INLS 697.001 2008
(→Readings for INLS 697)
(→Proposed Readings for 2009)
|Line 804:||Line 804:|
Small, Gary. ''' iBrain: Surviving the Technological Alteration of the Modern Mind''' [http://www.drgarysmall.com/books/ibrain.htm Collins Living (October 14, 2008)]
Small, Gary. ''' iBrain: Surviving the Technological Alteration of the Modern Mind''' [http://www.drgarysmall.com/books/ibrain.htm Collins Living (October 14, 2008)]
=== Grading ===
=== Grading ===
Revision as of 10:00, 5 November 2008
What we will be doing
Over the course of this semester, we will read four very recent books that capture and describe some of the broad ideas that are affecting the world of Information Science and the world in general.
As we read and discuss the books, I ask you to select and keep in mind a certain product, service or company that can be viewed through the various lenses presented in the readings -- simplicity, the opposable mind, democratizing innovation and the future of reputation. As the semester progresses, you will be asked to write a paper on using the readings and other appropriate materials to describe how that product, service or company takes advantage (or fails to take advantage) of the ideas from the readings.
At the end of the semester, you will give a presentation to the class of your findings (a presentation based on your paper).
Questioner role - each class member will be asked to read ahead and prepare at least four questions for class discussion. These questions should be designed to elicit discussion of and reflections on the reading materials. Questions will be added to the Schedule on this wiki at least one class meeting before the discussion is to take place.
Schedule for INLS 697 2008
Thursday January 10
- Welcome to class and overview of the semester.
Tuesday January 15
- Discuss The Opposable Mind (Chapter 1 thru Chapter 3 Reality, Resistance and Resolution) Q: Josh Lockhart
- Is integrative thinking a gift, as Fitzgerald indicates, or is it a learned ability? If learned, do you believe this skill is reinforced by education/society/workplace or hindered? (p22)
- Can groups perform integrative thinking? Or is integrative thinking a product of, ultimately, one mind?
- Is it possible to be first to market AND have an integrative solution? Or must one enter an already established market for there to already be two or more less-than-ideal solutions? Examine the integrative approaches of Four Seasons and Red Hat and the pre-existing market conditions which led to their integrative solutions. Do you agree or disagree? Why?
- In response to the previous question, is salience dependent upon pre-existing conditions? Must there be non-ideal conditions before salience can be expanded further or differentiated from previous conditions - like the Four Seasons introduction of a home atmosphere (p32).
- Is it possible for one to remove the filter on incoming and outgoing information? What are the benefits and detriments of filtering or non-filtering? Look at this not only from one's mental facilities, but also from other perspectives — network neutrality, parents limiting television, network censorship, for example. Are these examples (or your own) helpful or hurtful? In what ways? How does filtering affect salience and the holistic decision-making process? (p50).
A couple of definitions --Pjones 10:43, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Happiness - --Pjones 12:30, 15 January 2008 (EST)
- Why be happy? On Barbara Fredrickson
- Stumbling on Happiness by Daniel Gilbert
- Daniel Gilbert's blog - last entry is March 07
Thursday January 17
- Discuss The Opposable Mind (Chapter 4 Dancing Through Complexity thru Chapter 6 The Construction Project) Q: Kyle Lyons
What is the 80-20 rule?
Does it support that simplification is the perfect solution to achieve lucidity? Does it support that specialization is the perfect solution to achieve lucidity?
In considering salience, causality, and architecture, the integrative thinkers like Brown and Znaimer didn’t retreat into simplification and specialization. In what environments would a holistic approach be considered beneficial? In what environments would a holistic approach be unfavorable?
Is creativity more likely to spring from simplicity or complexity?
Roger Martin discusses the importance of three elements [(1) Stance, (2) Tools, (3) Experiences] which contribute to the development of the opposable mind. Imagine you are Roger Martin’s editor…
…you must remove one of the three due to space constraints. What element would you remove? Rather, which two are most important and why? Or can they exist without each other at all?
…you must add a fourth because the publisher has a fear of odd numbered lists, What element would you add?
What stances do integrative thinkers take to drive them towards innovative solutions? What are the six key features that they all possess?
Knowing what we do about simplification and specialization, could the individual be an integrative thinker if complexity were feared?
Explain the phrase thinking behind the action (134). How might thinking behind the action (or being mindful of complexity) effect stance, tools, and/or experiences?
Food For Thought
Graham pioneered a modern style of music and dance by linking the two through a holistic approach. Roger Martin claims that this is integrative, revolutionary thinking. Although many may agree, it can be argued that Bach or Handel essentially did the same thing two hundred years earlier by composing certain pieces with particular dances in mind. Whether Graham was revolutionary or merely copying Bach is irrelevant. Rather, what may be interesting to discuss is whether integrative thinking is ever truly original? (73)
--Elly 22:21, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Martha Graham background --Pjones 22:38, 15 January 2008 (EST)
- Martha Graham on Martha Graham (video)
- Martha Graham Legacy Project - Dancers remembering MG (video)
- Martha Graham Center for Contemporary Dance
- MG as one of Time's most important people of the 20th Century
Saturday January 19
Tuesday January 22
- Discuss The Opposable Mind (Chapter 7 A Leap of Mind and Chapter 8 A Wealth of Experience) Q: Julia Kampov-Polevoi
Follow up to previous Food For Thought
Blecher’s new model for educating disaffected youth is not completely new – it is in many ways similar to Anton Makarenko’s model for educating and reforming disaffected youth in post-revolutionary Russia. Yet, Blecher, who possibly never heard of Makarenko, did not exactly reinvent the proverbial wheel, but rather managed to develop a creative and effective solution for a specific problem that existed in a particular place and at a particular time.
Now the Questions:
- Martin discusses different kinds of reasoning including the concept of abductive logic (p. 146). What is abductive logic? Is it, as Wikipedia article on abductive reasoning suggests, formally equivalent to the logical fallacy Post hoc ergo propter hoc, or is it just, what is commonly known as educated guess? Or is it something else?
- Discuss TAO exercises for business students (described in chapter 6 starting on p. 134) and the example with introduction of concentrated Joy dishwashing liquid to Japanese market (p. 177) from the system dynamics (p. 152) perspective.
- While we are on concepts and models, which of the radial metaphors for an organizations listed on page 154 are more compatible with integrative thinking and which are not? Consider position (as in rank) of the integrative thinker(s) within the organization for each model.
- Experience can produce shortcuts to solutions as illustrated by the doctor diagnosing appendicitis example (pp. 181-182). What are the dangers in such shortcuts? (expand on the doctor example or come up with your own). How would an integrative thinker guard against his mastery getting in the way of his ability to pick out all the salient information in a given situation?
- Martin starts out by admitting that integrative thinking by itself does not guarantee success, but he also believes that it improves the odds of success (p. 16). Is that always true? Think of the various examples in the book from the “what if” angle and discuss the other factors that played into success of a particular model integrative thinker.
Tuesday January 22
- Growing up Online PBS Frontline at 9 pm. Entire show online for viewing via streaming now.
Thursday January 24
- Discuss Democratizing Innovation (Intro thru Chapter 3 Why Users Want Custom Products) Q: Anna-Marie Mansour
So, feel free to choose the questions you find the most appealing to create a custom intellectual experience...
1. Von Hippel describes “democratizing innovation” as users increasingly being able to innovate for themselves and benefit from the innovations of others in order to tailor products to meet their individual needs. How are online social networks contributing to this phenomenon?
2. Open, distributed innovation (i.e. from users) is challenging a major structure of the social division of labor. Compare this to the open-source movement and the efforts of the music industry to restrict file-sharing. Are they simply trying to apply an old business model to a shifting society/paradigm? How might manufacturers shift their approach when it comes to developing and distributing products in order to adapt to this change?
3. What is a lead user? Von Hippel asserts that the innovations developed by lead users often become integrated by developers. What experiences have you had with lead users, either as an innovator or benefiting from the innovations of fellow users?
4. Discuss how examples like the circuit designers with PC-CAD and OPACs in Australia might impact manufacturers’ perceptions toward the open-source movement? Do you think government policies will change to support the user (and therefore, innovation), or continue to protect businesses at the expense of less-than-optimal product development? [Consider: “Even when manufacturers learn about lead users’ needs early, they may not think it profitable to develop their own solution for an “emerging” need until years later”]
5. As integrative thinkers, how can we combine the benefits of user developed/altered products with the capabilities of manufacturers and commercial developers (who are criticized for developing with a “few sizes fit all” approach)? How might outside vendors adjust their practices?
6. How has the recognition of the heterogeneity of user needs been reflected in current business? (ex. computer companies, Amazon, Wendy’s, faceted search engines...etc.). Why have you typically wanted a custom product and how did you go about meeting those needs? Why did you choose that route?
Monday January 28
- Data Privacy in Transatlantic Perspective: Conflict or Cooperation? from 9 am - 5 pm in Room 3037, Duke University School of Law.
Tuesday January 29
- Discuss Democratizing Innovation (Chapter 4 Users' Innovate-or-buy Decisions thru Chapter 6 Why Users Often Freely Reveal Their Innovations) Q: Shawn Guy
1. Should large corporations have the responsibility of tailoring products to meet the exact needs of its consumers?
2. Is it better to put time and energy into developing your own product? Or is it better to purchase an already established product?
3. When referring to "information stickiness," should users know how their product operates in order to get the msot effect use out of it? Does that extra information make the experience of using a product better?
4. If you were an innovator, would you freely reveal you innovation? What are the benefits? Risks?5. Will we, as a society, ever reach the point where there is no need for innovation or a point where there is nothing left to innovate?
Good illustration (if a bit exaggerated) on privacy issues
Thursday January 31
Discuss Democratizing Innovation (Chapter 7 Innovation Communities thru Chapter 9 Democratizing Innovation) Q:Ashley May
1. Von Hippel points out several valuable aspects of innovation communities – Can you think of any drawbacks to forming these freely revealing communities? Would you have reservations before joining this type of community and if so, what are they?
2. Chat rooms and e-mail lists appeared to be the most popular form of communication within these communities – what other information sharing tools would you recommend to these communities in order to better facilitate communication among these participants?
3. Since Von Hippel mentions that intellectual property laws, patent protections and trade secrecy do not practically protect innovations today, do you think we should eradicate these policies all together since they don’t appear to work very well? If you choose not to eliminate them, what changes would you suggest to make them more functional?
4. Do you think the number of innovations developed by lead users outnumbers or will outnumber the amount of innovations created by manufacturers? (I don’t think we’ll ever know the “right” answer, but I’m just curious to see what everyone thinks.)
5. Manufacturers learned how to adapt to user-centered innovation by providing lead users with the tools and products necessary to make changes and develop new, innovative products. Manufacturers in turn can earn a huge profit and become the number one manufacturer in a specific industry. What benefits do the lead users gain from this relationship?
Monday February 4
- Cliff Missen of Widernet and eGranary 3 pm in Pleasants Family Room of Wilson Library.
Tuesday February 5
- Discuss Democratizing Innovation (Chapter 10 Application: Seaching for Lead User Innovations thru Chapter 12 Linking User Innovation to Other Phenomena and Fields) Q: Jordan Fleuriet
Open Prostehetics Project Democratizing Innovation in action
Chapter 10: Application: Searching for Lead User Innovation
Analog: a mechanism in which data is represented by continuously variable physical quantities – always changing and indefinite
So advanced analog fields is where the market will be in the future.
Von Hippel's research of 3M clearly shows that products developed by lead users out match those which are not. However, are these lead users the advance analog lead users?
Often innovators that are so far ahead of the curve are regarded as aloof or out of touch. Bad things can happen to such people. Darwin Copernicus Galileo That pet store company
Should companies embrace ideas which challenge the paradigm? How could they benefit? How could they suffer?
Current example: filling up tires with nitrogen instead of air.
What keeps manufacturers from making the leap to the next big thing? Example: Why not have a razor with 20 blades now instead of increasing the blade number by 1 every few years?
Chapter 11: Toolkits
In an earlier class we used the example of somebody who makes a bumper sticker an innovator and somebody who uses the bumper sticker a customizer. Who is the innovator if the person who made the bumper sticker made it from a bumper sticker toolkit? Do toolkits actually provide a method to innovate or are they really just ways in which customization can happen?
As said in Chapter 12: “innovation by users is likely to be more important in the early stages of [product life cycles].” In general a toolkit can only be used in a certain number of different ways. Of those ways a few will be obvious because of the design of the kit. Does this hinder truly innovative ideas from happening because everyone is stuck on the obvious thing to do?
Really cool, but is it innovative?
Chapter 12: Linking User Innovation to Other Phenomena and Fields
Information Community: 1. Some have information that is not generally known. 2. Some are willing to freely reveal what they know. 3. Some beyond the information source have uses for what is revealed.
Basic definition of Wikipedia right there.
Do information communities spark innovation or do they suppress? How might innovations born from information communities differ from others?
National Competitive Advantage Countries can be greater with more people innovating. What does that say for the United States vs China or India. Keep in mind the United States has 300 million people while China has 1.3 billion and India has 1 billion.
What factor does culture play in this? Will people innovate through their cultural boundaries?
Wednesday February 6
Thursday February 7
1. What are some of your largest successes and failures with design thinking?
changing the culture of Red Hat's brand communications + design team
designing the 'design thinking' campaign for Red Hat internal audiences
company-wide, global use of design thinking for creating departmental, team and individual goals last year. and this year; use in quarterly 'management Intensive' week-long programs; currently being used to create new strategy models for the company
failures: in design thinking, failures lead to new learning which leads, eventually, to a solution. this is not only a good dodge, but true. and a critical point to keep in mind. the way we understand failure drives the culture we create.
2. How intelligent does an individual need to be in order to exercise design thinking strategies?
depends on your definition of intelligent. it calls for intellectual curiosity. emotional intelligence. psychological intelligence. intuitive intelligence. often, a traditional high IQ can a serious obstacle-- When you know all the answers it's hard to innovate. If you're a a-hole, nobody will want to collaborate with you. [see Mark Twain quote; Roger Martin's 'fear' case; the myth of over-achievers] Design thinking is about solving problems that require customization or innovation-- where the application of math or 'best practices' ways of thinking don't work so well. Aristotle divided the world into two balanced but different ways of thinking. One for things that CAN BE KNOWN. Another for things that CAN'T BE KNOWN. DT is for the later. Or when people finally realize the earlier methods don't actually solve the problem-- because they haven't determined what the problem is.
3. If suggesting wild ideas is part of the skill in design thinking, why do more people/companies not utilize it?
First, let me re-emphasize that DT is not a set of skills. Or strict adherence to a process in the way the scientific method is. IT DEMANDS EMPATHY for a different culture. I like that you note people and companies in your question. Companies are made up of people. People are subconsiously motivated by a 'pre-human' fight-or-flight fear. And we've gotten incredibly gifted in rationalizing our fear and acting in ways that keep it hidden-- from others and ourselves. DT is different. The people who do it well are different-- misfits, even. Their work spaces are different. Their language is different. Their values, goals, missions and motivations are all different. Design is, essentially, a revolutionary act. The vast majority of people who make up companies aren't looking to be non-conformists. The culture of design runs counter to their life experience. Most of the bromides they've heard from authority figures throughout their coaches, teachers ,bosses and friends-- event the very design of their educational systems differ in fundamental ways from this new way of thinking. To play the misfits' game, you have to give up control; you have to be patient; you have value play; stupid/wild ideas are good; you have to make yourself vulnerable-- and trust other people. That's real hard work for most of the business world. And takes great courage and commitment to challendge orthodox thinking. Large organizations are not good incubators for this type of courage and commitment. one last point, its harder to find a scapegoat. Executives like to talk about 'accountability'... when things are open, authentic and collaboraitve, it's hard to find someone else to blaim things on... but that's my warped pov.
4. Should design thinking be utilized more in the IT industry than others?
No. design thinking should be used whenever someone can benefit from thinking creatively.
5. How can businesses balance the languages of reliability and viability?
Like a myers-briggs test-- mutual respect for the other culture and its processes. both sides face this challenge. openness, authenticity, sharing are the keys.
6. Does design thinking usually suggest moving towards completely new ideas, or towards creative expansions of existing ones?
Should I choose between a big bang creative model or hip hop? I don't think it matters. Picasso was a master of traditional art methods and techniques and he created masterpieces. With some help, he created an entirely new movement-- cubism. He created masterpieces. He took the most ordinary items-- a bicycle handlebar and seat-- and changed the way we see a bull. It doesn't matter. However, what we're talking about is more than the 'expansion' of existing ideas. Its making new connections. Or transforming. Public Enemy didn't just expand the music they appropriated. Neither did Warhol. Or Shakespeare. They transformed what they took and so that its relevance and meaning were new.
7. Red hat's 7 step process includes Define, Research, Ideate, Prototype, Choose, Implement, Learn. Should there be a pattern in the amount of time devoted to each step?
No. But the discipline of time should be incorporated and made open. And applied with some flexibility when new learning effects earlier decisions-- DON'T think of the process as linear.
FAILURE-- I've failed to figure out how to communicate the 7-steps as non-linear. The paradox is hard.
8. Is design really as simple as a pencil, a ruler, and a cup of coffee?
Yes. And no. First graders make great design participants. They understand sharing. They build on other's ideas. They are more passionate about the problem than their own personal agenda. They don't usually think they know the answers already. They're not afraid.
As mentioned earlier, the most educated, brightest, most successful and most powerful people often find it extremely difficult to think/act this way.
Friday February 8
- DJ Spooky talk/performance/discussion/demo before his Video Soul: WattsStax to the Avant Garde World Premiere at Duke 3 pm Great Hall of the Carolina Union.
Step 1) A draft one page proposal describing the product, service or company and possible sources (due February 12)
Tuesday February 12
- Discuss The Future of Reputation (Chapter 1. Introduction: When Poop Goes Prime Time through Chapter 2. How the Free Flow of Information Liberates and Constrains Us) Q: Alexander Foley
My apologies for this being a little freeform, but do to the nature of our in-class discussions, I figured a bit of stream of consciousness may be good to expose as many questions as possible.
When it comes down to it, many of the examples that the author uses to display the hurt caused by gossip and rumor on the internet were only started because an individual decided to take some action:
- Dog poop girl makes a poor decision in a culture that is far less forgiving than our own. She ends up dropping out of her university.
- Star Wars Kid films himself and leaves it to be found in the school’s TV studio. The video is put online by another student, then the kid becomes an internet phenomenon and also drops out of high school due to psychiatric issues.
- Numa Numa Dance guy goes into hiding after temporary stardom
Both of these bring up the idea of the “norm police”. The idea is that the internet enabled people to hold the dog poop girl responsible for her actions. Perhaps it was an overreaction on the part of the “norm police”, but did it not serve its purpose? Shouldn’t people realize there are consequences to their actions? It seems that Solove is opening up a debate on the system rather than a debate on the use of that system. In the case of the internet, which is freely distributed content with few barriers to entry, shouldn’t we be debating the use of the internet rather than the internet itself?
One of Solove’s core arguments is that, due to the nature of the internet, nothing is ever “forgotten”. However, isn’t it easy to be forgotten when so much other noise is being posted online? There is a new meme on the internet each day – some new trend to be kept up with on YouTube or Facebook. In an age when trends come and go before they even can catch on, wouldn’t our memories of gossip and rumors online be in constant competition with what to remember and what to forget?
Solove starts out the second chapter with a particularly interesting quote: “We’re heading toward a world where an extrensive trail of information fragments about us will be forever preserved on the Internet, displayed instantly in a Google search.”
Doesn’t this fly in the face of Russell Ackoff’s hierarchy of Data, Information, Knowledge, Understanding, and Wisdom? As most of us learned, the most adept organizations and individuals are those who can quickly sift through the data to find information that we can use to develop knowledge which in turn promotes understanding and causes wisdom. Shouldn’t this current trend of putting as much data as possible online shift instead to only publishing what is most important or relevant? And if that happens, won’t the trail of information fragments about us be less important?
So, given that gossip and rumor on the internet create embarrassing situations, would it not be better to capitalize on the situation? Look at Miss South Carolina last year – she was an internet sensation who looked like a fool online, but instead of allowing it to embarrass her, she uses it to get gigs on morning talk shows to correct her mistake and then makes an appearance at the MTV Video Music Awards. Even the Numa Numa Dance reemerged to embrace his so-called fame barely over a year after shying from the spotlight. Perhaps the issue isn’t with the system but instead with our expectations of the system. The constitution does not protect your right to privacy – it does protect the right to speak freely.
“According to one study of Facebook users at a particular school, the profiles ‘provide an stonishing amount of information: 90.8 percent of profiles contain an image, 87.8 percent of users reveal their birth date, 39.9 percent list a phone number…and 50.8 percent list their current residence.” Is the problem that we’re sharing too much information? Or merely that the products we use to share that information aren’t as protective of our privacy as we might like?
Solove gives a quote on page 34 from a Supreme Court decision: “Society has a pervasive and strong interest in preventing and redressing attacks upon reputation.” The U.S. Supreme Court also normally makes it much harder to win a case of libel or slander against a large media company because of the right to a free press. What does that mean in the age of blogging, where many average bloggers consider themselves agents of the press?
“Dubious data” is particularly interesting – George W. Bush’s national guard papers and Dan Rather, in which the authenticity of the documents was proven false much quicker and with much greater consensus than had this occurred in a conventional media sense. Is the system going to reach a perfect point where bad information goes away after being flooded out by good information? Can we tweak the tools we use (Google, etc.) to do this?
We are all Star Wars Kid: How Sticky Is Membership on Facebook? Just Try Breaking Free --Pjones 13:44, 11 February 2008 (EST)
Thursday February 14
- Discuss The Future of Reputation (Chapter 3. Gossip and the Virtues of Knowing Less through Chapter 4. Shaming and the Digital Scarlet Letter) Q: Kathryn Roth
-Solove quotes philosopher Aaron Ben Ze’ev saying that, “Gossip is engaged in for pleasure, not for the purpose of hurting someone.” It’s not “vicious”, but not “virtuous” either. Do you agree with the philosopher? Are their good reasons for gossip? Is it essential to our society? (page63)
-What about celebrity gossip? Is this different and is it actually essential to our function as a society?
-From last time’s talk about freedom of press, we discussed that the press has certain freedoms and yet have certain responsibilities. We also tried to argue that blogs can be considered press. So if bloggers want to have the same rights they should carry with them the same responsibilities, for example not giving names in a rape case or respect to students grades. Yet don’t bloggers post real names in some of their posts, for example some of the professors blogs and students blogs. Shouldn’t it be that if bloggers want the same rights as the press that they need to take on the same responsibilities? Agree? Of course this would have nothing to do with freedom of speech, but there is some speech that is prohibited such as you can’t yell “FIRE!” in a crowded area, but are bloggers considered dangerous enough with gossip that they should be that exception? Should then we add an amendment that refers to internet media directly? Can we protect guys like Robert who were keeping their life private, but it was forced public?
-What does Solove mean by the “complicated self”? Could it be possible to be yourself and act the same all the time? With the public taking their lives online and everything we do being evaluated by the “norm police”, this might make it harder in the future to be yourself, could this be taking away personality and making everyone the same?(page 68-69)
-Shaming has now become easier and more widespread due to the internet. Is there a line where shaming goes too far?
-Some of the examples mentioned by Solove demonstrate normal civilians taking justice into their own hands. In some examples, like the minor who stole the cell phone, there were actual crimes committed, but in other examples, like the Bitter Waitress website, there is no crime. Should someone really be shamed because they left their waiter a 15% tip instead of 20%? And what about Europeans who usually are not familiar with tipping in their cultures and they travel here and do not leave tips for their waitress? Should they be shamed all over the website because of a possible cultural misunderstanding? Are there other cultural misunderstandings that we shame against simply because we do not understand? What about those who shame and try to enforce “norms” based on their own agenda, for example the Nuremberg Files (page 100) or Westboro Baptist church?
-What are the pros and cons to shaming on the internet?
-A little note / maybe my opinion: If those who claim to be the “norm police” are all about keeping social standards civil and getting rid of those who bring us to a “low state”, then why do these cases presented by Solove as well as other instances make them look like angry mobs, rude, and completely over-the-top? Are they not acting like the very people the claim to shame against? Just a thought of mine, you can definitely disagree with or agree with.
Senate votes of e-Privacy. Which candidate supports it? --Pjones 09:50, 14 February 2008 (EST)
Tuesday February 19
- Discuss The Future of Reputation (Chapter 5. The Role of Law through Chapter 6 Free Speech, Anonymity and Accountability) Q:Madre Fowler-McDonald
1. What are the three types of Legal Approaches? Explain what they mean to you?
2. Why is Privacy and Reputation Protection so important?
3. What are the two main bodies of law available to people who sue because of information being circulated about them?
1. What were Justice Black feelings on the First Amendment?
2. What are the three most popular reasons why free speech is important?
3. On page 132 under Newsworthiness it showed how Pamela Anderson sex tape was very popular. Would this type of information be considered Newsworthy to you? If so tell the reason why?
4. When the car accident that Ruth was in was shown on the TV show “Emergency Response” and her face was shown do you think that this was ok for the show to do? How would you feel if you were in the hospital after a very bad accident and you see your story on TV in which your face was shown?
5. When Susanna Kaysen wrote her autobiographical on her problems she was having with her relationship with Joseph was it ok to talk about her female problems? Why did Joseph get so upset about this and took Susanna to court?
6. What do you get out of the story Article III Groupie (A3G)?
7. When using Wikipedia do you find yourself verifying the information you are reading to make sure it is correct?
The Costs of Privacy: Surveillance and Reputation in America Privacy vs Secrecy --Pjones 09:09, 18 February 2008 (EST)
Thursday February 21
- Discuss The Future of Reputation (Chapter 7. Privacy in an Overexposed World through Chapter 8. Conclusion: The Future of Reputation) Q: Spencer Smith
In conjunction with the couple who used in vitro fertilization, the person with HIV, and the Burning Man Festival at what point is privacy not privacy? Once 5, 10, or even thousands of people know?
On page 165 Solove states one judge's view is that "privacy can be invaded through extensive or exhaustive monitoring and cataloguing of acts normally disconnected and anonymous." Doesn't this definition include any video surveillance and VIC cards among many other things?
How many of you were in an uproar of Facebook's news feeds but now check them regularly every time you login?
On page 174 Solove discusses the protection of communication between patients and physicians, lawyer and client, and husband and wife. He notes that this does not apply to the parent and child relationship. Do you believe they should have the same protection? Could you see yourself being forced to testify against your child?
Solove believes "We must abandon the binary view of privacy, which is based on the archaic notion that if you're in the public, you have no claim to privacy. Instead, we must recognize that privacy involves accessibility, confidentiality, and control." How do you create laws with so much gray area?
Is it possible to transfer norms or ethical guidelines from mainstream media to the world of blogs as he describes?
Where do you draw the lines of free speech and privacy on blogs?
I'm not familiar with myspace since I don't have an account nor facebook since its been so long since I've signed up, but is it still true as Solove says that by default your profile is visible to everyone? And if so, do you believe it should be changed?
Do you believe social network sites should have options other than someone being a friend or not. For instance should you have a section for "acquaintances" that would allow less of your information to be spread?
Step 2) An annotated bibiography of sources to be included in the your paper (due February 26)
Tuesday February 26
- Bob Young, founder of Lulu and of Red Hat owner of the Hamilton Tiger-Cats, Hamilton, Ontario's Canadian Football League franchise.
Self-publisher Lulu joins with Borders: Bookstore kiosks will cater to writers News and Observer --Pjones 09:15, 20 February 2008 (EST)
Thursday February 28
- Discuss "Recut, Reframe, Recycle: Quoting Copyrighted Material in User-Generated Video" Q: Scott Kraus
- The fair use provisions of the Copyright Act mention the following 4 factors to be taken into account:
- The purpose and character of the use
- The nature of the copyrighted work
- The amount and substantiality of the portion used
- The effect on the potential market for value of the copyrighted work.
These provisions were intentionally made vague. Why? Does their lack of specificity put an unfair burden of the fair-user to prove they are within the realm of fair use?
- The author mentions "Quoting to trigger discussion." For example, pointing out "The Worst Music Video Ever" No modification was made to it other than labeling it "The Worst Music Video Ever", how is this fair use if it is not transformative? Or is it transformative?
- Recently, John Mellencamp asked John McCain to stop using his song, "Our Country" in his campaign, despite not saying anything about John Edwards using, "Our Country" and "Small Town" during his campaign. If you were McCain's campaign manager, would you feel obligated to respond to the request even if you know you're clearly within the bounds of fair use?
- Myspace is working with NBC and Viacom to remove copyrighted material from their web site. Does this conflict with their users rights assuming that at least some of their users are using the material under the fair use provision?
- How about Machinima, such as Red vs. Blue? Is using a game's characters and environments then selling the DVD copyright infringement?
Tuesday March 4
- Discuss The Long Tail as it appeared in Wired in October 2004. Q: Evan Carroll Guest Teacher Jeff Pomerantz
See also Chris Anderson's essay based on his new book, Free! Why $0.00 is the future of business
1. Amazon rides the long tail by offering books that cannot be found in brick and mortal stores. Would it have been possible to ride the long tail before the internet?
2. Chris Anderson used the entertainment industry to illustrate the effects of "The Long Tail." How does it apply to other concepts?
Consider "Democratizing Innovation" and user-centered design. Is it more economical to have a team of highly trained engineers ideate about the average needs of users or have a large user base make one or two contributions?
Is it possible that a product or service can be designed to meet the differing needs of users, while maintaining a certain amount of standardization? Might people use the same product for multiple uses?
Is it more powerful for Coca-Cola to tell you 5,000 times that they have a good product, or would you rather hear 5,000 people tell you once? ('dot com', TV, Radio, Print versus 'YouTube', 'Flickr', Facebook, Twitter)
Wikis and Blogs
The internet exposes a great deal of information previously difficult for individuals to obtain. Consider the sources we use. Is information from a few reputable sources, better than a wealth of information from the internet and blogosphere? Encyclopedia versus Wikipedia. CNN versus Technorati.
3. It seems logical that the tail will continue to lengthen as more organizations take advantage of it. Will the curve ever level out? The internet has enabled the power of The Long Tail, and is only in its mid-teenage years. What will the curve look like when the internet is in its 20's and 30's?
--Evancarroll 15:44, 3 March 2008 (EST)
Thursday March 6 - Jones Out -- NO CLASS
Tuesday March 11 - Spring Break
Thursday March 13 - Spring Break
Tuesday March 18
- Discuss Laws of Simplicity (Intro thru Law 5 Differences) Q Su Song
Law 1 : Reduce 1. Maeda claims that we can achieve Simplicity by reduction but with technology advancing to meet the demands of the user, is reduction a viable path to reach simplicity? 2. What is method SHE? How this method help us achive Simplicity?
Law 2 : Organize 1. What is process SLIP? 2. Organize may varies from one individual to other for exapmle customization. Is this really applying law of Simplicity? Eventhough we may be breaking the Law of Reduce by putting a complicated process.
Law 3 : Time 1. Why does saving in time feel like simplicity even it may be an illusion?
Law 4 : Learn 1. Maeda points out that Knowledge makes everything simpler. Do you agree with this?
Law 5 : Differences 1. Define how the differences between complexity and simplicity impact our ability to achieve simplicity in the real world? Can you be both simple and complex at the same time?
--Sysong 11:17, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
Thursday March 20
- Discuss Laws of Simplicity (Law 6 Context thru Law 10 The One) Q: Cherrelle Scott
Law 6: Context
1. In regards to context, is it better to “brighten a single point with laser precision” or “use the same light to illuminate everything around you?”
Law 7: Emotion
1. Maeda points out that humans need to better express emotion—to capture the nuances of communication taken for granted in speech. Since more and more communication is done through IM, e-mail, etc. instead of face-to-face, will this need continue to exist? 2. The idea of “nude electronics”—simple objects—plays into the human need to express feelings for their objects. Why do we project these human feelings of fear, etc. onto our electronic objects (or any objects for that matter)?
Law 8: Trust
1. Can Maeda’s swimming example be applied to other trust issues (by learning to trust, one realizes that they could always do something)? 2. Maeda ends by relaying the story of his officemate’s cynical perspective on trust. Should individuals choose between these perspectives or devise their own?
Law 9: Failure
1. Maeda points out the unresolved flaws with this book: Acronym overload Bad gestalts Too many laws Do you agree or disagree with these flaws? What would you change?
Law 10: The One
1. This law is meant to summarize or shorten all nine laws; do you think it effectively does this? 2. Can simplicity truly be about subtracting the obvious, and adding the meaningful?
I thought I'd provide some good examples of people being caught on Facebook for things that before may have gone unnoticed:
- Study Group or Cheating Group? (Not expelled)
- Man in Morocco jailed for claiming to be brother to the king
- Party busted because of email and Facebook
- Is Facebook the next Yahoo!? - Collision with the portals
Nearly all of these links are recent (last 24 hours).
--Alexfoley 12:05, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
Tuesday March 25
- Discuss Laws of Simplicity (Key 1 Away thru Life) Q: Judge Johnson
Step 3) An outline of the paper (due March 27)
General survey questions regarding class support of Key 1:
1. What is the last application you installed using CD’s or DVD’s?
2. When is the last time you purchased “shrink wrapped” software?
3. Do you buy software online, i.e., Amazon?
4. Should technology continue following a path of “devolution” or should data and applications remain on your local PC?
5. Do you believe Google’s relatively free services will remain intact or will they switch to a pay for service/information model?
6. Do you use hardcopy dictionaries or prefer online services?
7. How often do you print papers for review while drafting and editing?
8. Do you prefer submitting assignments electronically or hardcopy?
9. Do you increasingly worry about network issues as you continue to develop stronger dependencies on “away?”
10. Which of Maeda’s 10 Laws are the most logical through the eyes of a student?
John Maeda states “Being a student is much harder because you not only have to wring the answers from cryptic professor, but you also have to make sense of them.” (p. 34) What was the most cryptic book you read in this course?
The Opposable Mind
The Future of Reputation
The Laws of Simplicity'
Thursday March 27-NO CLASS Jones at M$-Carolina Game at 7:27 PM (EDT or 4:27PM PDT)!
- Jones at Microsoft Technology Summit - Agenda
Tuesday April 1
- Your presentations - Madre Fowler-McDonald and Trent Reese
Interesting article I just saw on blu-ray integration with xbox 360
http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/01/next-generation-xbox-360-with-built-in-blu-ray-coming-in-2008/ - spencer
Thursday April 3
- Your presentations - Evan Carroll and Su Song
Tuesday April 8
- Your presentations - Kathryn Roth and Spencer Smith
Spencer's Powerpoint: Redbox
Thursday April 10
- Your presentations - Julia Kampov-Polevoi and Jordan Fleuriet
Tuesday April 15
Thursday April 17
- Your presentations - Shawn Guy and Ashley May
Tuesday April 22
- Your presentations - Alexander Foley and Anna-Marie Mansour
Thursday April 24
- Your presentations - Josh Lockhart and Kyle Lyons
Step 4) The final paper of between 2,500 and 5,000 words (due April 24).
Readings for INLS 697
Anderson, Chris. The Long Tail Wired, October 2004. See also Chris Anderson's blog and The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business is Selling Less of More the book length version of The Long Tail.
Aufderheide, Pat and Peter Jaszi. "Recut, Reframe, Recycle: Quoting Copyrighted Material in User-Generated Video". Center for Social Media, American University (Jan, 2008). (download PDF and Read. Also see comments at website).
Proposed Readings for 2009
Malone, Thomas W. The Future of Work: How the New Order of Business Will Shape Your Organization, Your Management Style, and Your Life. (Harvard Business School Press, 2004) MIT Center for Collective Intelligence
Small, Gary. iBrain: Surviving the Technological Alteration of the Modern Mind Collins Living (October 14, 2008)
Possible additional readings for 2009
Heath, Chip and Heath, Dan. Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die. Random House (January, 2007)
Manjoo, Farad. True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society. Wiley (March, 2008).
- contribution to class discussions (in session, on wiki and on e-mail) - 20%
- questions raised in questioner role - 25%
- timely and appropriate responses to the first three steps of the paper preparation - 20%
- major paper - 35%