- Air-L - lists.aoir.org

WEBCAST AUJOURD’HUI: Le Forum sur le Peering d’Afrique Centrale – Webinaire sur l’Impact du COVID-19 sur le Peering
by Joly MacFie 27 May '20

27 May '20

This will be in French only. ISOC Live posted: "Aujourd'hui, mercredi 26 mai 2020 de 15h00 à 17h00 WAT ((14h00 - 16h00 UTC), le tout premier Forum de Peering en Afrique Centrale se déroulera pour discuter de la manière de continuer à développer l'interconnexion, le peering et la croissance Internet à t" [image: livestream] <http://livestream.com/internetsociety/capf>Aujourd'hui, *mercredi 26 mai 2020* de *15h00 à 17h00 WAT* ((14h00 - 16h00 UTC), le tout premier *Forum de Peering en Afrique Centrale <https://www.internetsociety.org/fr/events/le-forum-sur-le-peering-dafrique-…>* se déroulera pour discuter de la manière de continuer à développer l'interconnexion, le peering et la croissance Internet à travers la région pendant COVID-19. CONFÉRENCIERS - *Olivier Leloustre* - Président, NEWTELNET; *Luc Missidimbazi* - DRC; Amreesh Phokeer - R&D, AFRINIC; *Nico Tshintu* - Directeur des opérations, Internet Service Provider Association-RDC (ISPA-DRC) et de RDC-IX. MODERATEURS - *Landry Lingombe* -Secrétaire Exécutif, GABIX, et *Ghislain Nkeramugaba*,Internet Society (ISOC). *LIVESTREAM: http://livestream.com/internetsociety/capf <http://livestream.com/internetsociety/capf>* *FACEBOOK SIMULCAST: https://www.facebook.com/pg/ISOCAfrica/videos/ <https://www.facebook.com/pg/ISOCAfrica/videos/>* *PARTICIPER: https://www.internetsociety.org/events/central-africa-peering-forum/registr… <https://www.internetsociety.org/events/central-africa-peering-forum/registr…>* *TWITTER: **#CAPeeringForum <http://bit.ly/CAPeeringForum>* *Permalink* https://isoc.live/12107/ -- -------------------------------------- Joly MacFie +2185659365 -------------------------------------- -

1 1

Doctoral Colloquium - No paper req'd - iLRN 2020 Virtual Conf. on VR/AR/MR (XR) & Immersive Tech. for Learning
by Lee, Mark 26 May '20

26 May '20

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE IN THE ILRN 2020 VIRTUAL DOCTORAL COLLOQUIUM Paper and/or poster optional; FREE for students not presenting/publishing in the main conference. iLRN 2020: 6th International Conference of the Immersive Learning Research Network June 21-25, 2020, Online and in Virtual Reality Technically co-sponsored by the IEEE Education Society, with proceedings to be submitted for inclusion in IEEE Xplore(r) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Website: http://immersivelrn.org/ilrn2020/dc Doctoral Colloquium Coordinators: * Andreas Dengel, Julius Maximilian University of Würzburg, Germany * Tiago Martins Peres, Universidade Aberta, Portugal Join our Doctoral Colloquium at iLRN 2020, the 6th International Conference of the Immersive Learning Research Network, which will be taking place online using a number of virtual reality and other digital collaboration platforms/tools from June 21 to 25, 2020. (Headset not required to participate.) This is the premier scholarly event focusing on advances in the use of virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), mixed reality (MR), and other extended reality (XR) technologies to support learning across sectors and contexts. ### Benefits of Participation ### One day prior to the main conference, we offer you, the doctoral and master's students with a focus on VR/AR/MR (XR) and immersive learning research, a platform to: * Build your network: The Doctoral Colloquium will take place in a virtual platform that can host thousands of users simultaneously and includes a friend system with user profiles that one can even link, for instance, LinkedIn there. * Get feedback on your ideas and work: Feedback provided by graduate students, for graduate students. * Create early visibility for your research. Whether you are joining the main conference or not, we welcome you to participate in this friendly gathering of doctoral and master's students on June 22, 2020 (time TBA). ### Important Notes ### 1. We consider all submissions relevant to XR and immersive learning research. 2. You don't need a presentation or even to participate at the main conference to join the Doctoral Colloquium! 3. Presenters and participants must register for the conference, but may do so for free (unless you are a practitioner or presenter at the main conference, or if you want to have your Work-in-progress paper included in the proceedings). ### Types of Submission ### While everybody is welcome to participate and give feedback, we want to give you a fine selection of amazing doctoral and master's projects to hear and learn about. If you are interest in presenting your work at the iLRN 2020 Doctoral Colloquium, you have three options from which to choose: 1. Submit a "Work-in-Progress paper for Doctoral Colloquium" via EasyChair. If your paper gets accepted, it will be included in the proceedings (note that, in this case, you have to pay the Academic Author registration for the conference) AND submit a pre-recorded 3 to 7-minute video summarizing your work. 2. Submit a "Practitioner proposal for poster presentation" via EasyChair (this requires registration, but at the Practitioner Presenter rate-cheaper than the Academic) AND submit a pre-recorded 3 to 7-minute video summarizing your work. 3. JUST submit a pre-recorded 3 to 7-minute video summarizing your work. Regardless of whether you have a paper or proposal accepted for the conference, you can participate in the Doctoral Colloquium by submitting a video summarizing your project. We recommend the video is in 3-Minute Thesis (3MT), Video Abstract, or PechaKucha format. See the iLRN 2020 Video Presentation Guidelines (https://immersivelrn.org/ilrn2020/video-presentation-guidelines/ ). When you are ready, submit your video here: https://bit.ly/3guhGjY Once your submission has been reviewed and accepted, the Doctoral Colloquium Coordinators will send you a coupon code allowing you to register for the conference for free, provided you meet the aforementioned criteria. Questions and inquiries regarding the Doctoral Colloquium may be directed to andreas(a)immersivelrn.org . (Sent to air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org) | ALBURY-WODONGA | BATHURST | BRISBANE | CANBERRA | DUBBO | GOULBURN | MELBOURNE | ORANGE | PORT MACQUARIE | SYDNEY | WAGGA WAGGA | LEGAL NOTICE This email (and any attachment) is confidential and is intended for the use of the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must not copy, distribute, take any action in reliance on it or disclose it to anyone. Any confidentiality is not waived or lost by reason of mistaken delivery. Email should be checked for viruses and defects before opening. Charles Sturt University does not accept liability for viruses or any consequence which arise as a result of this email transmission. Email communications with Charles Sturt University may be subject to automated email filtering, which could result in the delay or deletion of a legitimate email before it is read at Charles Sturt University. The views expressed in this email are not necessarily those of Charles Sturt University. Charles Sturt University in Australia The Grange Chancellery, Panorama Avenue, Bathurst NSW Australia 2795 (ABN: 83 878 708 551; CRICOS Provider Number: 00005F (National)). TEQSA Provider Number: PV12018 Consider the environment before printing this email.

1 0

HICSS Deadline Extension: July 15
by Alexander Halavais 26 May '20

26 May '20

Sorry I won't get to see the AIR crew in Dublin, but hopefully I can see some of you in Hawaii this January. The deadline for submissions to HICSS has been extended to July 15. The conference is still "on" for January, assuming that travel is possible at the start of the year. In any case, proceedings from HICSS are very highly cited. While we are certainly in a period of flux, I hope you will consider submitting and (hopefully) coming together in the new year. In particular, we hope you will consider submitting to our mini-track for Digital Methods: https://hicss.hawaii.edu/tracks-54/digital-and-social-media/#digital-method… There has been an explosion of research using social media data to study human behavior and social interaction in almost every domain of social science. While the body of literature using digital and social media data is growing at a staggering rate, accompanying methodological contributions about the process of conducting research with digital and social media data remains thin. The existing methodological literature is typically tool or technology driven, and not a result of empirical examination of the data collection process.This leaves researchers without an understanding of how to approach or evaluate the social media data collection process, and in turn, how to appropriately interpret findings from this type of research. As a result, researchers, practitioners, and students are left to continually reinvent the wheel by learning through a process of trial and error. This minitrack addresses this gap by providing a venue to discuss methodological issues and approaches to conducting research with digital and social media data. We welcome papers related to methodological challenges for researchers including, but not limited to: (1) the need for new methods for data collection and analysis, (2) adaptations of existing methods (3) issues of representation and sampling, (4) ephemerality of social media data, (5) holistic collection of digital social media data and associated content such as images/URLs/video, (6) preservation, archiving, and data sharing, and (7) impact of changing platform affordances, interfaces, designs, and APIs. Best, Alex -- // Alexander Halavais (he/him) @halavais alex.halavais.net/bio // Associate Prof. of Critical Data Studies - Director of MA in Social Tech // Arizona State University, New College, Social & Behavioral Sciences // "I want to see you not through the Machine," said Kuno. "I want to // speak to you not through the wearisome Machine."

1 0

WEBCAST TODAY: Introduction to Configuration and Management of HPC Infrastructure
by Joly MacFie 26 May '20

26 May '20

As noted, this session will be conducted in Amharic. ISOC Live posted: "On Tuesday 26th May 2020 at 16:00 EAT (13:00 UTC) the Internet Society Ethiopia Chapter (ISOC ET) presents a webinar 'Introduction to Configuration and Management of HPC Infrastructure'. Presenter Addisu G. Semie, PhD of Addis Ababa University discuss the" [image: livestream] <http://livestream.com/internetsociety/hpc>On* Tuesday 26th May 2020* at *16:00 EAT* (13:00 UTC) the *Internet Society Ethiopia Chapter <http://www.internetsociety.et/>* (ISOC ET) presents a webinar '*Introduction to Configuration and Management of HPC Infrastructure <https://isoc.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_7pnhsrGxRlCJuSCFvhHReg>*'. Presenter *Addisu G. Semie*, PhD of Addis Ababa University discuss the basics of building, using, and managing high-performance computing (HPC) - the use of distributed computing facilities for solving problems that need large computing power. HPC generally requires low-latency interconnection networks. The webinar will be conducted in Amharic. *LIVESTREAM: http://livestream.com/internetsociety/hpc <http://livestream.com/internetsociety/hpc>* *FACEBOOK SIMULCAST: https://www.facebook.com/pg/ISOCAfrica/videos/ <https://www.facebook.com/pg/ISOCAfrica/videos/>* *PARTICIPATE: https://isoc.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_7pnhsrGxRlCJuSCFvhHReg <https://isoc.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_7pnhsrGxRlCJuSCFvhHReg>* *TWITTER: @isocethiopia + hpc <https://bit.ly/2A6wm80>* *Permalink* https://isoc.live/12103/ -- -------------------------------------- Joly MacFie +2185659365 -------------------------------------- -

1 0

Update - CfP: "Digital Ethnography: Revisiting Theoretical Concepts and Methodological Approaches"
by Monika Palmberger 26 May '20

26 May '20

Dear All, Due to the uncertainties surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, the Vienna Anthropology Days 2020 will be organized online (Sept. 28- Oct. 1, 2020 https://vanda.univie.ac.at/) We warmly invite you to submit a proposal to our session "Digital Ethnography: Revisiting Theoretical Concepts and Methodological Approaches." The conference organizers have extended the deadline to July 1. For the details of our session, please see below. To submit a proposal, navigate to: https://vanda.univie.ac.at/call-for-papers/ Please let us know if you have any questions. Best wishes, Monika and Philipp Conference Vienna Anthropology Days (VANDA) 2020 Date & Venue 28 September - 1 October, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria Panel Digital Ethnography: Revisiting Theoretical Concepts and Methodological Approaches Organizers Philipp Budka (University of Vienna) Monika Palmberger (University of Vienna) Abstract Ethnographic research has the potential to dig deep into mediated personal relationships as well as into socio-technical relations in an increasingly digitized and digitalized world (e.g., Hjorth et al. 2017; Horst & Miller, 2012; Pink et al., 2016). In order to do so, ethnographers and anthropologists have engaged with a variety of digital and multimodal methods such as online ethnographic fieldwork and participant observation, digital storytelling, mobile and visual media elicitation, digital media biographies, and digital video re-enactments (e.g., Pink et al., 2016). Their research has opened up new knowledge horizons such as the changing emotional, normative or symbolic dimensions of complex social relations and cultural practices entangled with new digital media technologies. This session provides room for critical and ethical reflections on theory and methodology in the field of digital anthropology/ethnography, including, but not limited to, the following questions: Which theoretical concepts are particularly fruitful in the ethnographic and anthropological exploration of digital phenomena? How are such concepts entangled with methodological approaches and challenges, for example by reconsidering issues of collaboration, decolonization, confidentiality or intimacy? How can we do participant observation when communication and interaction are increasingly 'individualized' and veiled due to digital technologies, particularly the smartphone? Which forms of collecting, interpreting and representing empirical data do we aspire for? This session invites presenters to revisit previous discussions and critically reflect upon current relevant debates in anthropology and beyond. Papers may be empirically, methodologically or theoretically driven. Deadline & Submission Please submit your paper abstracts (max. 350 words) online via the conference system the latest by July 1, 2020: https://vanda.univie.ac.at/call-for-papers/ ----------- Dr. Monika Palmberger https://ksa.univie.ac.at/palmberger-monika https://kuleuven.academia.edu/MonikaPalmberger recent publications: Relational ambivalence: Exploring the social and discursive dimensions of ambivalence—The case of Turkish aging labor migrants. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 2019. 2019: Why alternative memory and place-making practices in divided cities matter Space and Polity, 2019.

1 0

COVID-19 Seminar #6: Professor Ien Ang, Western Sydney University
by Thao Phan 26 May '20

26 May '20

*COVID-19 Seminar #6: Professor Ien Ang, Western Sydney University * ienang-seminar.eventbrite.com.au Please join us seminar #6 in the COVID-19 seminar series, co-hosted by the Alfred Deakin Institute for Citizenship & Globalisation <https://www.deakin.edu.au/adi> (ADI) and the Science and Society Network <https://scienceandsocietynetwork.deakin.edu.au/> (SSN). *Date/time: *Tuesday 2nd June, 10am - 11:30am (Australian Eastern Standard Time, GMT+10) *Title:* Beyond the Crisis: Transitioning to a Better World? *Abstract:* As time passes it has become increasingly clear that the COVID-19 crisis is not just a short-term public health emergency. Instead, the situation we are in lays bare a broader and deeper organic crisis permeating all levels of society, both nationally and globally. For some, this organic crisis has resulted in a hope for a more just, peaceful and humane future, a humankind living in harmony among each other and with the planet. However, how could we work towards a transition to such a better world? In this talk, I will reflect on a number of political and intellectual barriers to such a desirable future, from the erosive role of human passions to the escalating new cold war between China and the West. To have a chance of a better world, we need to maintain a critical cosmopolitan horizon against the grain of self-interested closures and exclusions. *About the speaker:* Ien Ang is Distinguished Professor of Cultural Studies at the Institute for Culture and Society, Western Sydney, of which she was the director until the end of 2014. She is internationally recognised for her wide-ranging work focusing on the formation of audiences and publics; the politics of identity and difference; migration, nation and multiculturalism; and Australia – Asia relations in a global context. Her latest books are the co-authored Chinatown Unbound: Trans-Asian Urbanism in the Age of China (2019) and the co-edited Cultural Diplomacy: Beyond the National Interest? (2016). *Watch the seminar:* Seminar will be available to stream on YouTube live. Access using the live link: <https://youtu.be/eJsN8Ym85y4>https://youtu.be/S-p5_K9LsLI Date/time: Tuesday 2nd June, 10am - 11:30am (Australian Eastern Standard Time, GMT+10) Q&A with the speaker to follow. To send questions/participate in the chat, you'll need to sign-in using a YouTube account <https://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-comment-on-youtube?r=AU&IR=T>. If you have any questions, please send to ssn-info(a)deakin.edu.au <ssn-info(a)deakin.edu.au> The talk will also be recorded and available on the SSN Youtube Channel <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVYFQV_UFX9CLreqpNzanVA>. Did you miss our last seminar? Watch it here! <https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLtH1AbnJ7AFApbhh29fL5kqjNFdD_0eID>

1 0

CFP: Dead and Dying Platforms: The Poetics, Politics, and Perils of Internet History | Deadline Sept. 1
by Muira McCammon 26 May '20

26 May '20

Greetings! See below for information about a special issue on dead and dying platforms for *Internet Histories* that I am co-editing with Prof. Jessa Lingel. We're seeking abstracts (500 words maximum) by September 1, 2020. We especially welcome writing that explores platforms whose histories are rooted in understudied countries, areas, cultures, and digital communities. We particularly encourage submissions about platforms launched, used and/or remembered outside of Silicon Valley. Feel free to spread this call for papers (below) as widely as possible. The text is also available at the following URL: https://think.taylorandfrancis.com/special_issues/dead-and-dying-platforms/ Wishing you all health & equanimity, Muira McCammon A bit about my research here <https://penntoday.upenn.edu/news/Penn-grad-student-studies-information-flow…> Ph.D. candidate, Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania M.L. candidate, University of Pennsylvania Law School Twitter: @muira_mccammon <https://twitter.com/muira_mccammon> **-*-*- // with the usual apologies for crossposting // *-*-*-* *Dead and Dying Platforms: The Poetics, Politics, and Perils of Internet History* *Muira McCammon & Jessa Lingel (University of Pennsylvania)* *Rationale & Motivation* This special issue explores internet histories through the lens of “platform death” as a way of understanding how digital communities grapple with absence, invisibility, and disappearance. Collectively, the contributions in this issue will address the cultural, geopolitical, economic, and socio-legal repercussions of what happens when various corners of the Internet fail, decline, or expire. As a point of departure, we assume that platforms can bring together a wide set of actors, from politicians to parents, teens to technologists, spies to free speech activists; they can serve as a stage where people gather, argue, develop personal relationships, and jockey for divergent futures (Marvin, 1988; Pearce, 2011; Baym, 2015; Lee, 2017; Gillepsie, 2018). But what becomes of platforms when they fade, fail, or fall from public favor? What can dead and dying platforms tell us about the internet’s growth and stagnation, its present and futures? We seek to complicate, document, and build on the narratives of platform change, collapse, death, precarity, and frailty that scholars (Gehl, 2012; Chun, 2016; Belleflamme & Neysen, 2017; Gomez-Meijia, 2018; Helmond & van der Vlist, 2019) and tech journalists (Kircher, 2016) have highlighted over the past two decades. Recent scholarship has focused on the rise and resilience of certain tech enterprises, such as YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter (e.g. Burgess & Green, 2009; Vaidhyanathan, 2018; Jackson, Bailey, & Foucault Welles, 2020), but much of this research has privileged big platforms over the small, surviving digital communities over the dead, and Silicon Valley-born-and-bred design thinking over that birthed outside tech hot spots. Studies imagining the demise of Big Tech platforms (Ohman & Aggarwal, 2019) and tracing consumer resistance to digital media (Katz & Aspden, 1998; Portwood-Stacer, 2013) have largely ignored both the values and frailties of Small Tech in great depth. While historical and contemporary research has addressed the themes of digital departure (Wyatt, 1999; Baumer et al., 2013), disappearing mediums (Gehl, 2012; Suominen et al., 2013; Ballatore & Natale, 2016), and user mortality (Leaver, 2013), it has largely left the theme of “platform death” to the wayside. Another key absence in this literature is attention to platforms and communities outside the U.S. and Europe. With the above gaps in the literature in mind, the impetus for this special issue came from a forthcoming panel in the Communication History Division at the May 2020 International Communication Association’s Annual Conference, “Dead and Dying Platforms: The Poetics, Politics, and Perils of Internet History.” When organizing the panel, over 20 different scholars in six countries writing on the histories of specific, bounded platforms expressed interest. Though not all could be included in the final panel, many articulated a desire to contribute to a special issue, such as this one, focusing on the promises and perils of single platforms through the lens of Internet history. This special issue seeks to bring together diverse thinkers and scholars with expertise in a range of dead and dying platforms. *Description of CFP Procedure* We aim to bring together contributors active in the fields of history, communication, media studies, law, economics, psychology, internet studies, library and information science, queer theory, journalism studies, and related scholarly domains. The topic of contributions may include, but are not limited to: - The rise and fall of specific platforms, including discussions on the challenges, factors, and policies responsible for their decline – and rebirth. - Archival techniques and theoretical frameworks for resurrecting and reimagining dead platforms - Comparative investigations of platform precarity - Explorations of the laws, economic forces, and social trends that underlie the historical analysis of platforms that have survived to the present day - Memory narratives and counter-narratives of platform users, designers, and advertisers - Media refusal, disconnection and techno-skepticism - The offline repercussions and cultural reverberations of platform death - Rhetorics and metaphors of the describe platform death and failures of platform governance (i.e. kill switches) - The ethnographies, pre-histories, and afterlives of dying digital communities - Quantitative and qualitative methodologies that can operationalize platform collapse - Interconnections between the frailties of Small Tech and the failures of Big Tech - Ways in which the rise and fall of certain platforms are geographically asymmetrical and asynchronous - Media change, materiality, everyday experience, and nostalgia - The ontological and epistemological challenges of considering platforms as dead, dying, or alive - Historiographies of platforms created, used, and/or dismantled outside the United States - Studies of platforms whose deaths have not received significant Anglophone press coverage - Analysis of the implications of platform death for international and global discussions of Internet pasts and futures Although papers do need to be written in English, we especially welcome writing that explores platforms whose histories are rooted in understudied countries, areas, cultures, and digital communities. We particularly encourage submissions about platforms launched, used and/or remembered outside of Silicon Valley. *Submissions & Time Schedule* Abstracts (500 words maximum) should be emailed to deadplatforms(a)gmail.com by September 1, 2020. Any questions about the CFP can be sent to the co-editors, Muira McCammon (muira.mccammon(a)asc.upenn.edu) and Jessa Lingel ( jessa.lingel(a)asc.upenn.edu) Notification about acceptance to submit an article will be sent out by 1 October 2020. Authors of accepted abstracts are invited to submit an article by 1 February 2021. Final versions or articles are asked to keep within a 6,000 word limit. Please note that acceptance of abstract does not ensure final publication as all articles must go through the journal’s usual peer review process. — 1 Sep 2020: due date for abstracts — 1 Oct 2020: notification of acceptance — 1 Feb 2021: accepted articles to be submitted for review — Feb 2021-May 2021: review process and revisions

1 0

CfP2 'The Politics of Metadata' - J. of Digital Culture & Society
by Karin Hansson 25 May '20

25 May '20

Second call for Papers: The Politics of Metadata Issue 1/2021, Digital Culture & Society, http://digicults.org Edited by: Anna Dahlgren, Karin Hansson, Rámon Reichert and Amanda Wasielewski Abstract submission: June 28, 2020 Author submission: July 1, 2020 Full paper submission: October 1, 2020 Final version: December 30, 2020 This special issue of the Digital Culture & Society journal invites theoretical and methodological contributions discussing the politics of metadata. The transformation of image collections from files and boxes to digital interfaces has had implications for the way images are annotated and ordered. In particular, new issues arise in relation to the practices of and policies for creating descriptive metadata. The first generation of digitization in the 1990s sparked a lively debate around images and their credibility, which played out in the news media, political circles, and in relation to history writing (Mitchell, 1994; Ritchin, 1990). Despite the fact that photographic manipulation is as old as the medium itself, the ease and availability of software that allowed consumers to “photoshop” images on their personal computers ushered in an era of digital distrust. Yet, as pointed out by Rubinstein and Sluis, “In the past, concerns about manipulation of pixels caused people to doubt the veracity of the digital image; however, manipulation of metadata can have much more dramatic and far-reaching consequences and they indicate that the construction and design of metadata inflicts archiving and classification practices yet also the conditions of use“ (Rubinstein and Sluis, 2013). In other words, while many people worry about the consequences of digital image manipulation, the data we collect on our data, which is used to order and recall a vast array of digital material, can also be subject to biases and manipulations that are just as insidious and often more difficult to detect. The design and use of metadata is therefore always culturally, socially and ideologically inflected (Baylis, 2014; Bunnik et al., 2016; Loukissas, 2017; Pollen, 2016). Indeed all metadata situate the images they furnish historically, geographically, politically and organizationally. The actors and their agendas and interest, whether these are institutions (museums, archives, libraries, corporate image suppliers) or individuals (image producers, social media agents, researchers) affect the character of metadata (Schwartz, 1995; Schwartz and Cook, 2002). If, for example, nationality is an important founding rationale for a museum their images will be tagged with national origin which in itself is a historical construct and sometimes quite problematic (Rodini, 2018). Such interest may also vary over time. While the gender of the image producer is of vital concern in memory institutions today the issue whether an image or art work is produced by a woman or a man has not always historically been of interest for collections managers (Pierce, 2019). Thus the available metadata is the result, and also part of, negotiations between conflicting interests accumulated and transformed over time (Baca, 2016). In sum these are examples of the politics of metadata. When it comes to big data and data-driven research, we have to pay particular attention to the effects of the interfaces we use. Metadata and the archiving practices that produce it are increasingly important for collecting institutions—and for visual culture at large—as a means to navigate the rapidly growing volume of data, situating them historically, socially, and locally (Baylis, 2014; Bunnik et al., 2016; Loukissas, 2017; Pollen, 2016). The fact that images today are copied and redistributed in infinite numbers as well as modified, manipulated, and placed in new contexts raises question about how images are furnished with descriptive metadata and by whom. Metadata not only affects the searchability and visibility of images but, by extension, how they are used and interpreted. Image collections today create descriptive metadata in three major ways: by employing professional cataloguers within the institution that governs the collection, by enlisting the help of the general public via online interfaces, or by automation using algorithm based tools and machine learning, like pattern recognition. In this special issue we seek to address the ideological and political aspects of metadata practices within image collections from an interdisciplinary perspective. The overall aim is to consider the implications, tensions, and challenges involved in the creation of metadata in terms of content, structure, searchability, and diversity. We invite proposals including, but not limited to, the following topics: • The relationship and systemic tensions between professional and amateur taggers, between metadata standards and folksonomies. What are the decisive differences between descriptive metadata produced by professional cataloguers and amateurs through crowdsourcing in terms of content, structure, and usability? What are the differences between private and public metadata? The numerous metadata standards, which govern much of the professional‘s metadata production display a heterogenous field (Margulies, 2017; Mayernik, 2020; Riley, 2017, 2009). Simultaneously many institutions are not using any of the established standards (Waldron et al., 2017). Folksonomies, in turn, have been studied and implemented as ways to bridge between expert and non-expert vocabularies (Cairns, 2013), and potentially to feed into the creation of formal taxonomies or ontologies (Gil et al. 2017). • The issue of anonymity and social identity in relation to metadata production. What are the implications of anonymity for metadata producers within cultural heritage institutions, corporate image suppliers, or public crowdsourcing platforms? How can this be understood and/or challenged in the context of social media practices where a particular user’s reputation and output history is often the determining factor in gauging the trustworthiness of the information produced? (Esteve, 2019) • The challenge in creating metadata that is coherent and reflects diverse perspectives In order for images to be searchable, reliable, and usable, collections need to create metadata standards for accuracy and uniformity (Zhang et al., 2019). Simultaneously, there is an increasing demand for descriptive metadata to be inclusive, i.e. encouraging participation and heterogeneity in representation. Given that these two objectives might contradict or come into conflict with one another, how can cultural heritage institutions strike a balance between them? • Issues of standards, centrality, and networks in relation to metadata production For example, what is the relationship between metadata standards and their institutional, geographical settings? Who are the major agents in the field of metadata production and what are the implications of this? How might we develop more horizontal systems for the production of descriptive metadata?(Piotrowski, 2009) Paper proposals may relate to, but are not limited to, the following questions concerning the metadata paradigm. Interdisciplinary contributions, such as those from science and technology studies or the digital humanities, are particularly encouraged. When submitting an abstract, authors should make explicit to which of the following categories they would like to submit their paper: 1. Field Research and Case Studies (full paper: 6000-8000 words) We invite articles that discuss empirical findings from studies that approach the relationships between data science, digital humanities, digital histories, computational intelligence, cultural studies, art history, gender studies, science and technology studies. These may include practices of circulating or collecting data as well processes of production and evaluation. 2. Methodological Reflection (full paper: 6000-8000 words) We invite contributions that reflect on the methodologies employed when researching the practices of the new tendencies of metadata production. These may include, for example, the specificities of methodological reflection of scientific fieldwork in online/offline environments; challenges and opportunities faced when qualitatively researching quantifiable data and vice versa; approaches using mixed methods; discussions of mobile and circulative methods; and reflections of experimental forms of research. 3. Conceptual/Theoretical Reflection (full paper: 6000-8000 words) We encourage contributions that reflect on the conceptual and/or theoretical dimension of the metadata paradigm, and discuss or question how the data-driven research on metadata can be defined, what it can describe, and how it can be differentiated. 4. Entering the Field (2000-3000 words; experimental formats welcome) This experimental section presents initial and ongoing empirical work in digital media studies. The editors have created this section to provide a platform for researchers who would like to initiate a discussion concerning their emerging (yet perhaps incomplete) research material and plans as well as methodological insights. Deadlines and contact information • Initial abstracts (max. 300 words) and a short biographical note (max. 100 words) are due on: June 28, 2020. • Authors will be notified by July 10, 2020, whether they are invited to submit a full paper. • Full papers are due on: October 01, 2020. • Notifications to authors of referee decisions: November 20, 2020 • Final versions due: December 30, 2020 • Please send your abstract and short biographical note to: anna.dahlgren(a)arthistory.su.se<mailto:anna.dahlgren@arthistory.su.se>, khansson(a)dsv.su.se<mailto:khansson@dsv.su.se>, ramon.reichert(a)univie.ac.at<mailto:ramon.reichert@univie.ac.at>

1 0

WEBCAST TODAY: ‘Internet Governance post Crisis – A new normal?’
by Joly MacFie 25 May '20

25 May '20

Major themes in Nigel Hickson's presentation were, on the one hand, there are new efforts by governments to multilaterally impose their will on the Internet, multistakeholders should not sit idly by, while on the other, COVID has served to adjust the narrative in the Internet's favor, it is no longer the bete noire flogging horse it was a year ago. Multistakeholders should take up the opportunity to "talk up" the Internet, and build on last year's High Level Panel report that reinforced the Internet model. ISOC Live posted: "Today, Monday May 25 2020 at 14:00 UTC (3pm BST) the Internet Society Livestream Channel will webcast a recording of the Internet Society UK England webinar 'Internet Governance post Crisis – A new normal?' held on May 21 2020. Kicking off a series of Web" [image: livestream] <https://livestream.com/internetsociety/netgov>Today, *Monday May 25 2020* at *14:00 UTC* (3pm BST) the* Internet Society Livestream Channel <https://isoc.live>* will webcast a recording of the *Internet Society UK England <https://isoc-e.org/>* webinar '*Internet Governance post Crisis – A new normal? <https://isoc-e.org/ig-post-crisis-a-new-normal/>*' held on May 21 2020. Kicking off a series of Webinars about the topic, *Nigel Hickson <https://linkedin.com/in/nigel-hickson-9899545>* (ISOC UK Chapter) who is a participant of the *2020 Chapter Training Programme <https://www.internetsociety.org/tutorials/shaping-the-internet/>*, as part of the Programme hosted this session. He addressed the current impasse of views on the governance of the Internet, and how the current reliance on Internet services during the Covid-19 crisis may have affected this. The Session was interactive in nature and thought provoking. Feel free to add your own comments in the chat. *LIVESTREAM https://livestream.com/internetsociety/netgov <https://livestream.com/internetsociety/netgov> (open captions)* *TRANSCRIPT https://bit.ly/3c1YA0O <https://bit.ly/3c1YA0O>* *INFO: https://isoc-e.org/ig-post-crisis-a-new-normal/ <https://isoc-e.org/ig-post-crisis-a-new-normal/>* *TWITTER: @ISOCUKEngland + #netgov <https://bit.ly/2LXd3AU> * *Permalink* https://isoc.live/12097/ - -- -------------------------------------- Joly MacFie +2185659365 -------------------------------------- -

1 0

Announcement: EJC, Vol 29 (3 & 4), Special Issue on Digital Interactions in Social Spaces
by Harrison, Teresa M 24 May '20

24 May '20

Digital Interactions in Social Spaces: Proxemics, Digital Media, and Human-Machine Communication Editor's Introduction: Digital Interactions in Social Spaces: Proxemics, Digital Media, and Human-Machine Communication <http://www.cios.org/www/ejc/v29n34toc.htm#introduction> / John A. McArthur Furman University Proxemics, Social Media, and Structural Transformations in the Private Sphere Bolanle A. Olaniran Texas Tech University Abstract: This paper explores the transformations occurring in the private sphere as a result of increased use of information communication technologies (ICT), in particular, mobile phones and social media. Specifically, the paper addresses the dissipation of boundaries between public and private spheres—especially in communication interactions, which characterize relationships. Communication media (such as emails, instant messaging, network forums, and videoconferencing) are viewed as tools for transformations; thus the implications on social, cultural, and economic levels will be addressed throughout this paper. Furthermore, this paper argues the presence of social media has eroded—and is constantly eroding—distinctions between the two spheres to the degree that what counts, as either public or private, is difficult to distinguish. Place and Discourse in Virtual Environments Lynnette G. Leonard American University in Bulgaria Lesley A. Withers Central Michigan University Abstract: In the fervor over new technologies, we often fail to see connections to the past, to recognize the similar characteristics among various communication media, and to value the knowledge gleaned from previous experiences and familiar places. Places such as coffee shops, pubs, churches, statehouses, townhalls, and even classrooms have certain characteristics that stimulate discourse in part because they establish expectations for appropriate communication. Do these preferences for place and the expectations for appropriate communication that attend them change as we meet others in virtual environments? The characteristics of the virtual environment allow for many different options for communication places; the sky and sea are no limit. This article explores groups’ choices for place as they collaborated in virtual space, demonstrating that our offline preferences and expectations for appropriate rhetorical places are reflected in our online choices. Proxemics of Screen Mediation: Engagement With Reading on Screen Manifests as Diminished Variation due to Self-Control, Rather Than Diminished Mean Distance From Screen Harry J. Witchel Carlos P. Santos James K. Ackah Brighton and Sussex Medical School University of Sussex Nachiappan Chockalingam CSHER, Staffordshire University Carina E. I. Westling Bournemouth University Abstract: Objective: Burgoon's theory of conversational involvement suggests that when people engage with a person, they will move slightly closer to them, often subtly and subconsciously. However, some studies have failed to extend this to human-computer interaction. Our hypothesis is that during online reading, engagement is associated with an expenditure of effort to hold the head upright, still and centrally. Method: We presented to 27 participants (ages 21.00 ± 2.89, 15 female) seated in front of 47.5x27 cm monitor two reading stimuli in a counterbalanced order, one (interesting) based on a best selling novel and the other (boring) based on European Union banking regulations. The participants were video-recorded during their reading while they wore reflective motion tracking markers. The markers were video-tracked off-line using Kinovea 0.8. Results: Subjective VAS ratings showed that the stimuli elicited the bored and interested states as expected. Video tracking showed that the boring stimulus (compared to the interesting reading) elicited a greater head-to-screen velocity, a greater head-to-screen distance range, a greater head-to-screen distance standard deviation, but not a further away head-to-screen mean distance. Conclusions: The more interesting reading led to efforts to control the head to a more central viewing position while suppressing head fidgeting. What is Violence Now?: A Grounded Theory Approach to Conceptualizing Technology-Mediated Abuse (TMA) as Spatial and Participatory Jessica J. Eckstein Western Connecticut State University Abstract: Intimate partner violence (IPV) continues to evolve in technological and legal/political ways. The currently sparse scholarship examining how digital technologies and spaces facilitate abusive, coercive, and/or intrusive behaviors among adults in romantic relationships tends to focus on digital abuse methods as mere enhancements or facilitators of abuse – this, despite any clear study of how current digital-users actually utilize and understand technology-mediated abuse (TMA). This study fills that foundational void by probing the full nature/content of TMA possibilities as understood by a U.S. community-based social network sample (N = 551). Participants’ M = 7.43 unique examples (SD = 4.00, range = 1 to 30) resulted in N = 4,092 distinct data units examined via hierarchical qualitative analyses. Grounded-theory results suggest TMA is a unique cultural and spatial phenomenon in which inanimate objects or programs (through human-assigned “agency”) serve to perpetrate a new, modified form of IPV, rather than a mere augmentation of existing abuser-tactics. Themes are discussed for future IPV theory and measurement implications and practitioner and policy applications. We’ll do it Live! Unpacking the Community-Building Labor of Twitch Streamers Accounts Brandon C. Harris University of Oregon Abstract: Twitch.tv’s meteoric popularity demonstrates live streaming’s increasing importance to the contemporary media landscape. This paper examines how Twitch streamers perform various types of aspirational, emotional, and entrepreneurial labor in order to construct communities of like-minded individuals. This research presents a case study that shows how Twitch streamers simultaneously perform various types of community-building labor during their live streams, highlighting their uniqueness from influencers on static social networks like Instagram or Facebook. Finally, this paper outlines how Twitch’s casual viewing aesthetic can hide the types of labor that Twitch streamers perform while building community, permitting a cycle of precarious and aspirational labor to continue. ________________________________ Original Research Article Fact or Fiction: Believability of News Content From Opposing Media Outlets Robin Blom Ball State University Abstract: A news headline about an alleged population increase of polar bears was evaluated by 1,329 U.S. adults in an online experiment. Participants were told that the headline was originally obtained from either CNN or Fox News, or was presented without source identification. The results demonstrated that believability of a headline was predicted by an interaction between news source trust and the extent to which participants were surprised that the headline was attributed to that particular news source. The data indicated that distrusted sources could be highly believable when presenting unanticipated content, and vice versa. This has important implications for understanding cognitive bias in processing news coverage of public affairs.

1 0