- Air-L - lists.aoir.org

RE: [Air-l] Re: if you can't lick 'em
by R.A.Hope-Hume＠open.ac.uk 23 Jan '02

23 Jan '02

While I was working in the Federated Staes of Micronesia about 4 years ago, they came up with the idea of marketing their .fm domain name to radio stations, however I have found very little evidence of it being taken up by radio stations. Bob Hope-Hume -----Original Message----- From: Mark Warschauer To: air-l(a)aoir.org Sent: 22/01/02 18:44 Subject: [Air-l] Re: if you can't lick 'em > There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to it, except in the >case of Tonga where ".to" is a cool suffix for a domain name. Others with rhyme and reason include ".tv" (marketed to television stations) or Laos's ".la" (marketed to Los Angeles businesses). mark _______________________________________________ Air-l mailing list Air-l(a)aoir.org http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l

1 0

RE: [Air-l] Fake University Degree Programs
by Steve Fox (NLG) 23 Jan '02

23 Jan '02

I too receive a lot of these mails soliciting "fake" degree programs. However, because I work full-time and at one time was researching some on-line educational alternatives, I came across some on-line programs that were a) extensions of accredited universities, e.g. the MBA at the University of Colorado, which is quite well-known, and b) legitimate on-line universities that offered similar programs, but who were going through the accreditation process. While I'm not sure what this process entails, I imagine that legitimate on-line institutions exist for legitimate subject areas that can be sustained through a self-study environment. This leads me to believe that fake diplomas, i.e. illigitimate on-line universities, are really not doing the on-line educational system any justice. And for people who actively seek on-line educational alternatives, this presents a real problem. It also presents a real problem for the development of the on-line educational system as a whole. When we look at this in the context of the culture or experience of cyberspace, the fraudulent solicitation of diplomas inhibits the growth of something that could be a really great thing for people who want to extend themselves to the cyberspatial experience but can't because (beyond the obvious offerings of phrenology :-) ) they don't know how to discriminate between on-line institutions. -----Original Message----- From: Ken Friedman [mailto:ken.friedman@bi.no] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 3:57 AM To: air-l(a)aoir.org Subject: [Air-l] Fake University Degree Programs Christian Berrio asks whether the degrees touted in current spam ads are forgeries --snip-- Diplomas from prestigious non-accredited universities based on your present knowledge and life experience. No required tests, classes, books, or interviews. Bachelors, masters, MBA, and doctorate (PhD) diplomas available in the field of your choice. --snip-- These university offers are not offers for forged university diplomas. They are solicitations for the sale of "genuine" and _worthless_ diplomas from a fake university. All serious university degrees are offered by accredited universities. Universities are accredited by the government in most nations, usually through the ministry of education. In the United States, this takes place at a second remove through the regional accrediting agencies authorized by the department of education. This level of accreditation is necessary for tax status, for proper status in relation to student loans, for many kinds of financing and support, and for other purposes. In addition the specific professional schools or programs of many universities are ALSO accredited under the special accreditation programs of various associations. In business, for example, this would include accreditation by the AACSB in the US and by EQUIS in Europe. Some international schools seek these specialized accreditations from other nations specifically to establish value, and ranking, and to make the school attractive to outstanding foreign students, especially in the competition for talented research students at master's and especially at the doctoral level. The tip-off on the solicitation you received was the line "prestigious non-accredited universities." Since no one recognizes a degree from a "non-accredited university," and since a "non-accredited university" seeks none of the kinds of status or funding for which accreditation is required, anyone may establish one. In effect, anyone who receives this ad could just as easily establish his own non-accredited university, and give himself his own PhD. Those who want several degrees from different universities can establish one for each degree. The tricky aspect of this is that some fake universities emulate the names of real universities with sound-alike or resemblance names. This was once a common practice, but aggressive trademark action by legitimate universities to protect their names is curtailing this. What can't be stopped is the use of totally fake names or the use of names that are not protected in a remote jurisdiction. For example, it might be difficult for the administration of the real Patrice Lumumba University of Moscow in Russia to locate and take legal action in the United States against someone from Moscow, Idaho, who sets up his own Patrice Lumumba University. The ancient University of Montpelier would probably never learn about a fake university of the same name operating in Texas. For the most part, though, these places chose fancy, pan-Galactic names such as The University of Higher Studies or Oceanic University. The tendency of some universities to change names to slightly wild new versions doesn't help keep things sorted. In some cases, these degrees are also awarded for subjects that simply don't exist in real universities, such as theosophy, astrology, or phrenology. The term "prestigious" is as meaningful or meaningless as anyone wishes to make it. For some people in certain places, it is far more prestigious to own a relatively complete set of Pokemon cards than to own a complete set of college degrees. Prestige is a factor of social circumstance. These non-accredited universities are primarily what used to be called diploma mills, and their main purpose is earning money for the people who own them. Anyone likely to require a degree these days tends to check not only on the degree, but on the university. To many people, it doesn't matter, though. They simply want a degree to feel better about themselves or to sound better to friends and neighbors. For those purposes, a "non-accredited university" may be as good as any. These aren't forged diplomas, though. For a small fee, I'll be happy to send you an absolutely authentic doctorate in phrongistics from Laurel and Hardy University. If phrongistics isn't your thing, I'll invite the subscribers of AIR-L to join me in establishing the Pan-Galactic University of Higher Studies Department of Cyberspace Programs. We'll offer an MBA in dot.commerce and a Ph.D. in anything you care to name. With so many unaccredited mouths to feed, of course, this will cost a bit more than a doctorate from L&HU. Nevertheless, at L&HU, "no one is turned down" and we can guarantee "confidentiality assured." In contrast, who knows what those cyberspace people at PGUHS will be doing with your prestigious, non-accredited degree? On the whole, I'd say the Laurel and Hardy doctoral program in phrongistics is the far wiser choice. Of course, to keep the record absolutely straight, most of us who earned accredited degrees are aware of two things. First, it is the degree that counts, not the diploma. The diploma is merely a piece of paper that signifies the award of a degree. The necessary legal document is the transcript kept in the files of each university's registrar. Second, the prestige conferred by these degrees is not always as great as many would wish. One always hopes on graduation that this degree or that will help one to get a good job, meet the right member of the opposite or the same sex, finally get one's family to recognize that one is an adult, etc. What you learn is that: 1) Jobs are scarce for everyone. 2) Grandma always loves you, you'll always be a child to your Mom, and your Dad still kisses you no matter how long you have had your Ph.D. 3) The degree generally doesn't matter much to the girls, boys, women or men whom you want to attract. On the other hand, a good Pokemon collection may do the trick. -- Ken Friedman, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Leadership and Strategic Design Department of Technology and Knowledge Management Norwegian School of Management Visiting Professor Advanced Research Institute School of Art and Design Staffordshire University _______________________________________________ Air-l mailing list Air-l(a)aoir.org http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l

6 6

Re: [Air-l] Re: New Theoretical Approaches to the Self in Cyber-Culture
by noci 23 Jan '02

23 Jan '02

> However, I do think, that the internet has, or seems about to, change our > notions of the self in that it is going to enable us to create social selves > that might be said to act on their own and yet might be argued to be a part of > our self. i agree with that point- i've interacted with quite a few individuals who created such semi-independent selves. now you might argue along the lines of dana boyd, stating "those are performed selves"- which is certainly true for the bulk of people- but some of the folks whom i've met acted as "round/complete" characters (sociable, solving problems in their ccommunities, etc. etc.) denied the existence of their own actions. it's a paradox...they were socially involved, yet when confronted with the question "you think this is real?", they'd deny it. "real" here suggests that online and offline social interaction are basically the same, and that's what i'm pointing at: those people's behaviour was basically the same as "in real", yet the link to physical reality and "real" social space was missing. thus, i've talked to constructs who were acting on their own behalf. sure, they were once spawned by a physical self, but as soon as they started differentiating between online and offline space, they became semi-independent beings, vaguely disconnected from the parent minds, but still functional, valid characters. nite. :) max d

2 1

RE: Re: [Air-l] Lurking
by frankthomasft＠netscape.net 23 Jan '02

23 Jan '02

michael gurstein <mgurst(a)vcn.bc.ca> wrote:

2 1

Museums in cyberspace
by Leda Cooks 23 Jan '02

23 Jan '02

For some time now, I have been researching the recollection of memory and identity in museums. As an outgrowth of these and other IT-related interested, I am also very fascinated by how those museums are representing themselves on-line. Does anyone know of other research in this area? Thanks for any info you might have, Leda Cooks

2 1

Re: New Theoretical Approaches to the Self in Cyber-Culture
by danah boyd 23 Jan '02

23 Jan '02

> From: "noci" <nochi(a)gmx.net> > Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 00:05:03 +0100 > > the interesting questions there: is the "online self" different from > the "real" self? I think it's also important to ask what it means to have a 'real' self. In the physical world, i exhibit a wide variety of aspects of myself to a wide variety of people, given a particular context. The language, mannerisms, dress, and attitude i exhibit at work differs tremendously from that which i exhibit on a Saturday night at a NYC club. Are these two different selves or just different facets of my 'self'? I believe that we have a strong sense of self, even if particular characteristics can be conflicting and confusing (Saturday night behavior/beliefs versus church behavior/beliefs). We exhibit certain aspects of our self to certain people during certain interactions. This doesn't make our self any less real, just controlled (or 'performed') for a particular purpose, even if that purpose is simply fitting social norms. For example, while someone may be a mother, she probably will not speak to you in mommy-language at a business meeting, not because she's trying to hide her motherhood, but because the performance isn't socially appropriate. In the same way, i would suggest that online is just another context, with different norms and different ways of performing one's self. For example, in the physical world, we have to work with the characteristics of our self that are written on the body, while those are not readable online. Consequently, we pay much more attention to the qualities that are given through avatars, language or email/pseudonyms, trying to derive basic social information about the people out there (i.e. sex, age, location, values, etc.). Just as we hide/lie about certain personal characteristics in the physical world (how old are you, really?), we do the same online. Sometimes this is malicious; sometimes, it's purely entertaining; sometimes, it's unintentional. I guess i hesitate to think of the online sphere as tremendously different, just another context with slightly different rules/options. Please disagree with me because i am really interested in this conversation... danah

3 2

FedCASIC
by John B. White 22 Jan '02

22 Jan '02

I'm trying to find information on this annual meeting held in Washington, DC. Does anyone have contact information or a page where I can find registration materials? --JW

1 0

RE: [Air-l] Re: New Theoretical Approaches to the Self in Cyber-Culture
by Steve Fox (NLG) 22 Jan '02

22 Jan '02

> the interesting questions there: is the "online self" different from > the "real" self? I would argue that depending on the context of your on-line behavior, you probably exhibit different sides of yourself. Maybe you can't express or don't feel comfortable expressing these in your everyday lives. Steve -----Original Message----- From: Marj Kibby [mailto:Marj.Kibby@newcastle.edu.au] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 12:46 PM To: air-l(a)aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Re: New Theoretical Approaches to the Self in Cyber-Culture >>> danah(a)media.mit.edu 01/23/02 07:38 AM >>> > From: "noci" <nochi(a)gmx.net> > Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 00:05:03 +0100 > > the interesting questions there: is the "online self" different from > the "real" self?

1 0

Re: [Air-l] Re: New Theoretical Approaches to the Self in Cyber-Culture
by Marj Kibby 22 Jan '02

22 Jan '02

>>> danah(a)media.mit.edu 01/23/02 07:38 AM >>> > From: "noci" <nochi(a)gmx.net> > Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 00:05:03 +0100 > > the interesting questions there: is the "online self" different from > the "real" self? I think it's also important to ask what it means to have a 'real' self. In the physical world, i exhibit a wide variety of aspects of myself to a wide variety of people, given a particular context. The language, mannerisms, dress, and attitude i exhibit at work differs tremendously from that which i exhibit on a Saturday night at a NYC club. Are these two different selves or just different facets of my 'self'? The 'self' that you present is your 'identity' Your sense of self may be fairly constant, though as you say your identity may change from situation to situation. Analysis of online identity has moved from discussions of "no-one knows you are a dog" to look at identity management online as just another facet of identity management in day to day life. Cheers, Marj

1 0

Forward
by Marj Kibby 22 Jan '02

22 Jan '02

Ive had a request from a journalist from the times of india, bangalore who asks among other things " who devised the Forward option in email?" Anyone know the answer to this? Cheers, marj

1 0