- Air-L - lists.aoir.org

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

Georgetown CCT Faculty Hire
by danah boyd 27 Jul '11

27 Jul '11

Technology Studies The Communication, Culture & Technology (CCT) M.A. program at Georgetown University focuses on the ways that new technologies of communication and digital media are reshaping human experience on all levels from the local to the global, and how these technologies are redefining the practice of science, research, education, government, media, business, and culture and the arts more broadly. The CCT Program is now redefining its emphasis on technology and technology studies, including developing a new lab, which will be a hub of technology knowledge, discovery, and research, connecting CCT and Georgetown to the larger world of practice and innovation in all sectors. The new lab will provide a means for CCT to create partnerships with leading private sector information organizations developing innovations in digital media, knowledge management, and Internet applications; to remain at the forefront of research by creating relationships with initiatives in the Digital Humanities and the Information Schools; and push forward the boundaries of knowledge through external support by agencies and foundations such as NSF and Mellon. As a major step toward accomplishing this larger mission for CCT, the program seeks to appoint a tenure-track Assistant Professor with a solid knowledge of the key technologies in the post-Internet and digital media environment, and with interdisciplinary expertise in the study of technology, including history, theory, and current methodologies. Applicants must be proficient in teaching the technical aspects of how technologies work and how such technologies are employed in communication-related fields. The appointee will be expected to help teach a new Fundamentals of Technology course, a core course in the CCT curriculum, with a focus on the practicum component. Georgetown University is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity employer and strongly encourages applications from women and minority candidates as part of its commitment to professional excellence and diversity. Please send application letter/statement of interest, c.v., and the names of three referees to cctjobs(a)georgetown.edu by 15 September 2011. -- David Ribes Assistant Professor Communication, Culture & Technology (CCT) Georgetown University http://davidribes.com

2 1

Second CfP: Third Joint EM+/CNGL Workshop (JEC2011) 'Bringing MT to the User: Research Meets Translators'
by Венцислав Жечев (Ventsi slav Zhechev) 27 Jul '11

27 Jul '11

======================================== CALL FOR PAPERS –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– “Bringing MT to the User: Research Meets Translators” Third Joint EM+/CNGL Workshop (JEC 2011) http://web.me.com/emcnglworkshop/JEC2011 –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– The EuroMatrixPlus Project (http://www.euromatrixplus.eu) the Centre for Next Generation Localisation (CNGL) (http://cngl.ie) the Directorate-General for Translation (DGT, European Commission) (http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/translation) and Autodesk (http://www.autodesk.ch) are co-organising the Third Joint EM+/CNGL Workshop (JEC 2011), entitled “Bringing MT to the User: Research Meets Translators”. The JEC 2011 workshop will be hosted by the Directorate General for Translation (DGT) (http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/translation) in Luxembourg on October 14th, 2011. In keeping with previous JECs, the format of the workshop is highly interactive with research paper presentations, invited talks and a panel discussion. Premise: Recent years have seen a revolution in MT triggered by the emergence of statistical approaches and improvements in translation quality. MT (rule-based, statistical and hybrid) is now available for many languages for free (on the Web) or for a fee and MT technologies are making strong inroads into the corporate localisation and translation industries as well as large public and administrative organisations dealing with multi-lingual content. Open-source MT solutions are competing with proprietary products. Increasing numbers of (professional) translators are post-editing TM/MT output. MT is a reality for internet users accessing and gisting content which is not available in their native language. At the same time, there has been a degree of disconnect between mainstream academic research and conferences on MT, often (and rightly so) focusing on algorithms to improve translation quality, and many of the important practical issues that need to be addressed to make MT maximally useful in real translation and localisation workflows, with human translators and users in general. Objectives: JEC 2011 brings together translators, users, academic and industrial MT researchers and developers to discuss issues that are most important in real world industrial settings and applications involving MT, but currently under-represented in research circles. Call for Research Papers: We solicit full research papers with industry, academic and/or user background to highlight real-world issues that need to be tackled by new research and recent advancements that improve translation quality, as well as novel and successful methods for the integration of machine translation with translation memories, localisation workflows, human translators and users. Papers should present clearly identifiable problem statements, research methodologies, measurable outcomes and evaluation. Papers are reviewed anonymously. Papers should follow the submission guidelines listed on the workshop website (http://web.me.com/emcnglworkshop/JEC2011/Call_for_Papers.html) with the maximum length being 10 pages in A4 format, including references. Please, do not include your name in the paper text and avoid overt self-references to facilitate the blind review process. If a paper is accepted, at least one author will have to register for JEC 2011 and travel to Luxembourg to present the paper. Workshop proceedings will be made available in hard-copy by DGT, and will be available for download on the JEC 2011 website. Publication of selected revised and expanded papers from JEC 2010 and JEC 2011 in journal or book form is currently under negotiation. Topics include but are not limited to: • Human Factors and MT • Introducing MT into large organisations • MT and language technologies for SMEs • MT/TM in Localisation/Translation and Content Management Workflows • MT/TM Combinations • Post-Editing Support for MT • MT and Monolingual Post-Editing • Smart Learning from Post-Edits • Interactive MT • MT Confidence Scores and Post-Editing Effort • Training Data for MT: Size, Domain and Quality • Data Cleanup and Preparation for MT • Meta-Data Mark-Up/Annotation and MT • Terminology and MT • Interoperability and Localisation/Translation Workflows • Standards and Localisation/Translation Workflows • MT Evaluation • Costing/Pricing MT • MT for Free/for a Fee • Rule-Based, Statistical and Hybrid MT • Linguistic resources for MT • Computing Resources for MT • MT in the Cloud • MT and the Crowd • MT, Games, Video and TV Localisation • (Machine) Translation in Context • Social Aspects of (Machine) Translation: Access to Information as a Human Right Deadlines (all 23:59 GMT -11): 15th August: Submission deadline for papers 12th September: Announcement for submitted papers 30th September: Camera-ready deadline for accepted papers 14th October: Workshop takes place at DGT in Luxembourg Submission URL: http://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=jec2011 Workshop Chair: Ventsislav Zhechev (Autodesk) Workshop Senior PC: Ventsislav Zhechev (Autodesk) Andreas Eisele (DGT) Philipp Koehn (Univ. of Edinburgh) Josef van Genabith, Declan Groves (CNGL) Program Committee: Submitted papers will be reviewed by a joint industry–academia committee. Industry members: Pedro L. Diez-Orzas (Linguaserve), Tony O’Dowd (Xcelerator), Marc Dymetman (XRCE), Andreas Eisele (DGT of the EC), Daniel Grasmick (Lucy Software), Will Lewis (Microsoft), Yanjun Ma (Baidu), Spyridon Pilos (DGT of the EC), Alexandros Poulis (EU Parliament), Johann Roturier (Symantec), Zoran Zaikic (EU Parliament), Ventsislav Zhechev (Autodesk) Academic members: Michael Carl (CBS, Denmark), Jinhua Du (Xi’ian Univ. of Technology), Josef van Genabith (CNGL, EM+), Declan Groves (CNGL), Philipp Koehn (EM+), Philippe Langlais (University of Montreal), Alon Lavie (CMU), Ruslan Mitkov (RIILP, UK), Michel Simard (NCR, Canada), Lucia Specia (RIILP, UK), Eiichiro Sumita (NICT, Japan), John Tinsley (CNGL, PLuTO), Hans Uszkoreit (DFKI, Germany), David Vilar (DFKI, Germany), Martin Volk (UZH, Switzerland) For inquiries please contact Dr. Ventsislav Zhechev at emcnglworkshop(a)me.com For up-to-date information, please visit http://web.me.com/emcnglworkshop/JEC2011 For information about the First Joint EM+/CNGL Workshop, please visit http://www.euromatrixplus.eu/cngl2009 For information about the Second Joint EM+/CNGL Workshop, please visit http://web.me.com/emcnglworkshop/JEC2010

1 0

Re: [Air-L] Antw: Re: Inclusion of short links in academic publications?
by Taylor, Nicholas A. 27 Jul '11

27 Jul '11

Just to weigh in on this from a web archivist's perspective, shortened URLs introduce another point of failure in the long-term accessibility of web resources. For this reason, the Internet Archive hosts a project called 301 Works (http://www.archive.org/details/301works) whose purpose is to archive the shortened URL-to-original URL mappings in the case that service providers disappear. A recent study (http://ws-dl.blogspot.com/2011/06/2011-06-23-how-much-of-web-is-archived.ht…) by web preservation researchers at Old Dominion University also found that among randomly-sampled links from DMOZ, del.icio.us, search engines, and bit.ly, the sites linked from bit.ly were least likely to be represented in at least one Web archive. ~Nicholas Nicholas Taylor | Information Technology Specialist | Library of Congress Web Archiving Team<http://www.loc.gov/webarchiving/>

1 0

CFP extended: CyberOrient: Online Journal of the Virtual Middle East
by Vit Sisler 26 Jul '11

26 Jul '11

Call for Papers extended: CyberOrient: Online Journal of the Virtual Middle East New submission deadline: 31 October 2011 Call Description CyberOrient (http://www.cyberorient.net/) is a peer-reviewed journal published by the Middle East Section of the American Anthropological Association in collaboration with the Faculty of Arts of Charles University in Prague. The aim of the journal is to provide research and theoretical considerations on the representation of Islam and the Middle East, the very areas that used to be styled as an “Orient”, in cyberspace, as well as the impact of the internet and new media in Muslim and Middle Eastern contexts. This issue of CyberOrient aims to bring together the state of the art research dealing with the growing influence of the internet and new media in the Middle East. Key questions include, yet are not limited to, the following: - What is the role of the internet and new media, including social sites, in the ongoing political and social changes in the Arab world and the Middle East? - Does the proliferation of sites by individuals from various cultural backgrounds democratize political and religious behavior in the Middle East? - What does the internet and the social networks it enables offer to groups who have not traditionally had access to an open public domain for expression, especially women and marginalized sects? - Does the wide range of views posted on the internet foster tolerance and greater understanding on current issues of political and religious strife? - What is the impact of the virtual Islamic community on the practices of Muslims worldwide? - How does access to internet cafes and global connections influence cultural norms in Middle Eastern societies? - What role do new media such as video games and video clips play in the identity construction of Middle Eastern and Muslim youth? Submission Details Please submit a manuscript no longer than 8000 words to the editors as an e-mail attachment to Daniel.M.Varisco(a)hofstra.edu and vsisler(a)gmail.com no later than 31 October 2011. Please format your submission as follows: - Cover page with your name, affiliation, address, article title - Second page with article title, abstract (150-200 words) and four or five key words. Do not put your name on this page or on the pages of the following text. - Article with references at the end, following the AAA format (http://www.aaanet.org/publications/guidelines.cfm) Please note all papers will be subject to anonymous peer review following submission. Important dates 31 October 2011: Deadline for manuscript submission 31 December 2011: Announcement of results of peer-review February 2012: Publication of the issue Inquiries and submission of manuscripts should be addressed to: Daniel Martin Varisco Department of Anthropology 200 Davison Hall Hofstra University Hempstead, NY 11549 (516) 463-5590 (office) (516) 463-6250 (fax) Daniel.M.Varisco(a)hofstra.edu Vit Sisler New Media Studies Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague U Krize 8, Praha 5, 158 00 (+420) 251 080 205 (office) vsisler(a)gmail.com CyberOrient on Facebook and Twitter http://www.facebook.com/CyberOrient http://twitter.com/CyberOrient

1 0

Possible Changes to U.S. IRB Research Oversight
by Kevin Guidry 26 Jul '11

26 Jul '11

All, Since many of us in the U.S. tend to be critical of our institution's Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) and their impact on our research, it may be of interest to note that the federal government is beginning to propose significant changes to the research oversight system. The New York Times has coverage here: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/25/health/research/25research.html. The full details, including the full Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and instructions for submitting comments, can be found here: http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/anprm2011page.html. A quick glance at the proposed changes indicate that they might have an impact on the work that many of us do. For example, there is a proposal to make exempt from IRB review "certain types of behavioral and social science research that goes beyond using only survey methodology, but nonetheless involves only specified minimal risk procedures, so long as the subjects are competent adults" (p. 18). There are also proposals related to data security, privacy, and identifiability, with definitions derived from HIPAA. And there appears to be a proposal to extend IRB oversight to include all studies at participating colleges and universities regardless of the funding source(s) of the particular studies. Since this process is just beginning and there are opportunities for input, I hope that AoiR and other organizations that represent and advise researchers are keeping abreast of these changes and offering appropriate advice and input (ethics committee, I'm looking at you!). And, of course, I hope that those individuals who may be impacted are also keeping abreast of these developments and speaking up when appropriate. Kevin

1 0