DC Tech and Humanities talk

967 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Education
  • Be the first to comment

DC Tech and Humanities talk

  1. 1. Web 2.0: Collaboration, Publication, and Storytelling Technology and Humanities November, 2006 George Mason University
  2. 2. Thematics <ul><li>Emergence in </li></ul><ul><li>time and space </li></ul><ul><li>Pedagogy </li></ul><ul><li>Dynamic information ecologicy </li></ul>(Radio Open Source blog/podcast, 2006)
  3. 3. Two theoretical notes <ul><li>“ Out of the dialectical exchange between the media-technological ‘base’ and the discursive ‘superstructure’ arise conflicts and tensions that sooner or late result in transformations at the level of media…” </li></ul><ul><li>-Friedrich Kittler, 1999 </li></ul><ul><li>Also: Janet Murray’s two-step argument </li></ul><ul><li>( Hamlet on the Holodeck , 1997) </li></ul>
  4. 4. One historical flourish <ul><li>Responses to overload </li></ul><ul><li>Cyclopedia (Chambers, 1728) </li></ul><ul><li>Encyclopedie (Diderot et al, 1751-1772) </li></ul><ul><li>(Another precursor, lacking the technology: Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae (636)) </li></ul>
  5. 5. A current metaphor <ul><li>Web 2.0 and education is like gaming and education : awareness is difficult </li></ul><ul><li>Huge, financially and quantitatively successful worlds </li></ul><ul><li>Global and rapidly developing </li></ul><ul><li>Bad anxieties, policies, and media coverage </li></ul>
  6. 6. A current metaphor <ul><li>Web 2.0 and education is like gaming and education: intersections are possible </li></ul><ul><li>Take advantage of preexisting projects </li></ul><ul><li>Mod/warp/hack </li></ul><ul><li>DIY </li></ul><ul><li>Literacy: IF Literacy: audience </li></ul>
  7. 7. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Microcontent, </li></ul><ul><li>rather than sites </li></ul><ul><li>or large </li></ul><ul><li>documents </li></ul>Components and principles
  8. 8. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Multiply authored microcontent, rather than sites or large documents </li></ul>
  9. 9. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Open content and/or services and/or standards </li></ul>(Pepysblog, 2003-)
  10. 10. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Network constructivism </li></ul>(Pepysblog, 2003-)
  11. 11. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>perpetual beta (O’Reilly) </li></ul>
  12. 12. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>platforms for development (O’Reilly) </li></ul>
  13. 13. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Data mashups </li></ul>
  14. 14. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Web 2.0 components, movements </li></ul><ul><li>Collaborative writing platforms: the wiki way </li></ul>
  15. 15. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Wiki pedagogies </li></ul><ul><li>Collective research </li></ul><ul><li>Group writing </li></ul><ul><li>Document editing </li></ul><ul><li>Information literacy </li></ul>
  16. 16. I. Web 2.0 Research: wikis are textually productive -Viégas, Wattenberg, Dave (IBM, 2004)
  17. 17. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Wikis are textually productive </li></ul><ul><li>OhMyNews! , WikiNews </li></ul>
  18. 18. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Web 2.0 components, movements </li></ul><ul><li>collaborative writing platforms: the blogosphere </li></ul>
  19. 19. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Addressable content chunks </li></ul>
  20. 20. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Distributed, attached conversations </li></ul>
  21. 21. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>State of the blogosphere </li></ul><ul><li>57 million blogs tracked by Technorati: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ As of October 2006, about 100,000 new weblogs were created each day… the doubling of the blogosphere has slowed a bit (every 236 days or so…” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>(David Sifry, November 2006) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Chart follows… </li></ul></ul>
  22. 22. I. Web 2.0
  23. 23. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>State of the blogosphere </li></ul><ul><li>12 people million using three platforms, including LiveJournal: majority women (Anil Dash, MeshForum 2006) </li></ul><ul><li>Diversity: diaries, public intellectuals, carnivals, knitters, moblogs, warblogs home and abroad… </li></ul>
  24. 24. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Two provocations </li></ul><ul><li>Did popular courseware keep higher education from contributing? </li></ul><ul><li>Did academia’s lack of engagement make it harder to catch up now? (cf Technorati 2006 November report) </li></ul>
  25. 25. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Web 2.0 components, movements: social objects </li></ul><ul><li>Flickr </li></ul>http:// flickr.com /
  26. 26. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Reach of Flickr </li></ul><ul><li>100 million images, as of Feb 2006 </li></ul><ul><li>As of October 2006, 4 million Flickr members (3/4 not in the US) </li></ul><ul><li>1 million photos uploaded each day </li></ul><ul><li>( http://www.radioopensource.org/photography-20/ ) </li></ul>
  27. 27. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Reach of Flickr </li></ul><ul><li>22 million searchable, shareable images in Flickr (October 2006) </li></ul>(Ben Harris-Roxas, 2006)
  28. 28. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Two provocations </li></ul>(Ben Harris-Roxas, 2006) <ul><li>Did popular CMS/LMSes keep higher education from contributing? </li></ul><ul><li>What collaboration design do we offer in comparison? </li></ul>
  29. 29. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>What can we learn from this? Ton Zylstra: </li></ul><ul><li>“ In general you could say that both Flickr and delicious work in a triangle: person, picture/bookmark, and tag(s). Or more abstract a person, an object of sociality , and some descriptor...” </li></ul>
  30. 30. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>“… In every triangle there always needs to be a person and an object of sociality . The third point of the triangle is free to define[,] as it were.” </li></ul><ul><li>- http://www.zylstra.org , 2006 </li></ul><ul><li>(emphases added) </li></ul>
  31. 31. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>What can we learn from this? </li></ul><ul><li>Jyri Engesrom is succinct: </li></ul><ul><li>“ The fallacy is to think that social networks are just made up of people. They're not; social networks consist of people who are connected by a shared object .” </li></ul><ul><li>- http://www.zengestrom.com/ , 2005 </li></ul>
  32. 32. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Social object principles: tagging </li></ul>(Flickr is one influential and leading tagging project)
  33. 33. I. Web 2.0 <ul><ul><li>“ Home </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Owain </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Hestia </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Chickens </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ripton” </li></ul></ul>
  34. 34. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Folksonomy </li></ul><ul><li>User benefit </li></ul><ul><li>Search </li></ul><ul><li>Retrieval </li></ul><ul><li>Self-awareness </li></ul><ul><ul><li>http://del.icio.us/ </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>for DoctorNemo </li></ul></ul>
  35. 35. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Community surfacing </li></ul><ul><li>Ontology </li></ul><ul><li>Concepts </li></ul><ul><li>Collaborative research </li></ul>
  36. 36. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Case study, tagging museums: </li></ul><ul><li>the Steve project </li></ul>
  37. 37. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Tagging museums: the Steve project </li></ul><ul><li>Expert discourse, controlled vocab </li></ul>
  38. 38. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Tagging museums: the Steve project </li></ul><ul><li>Users tag differently </li></ul><ul><li>Curators get it </li></ul><ul><li>(Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2004) </li></ul>
  39. 39. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Tagging libraries: PennTags </li></ul><ul><li>Coded locally </li></ul>
  40. 40. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Components, movements </li></ul><ul><li>Mixing and mashing: the RSS feeding frenzy </li></ul>
  41. 41. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Components, movements: social objects </li></ul><ul><li>Collaborative </li></ul><ul><li>music: LastFM </li></ul>http:// www.last.fm /
  42. 42. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Teaching with Web 2.0 </li></ul><ul><li>Distributed conversation </li></ul><ul><li>Collaborative writing </li></ul><ul><li>Object-oriented discussion </li></ul>http://smarthistory.blogspot.com/
  43. 43. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Social object: the person </li></ul><ul><li>FaceBook </li></ul><ul><li>MySpace </li></ul><ul><li>LinkedIn </li></ul><ul><li>ZoomInfo </li></ul><ul><li>Spock </li></ul><ul><li>CyWorld </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Less than four years after its launch, 15 million people, or almost a third of the country's population, are members.” ( BusinessWeek , September 2005) </li></ul></ul>
  44. 44. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Social news: </li></ul><ul><li>Memeorandum, Tailrank, Digg, TechMeme </li></ul>
  45. 45. II. Rich media and Web 2.0 <ul><li>Web 2.0 influences rich media </li></ul><ul><li>Podcasting </li></ul>
  46. 46. II. Rich media and Web 2.0 <ul><li>What’s happened since February 2004? </li></ul>
  47. 47. II. Rich media and Web 2.0 <ul><li>What’s happened since? </li></ul><ul><li>“ More than 22 million American adults own iPods or MP3 players and 29% of them have downloaded podcasts from the Web so that they could listen to audio files at a time of their choosing.” </li></ul><ul><li>-Pew Internet and American Life study, </li></ul><ul><li>April 2005 </li></ul>
  48. 48. II. Rich media and Web 2.0 <ul><li>What’s happened since? Neologisms: </li></ul><ul><li>godcasting </li></ul><ul><li>nanocasting </li></ul><ul><li>podfading </li></ul><ul><li>podsafe </li></ul><ul><li>podspamming </li></ul><ul><li>podvertising </li></ul><ul><li>porncasting </li></ul>
  49. 49. II. Rich media and Web 2.0 <ul><li>Podcasts and teaching: profcasting </li></ul><ul><li>Bryn Mawr College: Michelle Francl, chemistry </li></ul><ul><li>Duke: Classroom recording </li></ul><ul><li>Learning objects: Gardner Campbell, University of Richmond </li></ul><ul><li>Duke: Course content dissemination </li></ul><ul><li>Information literacy </li></ul>
  50. 50. II. Rich media and Web 2.0 <ul><li>Podcasts and research </li></ul><ul><li>Public intellectual </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Out of the Past </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Engines of Our Ingenuity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Napoleon 101 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>In Our Time </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Trudi Abel, “Digital Durham and the New South” (Duke University, 2006) </li></ul><ul><li>Duke: Field recording </li></ul>
  51. 51. II. Rich media and Web 2.0 <ul><li>Social media: Web 2.0 video </li></ul>(Gootube? Suetube?)
  52. 52. II. Rich media and Web 2.0 <ul><li>Videoblogging </li></ul><ul><li>(vlog? </li></ul><ul><li>vog?) </li></ul>Rocketboom, Amanda Congdon
  53. 53. II. Rich media and Web 2.0 <ul><li>Social media: Freesound archive </li></ul>(Freesound archive)
  54. 54. II. Rich media and Web 2.0 <ul><li>(Second Life, 2004-present) </li></ul>Social media: social gaming and Web 2.0?
  55. 55. II. Rich media and Web 2.0 <ul><li>Size of Second Life: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>1 million residents, October 2006 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ the new golf”, Second Life (Joi Ito) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Compare the field </li></ul><ul><ul><li>6 million players, World of Warcraft </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>1 million players, Virtual Magic Kingdom </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Diversity: platform, genre, content </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(Random sample stats) </li></ul></ul>
  56. 56. III. Web 2.0 storytelling <ul><li>Web 2.0 storytelling </li></ul><ul><li>Nonfiction ( Pulse ) </li></ul><ul><li>Fiction (“I Found a Camera…”) </li></ul><ul><li>Public intellectuals </li></ul><ul><li>New art form: ARGs </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>( Pulse , screenshot fall 2006) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  57. 57. III. Web 2.0 storytelling <ul><li>Web 2.0 storytelling </li></ul><ul><li>New art form: ARGs </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>( Perplex City , 2004- </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>The Beast, 2000-2001) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  58. 58. III. Web 2.0 storytelling <ul><li>Flickr and storytelling </li></ul><ul><li>Tell a story in 5 frames group </li></ul>“ Gender Miscommunication” (Nightingai1e, 2006)
  59. 59. III. Web 2.0 storytelling
  60. 60. III. Web 2.0 storytelling
  61. 61. III. Web 2.0 storytelling
  62. 62. III. Web 2.0 storytelling “ Gender Miscommunication” (Nightingai1e, 2006)
  63. 63. IV. Web 2.0 storytelling <ul><li>Flickr and social storytelling </li></ul><ul><li>Feedback </li></ul><ul><li>Revisions </li></ul><ul><li>Peer group </li></ul><ul><li>Audience </li></ul><ul><li>Personal microhistories </li></ul>(“Alone With The Sand”, moliere1331, 2005)
  64. 64. IV. Web 2.0 storytelling <ul><li>Lonelygirl15 </li></ul><ul><li>One YouTube </li></ul><ul><li>Another YouTube </li></ul><ul><li>Myspace </li></ul>(Jessica Rose, Ramesh Flinders, Miles Beckett, 2006-)
  65. 65. IV. Web 2.0 storytelling <ul><li>Lonelygirl15 </li></ul><ul><li>Blogs </li></ul><ul><li>Discussion frenzy </li></ul><ul><li>Media attention </li></ul><ul><li>“ transmedia storytelling”(Jenkins 2006) </li></ul>(cryptic plush toy)
  66. 66. IV. Web 2.0 storytelling <ul><li>Pedagogies </li></ul><ul><li>Multimedia compositions </li></ul><ul><li>Creative writing </li></ul><ul><li>Media literacy </li></ul><ul><li>Scholarly publication </li></ul>(Noircast)
  67. 67. V. Anxieties and policies Policy fears - DOPA: “’ Social networking sites such as MySpace and chat rooms have allowed sexual predators to sneak into homes and solicit kids,’ said Rep. Ted Poe…” -C|Net (on the way to Bryan’s office, spring 2006)
  68. 68. V. Anxieties and policies (Valdis Krebs, 2004)
  69. 69. <ul><li>National Institute for Technology and Liberal Education http:// nitle.org </li></ul><ul><li>NITLE blog http://b2e.nitle.org </li></ul><ul><li>NITLE Lab http:// nitle.org/index.php/nitle/laboratory </li></ul>

×