case, as the results calculated on all the non-mirroring servers (A, B, C) are incomplete. None of them takes into account the full set of votes on the issue. [7] Vote mirroring depends on shared standards of voter identification and authentication. These may be grouped together under the category of "voter registration". Voter registration differs from user registration in tying the user's identity to a physical place of residence, among other real-world properties. The purpose of voter registration is not only to establish the user's eligilibility for voting on local issues, but also to prevent the user from multiplying his votes under false identities (sock puppets). The dependency on voter registration is not particular to vote mirroring, but is shared by voting in general; vote mirroring need only be sensitive to the various methods of registration employed on the vote-servers. The dependency is moot, however, because no public vote-server currently implements and enforces voter registration. Users on any server may employ sock puppets if they wish. Vote mirroring might make the practice somewhat easier to get away with, but the incentive and opportunity to exploit this at an effective scale would depend on vote mirroring itself becoming entrenched as a practice. In that light, the problem goes beyond the scope of this essay. But the solution is simply to enforce voter registration when it becomes necessary. The costs of that enforcement will be easier to bear after the problem has exposed itself. [8] Glossed over in the main text is the requirement of shared standards for the replication of the mirrors themselves. (Thanks to Alex Rollin for pointing out this omission.) Such standards include issue identification and voter registration [5][7]. It may be enough to say that the requirement is not absolute. Having two sets of standards that are mutually incompatible would not result in the fragmentation of the mirroring inter-network into two halves, but only in the creation of two inter-networks that were layered, as it were, one atop the other. Each would be complete in itself and would reveal the full complement of participants. The individual user would then have a choice of which to frequent. In other words, a mirroring inter-network may itself be mirrored, and it follows that none could ever be locked in by network effects and imposed as a kind of monopoly solution. [9] Crucially vote mirroring unbinds the role of participant from that of user. Only the former is subject to network effects, and unbound it can no longer reinforce an imbalance in the latter. A user is free to choose her own vote-server based on quality of service, but that choice will not affect the fact of her broader participation and thereby the choices of others. [10] Java itself is open source. For Flash clients, there is Lightspark. http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/lightspark -- Michael Allan Toronto, +1 416-699-9528 http://zelea.com/

1 0

CFP: Call for contributions for a 'Book' Proposal on The Uses of Transliteracy
by Sue Thomas 29 Jul '11

29 Jul '11

I am compiling a 'book' proposal, working title The Uses of Transliteracy. The title and final brief are yet to be decided, but I would like it to interrogate the ways in which transliteracy is being examined and applied across disciplines, countries and cultures. In terms of format, it makes sense for it to be a multimedia product rather than a straightforward print or digital book, so suggestions for appropriate publishers would be very welcome. At this time, if you'd be interested in contributing please submit some details via this short form <https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dFFWN1FDYT FBTUxOV2lwN2lVYThTWUE6MQ#gid=0> . If you'd like to discuss your idea first, please email me. <mailto:sue.thomas@dmu.ac.uk> NB: UK academics please note that this volume will *not* be completed in time for the 2014 REF http://nlabnetworks.typepad.com/transliteracy/2011/07/call-for-contribut ions-for-a-book-proposal-on-the-uses-of-transliteracy.html best wishes Sue _________________ Professor Sue Thomas Faculty of Humanities/Institute of Creative Technologies Clephan 1.01d De Montfort University The Gateway Leicester LE1 9BH, UK e: sue.thomas(a)dmu.ac.uk t: @suethomas w: Nature and Cyberspace: stories, memes and metaphors http://www.thewildsurmise.com <http://www.thewildsurmise.com/>

1 0

Re: [Air-L] Possible Changes to U.S. IRB Research Oversight
by Elizabeth Buchanan 28 Jul '11

28 Jul '11

Kevin, Thanks for pointing this out to the AoIR list. Both Michael Zimmer and I have presented to the Secretary's Advisory Committee to OHRP, in our case on Internet research, and to date, OHRP has not issued any specific guidance on Internet research. Interestingly, too, the FDA withdrew Internet research as an item from its 2011 Guidance Agenda. For those wanting to understand the process--note that this is "advance notice" only, and must go through a long process of comment and codification before any changes would be enacted--Zek Emanuel recently came out with this: http://healthpolicyandreform.nejm.org/?p=14979&query=home All best, e. Elizabeth A. Buchanan, Ph.D. Endowed Chair in Ethics Director, Center for Applied Ethics University of Wisconsin-Stout PO Box 790 Menomonie, Wisconsin, 54751-0790 buchanane(a)uwstout.edu

1 0

Re: [Air-L] Antw: Re: Inclusion of short links in academic publications?
by Denise N. Rall 28 Jul '11

28 Jul '11

Nice one Jodi! Nothing to add . . . Dr Denise N. Rall, Research Assistant, School of Health & Human Sciences Exhibitor, Art in Chemistry, NeXT Gallery, Magellan St., Lismore, Opening Thursday 18 August 18 5-7 PM, On display 8-26 August, 2011 Lismore NSW AUSTRALIA Mobile +(61)(0)438 233344 Fax +(61)(0)2 6624 5380 http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/esm/staff/pages/drall/ --- On Wed, 27/7/11, Jodi Schneider <jschneider(a)pobox.com> wrote:

1 0

Inclusion of short links in academic publications?
by yana breindl 28 Jul '11

28 Jul '11

Hello all, I was wondering what your thoughts were concerning the use of shortened URLs (e.g. tinyURL, bit.ly etc.) to reference electronic sources in a dissertation or other academic publication (along with the title, date, etc. possibly an annexe with the long URL). Has this been done already? Is it acceptable? Are there important differences between various shortening sites? Thank you, Yana --------------------- Yana BREINDL Ph.D Candidate Dépt des sciences de l'information et de la communication (SIC) Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB) Tél.: + 32 (0)2 650 44 46 E-mail: ybreindl(a)ulb.ac.be

13 22