Posts Tagged ‘Berkman’

Updates from “digital” academia

Friday, January 16th, 2009

* Tracy Mitrano, the January guest blogger for the Chronicle of Higher Education’s Wired Campus section, has been writing some good stuff. She doesn’t present us with ground-breaking discoveries, but her posts are soft and personal while managing to deal with some heavy topics. She also has a way of gently flicking questions in one’s direction, which I think is great because the role of a good academic is not only to inform, but also get one to think, and Tracy does just that. Here’s an interview I did with Tracy from last year, in which she talked about building a global university.

* Answering Prof. Charles Nesson’s request for a camera in the courtroom, Judge Nancy Gertner said she will allow Coutroom View Network, a New York-based company that webcasts trials in state courts, into a key hearing this coming Thursday that pits the US recording industry (RIAA) in the suit against BU grad student, Joel Tenenbaum. The court session will be broadcast live on the website of the Berkman Center. Nesson (and his team of students) is defending Tenenbaum for allegedly sharing seven songs illegally from Kazaa, peer-to-peer network.

*”Enhancing Child Safety & Online Technologies ” was released by the Berkman Center two days ago. This final report of the Internet Safety Technical Task Force summarizes a year-long investigation of tools and technologies to create a safer environment on the Internet for youth. It points out that: 1) Sexual predation on minors by adults is still a concern, 2) Bullying and harassment, most often by peers, are the most frequent threats that minors face, 3) The Internet increases the availability of harmful, problematic and illegal content, but does
not always increase minors’ exposure.

As expected, studies showed that these factors were not just problems in cyberspace, but were strongly linked with the offline world. I know people blame the education system (government) and technology (the Internet), but personally, I think so much could be improved by proper education at home, which seems so basic but is overlooked by so many parents. Bringing back the “traditional” values of family, love, and responsibility could solve so many problems…but perhaps my conservative views are not welcome in this era.

(cross-post on arcticpenguin)

Social networking in enterprises

Tuesday, January 13th, 2009

Andrew McAfee of HBS was the speaker at today’s Berkman luncheon series, talking about Enterprise 2.0, which he explains as being the phenomenon in which companies incorporate “community” features into their work. He said that based on connectivity, people’s networks can be categorized into strong ties, weak ties, potential ties, no ties. Citing Mark Granovetter, he said that weak ties may be stronger because people that are strong ties will not provide anything you don’t already know. (Interesting fact: Partners and future jobs are usually found through weak ties!) He said that corporate technologies do lousy jobs of connecting weak/potential ties, which could be done through social networking tools. [One thing that he grazed over was the value of people who convert ties into actual networks, which caught my attention because I fall into that category.]

He also talked about prediction markets (which fall into the “no ties” category) and how election trends were reflected in the Iowa Electronic Markets, which people seemed to be more interested in than his talk about implementing social networking tools in companies.

He gave a fairly standard argument, although he seemed to be an extreme optimist in terms of what in-house networking could do. Although I agree that in-house social networking can build a more positive corporate (social) culture and perhaps enhance productivity to some level, I believe that only those companies that strongly control this “sharing” actually see financial benefits. Also, the more successful in-house networking that I’ve seen were in companies that built their own programs versus companies who bought tweakable solutions because features had to be continuously updated to meet increasing demands. Obviously, this was expensive, and it only worked for companies that had strong financial incentives in sharing confidential data.

One point I found very disturbing was his comment on how Twitter and Facebook can be used to exploit weak networks. I really hate people who do this; especially those who are obviously digital narcissists trying to show off. Even worse are people who use 2.0 technology for 1.0 activities, in other words, those who seek feedback but never give others feedback. If people who are really “important” don’t have the time or don’t want to make the effort of replying to others, it means that all the feedback you get is from “unimportant” people. Of course, I suppose that doesn’t matter when you’re seeking advice like whether you should eat dimsum or tacos for lunch.

As always, David Weinberger live-blogged the whole session. Guess which was my question during the Q&A!

Media Re:Public Final Report is Out!

Friday, December 19th, 2008

The final report of Media Re:public, a MacArthur-funded project assessing the state of news in the digital era is now out and downloadable through the Berkman website. I posted a short wrap-up of the findings earlier this year.

I didn’t contribute much to this project (much less than I would have liked to)- just did a short case study of Baristanet, a hyper-local news site based in New Jersey.

Waiting for an election bomb

Tuesday, October 14th, 2008

As mentioned earlier in a post about my thoughts on citizen reporting (NOT journalism), NYT Noam Cohen writes about the recent Apple drop after unverified news regarding Steve Jobs’ health. Noting this trend way before Cohen, Prof. Harry Lewis fears that a similar thing will happen with the election at the last minute.

Although not related to journalism, a similar thing did happen with the 2002 presidential election in Korea. It was somewhat a close campaign between the conservative Lee Hoi-chang and more liberal Roh Moo-hyun. (One must note that in Korea, the concept of conservatism, liberalism, and so forth are quite different in dimension than that of the U.S. Given political history and surrounding countries, lefties are more closely associated with socialism in Korea than lefties in the U.S.)

Roh had already had quite a savvy Internet-centered campaign, very much like Obama (only in terms of Internet savviness- Roh didn’t have any higher education) whereas the Lee campaign was extremely ignorant of the Internet, no thanks to campaign organizers who ignored consultants and younger net-savvy campaign members. It was a close campaign, but many polls showed that Lee still had a slight edge. What gave Roh the final push, however, was in the last hours of election day.

Now on election day, unless one is terribly committed to a certain candidate, one sometimes is too lazy to go to the poll. Netizens, however, stirred up a frenzy towards the end of the day, claiming that Roh was extremely far behind and each vote was of crucial matter. These messages, posted on forums and passed through mobile text messages mainly among young people, urged many young voters to go to the polls at the last minute. The interesting thing was that the % of young people who actually voted at all was lower than that of previous elections, but those who voted were more Roh’s fans than Lee’s. Analysts said that these votes were crucial in Roh’s victory. He only won by 580,000 votes.

I felt in the case of Korea, the Internet fostered a terrible echo chamber that supported an underqualified candidate and strongly disagree with a Berkman report that suggests that the citizen journalism site OhMyNews played a role in promoting democracy in its coverage of the elections. (OhMyNews’ role and its effect on freedom of speech and its involvement in the election coverage was an entirely different matter. That is, unless democracy is seen as something on par with echo chambers)