- Air-L - lists.aoir.org

COSIGN 2002 FINAL CFP
by Andy Clarke 24 Mar '02

24 Mar '02

This is a reminder that the submission date for the Second conference on Computational Semiotics for Games and New Media is almost here. Submission date for Academic Papers and Artworks : 27th March 2002 Submission date for Posters and Technical Demonstrations : 22nd April 2002 Please distribute this call widely to any individuals and organisations that it would also be of interest to. I apologise in advance if you have already received it through other channels. Thank you Andy Clarke ***************************************************** * * Final Call For Papers * --------------------- * * COSIGN 2002 * * The 2nd International Conference on * * COMPUTATIONAL SEMIOTICS FOR GAMES AND NEW MEDIA * * Augsburg (Germany) * * 2nd September - 4th September, 2002 * * http://www.kinonet.com/conferences/cosign2002/ * ****************************************************** CONFERENCE SCOPE ==================== This cross-disciplinary conference explores the ways in which semiotics (and related theories such as structuralism and post-structuralism) can be applied to creating and analysing computer systems. It is intended for anyone with an interest in areas of overlap (or potential overlap) between semiotics and computers. This would include, but is not limited to, the following: computer scientists; HCI and AI practitioners; creators of expert systems; digital artists; designers; critics; semioticians; narratologists; etc. Semiotics is the study of signs, symbols and signification, and is therefore the study of how meaning is created, encoded and understood. Computational semiotics is understood here to be the application of semiotic theories to computer systems and interactive digital media. Three possible aspects of this are: - The way in which meaning can be created by, encoded in, or understood by, the computer (using systems or techniques based upon semiotics). - The way in which meaning in interactive digital media is understood by the viewer or user (again using systems or techniques based upon semiotics). - The way in which semiotics can be used as the starting point for a system for looking critically at the content of interactive digital media. Media that make use of the unique capabilities of digital systems are of particular interest to this conference. These include: hypermedia; content analysis systems (particularly those that extract higher-level meaning); the semantic web (and similar systems); multimedia and the internet; digital art, net art and other technology-based or technology-oriented art forms, computer games, interactive narratives and other forms of interactive entertainment; virtual reality systems and virtual environments. COSIGN 2002 invites submissions in the following categories: 1. Academic Papers 2. Artworks 3. Posters 4. Technical Demonstrations Details of the submission procedures are given below. Authors of accepted papers will be required to prepare an electronic version for the online conference proceedings (PDF), which will supplement the traditional printed volume. Information about the conference are available at the following web address: http://www.kinonet.com/conferences/cosign2002/ The programme and online proceedings for COSIGN 2001 are available at the following web address: http://www.kinonet.com/conferences/cosign2001/program.html IMPORTANT DATES AND DEADLINES ============================= Academic Papers and Artworks Submission date: 27th March 2002 Acceptance will be notified on or around 6th May 2002 Camera-ready copy by 10th June 2002 Posters and Technical Demonstrations Submission date: 22nd April 2002 Acceptance will be notified on or around 21st May 2002 Camera-ready copy by 10th June 2002 SUBMISSION PROCEDURE ==================== 1. ACADEMIC PAPERS Papers are invited on any subject that explores areas of overlap (or potential overlap) between semiotics and interactive digital media. Examples of this include, but are not limited to, the following: - The use of semiotics in artificial intelligence and expert systems. - Software architectures and technologies using, based upon or inspired by semiotic theories, systems or models. - The use of semiotics in the creation of generative narrative systems, interactive digital games, entertainment and artworks. - The use of semiotics in the study and criticism of digital interactive media. - Narratology in games and new media. - Semiotic-orientated HCI. - Semiotics and Hypermedia. Papers should demonstrate an understanding of - and engagement with - the principles of semiotics (understood here as the study of signs) and gain something from this engagement. All papers must be submitted electronically (in either Postscript, Microsoft Word, RTF or PDF format) to Frank Nack at the following address: Frank.Nack(a)cwi.nl ------------------------------------------------------ Submission date for Academic Papers: 27th March 2002 Acceptance will be notified on or around 6th May 2002 PDF copy for the proceedings by 10th June 2002 ------------------------------------------------------ 2. ARTWORKS In addition to academic and theoretical papers, presentations of artworks of all forms and in all formats are invited. We are particularly interested in digital art, net art and other technology-based or technology-oriented art forms. Selection of work for presentation at the conference will be based upon its relevance to the themes of the conference, its interest in demonstrating or exploring the potential of new media, and its challenging of perceptions, theoretical assumptions, or understanding in any areas related to the conference. Selection may also be constrained by practical requirements for equipment, safety, etc. Final decisions will be made by the Artwork Committee. Artworks will be assessed on the basis of documentation of the work presented in the form of an online website. The website should display the following: - A textual description of the proposed artwork and any illustrations - A biography of the artist(s)/author(s) - Contact details Please submit the URL of the website containing your proposal in an email to Andy Clarke at the following address: andy(a)kinonet.com Those wishing to submit additional supporting material, such as videotapes, should contact Andy Clarke to make arrangements for this. No responsibility is taken by the COSIGN organisers for any such material, and all expenses for its return must be met by the artist. ------------------------------------------------------- Submission date for Artworks: 27th March 2002 Acceptance will be notified on or around 6th May 2002 PDF copy for the proceedings by 10th June 2002 ------------------------------------------------------- 3. POSTERS There will be an opportunity for researchers to present new work and ideas that are not yet ready for the full presentation. Short papers will be presented in poster format, and will be included in both the hardcopy and electronic proceedings. All papers must be submitted electronically (2 to 4 pages of A4 size, double spaced, in either Postscript, Microsoft Word, RTF or PDF format) to Clive Fencott at the following address: P.C.Fencott(a)tees.ac.uk ------------------------------------------------------- Submission date: 22nd April 2002 Acceptance will be notified on or around 21st May 2002 PDF copy for the proceedings by 10th June 2002 ------------------------------------------------------- 4. TECHNICAL DEMONSTRATIONS Demonstrations of relevant leading-edge work and work in progress are invited. Submissions will be peer-reviewed to ensure quality. Demonstration proposals must be submitted electronically (in either Postscript, Microsoft Word, RTF or PDF format) to Craig Lindley at the following address: craig.lindley(a)interactiveinstitute.se Those wishing to submit supporting material, such as videotapes, should contact Craig Lindley to make arrangements for this. ------------------------------------------------------------- Submission date for Technical Demonstrations: 22nd April 2001 Acceptance will be notified on or around 21st May 2001 PDF copy for the proceedings by 10th June 2002 ------------------------------------------------------------- ALTERNATIVE SUBMISSION PROCEDURE ================================ Authors and artists who have difficulty in making their submission in the appropriate form (as outlined above) should contact: Frank Nack CWI - INS2 Kruislaan 413 P.O. Box 94079, NL-1090 GB Amsterdam Email: Frank.Nack(a)cwi.nl Phone: +31 20 592 4223 Fax: +31 20 592 4312 ORGANISING COMMITTEE ==================== Elisabeth Andre - University of Augsburg (Germany) Andy Clarke - Kinonet (UK) Clive Fencott - University of Teeside (UK) Craig Lindley - Interactive Institute (Sweden) Grethe Mitchell - University of East London and Kinonet (UK) Frank Nack - CWI (Netherlands) PROGRAMME COMMITTEE =================== Elisabeth Andre - University of Augsburg (Germany) Wilton Azevedo - Mackenzie Presbyterian University, São Paulo, (Brazil) Paul Brna - Leeds University (UK) Kevin Brooks - Motorola Human Interface Labs (USA) Andrew Clarke - Kinonet (UK) Clive Fencott - University of Teeside (UK) Mathias Fuchs - Sibelius Academy, Helsinki (Finland) Werner Kriechbaum - IBM (Germany) James Lester - North Carolina University (USA) Craig Lindley - Interactive Institute (Sweden) Grethe Mitchell - University of East London and Kinonet (UK) Frank Nack - CWI (Netherlands) Mirko Petric -University of Split (Croatia) Paolo Petta - OFAI (Austria) Doug Rosenberg - University of Wisconsin-Madison (USA) Ola Stockfelt - University of Goteborg/University of Skovde (Sweden) Robert Wechsler - Palindrome Inter-media Performance Group (Germany) ARTWORK COMMITTEE ================= Jorge Luiz Antonio - Pontifical Catholic University of Sao Paulo (Brazil) Andrew Clarke - Kinonet (UK) Silvia Eckermann - Digital Artist (Austria) Fatima Lasay - University of the Philippines (Philippines) Luca Marchetti - Anomos (France) Grethe Mitchell - University of East London and Kinonet (UK) Timothy Portlock - University of Illinois (USA) Emma Posey - Bloc (UK) David Rokeby - Digital Artist (Canada) Doug Rosenberg - University of Wisconsin-Madison (USA) ************************************************ ---------- end of cfp

1 0

Ethnic Spamming?? -- FWD:lakhani, incredible cricket software released!]
by Karim R. Lakhani 24 Mar '02

24 Mar '02

Hi All, This spam came as a real surprise to me. Somehow these guys have figured out that I am of South Asian descent and assumed that I like cricket and thus my absolute need for "cricket score software." AFAIK, I have not signed up to any "indian" or "pakistani" or south asian websites, they must have dredged e-mail addresses and then matched them with ethnic names. Anyone else come across this fine grained spamming? best, Karim cricinfo123(a)btv.org wrote: > > _____________________________________________________________________ > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > > This will change the way you get cricket scores in your computer! > > Until now, you had to visit slow and tedious websites to get live ball > by ball commentary... > > With this revolutionary software, you will never be stuck at those > slow websites to get live score updates. > > The CricketBar relays simple commentary and ball by ball score > directly to your desktop in a small window strip that you can dock at > the botrtom or top of your screen. > > You continue to surf other sites or use your computer for whatever you > want, while the score is relayed to you without interrupting your work. > This is so good, that within a few days we've had over 7000 users! > > With CricketBar you can now work and have fun at the same time! > > Get your FREE copy now at >>> > http://www.cricketbar.com/ref.asp?re=sonal > > _____________________________________________________________________ > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- =================================== Karim R. Lakhani MIT Sloan School of Management MIT Open Source Research Project e-mail: lakhani(a)mit.edu voice: 617-851-1224 fax: 617-344-0403 http://opensource.mit.edu http://mit.edu/lakhani/www ===================================

2 1

noticing language skills
by jeremy hunsinger 24 Mar '02

24 Mar '02

has anyone noticed an increase in foreign language reading comprehension skills in intensive web users? I think I see this to some extent within my person experience and my experience with students.. I would say that there is probably a good deal of data out there that correlates exposure to foreign languages to gained skill in those languages in teaching environments, i just haven't hit ERIC for this yet. Opinions? It may be that it is more profound here(@VT) because students have an undergraduate language requirement, but I'd be interested in other people's experiences and insights. For me, if I can find more evidence, I might be more likely to make some of the work of my students more language intensive. but other than that, I probably won't have time to explore the implications of this if it is occuring other than in perhaps the political contexts of unification and globalization , so has anyone else noticed this? any citations out there relating to the internet? surely it is possible that this is occuring, and if it does, then it has certain implications for globalization, etc. because it demonstrates perhaps a pluralism as opposed to the more normally assumed functions of imperialist globalization. -- jeremy hunsinger http://www.cddc.vt.edu/jeremy cddc/political science http://www.cddc.vt.edu 526 major williams hall 0130 http://www.dromocracy.com virginia tech -under construction blacksburg, va 24061 540-231-7614 this email was sent from my office

1 0

FW: <toc>--Cheat-detection software (Economist.com)
by Michael Gurstein 24 Mar '02

24 Mar '02

Please note that my comments on "Plagiarism and Napster" were meant as a commentary on developments such as below, rather than on any particular contribution to this list and particularly not Lori Kendall's very innovative approaches to the matter as outlined in her recent post. MG --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright © 2002 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group --------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.economist.com/science/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=1033832 Mar 14th 2002 Economist.com Cheat-detection software Plagiarise. Let no one else's work evade your eyes A window of opportunity for intellectual cheats is closing fast EVER since Al Gore invented it, the Internet has been a paradise for those with a creative attitude to facts. Students, for example, commission and sell essays with such ease there that online "paper mills" devoted to this trade are one of the few dotcom business models still thriving. With a few clicks of a mouse, a student can outsource any academic chore to "research" sites such as Gradesaver.com or the Evil House of Cheat. One market opportunity, however, frequently creates another. The past few months have seen a rapid rise in interest in software designed to catch the cheats. The subscriber base of Turnitin, a leading anti-plagiarism software house based in Oakland, California, has risen by 25% since the beginning of the year. Around 150,000 students in America alone are under its beady electronic eye. And in Britain, the Joint Information Systems Committee, the unit responsible for advising the country's universities on information technology, has tested the firm's software in five colleges. If all goes well, every university lecturer in the country will soon be able to vet his students' submissions with it. Turnitin's software chops each paper submitted for scrutiny into small pieces of text. The resulting "digital fingerprint" is compared, using statistical techniques originally designed to analyse brain waves (John Barrie, the firm's founder, was previously a biophysicist), to more than a billion documents that have been fingerprinted in a similar fashion. These include the contents of online paper mills, the classics of literature and the firm's own archive of all submitted term papers, as well as a snapshot of the current contents of the World Wide Web. Whenever a matching pattern is found, the software makes a note. After highlighting instances of replication, or obvious paraphrasing (according to Turnitin, some 30% of submitted papers are "less than original"), the computer running the software returns the annotated document to the teacher who originally submitted it--leaving him with the final decision on what is and is not permissible. Which teachers and institutions will choose to employ such software? Past research has shown that, perhaps surprisingly, academic dishonesty correlates with high academic achievement. Nor is public exposure of widespread cheating likely to burnish a university's reputation. Universities with the highest-achieving students and the most unsullied reputations may therefore have the most to lose from anti-plagiarism software. Indeed, a curious pattern has emerged among Turnitin's clients: good universities, such as Duke, Rutgers and Cornell, employ it. Those that like to think of themselves as top-notch, such as Princeton, Yale and Stanford, do not. According to Dr Barrie, "You apply our technology at Harvard and it would be like a nuclear bomb going off." Explosions are happening lower down the academic ladder, as well. In January Christine Pelton, a biology teacher in Kansas, was forced out of her job for using Turnitin's software. Just before Christmas she had run 118 essays though the mill, and found that 28 had been plagiarised. Naturally, she failed the cheats. But rather than thank her, the parents of some of those cheats reacted with indignation. They forced the local school board to order her to pass the offenders, and she resigned in protest. Clearly, shooting the messenger has not yet gone out of fashion. http://www.economist.com/science/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=1033832 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright © 2002 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group --------------------------------------------------------------------------- *******

1 0

Guice:Looking Backward and Forward at the Internet
by Jay Robert Hauben 24 Mar '02

24 Mar '02

The URL for a version of the John Guice article, Looking Backward and Forward at the Internet is: http://www.slis.indiana.edu/TIS/abstracts/ab14-3/guice.html Jay

1 0

Guice:
by Jay Robert Hauben 24 Mar '02

24 Mar '02

Hi, Those interested in Internet history and historiography might value the article by Jon Guice: Looking Backward and Forward at the Internet. The Information Society v14, n3 (July-September 1998), pp. 201-211. Take care. Jay

1 0

Re: Internet Histories
by Jay Hauben 23 Mar '02

23 Mar '02

Radhika, I'm sorry I didn't see this earlier. > Can anyone share with me how many kinds of Internet Histories have > been written, told, narrated - sources, citations etc? > > thanks, > r > ___________ > Radhika Gajjala Are you familiar with Netizens: On the History of Usenet and the Internet by Michael Hauben and Ronda Hauben IEEE Computer Society Press, 1997? It was one of the earliest efforts to document the origins of the developments which led to the Internet. It takes a social prespective that is unusal for the US. But European researchers and also historiograghers like John Guice and Roy Rosenweig (see below) have found it valuable. It has been online since Jan 1994 at http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/ In the December 1998 issue of the _American Historical Review_ Rosenzweig Observed that currently there is no mention of the Internet and little mention of computers in history books. His essay on "Writing Internet History" suggests that this will and should change. In his review essay Rosenzweig looks at 4 books about the history and development of the Internet and discusses them and the significance they have to developing a historiography of the Internet. The books he includes are "Where Wizards Stay Up Late", "Transforming Computer Technology: Information Processing for the Pentagon, 1962-1986", "The Closed World: Computers and the Politics of Discourse in Cold War America", and "Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet". (He also mentions a few other books in his comments or notes.) The review essay looks at the social context of the Internet and of Usenet and recognizes that this is a vital aspect to consider. He says about "Netizens", it offers an interpretive perspective that should be central to any future Net history. It argues "...that the Internet has created a new kind of citizen, the 'netizens,' who they define as 'people who decide to devote time and effort into making the Net, this new part of the world, a better place -- a regenerative and vibrant community and resource.' The Haubens see the democratic nature of the network growing out of its grass-roots source in the people who created Usenet." I will look for the reference to John Guice's essay. Take care. Jay

1 0

RE: [Air-l] RE: Plagiarism and Napster
by Kendall, Lori 23 Mar '02

23 Mar '02

Michael Gurstein wrote: > However, doesn't all this discussion about various mechanical ways of > capturing the plargiarizing miscreants say some interesting things about > the state of academe where: > * student assessment is so ritualized and depersonalized that > digitally encoded performances (e.g. student essays/reports) can be > substituted one for the other (apparently seamlessly) subject only to > mechanical (policing) review ... > * assessments are of student presentation/re-presentation of > infinitely reproducible (and in a digital age) completely depersonalized > "information" rather than the rather more context (and individual) > specific "knowledge". Actually, my discussion of how I detect plagiarism, and that of other people on the list specifically has to do with assessments which are *not* "ritualized and depersonalized". > Surely what is important is that students can construct a useful > argument, judiciously select and cogently deploy information from the > infinite information warehouse on the Net (or elsewhere) rather than find > this or that clever way of restating (in their own words) whatever is the > content of the subject they are discussing. Students' ability to construct an argument is exactly what is at issue. The examples of plagiarism I have encountered are not merely students plugging in others' words and then constructing an argument around them, but borrowing others' arguments whole cloth and thereby *not* demonstrating skills or knowledge. I am able to catch this precisely because I design assignments that encourage students to gather data, apply theory, and work with ideas in order to better understand them. So I don't really see how you can read this discussion as somehow reflecting a degraded state of academe, which is how your argument came across. And while the discussion may have centered on "mechanics," the underlying pedagogical issues go well beyond that. My original purposes in designing assignments the way I do were pedagogical; it is a side benefit that those assignments are also difficult to plagiarize. In addition, I don't think it takes much at all in terms of time or resources to detect plagiarism and to get students to understand the difference between gathering others' words and synthesizing something out of them on the one hand, and representing others' thoughts as their own, on the other. It could well be that I am not catching all of the plagiarism in my classes, but I am relatively confident that I am, and almost entirely through assignment design. _________________________________ Lori Kendall Assistant Professor of Sociology Purchase College-SUNY lori.kendall(a)purchase.edu

1 0

More Spam
by Ellis Godard 23 Mar '02

23 Mar '02

This one is a laugh riot! For only $22, the authors (who purport not only to be "scientific" but also "experts", albeit without a shred of scienticity in any claim or statement they make, via email or their webpage) guarantee to rid your life of abuse and violence, forever! :-) -----Original Message----- From: stevemiller(a)howtokillviolence.com [mailto:stevemiller@howtokillviolence.com] Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 6:51 AM To: lemuria(a)virginia.edu Subject: HowToKill ... We are Experts in the Science of Human Behaviors, with a combined 84 years of State of California university education and practical experience. Our mission is to coach individuals and organizations on how they can permanently eliminate all abuse and violence from their homes, schools and workplaces. Hard to believe that is possible? We agree, -it is hard to believe. However, we will conclusively prove to you, -every literate person can learn to do just that, and do so within a very few hours. Please click on http://howtokillviolence.com for further information. Thank you, SEM and JDM.

1 0

RE: plagiarism
by Kendall, Lori 23 Mar '02

23 Mar '02

This is a bit long. In answer to the last question first -- if a student downloads *anything* and turns it in for an assignment, I expect them to tell me where they got it. In most cases, I would only allow them to use material from online if they were also analyzing that material and writing something additional about that material. Purchase College has recently rewritten their plagiarism policy in response to a perceived increase in the amount of plagiarism in classes. In my Classical Social Theory class last semester, 4 out of 40 students turned in papers that included some plagiarized material. (In one case, half the paper was downloaded uncredited from a website; the others included less material, and one student credited some websites and not others.) The semester before that, in my Computers and Culture class, I also had four plagiarized submissions (2 from the same person) out of only 25 students. In that group, most were entire downloaded papers, some with slight alterations. One was a Salon.com article! To discourage this, and to make it easier for me to spot instances of plagiarism (as well as for other pedagogical reasons), I structure my classes so that students do several writing assignments over the course of the semester. I almost never assign "library research" topics or traditional "term papers." As part of each assignment, which they receive in writing, I require that they use (quote from or reference) a set number of readings from the course, usually at least three. A typical assignment has them gathering original data of some sort (doing an interview, looking at a website) and then analyzing their data using the readings and theories presented in class. I usually have them turn in their original materials as well. (For instance, in my popular culture class, they just did analyses of magazine advertisements and attached the ads they analyzed to the paper.) In the case of Classical Social Theory, I paired each classical work (by Durkheim, Weber, and Marx) with a modern work which used that theoretical perspective. These strategies generally prevent my students from finding entire papers which meet the criteria of the assignment. Any paper which fails to complete the requirements of the assignment, fails to cite class materials, or has very different writing styles in differen portions of the paper, sets off my plagiarism "alarm" and I start doing online searches for material from the paper. (If you would like tips on this, feel free to ask, but I don't do anything fancy -- I just use search engines.) Purchase College does not have fraternities. At UC Davis, where I taught previously, we had a problem with fraternity "paper banks." Those can be harder to catch unless you regularly vary your class assignments in some way. Individually-tailored papers, which can be purchased online, would also be harder to catch, but I don't believe most of my students have the financial resources to devote to that -- I guess if they do, I don't know it! I will be interested to hear what experiences other people are having with this. ___________________________________ Lori Kendall Assistant Professor of Sociology Purchase College-SUNY lori.kendall(a)purchase.edu

3 2