- Air-L - lists.aoir.org

Community Informatics Doctoral Colloquium: Prato 29 Sep 2004
by Marcus Foth 18 Mar '04

18 Mar '04

Call for Participation Community Informatics Research Network, Inc. (CIRN) Inaugural Conference 2004, Prato, Italy Doctoral Colloquium =================== The CIRN Doctoral Colloquium offers PhD students working in Community Informatics or a related discipline a special forum on 29 Sep 2004 where they will have a chance to present their research plans and discuss them with peers and established senior researchers. Interested students should prepare a 2 page summary of their research. This should provide a context for the research, describe the methods being used, the progress to date and expectations and hopes from the colloquium. Please submit your 2 page application by 1 April 2004 to: Marcus Foth at m.foth(a)qut.edu.au Applicants will be notified of acceptance by 1 June 2004. Successful applicants will be asked to prepare an 8 page paper on their research by 1 August 2004. For further details please visit the conference website at http://www.ciresearch.net/prato2004/ or contact the organiser of the CIRN Doctoral Colloquium, Marcus Foth, at m.foth(a)qut.edu.au Furthermore, research students are encouraged to attend and present work-in-progress as part of the regular conference stream, and there will be a prize given for the best paper submitted by a student. Conference Host: Centre for Community Networking Research, Monash University Sponsors include: Claremont Graduate University Queensland University of Technology Please forward to relevant lists, and please excuse cross-postings. Marcus Foth. 18 March 2004 -- Marcus Foth BMultimedia BInfTech(Media) MA(DigitalMedia) m.foth(a)qut.edu.au - http://www.vrolik.de/ Doctoral Candidate: Community Informatics Creative Industries Research and Applications Centre Queensland University of Technology (CRICOS No. 00213J) Creative Industries Precinct, Brisbane QLD 4059, Australia Phone: +61 7 3864 3800 - Fax +61 7 3864 3723 - The Works Z1-515F http://www.creativeindustries.qut.edu.au/

1 0

Re: [Air-l] freedom and related issues
by Jonathan Marshall 17 Mar '04

17 Mar '04

ET <et(a)tarik.com.au> wrote: > Last weekend I travelled to Melbourne for the graduation party of a > family member. [snip] > All those listening to the discussion expressed amazement that in the > year 2004 a university should demand that students bow to a member of > the staff. [snip] > Should any of us be surprised that the kind of organisations that demand > students bow to staff members would be purging staff websites? So do you think that there ever was a time when universities had graduation rituals and they did not purge the writings of staff members? simply, if there was then the ritualism is irrelevant. I'd also suggest that you misunderstand the nature of ritual here. This is not a defense of purging of web sites, by the way, but a simple statement that some social groups understand ritual in different ways to others. In our society, ritual is usually seen as interferring with authenticity or genuineness, and therefore as fake or authoritarian. Suprisingly authoritarianism can often become more pronounced without ritual, because then you only have violence left with which to impose order. If you don't show respect to the presenter of your degree, do you have any respect for the degree? does anyone? Human groups, will have rituals, even if they are rituals to show how non-ritualistic they are :) So I'd sugggest that ritual is largely irrelevant here, although perhaps it would be better if another form of ritual grew up which was more appealing to modern people. > Should any of us be surprised that organisations that demand strict > obedience to process should disregard the basic human rights and > freedoms of staff and students alike? Well this is true of most organisations. If you have worked in business or the corporate sector, you would see the same things. Its not simply unviersities I suspect, and its a pretty common suspicion, that it has something to do with size. After a certain size it becomes impossible to run organisations in a personal manner - not that that gets rid of 'process', demands for obedience and so on, but it tends to lessen the possibilties of misunderstanding, incompatability etc. However, misunderstanding and incompatibility might be a good thing in terms of the organisations ability to adapt :) > Should any of us be surprised that elements of one academic "faction" > feel under siege from a larger faction? > > All of this comes back to human rights, and the respect, or lack of > respect, that is generated in universities. I'd say this has a lot to do with the respect or lack of respect for human rights and 'dissenting views' in the wider society. We might note the huge 'culture wars' which we have all observed. Removal of funding from groups which disagree with corporate orthodoxy, or right wing history. The sacking of public servants who give advice or information counter to the wishes of their politicians, and so on. But in a more general way we might note that spokespeaople seem to disagree with abuse rather than argument. That there is little dialogue. Little attempt at problem solving. In which case it would be hard for universities, or any other organisation, not to suffer from the same kind of inflexibilities - especially so the more beholden they are to outside interests - and we see the permeation of universities with corporatism everywhere. Again, I'm not sure if anything was ever different, but it seems to me it was. In any case the question is not so much about universities, but about why this is the case generally. > We are all different, I doubt if any two human brains work in exactly > the same manner, yet it seems to me that in universities there is an > obsession, at times, with rigid adherence to process rather than > stimulating or even allowing individual students to develop their own, > and perhaps better, process. I'd suspect that this would become more pronounced, the more that universities become 'education' and 'career' focused. People employing students seem to want people who can obey process, who can fit in and do what they are told - not people who might question things, or who might wonder if the system they are working for is destructive. [snip] > All of the above is about process, but the world is totally > disinterested in process, the world wants results. > The world doesnt want another 50 conferences on how to feed the worlds > starving. The world wants food to go into the mouths of the hungry. Well you see this brings up the issue of what is a result. Maybe 'the world' is not the same as 'the powerful'? Maybe some influential people would prefer immediate profit to feeding the hungry? Maybe the process giving the result is simply invisible to most of us? Its called 'economic realism', the 'way of the world', 'impractical' etc. > We can not talk about freedoms on one hand insofar as university > staff websites is concerned if we do not support > the right to intellectual freedom of the student. Just to be difficult, there are always limits on freedom - out of necessity. If the student decides to write in a language they have made up and no one else understands then they can't expect to be marked well no matter how brillian their ideas - same goes for the academics. jon UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F DISCLAIMER ======================================================================== This email message and any accompanying attachments may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message or attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views the University of Technology Sydney. Before opening any attachments, please check them for viruses and defects. ========================================================================

4 3

Barry's 40 years of computing
by Barry Wellman 17 Mar '04

17 Mar '04

Some readers of these lists may enjoy my personal computer timeline, of over 40 years. 11 pages worth. If so, it's at Bruce Damer's wonderful Digibarn, worth looking at it in it's own right: http://www.digibarn.com/friends/barry-wellman/ Barry _____________________________________________________________________ Barry Wellman Professor of Sociology NetLab Director wellman at chass.utoronto.ca http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman Centre for Urban & Community Studies University of Toronto 455 Spadina Avenue Toronto Canada M5S 2G8 fax:+1-416-978-7162 To network is to live; to live is to network _____________________________________________________________________

1 0

new open source conference info
by Bernie Hogan 16 Mar '04

16 Mar '04

Hi Everyone, Here's the latest news about our open source conference at UofT. The speaker's list is great, and the energy is there (we might even have some Microsoft presence...should make the business model session a little provocative). Feel free to check out the website. http://osconf.kmdi.utoronto.ca/ It should be a good time. Take Care, BERNiE -- March 15, 2004 - Toronto FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Digital Entrepreneur Bob Young To Deliver Keynote at Toronto Open Source Conference LULU.COM CEO, TICATS OWNER AND RED HAT CO-FOUNDER TO DISCUSS INNOVATION IN DIGITAL MARKETPLACE Bob Young, CEO of Lulu.com, new owner of the Hamilton Tiger-Cats and co-founder of the world's most successful alternative software company Red Hat, will deliver the keynote address at the Open Source Conference May 9-11 at the University of Toronto. Young will address how the open exchange of information stimulates innovation in the marketplace in both the software and publishing industries. Titled "Open Source and Free Software: Concepts, Controversies and Solutions," the conference will take place Sunday, May 9, to Tuesday, May 11, at Convocation Hall, 31 King's College Circle. Bob Young will deliver the keynote address May 10. "It is a myth that successful businesses have to maintain proprietary control of their product and marketplace in order to be successful. Innovation is ultimately the key to success for any business. Closed systems actually discourage innovation," says Young. "At Red Hat we were not in the software business, at least not in the same sense that Microsoft is in the software business. Instead we succeeded by giving more power to our customers and responding to their needs. We are doing the same thing now with Lulu.com, an on-demand publishing tool that provides consumers with access to an open marketplace for content. Lulu.com challenges the assumptions of conventional publishing the same way that Red Hat challenged the assumptions of the software industry." Red Hat is the largest distributor of Linux, the most popular open-source operating system. A graduate of the University of Toronto, Young is truly an open-source visionary according to conference chair Ron Baecker. "He is an imaginative and successful entrepreneur, as well as a thoughtful and entertaining communicator. We are honoured he will be participating as our keynote speaker and as presenter at our 'business models' session." Full details on Young's role in the conference are available at its Web site, http://osconf.kmdi.utoronto.ca. - 30 - Please contact: Ron Baecker, Conference Chair (416) 978-6983, rmb(a)kmdi.utoronto.ca Kelly Rankin, Conference Coordinator (416) 946-8512, kelly(a)kmdi.utoronto.ca ============================================================= SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Topic of Young's address: "In a free-market-based democracy the consumer and citizen are one." The speech will be an autobiographical journey through issues that include open source, free software, open content, public domain, public good, entrepreneurship, business, free markets, democracy, customer service and profit. Young will explain how understanding 18th century philosophers, from Adam Smith to Ricardo and Mill, can help identify business opportunities that are not only highly profitable, but extremely beneficial to society. Young studied philosophy at UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO. Named one of BusinessWeek's top entrepreneurs in 1999, Young also founded The Center for the Public Domain, a foundation that supports the growth of a healthy, robust domain of knowledge and the arts. He is currently CEO of Lulu.com, a marketplace for digital content. Conference registration: a discounted fee of CDN$395 for the entire event is available until March 19, after which it increases to CDN$495. Price at the door is CDN$595. Single-day and discounted volume registrations are available. The conference is presented by the following organizations within the UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO: Knowledge Media Design Institute, Connaught International Symposia Fund, Centre for Innovation Law and Policy, Citizen Lab of the Munk Centre for International Studies, Department of Computer Science, Information Policy Research Program, the University of Toronto Libraries and their Resource Centre for Academic Technology. The support of these organizations is hereby acknowledged: Communications and Information Technology Ontario, IBM Centre for Advanced Studies, Linux Professional Institute, Seneca College, Ontario Ministry of Economic Development and Trade, Caseware International, Novell, Inc., Openflows Networks Ltd. and The Commons Group. - 30 - -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

1 0

fiinal program German Online Research 2004
by Uwe Matzat 16 Mar '04

16 Mar '04

Dear colleagues, please find the final program of the sixth international conference German Online Research at the following url: http://www.gor.de/gor04/programm_en.html We have sessions on online groups, social networks online and offline, e-democracy, the digital divide, e-learning, and other fascinating topics that make us -as researchers- crazy. As always, there is a stream of sessions on methods of internet research. Additionally, we offer a tutorial workshop program the day before and after the conference on the following topics: * The Analysis of Online Groups * The Analysis of Social Networks in the field of Internet Research * On-line Experimenting * Non-Reactive Methods of Data Collection on the Internet * Online Employee Surveys * How the Visual Layout of Questions Influences Answers to Web and Other Self-Administered Surveys The conference itself takes place March 30 + 31, 2004 at the University Duisburg-Essen (Germany). More information concerning registration can be found at http://www.gor.de/gor04/index_e.htm. On behalf of the program committee, Uwe Matzat ======================================= Uwe Matzat Sociology Section Sub-Department of Technology and Policy Department of Technology Management Eindhoven University of Technology P.O. Box 513, 5600 MB Eindhoven The Netherlands phone: +31 40 247-8392 email: u.matzat(a)tm.tue.nl http://www.tue-tm-soc.nl/~matzat/ =======================================

1 0

freedom and related issues
by ET 15 Mar '04

15 Mar '04

Two interesting topics popped up recently on this list - the academic freedom post by Maximilian Forte and the number fetishism post by Alex Kuskis, and I 'd like to tie them into one by starting with my recent experiences. Last weekend I travelled to Melbourne for the graduation party of a family member. Amongst the gathering there were about 10-12 people who were studying at university or had recently finished. The discussion started with a complaint about a directive in the Graduation Notes that instructed graduates when receiving their degrees to "bow to the Dean". All those listening to the discussion expressed amazement that in the year 2004 a university should demand that students bow to a member of the staff. Its even more absurd when one considers that universities seem to be hot beds of political correctness, yet demand this kind of nonsense. The discussion then turned to the authoritarian manner in which universities operate, and the obsession with "doing it their way" without question. Universities did not come out smelling of roses :-) (Before I go any further I should point out that there are, no doubt, many wonderfully liberated people working in universities who do not fit the comments I am making nor are my comments a reflection of my own experiences at Curtin University. I am actually enjoying my experience with them - most of the time!) Should any of us be surprised that the kind of organisations that demand students bow to staff members would be purging staff websites? Should any of us be surprised that organisations that demand strict obedience to process should disregard the basic human rights and freedoms of staff and students alike? Should any of us be surprised that elements of one academic "faction" feel under siege from a larger faction? All of this comes back to human rights, and the respect, or lack of respect, that is generated in universities. We are all different, I doubt if any two human brains work in exactly the same manner, yet it seems to me that in universities there is an obsession, at times, with rigid adherence to process rather than stimulating or even allowing individual students to develop their own, and perhaps better, process. In every field there appears to be the same rigid and sad cycle. Group A creates a new idea/field/ discipline etc. They create a mass of new labels and processes and demand adherence because that keeps them in a position of control in that field. After a while a rebellion develops amongst those who disagree with Group A. They create Group B and equally demand strict adherence to their philosophy to ensure they are different to Group A and have a distinct position of authority. Ultimately more reasonable people come along and declare that there are good points to the views of Group A and good points to the views of Group B and they create Group C - using a combination of both previous philosophies but still demanding conformity with process. None of the above is good for the world because it is oppressive. All of the above is about process, but the world is totally disinterested in process, the world wants results. The world doesnt want another 50 conferences on how to feed the worlds starving. The world wants food to go into the mouths of the hungry. Universities seem obsessed with process and, in demanding obedience, create a culture of oppression that tends to ignore the basic human rights of students and others involved. And this culture is bad for the students and its bad for learning. Allow me to explain using an example - the art of referencing. University A will demand that all students use referencing system A. No ifs or buts - you must copy the system they promote or you are marked down. This obsession with process adds nothing to the knowledge or ability of the individual student. University B will demand that all students use referencing system B and again, no ifs or buts. None of this is good for learning nor is it good for the students. The poor student merely copies what he is told to follow without thinking about it, without understanding it. He enjoys no right to freedom of expression, no right to freedom of thought and is not stimulated to think for himself at all. Could there be a better way??? Yes. Let us imagine that the university, rather than taking a hardline and authoritarian stance, instead respected the students and their basic human rights and freedoms. Let us imagine that the university directed the student to two or three major examples of referencing, and then announced that the student could use any referencing system they chose, including using any referencing system they might create. If a student can create a referencing system that allows the lecturer to understand where the material was sourced from as clearly as any "official" system then the student has succeeded. If the lecturer has no difficulty understanding where the referenced material came from, then the result has been achieved and we should be unconcerned by the process involved. Is such a system useful? Of course it is. The student has to make decisions. They have to scrutinise different referencing systems, consider if they can make a better one, and then make a value judgement that may cost them marks as to what system they will employ. They are thinking, they are using the braiways available to them in their one way, they have to make decisions, they are teaching themselves and their right to freedom of expression is still intact. No oppression, no authoritarianism, plenty of freedom. All of which takes me back to the comments of our Latvian blooded colleague. I dont know if Alex was referring to me when he wrote...." This is for our friend from Oz who is so keen on quantitative analysis to the exclusion of all else" or to someone else, but the sentiments expressed are again a classic example of the problems I see in academia and the Estonian and Scandinavian social democratic blood in me , mixed in with my usual Australian arrogance, wont allow me to keep quiet :-) One group of people latches onto a particular way of doing things and begin to believe this is the only way or the best way. Another group opposes them and launches into an equally militant stance way whilst a third group develops who want to take a middle path. All obsess over process rather than focussing on the end result. We must remember that we are all different. We all have different abilities and skills. Not everybody can appreciate or understand the quantitative path because its not in their brainways to do so. Similarly not everyone can appreciate or understand the qualitative path. The process by which one arrives at a result is completely irrelevant as long as it can be followed by other people. If person A wants to use a qualitative process to achieve a result then good on them. If person B wants to use a quantitative process to achieve a result then good on them too. And if person C, a student, wants to create a new process called the "person C freewheeling- throw the tea leaves over the shoulder" method and it is published in such a manner that it can be easily understood how they obtained their result, then that also MUST be respected by academia because failure to do so is disregards the human rights and freedoms of that student. We can not talk about freedoms on one hand insofar as university staff websites is concerned if we do not support the right to intellectual freedom of the student. Students must have the right to explore new methods, and new pathways and to be given every chance to achieve top marks through individuality.Through this respect for human rights the individual is better off, academia is better off because it allows for a greater infusion of new ideas and humankind can not be worse off for this respect of freedoms. Whether we are talking about the demand for students to bow before a university official, whether we are talking about purged university staff websites or whether we are talking about the process used to achieve a research result, we should always ensure that we are putting the rights of the individual first, because through the respect for human rights at all levels comes a more dignified, mature and advanced society. Only through a respect for human rights do we develop as a society, we do not develop by having an obsession with process. It is important, in my opinion, that the rights of the individual be respected and that in a university environment the respect for rights should begin with full respect of, and encouragement of, the individual students right to freedom of thought and communication. regards, Eero Tarik Adelaide, South Australia -- "If you feed monkeys caviar, they are still monkeys!"

1 0

Media monitoring applied online, election administration and the Internet
by Steven Clift 15 Mar '04

15 Mar '04

For all those "websphere" research buffs, how would you apply your tools and techniques to daily monitoring of major web sites during election periods? This is a possible extension of media monitoring to promote free and fair elections. Think global, developing democracies ... What tools and practices would you recommend? The general idea is that weekly reports could be generated about major media sites, government run sites, etc.. for bias/balance in coverage, etc.. Also, from a campaign regulation approach on party/candidate/individual sites, issues of liable, right of reply, etc. are also included in the research request below. Thanks, Steven Clift Election Administration and the Internet Research Request --------------------------------------------------------------- This is NOT a research request about electronic voting. This research request is about the use of the Internet in the electoral process. This request covers all levels of election administration, law, and campaign practice around the world as these issues relate to the use of the Internet. Specifically: 1. Strategic use of the Internet by government Election Management Bodies. 2. Campaign regulations and laws related to the use of the Internet in elections. 3. The process of independent "media monitoring" to promote free and fair elections as applied to the Internet. Please reply by _April 1, 2004_ to: clift(a)publicus.net - More Detail - Of interest are best practice examples, research, reports, plans and proposals in any language related to: 1. Strategic use of the Internet by government Election Management Bodies. This includes online information and multimedia provision, two-way communication, administrative transactions (campaign finance reporting, updating or verifying voter registration/electoral roll, etc.), administrative communication and online coordination, voter education, and outreach to target and marginalized groups. Again, my research request does not cover voting technology nor remote Internet voting. 2. Campaign regulations and laws related to the use of the Internet in elections. This includes the use of the Internet during election campaign periods by political parties, candidates, governments, the media, major or minor web sites, interest groups, individuals and others. This includes the application of existing laws and rules on campaign and media practices online. 3. The process of independent "media monitoring" to promote free and fair elections as applied to the Internet. This includes standard practices related to online analysis and monitoring of the web sites and e-mail efforts of traditional media organizations, governments, and other large reach online information and news providers in election periods. I am conducting this research for the International Foundation for Election Systems <http://www.ifes.org>. It is part of a comprehensive effort to review new electoral practices as they relate to election administration standards. Electoral standards represent the foundation of democratic expectations necessary to ensure free and fair elections in any country. If you are not sure whether the information or research that you have is of interest, please send it in <clift(a)publicus.net> regardless. Suggested contacts are also valuable. If you would like to learn about the specific results of this research, please check with IFES. I will announce any important public news about this effort on my Democracies Online Newswire e-mail announcement list <http://www.dowire.org> as well. Sincerely, Steven Clift E-democracy expert and speaker clift(a)publicus.net http://publicus.net Steven Clift - http://publicus.net - Reply to: clift(a)publicus.net Join DoWire: http://e-democracy.org/do Speaking requests: http://publicus.net/speaker.html Watch my BBC World interview: http://publicus.net/media.html

2 1

Inquiry on research about how readers read, and changes in recent decades
by Andy Oram 15 Mar '04

15 Mar '04

For a presentation I am making about the evolution of technical documentation at a computing conference this summer, I'm seeking research about how people read and absorb information from books. Specifically, how it this activity have changed over the decades as radio and then TV became pervasive? Have people's expectations and ability to make their ways through linear expositions changed? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Andy Oram O'Reilly & Associates email: andyo(a)oreilly.com Editor 90 Sherman Street voice: 617-499-7479 Cambridge, MA 02140-3233 fax: 617-661-1116 USA http://www.praxagora.com/andyo/ Stories at Web site: The Bug in the Seven Modules Code the Obscure The Disconnected ----------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

re conference
by susan.aaron＠utoronto.ca 15 Mar '04

15 Mar '04

There was notice re a conference of "Blacks" on-line not too long ago, but I can't locate it. Do you have a way of searching for that, within the last few weeks? thanks -- Susan Aaron, MA 416-544-9415 80 Montclair Ave, #303 Toronto, ON M5P 1P8

1 0

Fwd: Computers, Freedom and Privacy 2004
by Dan L Burk 15 Mar '04

15 Mar '04

These items may be of interest to many on the list. Regards, DLB On 10 Mar 2004, Deirdre Mulligan wrote: > A quick reminder that CFP 2004 is open for registration and some info > on another upcoming conference at UCB. > > Computers, Freedom and Privacy 2004 > April 20-23, 2004 > http://www.cfp2004.org/program/ (program overview) > http://www.cfp2004.org/program/cfp04_mailer_web.pdf (detailed program > with panel descriptions and speakers) > http://www.regmaster.com/cfp2004.html (registration) > > > China's Digital Future: Advancing the Understanding of China's > Information Revolution > April 30 & May 1, 2004 > Sponsored by the Berkeley China Internet Project, the Western Knight > Center for Specialized Journalism Training, and the New Media Program at > the Graduate School of Journalism, University of California, Berkeley > http://journalism.berkeley.edu/conf/chinadf/index.html > > -- > Deirdre K. Mulligan > Director > Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic > Acting Clinical Professor > Boalt Hall > University of California > 346 North Addition > Berkeley, CA 94720-7200 > > v 510.642.0499 > f 510.643.4625 > dmulligan(a)law.berkeley.edu > http://www.samuelsonclinic.org > > >

1 0