Feeler prototype seeks to foster reflection about learning experiences through EEG data.
A third Feeler co-design workshop was organized with Kyushu university foreign exchange students. The workshop aimed to identify Quantified Self technologies practices that differ from those discussed with asian students.
As part of Feeler design concept contextual inquiry, two co-design workshops were organized with students of Kyushu University Design School. The aim of these sessions was to explore issues dealing with the use and visualization of Quantified-Self data for improving learning and well-being.
During the Eighth European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning Scaling up learning for sustained impact (EC-TEL 2013), Feeler design concept was presented in the framework of the Awareness and Reflection workshop (ARTEL).
Somehow it managed to take quite some time to write this post. However if, after so long, I’m still interested in writing about the activities organized by the Center of Contemporary Culture of Barcelona Lab (CCCB Lab) and Citilab, concretely its project named Expolab, about cultural institutions and 2.0 practices, it’s a sign I’ve found many interesting ideas and reflections in them.
Does it make sense to talk about authorship in collaborative environment? Should all web 2.0 knowledge builders be anonymous? What’s the value of authorship?
These are some of the questions that started to arise after reading a post in zephoria’s blog. Here I copy the part I consider resums the key issue:
“Since Knol launched in beta, folks have been comparing it to Wikipedia (although some argue against this comparison). Structurally, they’re different. They value different things and different content emerges because of this. But fundamentally, they’re both about making certain bodies of knowledge publicly accessible. They just see two different ways to get there – collaborative anarchy vs. controlled individualism. Because Knol came after Wikipedia, it appears to be a response to the criticisms that Wikipedia is too open to anonymous non-experts.”
Collaborative anarchy vs. controlled individualism, is that what we should consider at the time of developping collaborative environments for knowledge building? Does authorship guarantee the credibility of a text, or any other material?
Obviously, wikipedia seems to be “the” Example of collaborative knowledge production. However, isn’t the critical mass of editors as well as other measures of control, a guarantee for information veracity? At this point it’s useful to take into account the following
“a controversial study by Nature in 2005 systematically compared a set of scientific entries from Wikipedia and Britannica (including some from the Britannica Web edition), and found a similar rate of error between them.”
Possibly, the next question I should ask myself is… What determines our level of trust at the time of evaluating information? Quite probably, in many contexts Britannica seems more trustful than Wikipedia when, from my point of view, we should keep the same levels of skepticism in both cases. I don’t know why, but it could seems that “collaborative anarchy” can easily get associated with chaos and lack of rigor. And really, after reading a bit about wikipedia history I’ve realized that information posted there is much more supervised and can be corrected more fastly than any other online encyclopedia. Obviously, scalability in collaborative knowledge production environments is a problem or, at least, a difficulty to overcome. However, if it succeeds it brings an additional value: the consolidation of a digital identity. We don’t know who are britannica redactors nor wikipedia editors, so authorship can always be a non answered question. At this point, I would say that, possibly, wikipedia can have a stronger digital identity than many other online encyclopedias. Anyway, the issue behind authorship is closely related with responsability. Who will accept responsabilities (legal, economical…) in case someone feels offended by false information?
I don’t want to underestimate responsability in everything I/you can say, write, post or just reproduce, but I’m not sure if the solution is an economic or legal penalty. Wikipedia has develop its own mechanisms to avoid/solve errors and its corrections are the result of a public debate. This it’s more effective than simple posting a note accepting the mistake as many media do.
Trying to read Twitter’s new terms of service I realized why I never look at this kind of documents. And I guess I’m not the only one who automatically press the acceptance button once the “Terms of service” screen appears…
This time I’ve make an exception and I’ve read it and tried to understand (but it’s so boring…) the text. Even there are many sections, there are two that draw my attention: Privacy and Your (my, our) rights (this one I’ll leave it for another day). In order to try to keep loyal to the original source, I’ve decided that the best would be to copy-paste it here:
I don’t have a background in laws, so obviously there would be many aspects that I can easily misunderstand. However… shouldn’t there would be a limit of time for using and keeping our personal data once we’ve stopped using the service? If there isn’t any specification of a “deadline”, should I assume that twitter’s administrators will owe my personal information forever? I’f I’m not wrong, not very far ago people was complaining about Facebook terms of service because they said something as:
You hereby grant Facebook an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to (a) use, copy, publish, stream, store, retain, publicly perform or display, transmit, scan, reformat, modify, edit, frame, translate, excerpt, adapt, create derivative works and distribute (through multiple tiers), any User Content you (i) Post on or in connection with the Facebook Service.
Is Twitter doing the same? If so, should we care about it?
Anyway, may be the question is not about what exactly twitter and facebook are doing, but what is happening with users data, specially the personal information, in web 2.0 applications.
The course about “Microblogging and its possible uses for education” has ended, or almost, and I feel I should decide what I’m going to do with this blog (and some other ones I started one day, long ago, and now are kind of abandoned). Is it worth continuing/starting a blog if there isn’t an active community or network of people who could give feedback and, therefore, add some value to these comments?
Stop, may be I’m being too pessimistic… the lack of feedback doesn’t mean the lack of readers. Probably there are lots of visitors who just read or have a quick look and after this they leave the blog …. 😉 Anyway, in case I decide to take this assumption, does it give me any strong reason for continuing writing? Why should I have to make public thoughts that, at first, are only interesting for me?
I ask myself all this because I conceive a blog as a tool for learning. In this case, it’s the appearance of a community, network, friends, whatever..what helps me learning by offering different approaches, ideas…whatever, but at least share something. If this feedback doesn’t exist, I need to think again why should I continue this blog.
After some days of doubts – and don’t know why but also a bit of guiltynes for not continuing the blog – I’ve arrived to a conclusion. I’m going to use the blog as a personal diary of what I’m learning, reading or just to note down ideas that, otherwise, I would end forgetting and, who knows, may be can be useful for the thesis of the master. By having the info on internet, I would be able to have access to from anywhere and the info won’t dissapear if my computer breaks down (although, who can guarantee that wordpress would always exist and keep the information forever?
And, of course, if by the way, I receive feedback from someone, that would be a good reward! 🙂
The first time I heard the term “edupunk”, I though I had heard it wrong… however, after thinking about it twice I couldn’t avoid smiling: the philosophy of “do it by yourself ” applied to education! Of course there’s nothing new about the term, there are many teachers who “survive” and manage to motivate their students thanks to experimentation… and what about those who learn by their own? Should they be called edupunks now?