Hi everyone, First I wanted to say that I'm new to the list and I'm very pleased to see intersting conversations going on here. (+ I'm french so forgive my english. :) ) I'm myself studying argumentation and legitimation in wikis, as new form of politicized cognition. I think that what I'm studying is related to Lucinda's question. To my idea, the early litterature about "collective intelligence" (Levy,1994) has focused a lot on collaborative possibilities in online community. The focus was more on the result of new possibilities of collective participation, than on the actual processes. They might be lots of consensus in some knowledge or practices communities, but I'm not sure this is the common law. And I think consensus has to be studied or at least question too: Why people agree? Is it because the community is very homogene? Is it because only one personn knows about the subject ? Is it because no one else is allowed to tell about the subject ? Is it because this particular knowledge or pratices is shared by all those who read it ? Is it because this not exactly a knowledge but a very formal information ? (time, place, identification...) My opinion is that where there is collaboration, theres is a good chance to find lots of discussion, debate, dispute, that sometimes result into a "fork" (no more collaboration) or even "wars". In fact, lots of collaborative devices answered this "need for discussion" by proposing a division into two parts : one for collaborative construction (stabilisation), and one for discussion (argumentation). In lots of wiki, this would be the page + the discussion page. I'm also thinking to this little software for synchronised collaborative edition called Gobby, that looks like an IRC canal, plus a multi writers (multicolor) text. Even if live collaboration may alow little time for lond debate, this channel of discussion is helping also to reach convention, to ask for help, to clarify a concept...etc. (note : I've observed the use of this device mainly during meeting of a community groups, when the debate were occuring mosty face to face) In conclusion, my point is that collaborative pratices are neither leading to more individualism nore to more consensus, it's might be to more debate. My hypothese is that people participating need to get skilled to act in this debate, and these skills might be not only technical or rethorical but also deeply in relation with the practice or the knowledge in question. thanks, Anne Goldenberg Ref: Pierre LEVY, L'intelligence collective. Pour une anthropologie du cyberspace, Paris, La Découverte, coll. "Science et société", 1994 On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 18:03:23 +0100 "Lucinda Dunn" <ldunn@agency.com> wrote:
Hi everyone,
I was wondering if we could have a thought share/ debate around this question:
Many people have championed the 'interactivity' side of social media like blogging and virtual worlds in allowing individuals to find their voice again and express their personal opinions. At the same time, in his new book 'We Think', Charles Leadbetter predicts that future society will crystallise around the principle of participation, and that a collaborative approach will replace our 'individualist' consumer behaviour.
I am wondering, do we think that the internet and social media are helping people think in a more independent-minded way or is it becoming just another tool of consensus thinking? Will the increasing use and integration of the internet into our daily lives and communities develop a more individualist or a more unilateral society? For e.g Most blogs just copy over what other people are saying instead of expressing individual/ more personal opinions.
Quite a vast and vague question I know. Has anyone thought about anything related to this theme? Would be v. interested to hear your well-informed thoughts...
Thanks, Lucinda :)
-----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Michael Baron Sent: 28 March 2007 16:05 To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Any good Free E-Learning Platforms out there?
Thank you very much for your suggestions. I guess I will try Moodle. Thx again. I really appreicate everyone's assistance.
On 3/28/07, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy@malcolm.id.au> wrote:
Michael Baron wrote:
Hi, All I am trying to find a good Platform (e.g. something similar to Blackboard or E-Courses) that will enable me to deliver online courses free of
cost.
Is
there such a platform? My training institution is small and can not really afford to subscribe to turnitin etc.
Moodle seems an obvious choice. It is developed locally (to me) but used worldwide, and I attended our local IT industry awards last week where it walked away with two gongs. See: http://moodle.org/.
-- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' _______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/