- Air-L - lists.aoir.org

Re: [Air-L] Air-L Digest, Vol 82, Issue 9
by Karl Grindal 07 May '11

07 May '11

On 5/7/11, air-l-request(a)listserv.aoir.org <air-l-request(a)listserv.aoir.org> wrote: > Send Air-L mailing list submissions to > air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > air-l-request(a)listserv.aoir.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > air-l-owner(a)listserv.aoir.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Air-L digest..." > -- Sent from my mobile device Karl T. Grindal MPP Grad Student, Georgetown Cell: 952-250-7466 Website: www.karlgrindal.com

1 0

Digital Shakespeare Monday 16 May 2011 Workshop and Talks
by Berry D.M. 07 May '11

07 May '11

Digital Shakespeare Monday 16 May 2011 Workshop and Talks SWANSEA UNIVERSITY 4th floor SmallTalk Room, Faraday Building Organised by Dr. David M. Berry and Dr. Tom Cheesman Few dispute that digital technology is fundamentally changing the way in which we engage in the research process. Indeed, it is becoming more and more evident that research is increasingly being mediated through digital technology. Many argue that this mediation is slowly beginning to change what it means to undertake research, affecting both the epistemologies and ontologies that underlie a research programme (sometimes conceptualised as 'close' versus 'distant' reading, see Moretti 2000). Of course, this development is variable depending on disciplines and research agenda, with some more reliant on digital technology than others, but it is rare to find an academic today who had no access to digital technology as part of the research activity and there remains fewer means for the non-digital scholar to undertake research in the modern university (see JAH 2008). Not to mention the ubiquity of email, Google searches and bibliographic databases which become increasingly crucial as more of the worlds libraries are scanned and placed online. These, of course, also produce their own specific problems, such as huge quantities of articles, texts and data suddenly available at the researcher's fingertips, indeed, "It is now quite clear that historians will have to grapple with abundance, not scarcity. Several million books have been digitized...and nearly every day we are confronted with a new digital historical resource of almost unimaginable size" (JAH 2008). In this workshop we will look at how we might use the new digital tools of text aggregation, processing and information or data visualisation to provide the ways of looking at and thinking about Shakespeare. From making data patterns, to narrativising through algorithms and visualisation we aim to examine how these approaches and methods can assist in undertaking humanities research into textual materials. Programme 11.30-12.00 Registration (4th floor SmallTalk Room, Faraday Building) 12 noon: Introduction and Welcome (David Berry) 12.15-12.50: The Swansea VVV Project: Visualising Version Variation (Tom Cheesman) 13.00-13.45: Understanding through Visualisation (Stephan Thiel, Potsdam) 13.45-14.00: Coffee Break 14.00-14.30: Shakespeare in Arabic (Sameh Hanna, Salford) 14.30-15.00: Visualising Textual Corpora (Geng Zhao, Swansea University) 15.15-16.15: Computational Information Design (Stephan Thiel, Potsdam) 16.15: Reflections on the workshop (Tom Cheesman, Robert S. Laramee) 16.45: Ends There is no charge for the workshop but as space is limited please email d.m.berry(a)Swansea.ac.uk if you are interested in attending. http://www.delightedbeauty.org/ Funded by the Research Institute for Arts and Humanities (RIAH) --- Dr. David M. Berry Department of Political and Cultural Studies Room JC015 James Callaghan Building Swansea University Singleton Campus Swansea SA2 8PP Tel: 01792 602633 http://www.swan.ac.uk/staff/academic/ArtsHumanities/berryd/

1 0

Geert Lovink and Nathaniel Tkacz (eds), Critical Point of View: A Wikipedia Reader (INC Reader #7)
by Geert Lovink 07 May '11

07 May '11

INC Reader #7 Critical Point of View: A Wikipedia Reader Geert Lovink and Nathaniel Tkacz (eds) For millions of internet users around the globe, the search for new knowledge begins with Wikipedia. The encyclopedia’s rapid rise, novel organization, and freely offered content have been marveled at and denounced by a host of commentators. Critical Point of View moves beyond unflagging praise, well-worn facts, and questions about its reliability and accuracy, to unveil the complex, messy, and controversial realities of a distributed knowledge platform. The essays, interviews and artworks brought together in this reader form part of the overarching Critical Point of View research initiative, which began with a conference in Bangalore (January 2010), followed by events in Amsterdam (March 2010) and Leipzig (September 2010). With an emphasis on theoretical reflection, cultural difference and indeed, critique, contributions to this collection ask: What values are embedded in Wikipedia’s software? On what basis are Wikipedia’s claims to neutrality made? How can Wikipedia give voice to those outside the Western tradition of Enlightenment, or even its own administrative hierarchies? Critical Point of View collects original insights on the next generation of wiki-related research, from radical artistic interventions and the significant role of bots to hidden trajectories of encyclopedic knowledge and the politics of agency and exclusion. Contributors: Amila Akdag Salah, Nicholas Carr, Shun-ling Chen, Florian Cramer, Morgan Currie, Edgar Enyedy, Andrew Famiglietti, Heather Ford, Mayo Fuster Morell, Cheng Gao, R. Stuart Geiger, Mark Graham, Gautam John, Dror Kamir, Peter B. Kaufman, Scott Kildall, Lawrence Liang, Patrick Lichty, Geert Lovink, Hans Varghese Mathews, Johanna Niesyto, Matheiu O’Neil, Dan O’Sullivan, Joseph Reagle, Andrea Scharnhorst, Alan Shapiro, Christian Stegbauer, Nathaniel Stern, Krzystztof Suchecki, Nathaniel Tkacz, Maja van der Velden. Colophon: Editors: Geert Lovink and Nathaniel Tkacz. Editorial Assistance: Ivy Roberts and Morgan Currie. Copy-Editing: Cielo Lutino. Design: Katja van Stiphout. Cover Image: Ayumi Higuchi. Priner: Ten Klei, Amsterdam. Publisher: Institute of Network Cultures, Amsterdam. Supported by: The School for Communication and Design at the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences (Hogeschool van Amsterdam DMCI), the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) in Bangalore and the Kusuma Trust. You can download the pdf for free here: http://www.networkcultures.org/_uploads/%237reader_Wikipedia.pdf To order a hard copy of the reader, send an email to books(a)networkcultures.org Geert Lovink and Nathaniel Tkacz (eds), Critical Point of View: A Wikpedia Reader, Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures, 2011. ISBN: 978-90-78146-13-1, paperback, 385 pages.

1 0

just a short comment on ethical aspects in internet research
by Maria Eronen 07 May '11

07 May '11

Hi, Just a short comment on ethics in internet research. It is very interesting for me as a researcher of moral communities and moral language of forums and discussion boards, how moral uncertainty prevails in internet research as well: we don't know who these mediated others are and what their intentions might be and we are uncertain how we should treat them, regardless whether we are doing research or using forums. Here I cited Roger Silverstone and Shani Orgad who have discussed this topic very interestingly. Maria

1 0

why do people start programming?
by danah boyd 06 May '11

06 May '11

A high school computer science teacher started wondering about what motivated people to start programming. So he created http://ilearnedtoprogram.com/ and quickly the stories poured in. He's now sitting on all of this data and wondering if it's of use to anyone besides his own curiosity. In particular, he's looking for scholars who want to ask questions of the data and help him think about what's going on. I don't know if any of y'all are doing this kind of STS work, but if you happen to be passionate about such kinds of questions, he's looking for folks to talk with: http://itmoves.wordpress.com/2011/05/03/why-i-need-help-from-scientists/ danah

1 0

Help finding resources for successful local online retailing
by Rayed AlGhamdi 06 May '11

06 May '11

Hi colleagues, I am searching for literature of successful countries in domestic/local online retailing. Some countries in developing world still 10-15 years behind in terms of e-commerce in general and e-retailing specifically. I want to find resources of successful development of other countries: how did they address the problems, overcome them and diffuse this service locally. Kind regards, Rayed

1 0

Re: [Air-L] a question about privacy protection and copyright > in Internet research
by Jennifer Myers 06 May '11

06 May '11

Hello Maria, I am a doc student, but since I am doing my dissertation using publicly available blogs with bloggers who have pseudonymous identities, I've had to think about the issue of privacy quite a bit so I figured I would share my process thus far. First, I searched out researchers doing research such as this, and naturally I went to my advisor and asked her what she did. She explained what she did, but said that I needed to read up on the topic. So I read up on what others were doing. I ran across AoIR's document on ethics and found a lot of useful advice/information in Markham and Baym's edited book Internet Inquiry, which lead me to many other authors that were discussing this topic. If you want to email me privately, I can send you some of the articles and books I found most useful. Second, I decided that since this topic isn't black and white, I would include a section within my literature review on what is currently being done in instances such as this, what privacy in internet research means, , etc. I also discussed measures that I would be taking in my method chapter. I know this isn't typically included but when I defended my proposal my committee was happy I had addressed it so thoroughly, because they had questions about this. Plus, all the reading and research helped me come to my decisions. Third, I contacted the Human Subjects Committee at my university and discussed it with them. They determined that if it was publicly available to anyone with Internet access then they would treat it as such. Of course I would need consent/permission from the participants that I chose to interview. In my most recent discussion over my IRB application, they wanted me to include a statement within my consent form (for the interviewees) saying that if they chose to keep their blog identity that there is a chance it would be linked to their blog. Although, I've decided I will interview all of my bloggers, initially they approved that I would be able to include blog posts from bloggers that I was not interviewing and would not need consent since it was a public text without log-in or password. I was able to work with the review board on creating a consent form that I could send via email and their response indicated consent. Of course there was more to the process and I haven't conducted my research yet so... Since it was technically ok by the review board, I had to figure out my own ethics as a researcher. One main question I had was about perceived privacy - do people really think that what they write or say in a specific context has the potential to be published and brought out to a larger audience that wouldn't normally see what they said (i.e. an academic journal when they are just writing a blog)? Was I comfortable pulling direct quotes from blogs without telling the blogger when they can be traced back to the blog even if I changed the blog name and URL? There were many other questions that I had and it took me many months to figure them out, and I'm sure as I conduct the research more questions will arise. I probably would have email this group if I would have been a part of it then. In the end, I've decided to do what I am comfortable with as a researcher within obvious research ethic boundaries. I hope you don't mind me including these, but here are some questions that I thought might be useful to you as you make your decision. In my process I found answering similar questions helpful so I figured I would include them. Are you quoting all of the comments or are you just categorizing them. If you are categorizing and publishing the results in aggregate then is it likely that where the information came from will be discovered? When you Google (or whatever search engine you use) the quotes do the sources of data pop up? Do people have to log-in in order to post the comments? Can anyone without log-in read the comments? What do you consider sensitive? Would your commenters feel that what you think is sensitive is the same thing as what they consider sensitive (i.e. do you know the groups well enough to make this determination)? Jennifer Myers Doctoral Candidate at Florida State University jennifer.b.myers(a)gmail.com

1 0

Reminder: IR 12.0 (Seattle) Fee Waiver Application--DUE June 1
by Alex Halavais 06 May '11

06 May '11

Now that folks are beginning to plan their participation for Seattle, I wanted to remind everyone about the fee waiver awards. Best, Alex Fee Waiver Program In order to increase the diversity of participation in the AoIR annual Internet Research (IR) conferences, the Association of Internet Researchers will make available up to three conference fee waivers per year. The number of fee waivers will depend first of all upon the ability of the conference budget to sustain such waivers (a judgment to be made by the AoIR Executive Committee upon the advice of the AoIR Treasurer and the local organizing committee) as well as upon the quality of the applications for fee waivers. Applications for fee waivers are invited from student or faculty authors whose paper or panel proposals have already been accepted via the AoIR IR conference reviewing process. All applications should be directed to the Vice-President of AoIR (Alex Halavais, vp(a)aoir.org) and must be received by June 1, 2010. Late applications cannot be considered. Applications should be no longer than 2 pages, and must include the following information: 1) A brief description of how the author’s presentation or contribution to the AoIR IR conference will uniquely articulate and/or represent a distinctive perspective (e.g., of persons and/or cultures) otherwise unlikely to be represented at the annual AoIR Internet Research conference. 2) An explanation of the author’s distinctive circumstances that would warrant a fee waiver. These may include, but are by no means limited to: * exceptionally limited financial resources (e.g., as a graduate student or scholar in a non-OECD country, as a disabled person on a limited income, etc.); * exceptional limits on institutional support otherwise normally available (e.g., travel funds, grant funds, etc.); * other exceptional circumstances that render the usual AoIR IR conference fees an insurmountable obstacle to attending the IR conference in order to present one’s own work. Applicants may also include a letter of support from someone familiar with her / his circumstances, special needs, etc. Such a letter is optional, however, not a requirement. Applications will be reviewed by the AoIR Executive Committee. Fee waivers will be awarded on the basis of the Executive Committee’s collective judgment as to which presentations will make the most distinctive contribution to the AoIR IR conference. In order to respect and protect the privacy of the applicants, all Executive Committee discussions and deliberations of fee waiver applications will be held in strict confidence. The AoIR Executive Committee regretfully acknowledges that there will be more fully meritorious applications than we will be able to award and support. Nonetheless we hope that awarded fee waivers will not only assist deserving scholars and researchers, but also thereby enrich the AoIR IR conferences in important new ways. Best, Alex Halavais -- // // This email is // [x] assumed public and may be blogged / forwarded. // [ ] assumed to be private, please ask before redistributing. // // Alexander C. Halavais, ciberflâneur // http://alex.halavais.net // -- // // This email is // [x] assumed public and may be blogged / forwarded. // [ ] assumed to be private, please ask before redistributing. // // Alexander C. Halavais, ciberflâneur // http://alex.halavais.net //

1 0

CJC Issue:Democratizing Communication Policy in the Americas
by lshade＠alcor.concordia.ca 06 May '11

06 May '11

Colleagues, fyi and apologies for any cross/duplicate postings. leslie Leslie Regan Shade Associate Professor Concordia Univ., Dept. of Communication Studies ********** Canadian Journal of Communication Vol 36, No 1 (2011) Democratizing Communication Policy in the Americas: Why It Matters http://www.cjc-online.ca/index.php/journal/issue/current/showToc Editorial Democratizing Communication Policy in the Americas: Why It Matters Roberta G. Lentz, Leslie Regan Shade Articles: Interpreting Privacy on Campus: The Freedom of Information and Personal Privacy Act and Ontario Universities Martin R. Dowding Canadian Copyright: History, Change, and Potential Sara Bannerman >From Pirates to Partners: The Legalization of Community Radio in Uruguay Evan Light Peering Ahead: An Examination of Peer-to-Peer Signal-Sharing Communities that Create Their Own Affordable Internet Access Gwen Shaffer Metaphors for Democratic Communication Spaces: How Developers of Local Wireless Networks Frame Technology and Urban Space Alison Powell The Institutional Development of Indigenous Broadband Infrastructure in Canada and the U.S.: Two Paths to "Digital Self-Determination" Rob McMahon Research in Brief: The Media Communications Environment through a Spatial Lens: The Mapping the Media in the Americas Project Chantal Hansen, Heng Sun, Nigel Waters >From Media Niche to Policy Spotlight: Mapping Community-Media Policy Change in Latin America Arne Hintz Democratizing Communication Policy in Canada: A Social Movement Perspective Robert A. Hackett, Steve Anderson Commentary: Making Media Public: From Discussion to Action? Nicole S. Cohen, Sonja Macdonald, Patricia Mazepa, David Skinner Sex, Money, Media: A Tribute and Political Reflection Catherine Murray, Alison Beale Book Reviews: Making Our Media: Global Initiatives Toward a Democratic Public Sphere, Vol. 1: Creating New Communication Spaces Elizabeth Miller Making Our Media: Global Initiatives Toward a Democratic Public Sphere. Vol. 2: National and Global Movements for Democratic Communication Paula Chakravartty Communications Research in Action: Scholar-Activist Collaborations for a Democratic Public Sphere Milton Mueller

1 0

SIGDOC 2011 CFP, Spring newsletter, and Elections
by Liza Potts 06 May '11

06 May '11

My apologies for cross-posting, but I wanted to make sure everyone is aware of the upcoming deadlines for the conference and elections. We would love to see more participation from AOIR folks! Take care, Liza ______________________________________ Liza Potts, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Writing, Culture, and Technology Co-Director, CeME Lab Old Dominion University Norfolk, VA 23529 AIM: LizaPotts Skype: lkpotts http://ceme.digitalodu.com/ ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ashley Williams <ashleyew(a)gmail.com> Date: Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 12:00 PM Subject: SIGDOC 2011 CFP, Spring newsletter, and Elections To: SIGDOC-ANNOUNCE(a)listserv.acm.org Dear SIGDOC Community, I am pleased to announce that SIGDOC’s Spring Newsletter is online: http://www.sigdoc.org/newsletter/current. Our latest newsletter includes Notes from SIGDOC’s Chair, Brad Mehlenbacher; information about upcoming conferences; various CFPs; and resources for job seekers. Also of note, the CFP for SIGDOC 2011 is open. The submission date for papers is 20 May 2011; for posters it’s 20 June 2011. Details here: http://sigdoc.org/2011/index.html Finally, as a reminder, SIGDOC elections are open through noon ET, 6 June 2011, for the Executive Board positions of Chair, Vice-Chair, and Secretary/Treasurer. SIGDOC members were emailed election materials on 4 April 2011. Here is the slate for the upcoming term: ACM SIGDOC Election Candidate List, 2011-2013 Chair Brad Mehlenbacher, North Carolina State University, U.S.A. Aristidis Protopsaltis, Coventry University Technology Park, UK Vice-Chair Robert Pierce, IBM Rational Software, U.S.A. Junia Anacleto, Federal University of Sao Carlos, Brazil Secretary/Treasurer Liza Potts, Old Dominion University, U.S.A. Manuela Aparicio, Higher Institute of Labour and Social Enterprise, Portugal Best wishes, Ashley Williams, Ph.D. SIGDOC Information Director Twitter: http://twitter.com/sigdoc Web: http://www.sigdoc.org/ LinkedIn : http://www.linkedin.com/groups?about=&gid=1969844&trk=anet_ug_grppro

1 0