- Air-L - lists.aoir.org

Re: E-mail versus Web Time/Behavior
by Eszter Hargittai 25 Feb '03

25 Feb '03

The General Social Survey Internet module has some related questions such as - For about how many mins or hrs a week do you use your home computer for each of the following: .. sending or receiveing email .. - same for work computer - same for other computer Then there are questions about how many email messages does the user send and receive from all computers and how many are personal one-on-one vs. sent to/from members of a group/e-list. Then there are separate questions about time spent on the Web NOT email. You can access the GSS data here: http://www.webuse.umd.edu/ . I also collected data about email time vs Web (not email) time in my study. I had a short blurb about this in a piece: "Respondents were asked how much time they spend on the Web each week excluding e-mail use, that is, time spent specifically for browsing information online. Web use ranges from just a few minutes to over 30 hours weekly (see Table 1 for details). About half of the respondents use the Web more than they use e-mail, 18.5 percent use the two types of online services the same amount and the rest do more e-mailing than Web browsing in a typical week." from http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue7_4/hargittai Eszter --- http://www.eszter.com http://www.esztersblog.com _______________________________________________ No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding. Introducing My Way - http://www.myway.com

2 1

<nettime> www.marchtowar.com (fwd)
by robert m. tynes 25 Feb '03

25 Feb '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 03:24:02 -0500 From: tad_BARN <tad(a)media.mit.edu> To: nettime(a)bbs.thing.net, rare(a)rhizome.org Subject: <nettime> www.marchtowar.com ##FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE## NEW WEBSITE COMBINES ONLINE GAMING AND .NET ACTIVISM TO HELP IRAQI CIVILIAN CASUALTIES 25 February 2003: Today marks the launching of marchtowar.com, a new website that uses the power of internet gambling to raise money for civilian casualties of a US-led war against Iraq. The premise of the game is simple: visitors to www.marchtowar.com place $5.00 bets on when the war will begin. The player whose bet is closest to the actual start of hostilities will win prepaid gasoline cards totaling 20% of the total money collected. The remainder will be donated to agencies providing humanitarian relief to civilian victims of the coming war. According to marchtowar.com spokeswoman Kelly Bundy, "War is immanent, and we know that thousands of civilian casualties are inevitable. As Americans, we feel that it's our duty to help those civilians - after all, this war is being carried out largely in our name. marchtowar.com is simply providing a means for ordinary citizens to help with the coming humanitarian crisis, and have a little fun in the process." "This isn't about protest," said Marcel Champion, one of the site's founders. "The decision to go to war was made a long time ago, whether we like it or not. The Bush administration has made it abundantly clear that they don't give a hoot about opinion of either US citizens or the international community. While we empathize with the millions of Americans who question the President's commitment to democratic processes, marchtowar.coms position is purely pragmatic." Longtime Boston resident Terry O'Malley said, "I think it's a great idea. Plus, with the rising cost of gasoline, I really hope I win those gas cards!" Payments may be made by credit card or check, and will be held in escrow until time of payout by Boston Mobilization, a 503(c) nonprofit. Although anyone may place bets and contribute to the pool, only Massachusetts residents are currently eligible to win the prize. Efforts are currently underway to expand eligibility to nonresidents. Nonprofit organizations interested in making this service available to residents of their states are encouraged to contact marchtowar(a)yahoo.com immediately. Members of the United States armed forces and National Security Agency are prohibited from participating in the pool. For additional information, please contact marchtowar.com at marchtowar(a)yahoo.com. # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo(a)bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime(a)bbs.thing.net

1 0

FC: How anti-Iraq war protesters employed technology, from NYT
by Michael Gurstein 25 Feb '03

25 Feb '03

Pace Gina and others... I think the article below provides some extremely useful insight into the role that the Internet played, is playing and will play in the variety of political transformations that are taking place. The demonstrations were, we should note, occuring on day 1.5 of a war that hadn't yet happened and yet according to CNN who referred us to their website for confirmation, there were significant "anti" activities in some 603 (not sure where the 3 came from) communities across the globe. Some observations: * pre-Internet, we would probably not have known (certainly not in a timely fashion) about 90% of those activities as they occurred mostly in places where AP/Reuters and the traditional national/international media never tread * pre-Internet, almost certainly 90% of those activities might never have happened since the people in those communities would not have expected that their activities in Peoria and Penticton would register on any sort of international demo chart and thus they would have been invisible to all but the direct participants * pre-Internet, at day 1.5 of a war that hadn't happened yet, the turnout would have been in the thousands rather than the millions and would have represented the success of organizing efforts among the league of the committed (the usual cast of fringe political parties and a few politically active unions) rather than the infinitely larger and much more diverse (and ultimately much more powerful) league of the conscious and concerned. I think the results that Gina presented are an indication of the limitations of attempting to study phenomena which are emergent, systemic and tranformative with purely (and dare I say, narrowly) empirical methodology and tools that are meant to study phenomena that are incremental and particularistic. Best, Mike Gurstein ----------------------------------------------------------- >Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 18:58:29 -0800 (PST) >From: "Jennifer 8. Lee" <[spamproofed](a)nytimes.com> >To: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> > >http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/23/weekinreview/23JLEE.html > >CRITICAL MASS >How Protesters Mobilized So Many and So Nimbly >By JENNIFER 8. LEE > > >WASHINGTON Before the global protests against war in Iraq last weekend, >organizers were already making conference calls and passing out fliers for >their next set of demonstrations, including one scheduled for next Saturday, >outside the White House. > >But then, the worldwide protests drew millions of people onto the streets, >from San Francisco to London, and the Bush administration hit some diplomatic >roadblocks. Sensing delay in White House momentum, the organizers themselves >paused and decided to make a strategic move, delaying the demonstrations from >March 1 until March 15. They spread the news the old-fashioned way, through >alternative radio stations and word of mouth, and the instantaneous way, >through Web sites and e-mail messages. > >Organizing a protest is fundamentally about logistics: where do people meet, >how do they get on a bus, who will order portable toilets. Obviously, the >Internet, like fax machines and copiers, has made the tasks easier. Before >last weekend's protests, for example, people registered online for buses to >New York. And a mass e-mail notice was sent out to New York protesters, >informing them about public bathrooms in Midtown Manhattan and giving them a >number to call in case of arrest. > >But the Internet has become more than a mere organizing tool; it has changed >protests in a more fundamental way, by allowing mobilization to emerge from >free-wheeling amorphous groups, rather than top-down hierarchical ones. > >In the 60's, the anti-Vietnam War movement grew gradually. "It took four and >a half years to multiply the size of the Vietnam protests twentyfold," said >Todd Gitlin, a sociology professor at Columbia University and longtime >liberal activist. > >The first nationwide antiwar march in 1965 attracted about 25,000 people. By >1969, the protests had grown to half a million. But increasing the numbers >required weeks and months of planning, using snail mail, phone calls and >fliers. > >"This time the same thing has happened in six months," Mr. Gitlin said. Even >though momentum behind the demonstrations didn't grow until a month ago, >after Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's presentation to the United >Nations, more than 800,000 people turned out in 150 rallies in the United >States last weekend, from 100 in Davenport, Iowa, to an estimated 350,000 in >New York City. In Europe, more than 1.5 million protested. > >The protests had no single identified leader and no central headquarters. >Social theorists have a name for these types of decentralized networks: >heterarchies. In contrast to hierarchies, with top-down structures, >heterarchies are made up of previously isolated groups that can connect to >one another and coordinate. > >Because no central decision-making authority exists, protests can be >localized and can appeal to new groups and individuals who don't live in >areas where social protest information would typically reach. For example, >Mothers Acting Up was started two years ago by four women around a kitchen >table in Boulder, Colo., a liberal college town. But with their Internet >site, www.mothersactingup.org, they have been able to reach 600 like-minded >members across the country, many of whom participated in marches last week. > >Technology also spreads word of rallies to countries where free expression is >limited. In Singapore, where the government does not allow demonstrations at >the American Embassy, cellphone text messages went out, exhorting recipients >to gather at the embassy anyway. The text messages, which work like mass >e-mail messaging to mobile devices, attracted at least a half-dozen >placard-carrying demonstrators at the gates at the appointed time. The police >rounded them up for questioning. > >"Whenever a new communications technology lowers the threshold for groups to >act collectively, new kinds of institutions emerge," said Howard Rheingold, >the author of "Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution," which documents >self-organizing and leaderless movements. "We are seeing the combination of >network communications and social networks." > >His book tells the story of how cellphone text messaging helped bring down >Joseph Estrada, the Philippine president who was ousted after protests in >2001 over corruption. Text messaging advertised instant rallies, encouraged >people to protest by wearing black and provided updates on the impeachment >trial. > >(In the same way, cellphone messaging is potentially alarming for the Chinese >government. Officials do not have centralized control over the network and >therefore cannot censor it, the way they do the Internet.) > >E-mail lists have allowed individuals to create groups that defy geography >and time. Thousands of people have joined hundreds of antiwar lists, and >diverse streams of messages fly back and forth quickly, vastly different from >the information flow in hierarchies. Since the beginning of the year, 300 >messages have been posted on a popular antiwar list in Sydney, Australia, >that has almost 900 members. The notes range from solicitations for donations >to United Nations updates to appeals for local volunteers. > >This is mass mobilization, but also nimble mobilization. Protesting a war >that hasn't begun requires a constant eye on the calendar of government >action. And the movement's flexibility maximizes its impact, organizers say. >A protest date can easily be moved, timed to affect the latest diplomatic >maneuver. > >"We are trying to stay a step ahead of the administration by our planning," >said Damu Smith, chairman of Black Voices for Peace, one of hundreds of >groups involved in last week's demonstrations. And staying ahead of the game >"is absolutely strategically central in our ability to be effective in what >we are doing." > >Military theorists are fond of saying that future warfare will revolve around >social and communication networks. Antiwar groups have found that this is >true for their work as well. > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------- >POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list >You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. >To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html >This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ >Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/ >------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ >-------------------------------------------------------------------------

7 9

IMPORTANT - AoIR conference submission clarification and extension
by Steve Jones 25 Feb '03

25 Feb '03

There have been some questions concerning limits to conference submissions. In the interest of allowing for breadth of participation, AoIR's intention is to allow multiple submissions, but limit to: One acceptance in each of the two categories below, determined after review: 1) paper proposal (main author) 2) panel proposal (organizer) There is no limit to the number of times a person may: 3) be part of paper proposal(s) as co-author 4) serve as panel chair/discussant 5) serve as panel, roundtable or other non-panel event participant Furthermore, while we would like to keep the length of proposals reasonable so that reviewers may read proposals in a timely fashion, it is true as Jeremy noted in a previous email that the online proposal system allows for every paper, including those in panels, to be up to 700 words, and that each panel description can have 700 words for itself - this means that a panel with 4 papers could have 3500 words (5 parts, proposal and 4 papers, each of 700 words). However, I do encourage panel organizers to keep as close as possible to the limits expressed in the call for papers: The panel organizer should submit an approximately 500 word statement describing the session topic, include abstracts of up to 250 words for each paper or presentation (e.g., 1000 words for four papers). NOTE: Given this need for clarification, the conference submission deadline is extended until MARCH 10, 2003. If there are any additional questions please contact me or Conference Program Co-Chair Matthew Allen (M.Allen(a)exchange.curtin.edu.au) or for questions about the online submission system contact Jeremy Hunsinger (jhuns(a)vt.edu) Thank you, Steve Jones Sj

2 2

RE: [Air-l] Re: Panel Proposal - Digital Divide
by halavais＠u.washington.edu 25 Feb '03

25 Feb '03

Jeremy, This is from http://www.ecommons.net/aoir/cfp.html > Proposals for papers should be in the form an approximately 500-750 word > abstract. Creative presentations and demonstration projects should consist of > an approximately 500-750 word abstract, plus brief illustrative material. > Panels will generally include three to four papers or presentations. The > panel organizer should submit an approximately 500 word statement describing > the session topic, include abstracts of up to 250 words for each paper or > presentation, and indicate that each author is willing to participate in the > session. That is what I've been going by in prepping a panel proposal. I guess part of the rationale here is that panel organizors should/will be performing some level of selection for quality and cohesiveness, so that referees look at the presentation as a whole rather than part-wise. Alex > -----Original Message----- > From: air-l-admin(a)aoir.org [mailto:air-l-admin@aoir.org]On Behalf Of > jeremy hunsinger > Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 8:50 AM > To: air-l(a)aoir.org > Subject: Re: [Air-l] Re: Panel Proposal - Digital Divide > > > can you tell me where you are getting this information from? > i am asking because the proposal system says that every paper, > including those in panels gets up to 700 words and each panel > description can have 700 words for itself, the papers are separate from > the panel., this means a panel with 4 papers could have 3500 words as > it has 5 parts of up to 700 words.... > > a stand alone paper is allowed up to 700 words. > > in either case that should be sufficient to provide enough information > to review your proposal. > > On Tuesday, February 25, 2003, at 07:50 AM, Suely Fragoso wrote: > > > Steve and other colleagues > > > > I have been worried about the differences in proposing as a paper or a > > panel as well. Note that propositions of stand-alone papers relate to a > > 500 word summary, while papers within panels should be summarised > > in 250 words. I think that poses a further problem to > > > >> there is no significant effect on acceptance whether > >> it's a paper or panel submission, evaluation is made on the basis of > >> content and not kind. > >

1 0

Re: Panel Proposal - Digital Divide
by Eszter Hargittai 25 Feb '03

25 Feb '03

I'm interested in a panel that discusses inequalities beyond access vs no access dichotomies. My own work is on differences in Web use skill. (e.g. http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue7_4/hargittai ) I'm not clear on the submission process. Is it better to submit a paper as part of a panel? Or should I just submit the paper and let the organizers figure out where it fits best? I'm fine with it either way, I can't quite tell what the preferred method is from the organizers' point of view (or if there is one).. or what improves the chances of the paper being accepted.:) Eszter --- http://www.eszter.com | http://www.esztersblog.com _______________________________________________ No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding. Introducing My Way - http://www.myway.com

4 3

the future of web publishing online conference
by jeremy hunsinger 25 Feb '03

25 Feb '03

http://www.interdisciplines.org/defispublicationweb

1 0

RE: [Air-l] E-mail versus Web Time/Behavior
by Anderson, Ben 25 Feb '03

25 Feb '03

> How much _time_ does an average U.S. (or other country) Net > user spend using > e-mail at home or work? p146-149, ch 4 (Anderson & Tracey) of Barry Wellman and Caroline Humphrey's edited collection 'Internet in Everyday Life' has some UK data from 2000. I have much more recent data in front of me but have not had time to write it up yet :-) Other chapters in that book may well have data on the US and elsewhere although a brief glance suggests it is mostly 'frequency of use' rather than time per se. Ben -- Dr Ben Anderson Chimera, University of Essex, UK www.essex.ac.uk/chimera +44 (0) 7710 187 806

1 0

Re: [Air-l] Panel about Quality on the Internet
by Irene Berkowitz 25 Feb '03

25 Feb '03

Hi Paul, I am currently working with another member trying to put together a panel on time and space, however, we are having a bit of trouble with following through from the others who initially expressed interest. As you may recall, must of my work is focussed on traditional research being done in non-traditional ways via the internet and what differences might be attributed to that process. Currently, I am about to begin writing about the transpositions of space and time in electronic culture and the implications for academic research, particularly in terms of the current schism between institutional structures within the Academy and the funding agencies being constructed to respond to a different space/time paradigm. These implications are important to the quality of research because in many cases the actual research and alliances far exceed the geopolitical structures of the actual physical institutions, which "house" the research, provide the support, etc. I am going to attempt to address some of the policy implications and the evidences of self-organizing structures, which have addressed some of these issues. I believe the internet has been integral to this phenomenon. In case this isn't making sense. NASA is a reasonable example. It now well exceeds the boundaries of US involvement to be successful, but because of it's non-specific attachment to the US (or anywhere else), is no longer is supported in a way that it was when it represented a more symbolic manifestation of national power. On the other hand, other nations have trouble with support as well. The EU, itself may be another good example of the complexities of more global organization and the affect on the quality of scientific research or quite conversely, since the scientific community is even frequently less physically bounded than the institutions with which it is associated (eventhough, it always has had cross national boundaries), what implications does this have for the quality of science? What part do the multinational corporations play, if governments aren't as aggressively multinational in supporting science as well? If this is of interest, please let me know and I will let you know if we haven't gotten the other panel together. Actually, for this panel I would be much more interested in talking about the policy implications from this work. For the other panel, I am proposing to talk more theoretically about what's happening with time and space. Thanks, IB Irene Berkowitz Program Director, Curricular Publications and Systems Office of the Vice Provost Temple University tel. 215-204-7596 fax. 215-204 3175 berkowitz(a)mail.temple.edu >>> Paul.Wouters(a)niwi.knaw.nl 02/18/2003 11:37:00 AM >>> Dear colleagues, I will be submitting a paper on the construction of scientific quality and the internet to the next conference in Toronto. It might be a nice idea to see whether we can bring together papers about quality (which may be defined in very different ways and discuss diverse aspects of "quality") in different areas together in one session or panel. So this is a call for everyone interested, especially PhD students, to send me titles and abstracts before Wednesday February 26. If there is enough interest it might become an interesting session. Looking forward to your responses! Regards Paul Wouters Dr. P. F. Wouters Programme Leader Networked Research and Digital Information (Nerdi) NIWI-KNAW The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences PO Box 95110 1090 HC Amsterdam The Netherlands T 3120 4628654 F 3120 6658013 http://www.niwi.knaw.nl/nerdi paul.wouters(a)niwi.knaw.nl _______________________________________________ Air-l mailing list Air-l(a)aoir.org http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l

2 1

Please ignore previous e-mail!! Internet Studies textbook
by KeithDoyon＠aol.com 25 Feb '03

25 Feb '03

In a message dated 2/23/2003 9:56:26 AM Mountain Standard Time, clarkne(a)appstate.edu writes: > If you're looking for an introductory Internet Studies textbook for Fall > 2003, that combines theory and practice, please check out the book that > I co-authored with Ty Adams, titled _The Internet: Effective Online > Communication_. Sorry!! I should read my e-mail in appropriate time-order!! LOL!! Keith Doyon

1 0