- Air-L - lists.aoir.org

Fwd: The Patchwork Mandate (fwd) (harnad on self-archiving policies)
by Jeremy Hunsinger 11 Nov '06

11 Nov '06

i thought some of you would be interested in this discussion of self- archiving policies. Begin forwarded message: > From: Stevan Harnad <harnad(a)ECS.SOTON.AC.UK> > Date: November 11, 2006 7:23:48 AM EST > To: VPIEJ-L(a)LISTSERV.VT.EDU > Subject: The Patchwork Mandate (fwd) > Reply-To: Stevan Harnad <harnad(a)ECS.SOTON.AC.UK> > > ** Apologies for Cross-Posting ** > > Below is yet another brilliant and timely stroke from the > Archivangelist > of the Antipodes (who is rapidly gaining worldwide moral hegemony!): > > Arthur Sale is so right: Where the university's senior management are > momentarily immovable, the right target is a promising individual > department or two: The focussed outcome of a departmental mandate > can be > even faster and more dramatic than a university-wide one, serving as > an irresistible stepping stone toward a university-wide mandate. > > And there is supporting evidence: The outcome of the Tasmania CS and > Southampton ECS departmental mandates, there to prove it works (and > both > of them leading to university-wide mandates thereafter): > > http://www.eprints.org/signup/fulllist.php > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 15:15:25 +1100 > From: Arthur Sale <ahjs(a)OZEMAIL.COM.AU> > To: JISC-REPOSITORIES(a)JISCMAIL.AC.UK > Subject: The Patchwork Mandate > > Over the last few months this list has been inundated by people > looking for > policies to adopt for their institutional repositories, and > frustrated by > their management's inability to see that a mandate is required. I > haven't > been very helpful to the enquirers, because all of the > encouragement type > policies are known to be quite inadequate. However, I have done some > thinking and have now put together a short paper (4 pages) on an > option for > repository managers wanting to fill their repositories under unhelpful > conditions - The Patchwork Mandate. > > I encourage you to download the working paper from > http://eprints.utas.edu.au/410/, as it has nice typesetting and > readability [and hyperlinks] in a pdf file. You can even show it to > your > senior managers. However, if you can't or don't want to, I have pasted > the text below. > > Arthur Sale > Professor of Computing (Research) > University of Tasmania > > - > PASTED PAPER BEGINS > > The Patchwork Mandate > Technical Report > Arthur Sale, 11 November 2006 > > Policies for Repository Managers > > This document is written mainly for repository managers who are at > a loss > as to what policies they (or their universities or research > institutions) > ought to deploy. I make no bones about stating that there are only two > "pure" policies: > > * requiring (mandating) researchers to deposit, and > * voluntary (spontaneous) participation. > > The institutional mandate > > The obvious and no-risk solution is for the institution to require > researchers to deposit their publications in the institutional > repository. > There is ample evidence that this is acceptable to over 95% of > researchers, > both in pre-implementation surveys and in post-implementation > evidence. One > Australian university is leading the world in collecting 70% of its > annual > research output and the fraction is rising. This is not surprising, > since > the researcher's world is hemmed in with the requirements to teach, > to ask > for student evaluations, to write and mark examinations, to > supervise PhD > students, to publish research, to report to granting bodies, etc. > However > because of the age of senior executives (Rectors, Vice-Chancellors, > Presidents or the Research Vice-Presidents, Pro Vice-Chancellors, > etc) it > may be difficult to convince them that they have been carried into > a new era > of scholarly dissemination while they weren't looking, and that their > attitudes are horribly obsolescent. > > An institutional-wide requirement to deposit in the IR is the > logical and > inevitable end-point. In fact it is exactly what is needed. Once > such a > policy is in place the IR manager's approaches to researchers and > heads of > centers and all the plethora of feel-good activities actually work. > People > who are required to deposit their publications are grateful for > advice. The > occasional chase-up call is not resented. Just about everything > that the > university can put in place (for example publicity for deposits, > awards for > the best author or paper, assistance with self-archiving, download > statistics, etc) will begin to work as it resonates with every > academic in > fulfilling their duty. > > A mandatory policy will approach a capture rate of 100% of current > research > publications, but over a couple of years. Figures of 60-90% can be > expected > in a short time. See > http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_10/sale/index.html for > some data > on how mandates actually work. > > Voluntary participation > > The 'everything else' policies are not worth talking about for > long. In the > absence of mandates, every encouragement policy known to Man fails to > convince more than 15% to 20% of researchers to invest the 5 > minutes of time > needed to deposit their publications. The percentage does not grow > with > time. When you look at this closely, all these encouragement policies > (awards to top authors, regular articles in the house magazine, great > feedback, personal approaches, download statistics, seminars, > explanation of > the OA advantages, etc) fail. This is a global experience, but I > have plenty > of Australian examples. The reason is easy to grasp: these > activities appeal > to the converted and the practicing self-archivers, not the > skeptics or the > lazy. In other words they simply pass over the heads of over 80% of > the > potential contributors without engagement with the little grey cells. > > I must emphasize that such policies are known to achieve no greater > deposit > rate of current research than 30% and more usually around 15%. The > evidence > can be produced and is absolutely clear. At such deposit rates, one > wonders > why it is worth bothering having a repository or undertaking the > proselytizing activities, except simply to have a repository in > place (a > yes/no tick). > > It is also useless to look at growth rates of documents in the > repository > without taking their publication and deposit dates into account. The > evidence shows that many 'converted' depositors busy themselves with > mounting all their old papers. This is not to be discouraged and makes > repository managers think they are achieving something, but it is > not a > significant performance indicator. The only important performance > indicator > is 'How much of your institution's annual research output appears > in your > repository by (say) 6 months after year end?' > > The Patchwork Mandate > > So, many repository managers find themselves between a rock and a hard > place. They can't convince the senior executives to bring in a > mandate, and > they know that voluntary deposition does not work. Fortunately > there may be > a middle way or even a transitional way ahead. I call it the patchwork > mandate for reasons that will become obvious. Unfortunately we > don't have > any evidence yet that this policy works on an institutional scale, > though > there are significant pointers to indicate that it will. > > So what is the patchwork mandate? Simply this: > > 1 Knowing that you have been unable to convince the senior > executives, you nevertheless personally commit to having a mandate > across > your institution. > > 2 You aim to pursue a strategy that will achieve an > institutional > mandate in the long term. It is highly recommended that you > register your > intention to do this in ROARMAP so as to encourage other repository > managers > caught in the same dilemma. > > 3 Since you can't get an institutional mandate, you work > towards > getting departmental (school/faculty) mandates one by one. Each > departmental > mandate will rapidly trend towards 100% and needs little activism to > maintain this level. > > Let's look at this a bit more closely. We have solid evidence that > departmental mandates work, and much faster than university-wide > mandates. A > year or so suffices to achieve a substantial acquisition rate of > current > research. This is because there are fewer people involved, and the > researchers tend to trust their leaders more. It is also easier to > achieve > conversion at the departmental level. Two documented examples are > ECS at > Southampton University and the School of Computing at the > University of > Tasmania (mine). Again see > http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_10/sale/index.html. > > What is a departmental mandate? A decision by the Head of > Department (or a > Research Director or a democratic staff meeting) that all peer- > reviewed > articles in the department must be deposited in the IR as a > postprint, at > the time of acceptance. See > http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/sign.php for a draft > policy > you can adapt. Its effect is immediate, and most members of the > department > comply quite easily. The 'enforcement' of the policy (if any is > needed) is > in the hands of the responsible person of the department, and all > it needs > is to watch what people claim they have published and ask "have you > archived > that yet?" That is enough - no punitive action is required. > > How do you achieve this? Well what you don't do is try a scatter-gun > approach across the institution. Nor only does it waste effort, but > it puts > people's back up. You analyze all your departments and research > centers. You > decide which senior people in them might be amenable to persuasion. > A high > research profile is a good indicator, as is a discipline where > online access > is already widespread. Another pointer is an area where a funding body > mandate is going to affect many people. You know your institution > better > than I do, so choose your own criteria. > > Then you concentrate on the leader of a department and possibly people > around him or her to firstly deposit their own current research, > show them > what they can get out of it (for example download statistics), and > then > persuade them that their whole department should deposit. Give them > the > words to use. Suggest implementation. Provide support. Run > seminars. Provide > monthly deposit data summaries. But all of this strictly targeted > at the > selected department. Once you have a mandate from that department, > keep up > your support, publicize successes across the institution, and move > on to the > next target. Of course you might tackle a few targets at the same > time, but > not too many. Successful departmental mandates are what you are > after.. > > You will end up with an odd collection of mandated departments, and > the rest > being voluntary. Hence the term patchwork mandate, like a calico or > tortoiseshell cat. You won't achieve 100% deposit rates yet, but > you may > begin to escape from the 20% ceiling of voluntary deposit. > > When you as repository manager have (say) 40-50% of the departments > with > departmental mandates, go back and argue with your senior > executives. If > they still don't agree to bring in an institutional mandate, tell > them that > you are going to tackle the remaining more difficult departments, > and that > they (the executives) are now looking like very silly neo-Luddites. > Carry > out your promise if you do say that. > > Conclusion > > I think that the patchwork mandate strategy will probably work. We are > trialing it in Australia. It won't achieve 100% content instantly, > but it is > a clear way to work towards that. You can even explain it to your > senior > executives and they probably won't stop you. They may even > encourage you to > try it. > > Just remember that voluntary persuasion of individuals is known not > to work > beyond a pitiful participation level. Self-archiving needs to be > made part > of the routine academic duty, and this requires a policy > endorsement by > someone. Jeremy Hunsinger School of Library and Information Science Pratt Institute () ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail /\ - against microsoft attachments http://www.aoir.org The Association of Internet Researchers http://www.stswiki.org/ stswiki http://cfp.learning-inquiry.info/ LI-the journal http://transdisciplinarystudies.tmttlt.com/ Transdisciplinary Studies:the book series

1 0

Re: [Air-l] i-pol: a portal on Internet and politics
by William Bain 11 Nov '06

11 Nov '06

Wainer, Steve, and Rachel, I've just looked at your site and like it. This is probably too obvious a comment but I wonder if you're also planning a search mechanism. I wanted to run a search on net neutrality given the recent positings on this list. I tried searching the references section in the end, and projects. Just a brief thoughtr on a single aspect I thought might be useful for fine tuning, as I say, undoubtedly already planned. Best regards, William William Bain PhD Student Comparative Literature Department of Spanish Philology Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona --------------------------------- Access over 1 million songs - Yahoo! Music Unlimited.

1 0

Tyranny of a minority
by Sam Tilden 10 Nov '06

10 Nov '06

Dear Colleagues, Several days ago I took exception to a rant by Elijah Wright (about Tim Beriers-Lee) on this list. As a result, I was flamed by Jeremy Hunsinger followed shortly by a request from Charles Ess to prove that I am who I say I am. I have been respectful, contributory and have broken no rules either implicit or explicit. Charles, Elijah, and Jeremy are on a hunt to purify the intellectual integrity of this list. They have accused me of being a pseudononymous personality and therefore in violation of the rules set up by the executive board of AOIR. As a matter of principal I am refusing to play their game. This is the only organization that I have ever been a part of that has "guilty until proven innocent" as a governance style. There are 1500 people who own this list. AOIR claims ownership but there are autocrats who rule this list as a whim of agreement or diagreement. I am doing a troject on people who have been labeled and pushished by expulsion from this list. The numbers point to the same 4 0r 5 people who are threated by anyone who challenges them. The new rules expressed by Matt Allen recently codify the power of a few people to remove you if you get out of line. They don't even have to give a reason. Trial by innuendo is the rule not the exception. This is an anathema to everything I believe is important in scholarship. The real reason that this is happening is that I have enjoyed an association with Reid Cornwell. http://tcfir.org I have made no secrete that I have been in contact with him. Hunsinger, Wright and Ess revile him because he challenges their authority. For me it is guilt by association. It is about 'power' pure and simple. I abhor tryrany in any form. I believe that this list is controled by intellectual tyrants. They do it with velvet words, but it is tryranny none the less. I have enjoyed my association with most of you. What are they afraid of? I am willing to fall on my sword for freedom of expression. Sam P.S. The written record in the archives is clear - judge for yourselves. Remember, "If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem." None of you are safe from their judgement. --------------------------------- Access over 1 million songs - Yahoo! Music Unlimited.

4 3

Fwd: [Asis-l] NCLIS News Release: NCLIS Urges Congress to take all necessary action to ensure Net Neutrality - 11/7/06
by Jeremy Hunsinger 10 Nov '06

10 Nov '06

for those of you following the net neutrality debate. Begin forwarded message: > From: Kim Miller <kmiller(a)nclis.gov> > Date: November 7, 2006 3:08:51 PM EST > To: "asis-l(a)asis.org" <asis-l(a)asis.org> > Subject: [Asis-l] NCLIS News Release: NCLIS Urges Congress to take > all necessary action to ensure Net Neutrality - 11/7/06 > Reply-To: kmiller(a)nclis.gov > > News Release 11/7/06 can be also be viewed by linking to this URL: > > http://www.nclis.gov/news/pressrelease/pr2006/ > NCLISNetNeutrality-2006-14.pdf > > ******************** > > News Release > Contact: > Information Officer > 1 202 606 9200 > info(a)nclis.gov > > For Immediate Release > > NCLIS Urges Congress to take all > necessary action to ensure Net Neutrality > > Washington, DC. USA November 7, 2006-The U.S. National Commission > on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS) today announced its > position on Internet neutrality ("net neutrality"), currently being > debated in the Congress. > > "The current discussion centers on whether content transmission on > the Internet should be subject to a system of prioritization known > as 'tiered service'," said Commission Chairman Beth Fitzsimmons. > "So far, the underlying transmission of information treats all > packets of information equally but this could change unless > Congress acts to prevent a move to a tiered service." > > A tiered system of transmission would permit a substantial shift in > Internet operations, allowing Internet service providers to charge > the content creators. Thus higher fees would make content more > available, since that content would be more accessible, but those > paying lower fees would have access to their content downgraded, as > Dr. Fitzsimmons put it, "to the slow lane of the Internet highway." > > "Content created by organizations with deep pockets would rise to > the top of a search, with the higher fees essentially enabling a > content provider to 'buy' a higher position in a search," Dr. > Fitzsimmons continued. "Content created by organizations with > limited funding for such costs; community groups, schools and other > educational institutions, non-profits, and the scholarly publishing > field, for example, would be greatly restricted in having their > materials available in the early stages of a search." > > With today's announcement, the Commission takes the position that - > with respect to Internet neutrality - Congress should take action > to assure the tiered access is prevented. In fact, according to a > study done under contract for the Commission, the government has > already taken a stand. In 1992, when Congress permitted commercial > traffic on the Internet, the Committee report on the legislation > noted that the change did not alter the "goals or characteristics" > of the network. Congressman Rick Boucher, the Chairman of the House > subcommittee that developed the legislation, explained during a > hearing on the legislation: "It is essential as the network is > structured that all commercial providers of network services > receive equal treatment and that Government policy in managing the > network not favor any provider or set of providers over others." > > It has also been suggested that the Federal Communications > Commission (FCC) handle net neutrality in a regulatory manner, but > a position has been taken by the FCC as well. In August, 2005, the > FCC adopted and published four principles "to encourage broadband > deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected > nature of [the] public Internet." While the principles have no > legal force and have not been codified, the FCC Chairman stated at > the time that these principles will be incorporated into the > policymaking activities of the FCC. The four principles are: > > 1. Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of > their choice. > > 2. Consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their > choice (subject to the needs of law enforcement). > > 3. Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices > that do not harm the network. > > 4. Consumes are entitled to competition among network providers, > application and service providers, and content providers. > > "The Commission is in full support of the FCC's principles," Dr. > Fitzsimmons said, "and we as a Commission - with a statutory > responsibility to advise the President and Congress in matters > having to do with libraries and information science - respectfully > encourage Congress to reiterate strongly the position it took when > legislation permitting commercial traffic on the Internet was > developed. Equal treatment of content is important to all > information seekers. " > > ABOUT NCLIS > > The U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science > (NCLIS) is a permanent, independent agency of the Federal > government charged by Public Law 91-345 to advise the President and > Congress on national and international library and information > policies, to appraise and assess the adequacies and deficiencies of > library and information resources and services, and to develop > overall plans for meeting national library and information needs. > > ****************************** > > Kim A. Miller > Special Assistant - Technical > U.S. National Commission on Libraries & Information Science > 1800 M Street, N.W.; Suite 350 North Tower > Washington, DC 20036-5841 > 202-606-9200; Fax: 202-606-9203 > www.nclis.gov <http://www.nclis.gov/> > > > > > > ____ > ________________________________________ > Asis-l mailing list > Asis-l(a)asis.org > http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/asis-l jeremy hunsinger Assistant Professor Pratt Institute www.cddc.vt.edu wiki.tmttlt.com www.tmttlt.com () ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail /\ - against microsoft attachments http://www.stswiki.org/ sts wiki http://cfp.learning-inquiry.info/ Learning Inquiry-the journal http://transdisciplinarystudies.tmttlt.com/ Transdisciplinary Studies:the book series

1 1

Fwd: [Asis-l] NCLIS News Release: NCLIS Urges Congress to take all necessary action to ensure Net Neutrality - 11/7/06
by Jeremy Hunsinger 10 Nov '06

10 Nov '06

for those of you following the net neutrality debate. Begin forwarded message: > From: Kim Miller <kmiller(a)nclis.gov> > Date: November 7, 2006 3:08:51 PM EST > To: "asis-l(a)asis.org" <asis-l(a)asis.org> > Subject: [Asis-l] NCLIS News Release: NCLIS Urges Congress to take > all necessary action to ensure Net Neutrality - 11/7/06 > Reply-To: kmiller(a)nclis.gov > > News Release 11/7/06 can be also be viewed by linking to this URL: > > http://www.nclis.gov/news/pressrelease/pr2006/ > NCLISNetNeutrality-2006-14.pdf > > ******************** > > News Release > Contact: > Information Officer > 1 202 606 9200 > info(a)nclis.gov > > For Immediate Release > > NCLIS Urges Congress to take all > necessary action to ensure Net Neutrality > > Washington, DC. USA November 7, 2006-The U.S. National Commission > on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS) today announced its > position on Internet neutrality ("net neutrality"), currently being > debated in the Congress. > > "The current discussion centers on whether content transmission on > the Internet should be subject to a system of prioritization known > as 'tiered service'," said Commission Chairman Beth Fitzsimmons. > "So far, the underlying transmission of information treats all > packets of information equally but this could change unless > Congress acts to prevent a move to a tiered service." > > A tiered system of transmission would permit a substantial shift in > Internet operations, allowing Internet service providers to charge > the content creators. Thus higher fees would make content more > available, since that content would be more accessible, but those > paying lower fees would have access to their content downgraded, as > Dr. Fitzsimmons put it, "to the slow lane of the Internet highway." > > "Content created by organizations with deep pockets would rise to > the top of a search, with the higher fees essentially enabling a > content provider to 'buy' a higher position in a search," Dr. > Fitzsimmons continued. "Content created by organizations with > limited funding for such costs; community groups, schools and other > educational institutions, non-profits, and the scholarly publishing > field, for example, would be greatly restricted in having their > materials available in the early stages of a search." > > With today's announcement, the Commission takes the position that - > with respect to Internet neutrality - Congress should take action > to assure the tiered access is prevented. In fact, according to a > study done under contract for the Commission, the government has > already taken a stand. In 1992, when Congress permitted commercial > traffic on the Internet, the Committee report on the legislation > noted that the change did not alter the "goals or characteristics" > of the network. Congressman Rick Boucher, the Chairman of the House > subcommittee that developed the legislation, explained during a > hearing on the legislation: "It is essential as the network is > structured that all commercial providers of network services > receive equal treatment and that Government policy in managing the > network not favor any provider or set of providers over others." > > It has also been suggested that the Federal Communications > Commission (FCC) handle net neutrality in a regulatory manner, but > a position has been taken by the FCC as well. In August, 2005, the > FCC adopted and published four principles "to encourage broadband > deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected > nature of [the] public Internet." While the principles have no > legal force and have not been codified, the FCC Chairman stated at > the time that these principles will be incorporated into the > policymaking activities of the FCC. The four principles are: > > 1. Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of > their choice. > > 2. Consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their > choice (subject to the needs of law enforcement). > > 3. Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices > that do not harm the network. > > 4. Consumes are entitled to competition among network providers, > application and service providers, and content providers. > > "The Commission is in full support of the FCC's principles," Dr. > Fitzsimmons said, "and we as a Commission - with a statutory > responsibility to advise the President and Congress in matters > having to do with libraries and information science - respectfully > encourage Congress to reiterate strongly the position it took when > legislation permitting commercial traffic on the Internet was > developed. Equal treatment of content is important to all > information seekers. " > > ABOUT NCLIS > > The U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science > (NCLIS) is a permanent, independent agency of the Federal > government charged by Public Law 91-345 to advise the President and > Congress on national and international library and information > policies, to appraise and assess the adequacies and deficiencies of > library and information resources and services, and to develop > overall plans for meeting national library and information needs. > > ****************************** > > Kim A. Miller > Special Assistant - Technical > U.S. National Commission on Libraries & Information Science > 1800 M Street, N.W.; Suite 350 North Tower > Washington, DC 20036-5841 > 202-606-9200; Fax: 202-606-9203 > www.nclis.gov <http://www.nclis.gov/> > > > > > > ____ > ________________________________________ > Asis-l mailing list > Asis-l(a)asis.org > http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/asis-l jeremy hunsinger Assistant Professor Pratt Institute www.cddc.vt.edu wiki.tmttlt.com www.tmttlt.com () ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail /\ - against microsoft attachments http://www.stswiki.org/ sts wiki http://cfp.learning-inquiry.info/ Learning Inquiry-the journal http://transdisciplinarystudies.tmttlt.com/ Transdisciplinary Studies:the book series

1 0

Re: [Air-l] Web Science a Field of Study addendum
by 'Gail Taylor 10 Nov '06

10 Nov '06

I left out a couple thoughts in the last paragraph of the message that was just routed to the server. Too little sleep and not enough coffee to let the mind do the talking and fingers do the walking. Here's the updated paragraph entry. >As a person who places high value on the social constructivist approach to creating knonwledge at all levels of members of society, I am personally alarmed by some of the comments TBL made in the news story due to concerns that suggestions such as these, and others that emerged in the conversations regarding the regulation of Wikipedia entries, as this contributes to the development of monocultures and dualistic thinking about the world. I have a lot of respect for TBL but also find it ironic that concerns are being raised in 2006 as opposed to years ago when people started using the Internet to exchange misinformation in the form of data packets. Hmmm . . . ***************************** Gail D. Taylor, M.Ed. University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Human Resource Education Ph.D. Student Educational Psychology Teaching Assistant "We can't just have mainstream behavior on television in a free society. We have to make sure we see the whole panorama of human behavior." -- Jerry Springer

1 0

Re: [Air-l] Web Science a Field of Study
by 'Gail Taylor 10 Nov '06

10 Nov '06

I just read the news story "Web inventor fears for the future" that was published by the BBC News reporting TBL's fears relating to the 'dark side' of the Internet. He said some things in the news story that has the potential to fuel the Internet regulation fires. He said "certain undemocratic things could emerge and misinformation will start spreading over the web" which comes across to me as being a contradiction. The spread of misinformation, or opposing views of realities of life, is part of the democratic process. This process also recognizes that the flow of information is modulated by behaviors at the individual level among people living in society. His comments harken back to those that were shared in the discussion on this listserve, in the not too distant past, related to the formation of an academic oversight committee tasked with regulating Wikipedia entries. TBL also commented in the news story that courses at universities are not introducing students to both the technological and social sides of the technology. I've found this to be a true not only in academic settings, but also business settings. As a graduate student, I have been taking courses across disciplines for both the masters and Ph.D. degrees as a way to gain a good understanding of different ways that technical and social systems intersect and overlap when a person uses the Internet. I am also situating this information in previous experiences using the Internet and teaching/training others in academic and business settings to do the same since the early 1980s. As a person who places high value on the social constructivist approach to creating knonwledge at all levels of members of society, I am personally alarmed by some of the comments TBL made in the news story due to concerns that suggestions such as these, and others that emerged in the conversations regarding the regulation of Wikipedia entries. I have a lot of respect for TBL but also find it ironic that concerns are being raised in 2006 as opposed to years ago when people started using the Internet to exchange misinformation in the form of data packets. Hmmm . . . Gail ***************************** Gail D. Taylor, M.Ed. University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Human Resource Education Ph.D. Student Educational Psychology Teaching Assistant "We can't just have mainstream behavior on television in a free society. We have to make sure we see the whole panorama of human behavior." -- Jerry Springer

1 0

Andrew Cox
by Eliezer Ferreira 10 Nov '06

10 Nov '06

Andrew, Can we talk offline? Eliezer Ferreira tradutoref(a)yahoo.com.br --------------------------------- O Yahoo! está de cara nova. Venha conferir!

1 0

i-pol: a portal on Internet and politics
by Wainer Lusoli 10 Nov '06

10 Nov '06

Dear AoIRers - We have revamped [new & improved...] our research site on Internet and politics. http://www.i-pol.org It now resembles a portal, featuring both our own work [Stephen Ward, Rachel K. Gibson and Wainer Lusoli] and much wider research on Internet and politics. It provides annotated links and pointers to Internet and politics papers, initiatives, research projects, data and news. The research blog [i-blog] reviews issues related to e-government, e-democracy, Internet and electoral campaigns and e-participation. The post rate is about 3 msgs per week, on the above subjects. If you have a blog or websites dealing with Internet and politics [broadly defined], happy to exchange a link, if you are not already there. If you have something you would like to share, please get in touch. All other comments and contributions welcome, as you will see the site still needs a wee bit of work. All the best, and kind regards Wainer, Steve and Rachel -------------------------------------------- i-pol: a portal on Internet and politics http://www.i-pol.org http://del.icio.us/ipol [under construction] --------------------------------------------

1 0

i-pol: a portal on Internet and politics
by Wainer Lusoli 10 Nov '06

10 Nov '06

Dear AoIRers - We have revamped [new & improved...] our research site on Internet and politics. http://www.i-pol.org It now resembles a portal, featuring both our own work [Stephen Ward, Rachel K. Gibson and Wainer Lusoli] and much wider research on Internet and politics. It provides annotated links and pointers to Internet and politics papers, initiatives, research projects, data and news. The research blog [i-blog] reviews issues related to e-government, e-democracy, Internet and electoral campaigns and e-participation. The post rate is about 3 msgs per week, on the above subjects. If you have a blog or websites dealing with Internet and politics [broadly defined], happy to exchange a link, if you are not already there. If you have something you would like to share, please get in touch. All other comments and contributions welcome, as you will see the site still needs a wee bit of work. All the best, and kind regards Wainer, Steve and Rachel -------------------------------------------- i-pol: a portal on Internet and politics http://www.i-pol.org http://del.icio.us/ipol [under construction] --------------------------------------------

1 0