Stephen Downes: Most people - I am not sure how many - do not work for large corporations. They cannot afford a learning management system that costs $100,000. So why is everybody in this room (the trade room floor) focusing on selling large LMSs and the like to corporate purchasers? What will all of this look like when the e-learning is provided for the rest of us?
The future is in the most accessible system, it would seem.
Education goes open source.. While the computer industry is seriously considering the open-source ethos as a possible way forward, it seems like other industries are slow to catch on. So in steps MIT and drops a bombshell on us all. [kuro5hin.org]
Also see this thread on the (growing, in my opinion) distinction between getting educated and getting credentials.
I agree with Ray. I don't want pingback, trackback, or refererback. I get enough feedback with comments, spam free e-mail, and links to IM. If I wanted to host a discussion group, that is what I would have instead of a weblog. [John Robb's Radio Weblog]
» I can't afford to pull up the draw bridge.
PingBack may not be good for John, Ray, and others on the path well trodden. But I think there are lots of people like myself who see things differently. I want to know when someone is talking about what I am talking about and especially when they are talking about something I've written.
Right on the money, Matt. And there are many, many more people in this situation than there are people who are already very visible. So things like this are going to become successful. If UserLand doesn't provide them, others will.
Jill: Anders suggests two cards for the pack we obviously have to make for PhD students and other stuck academics, you know, like Brian Eno and Peter Schmidt's "Oblique Strategies" pack of cards for artists.
For me, the point in Oblique Strategies is that understanding happens when you stop thinking. I don't know why I keep forgetting it. Getting the big picture is not something you do, it is something that happens to you. It is instantaneous and can only occur when you finally let go of all those little individual puzzle pieces you were fiercely tring to fit together.
Why is it that they always tell us to work hard, if those crucial a-ha moments only come about when we stop? Because we need the raw materials. Chance favors the prepared mind.
Paul Ginsparg has won a MacArthur Fellowship for his work on arXiv, the pioneering open-access repository for physics, mathematics, and computer science. Venerable by internet time, arXiv was founded in 1991, and is by far the most used and most useful open-access archive for any discipline. It has been indispensable not only for accelerating research in its fields, but for an exemplary "proof of concept" that has accelerated the FOS movement itself. Congratulations Paul! [FOS News]
For a long time Ginsparg has been thinking years ahead of others. While most everyone is timidly thinking of, perhaps, using the Internet instead of paper to organize peer review and making research papers available online in the exact same format as they look on paper, Ginsparg has sensibly rethought the entire research communication infrastructure.
1. Tacit agreements that are wrong have to be uncovered, described, before they can be put into question. Outsiders coming in are much better at doing this than people who've spent their lives living with them. This is why the younger folks embrace disruptive ways.
2. There are very few things that I have been able to rule out beyond all possible doubt, when I've tried. Each time, I found so many basically unproven assumptions.
1+2. Many things seem "obviously impossible" to people because they violate implicit laws that they take for granted and can't examine, much less reexamine. Thus, obviously impossible things are invariably achieved by people who didn't know they were impossible.
Rebecca Blood at the recent panel on weblogs and journalism: The thing I've seen happening that's disturbing to me is I've seen echo chambers being created in the weblog universe. People who link only to people who agree with their point of view. Back in the day when there were only 100 of us, there were real discussions going on. There are now so many weblogs out there that you see people linking only to those who share their basic world view.
Via blogging news: J. Neil Doane in an essay on why he hates blogs: "Clearly weblogs are fucking retarded as a general rule... What can be plainly seen is that most weblog authors need something to push them back into the real world from the self-centered and delusional world they have created for themselves."
Weblogs enable groupthink circles to form. This is only natural and mirrors any real-world social aggregation process. The nice thing about this is that it does not spoil the fun for those who seek intellectual diversity. As a reader, you get to choose your neighborhood on a fine-grained, per-person basis - and this is unlike any other social situation I've seen. You can make that neighborhood as diverse as you want. So you're not stuck with echo effects unless you want them.
This is perhaps the most revolutionary aspect of weblogging from a "knowledge input management" point of view. Developing skill at selecting sources, in order to make the best use of one's limited perceptual bandwidth, is quickly becoming critical for making sense of what's really happening in our complex world. Two keywords for building a good neighborhood are diversity and quality. The corresponding skills one has to cultivate are open-mindedness and critical thinking.
J. Neil's essay is really interesting; I just hope its incendiary style won't put people off and prevent them from seizing the occasion to take a good critical look at themselves. A little overall balance to the piece is provided by Chapter 6, "Acceptable Uses of Weblogs":
The 'Expert in a Field' Model - comparatively advanced/expert commentary on an area of interest.
The 'Celebrity Figure Information' Model - insight into the lives of persons of public interest.
The 'Opinion Of Worth' Model - opinions from someone of notoriety.
The Chronicle Model - chronicling the history of something that someone else might find useful.
The Author Model - a weblog that tries to legitimately attempt daily writings.
Basically it seems Doane's criteria for legitimacy are 1) either seriously attempting to contribute to culture; or 2) being a celebrity.
I'm not really at ease with the second criterion, as I am more inclined to evaluate a blog according to its content rather than its author. Personally, few of the people I find interesting are notorious (look at my blogrolling list.). Those who are are also domain experts and this the reason I read them. Even then, I need not subscribe to their blog. I know I'll hear about them when the people I read point to them.
How would you search for this?. Okay a friend of mine is writing a company memo about a senior staff member leaving. As I joke I want to suggest to her to include a Dilbert cartoon, the one where "Herb Klepford" (or some other such name) is leaving and "The Boss" thanks him for all the office supplies he's stolen over the years.
Now, assuming it was out there somewhere, how on earth would you go about searching for it? [Curiouser and curiouser!]
I'd ask everyone in my blog neighborhood if they recall it, and hope that some will repost the query. Perhaps someone has bookmaked it or sent the URL via email.
Fly by wire. Disenchanted explores how computer systems that interpret our intentions and act on our behalf gradually disconnect us from reality.
Actually, there's another, much older, filter between people and reality: culture. But nowadays cultures are clashing and competing more than ever, which results in many people thinking of upgrading their own, many people getting confused, and many others becoming more rigid.
