Alas, my blog is once again doing weird things. Comments and trackbacks no longer get emailed to me. They also don’t rebuild the entries even though they’re there – i just have to manually update. And the front page doesn’t get updated with the numbers of comments/trackbacks. Argh. Any idea?
Monthly Archives: March 2005
sidestepping the question
Well, a decision came down on the the EFF / Apple blogging case and it’s a little disturbing. Basically, they ruled that no one (digital or paper) journalists have the privilege to protect their sources when trade secrets are involved. In other words, the rights of companies trump the First.
This sidesteps the blogger vs. journalist question entirely. Which is partially good because, like i said, it’s the wrong question. But, it’s partially bad, because people didn’t declare it to be the wrong question, just one worth sidestepping.
As far as the case is concerned, i’m concerned. On one hand, i understand that people shouldn’t have the right to leak information that they know is private and expect protection. On the other, the reason that the First exists is to protect powerful systems from oppressing the people under their structure. In other words, it’s OK when information from inside the government is leaked because it’s a matter of checks and balances. But there are no checks and balances for corporations right? What constitutes a trade secret? How can you tell? Now we have two loopholes to allow for continuous oppression – trade secrets and government security. And you can’t even actually check this. It may be true in a few cases, but there’s so much room to be abusive.
Goodbye dear freedoms… it was nice knowing you…
affirmative action: diversity in universities and conferences
In the techno-centric, meritocratic culture that i live in, i’m often faced with logic processes that make sense given a set of accepted axioms, but fundamentally fail due to the lack of an entire picture. One of my favorites is affirmative action. It still bugs me to a core that i’m at a University that eliminated affirmative action from its admissions process and i’m really frustrated that the flawed logic that undermined affirmative action in this State is getting perpetuated more broadly.
The anti-affirmative action logic is simple because it’s based on a meritocratic principle – the best people should be admitted regardless of race, class, gender, etc.
Unfortunately, there are quite a few missing components, many of which were brought up in the debates. Most obviously, there is a question of whether or not people have an equal and fair chance of acquiring the skills necessary to achieve. This logic asks us to look at the potential of an individual, removed from the context in which they were born and raised. Herein lies a deeper problem – can we remove people from that context? There’s an amazing book called Prejudicial Appearances: The Logic of American Anti-discrimination Law that covers this beautifully.
What is missing in all of the debate, as far as i can tell, is a clear analysis of what things like universities do. When i was in high school, i was often advised to attend the local or state school because i would get just as good of an education there as at any hoity toity private school. The fact of the matter is that’s really bad advice. What those “elite” colleges offer has nothing to do with curriculum or formal education – it has to do with social networks. First, by being far away from family and the local networks, students are faced with a myriad of fresh faces from very different parts of the world. One’s social network expands tremendously in such settings. Plus, in those private institutions, many of your fellow students are heavily connected (through their parents) to all sorts of powerful business people, politicians, etc. Going to such an institution allowed me to jump socioeconomic class in a way that never would’ve been possible otherwise.
College may appear to be about education, but it is primarily about creating the social network that will help you begin your adult life. For this reason, leaving out any group of people continues to marginalize them, limiting their ability for socio-cultural shifts. Let’s be honest – the jocks didn’t get in for their brains – they got in because they play an important social role in the coherence of the university. And alumni’s kids? They too play a critical role in maintaining the social network. Yet, institutions cannot be all about one group of people – this would further homogenize the social network. It needs to be as diverse as possible to alter the networks of all involved, particularly at the most formative years. This is how you achieve shifts in social culture – one generation at a time.
Sure, you don’t want to bring in a population to participate for social networks only to not prepare them such that they fail. But there are other ways to help alleviate the discrepancies, often through programming and making certain that the system is prepared to deal with diversity and help people find ways to connect on common ground. (This was what prompted me to help run a program back at Brown for pre-frosh who were from the city and had non access to computers.)
Now, it’s important to note that this doesn’t just apply to university. In the tech world, people often moan at Liz and i when we make snarky comments about how few women are at conferences. What do you think conferences are? Meritocratic events? Bullshit. They’re social networking events first and foremost. The more women and other minorities you include, the more they get integrated into the network and the more the network diversifies. Folks in the tech world seem to be fascinated by how social networks work, but at the same time, the application of it to the culture at hand is atrocious. Yes, it’s forced and painful at first. And we’re not idiots – i know i get invited to things for the diversity quotient. And guess what? I tend to bring other women along… funny how that happens. Diversification doesn’t happen magically – it has to start as a conscientious effort. And we all need to move beyond our utopian fantasy of a meritocratic society that will transcend all realities about how race, class and gender are operationalized and institutionalized. Or more accurately, we have to actually make that happen, not by trying to be blind to these issues, but to be very conscious of how they exist in our society. And by being honest with ourselves about what we’re doing to actually diversify instead of homogenize. ‘Cuz damnit, the meritocratic attitude of the tech industry has not proven effective at all.
Are Bloggers Journalists? Wrong Question.
With the Apple case in full-swing, everyone keeps asking “Are bloggers journalists?” I think that this is the wrong question. We can all point to bloggers who are not journalists, don’t want to be journalists and never will be journalists. This creates a pendulum swing where all of a sudden people exclaim that bloggers are diarists! And thus you get stupid shit like “should web diarists be allowed into the press corps?”
Stop.
This isn’t working. We need to get off this train.
Let’s switch artifacts for a moment. Paper. What do people use paper for? They take notes, write lists, document their lives, and publish things. Hmm. These practices sound a lot like some of what people do with blogs, only using a different medium. Of course, i’ll be the first to argue that blogs and paper are architecturally very very very different – that have notably different affordances and result in entirely different culture. But they both have an array of practices associated with them. And thus, you would never ask something like “Are paperists journalists?”
We know that not all bloggers are journalists. The question then becomes – are some? Well, this is where it gets interesting. Who gets to determine who is and is not a journalist? Historically, there were limitations simply concerning who had access to the materials to be press – things like the printing press. Thus, institutions got built up that were clearly press.. and then they consolidated infinitely until you had monopoly press and indie press. But there’s nothing like a bar association for the press, nothing that professionally declares one person to be a legitimate member of the press and others to not be.
So what actually demarcates someone as press? Identity. They see the work that they are doing, the values that they are following – they see this as journalism. We live in a country that rightfully included the freedom of press in its Constitution. There’s a realization that press should be separate from the government. Well, in a society were the lines between corporations and governments are difficult to see, should we really assume that only corporations can have the right to lend credentials to journalists? This seems like a dangerous statement.
Should journalists be credentialed by some overseeing organization? Perhaps. But they aren’t now. And legitimacy through corporate affiliation is not something that seems to resonate with the sentiment of freedom of press. Maybe bloggers should join the professional journalism societies – maybe that would help.
Some bloggers declare their practice to be journalism. They are trying to determine the “truth” of a matter. Sure, prior to Walter Cronkite, it was virtually nonexistent to discuss one’s personal opinion associated with news stories. But now? C’mon – have you seen Fox lately? Studies have been done over and over again showing that journalists’ opinions are discernible in their writing and televised coverage. Some bloggers are indeed putting their opinion in their coverage, but at least they’re being explicit about it rather than pretending to hide behind a curtain of pretend universal truth.
I think that the question needs to be shifted. We need to stop asking if bloggers are journalists and start asking if journalism can occur on blogs? People didn’t used to think that journalism could occur on radio or on TV. And there’s no doubt that the medium changed the practice. But we all recognize these venues as legitimate sources of news. In a society of corrupt media, a shift in media is actually quite appreciated and should not be oppressed simply because it does not yet have legitimacy or because its legitimacy is not associated with any corporation’s credentials.
fuck the SXSW etiquette guide
Culturally enforced etiquette has never been my thing. Fuck Miss Manners. Fuck anyone who tells me how to be a good girl. Ah yes, resistant to a core – i’ve always been the punkass with a middle finger to the world, finding my identity in proving everyone wrong. And i’m in a contentious mood so it’s only a wee bit magnified right now.
Thus, i couldn’t help but want to spit at The unofficial geek guide to getting over yourself at SxSW Interactive 2005. I consider myself a pretty friendly, approachable person (although this definitely subsides when i’m a walking stressball and i admit a little bit of chaos right now). But i don’t want to be told that i’m not approachable because i’m attached to my laptop. I may not be doing heart surgery but i have a stack of students taking a midterm on Tuesday morning and i’ve chosen to come to SXSW anyhow. Why? Because i do believe in co-presence. But, that said, i can only do it because i will be constantly wired, because i will be sitting in the hallway keying IMs back in my reality between conversations. No, i’m not going to be 100% present at SXSW but if that’s what’s required to go, than i can’t go. I figure it’s better to be 60% there than not at all. I’ll still be goofing around in the hallways, meeting new people and rekindling relationships with old friends who i wouldn’t see otherwise. It sounds like a pretty good deal to me. Or maybe i’m just the kind of bitch that’s undesirable at touchy feel-y events – too much New Yorker in me.
But seriously, i’m shelling out my own bucks and time to fly my arse to Austin – why should i accept someone else’s prescription about how to make the most of my experience there? I have a sneaking suspicion that i’ll get what i want out of the experience and hopefully help make others’ experiences a bit more fun. Why do i have to follow rules to be a contribution? Maybe that means i won’t get a little orange sticker or be the purrfect attendee but why do i have to be perfect?
i am not a pretty girl
that is not what i do
i ain’t no damsel in distress
and i don’t need to be rescued
so put me down punk
— Ani Difranco
U.N. landmine commerical won’t air in US.
A U.N. commercial depicts American girls playing in a soccer match. A girl steps on a landmine and there’s a big explosion. Kids get blown apart. CNN and other networks don’t want to air the ad.
The explosion appears to kill and injure some girls, sparking panic and chaos among parents and other children. Shrieks of horror are heard through much of the spot, and a father is shown cradling his daughter’s lifeless body, moments after celebrating a goal she had scored.
It closes with a tag line reading: “If there were landmines here, would you stand for them anywhere? Help the U.N. eradicate landmines everywhere.”
(Copied from BoingBoing because everyone needs to see this)
caricatured
OK – i have a funny feeling that i’m supposed to be offended by this caricature of me:
But, frankly, i’m utterly amused that anyone would put me in such a silly comic that is mocking a lot of folks and issues that i know.
Of course, my first thought was that it doesn’t look like me. As Coates pointed out, i would never carry a bag like that, i don’t have a tattoo and there’s no white fuzzy hat or armbands (which i would wear with such a sleeveless dress).
And i know that i’m supposed to be ragingly pissed at the misogynistic interpretation of me, but i just can’t help but laugh. ::slapping own wrist:: Bad feminist, bad.
situating Wikipedia
I continue to get painted as anti-Wikipedia which couldn’t be further from the truth. I want to clarify a few things and i think that the latest BoingBoing entry on Wikipedia helps.
It is presumed that the data contained in a dictionary is ‘true’ but *scholars* have pointed out that there are ‘inaccuracies.’ There are two issues at play here. First concerns the truth-value of any record – when is there truth and when is only interpretation possible? I’ll leave that one alone for now. The better question concerns who has the authority to say whether or not something is ‘true’ where truth refers to presumed collective knowledge. The article that BoingBoing cites tells us explicitly that it is ‘scholars’ that have such authority.
Herein lies my primary complaint with Wikipedia – the lack of known authorship. (Note: i have the same problem with encyclopedias and dictionaries too, but i don’t see the Wikipedia arguments as boiled down to paper references vs. digital references.) I want to know that what part of the Wikipedia entry the Jane Austen scholar wrote and what was edited out by others. I want to know that the Jane Austen scholar looked at the entry that a 14 year old wrote and thought it was perfect. I want to know the investment level of the authors. I don’t think i’m alone on this one.
Secondly, i may be a scaredy-cat but i’m not afraid of Wikipedia. Like Clay, i firmly believe that students should cite their sources; nothing is more gut-wrenching than throwing a line of someone’s paper into Google and finding it on the web. My concern with academic citation is metaphorically concerned with citing Cliffnotes. Don’t tell me what Wikipedia tells you about Benjamin’s essay – tell me what Benjamin says and tell me your critique. If you want to use a third party’s critique to contend with, great, but that’s rarely what students do. Wikipedia’s interpretation may or may not be accurate and if you haven’t read the primary source (which is often the problem), you don’t know. There is no doubt that this is a problem with a broader variety of sources but the efforts to legitimize Wikipedia as better than an encyclopedia wreaks havoc. This is not because i want students using the encyclopedia – they’re far more likely to read the 10 page essay than hike up the hill to the library to find an encyclopedia that may or may not give them a clue about what’s going on. Encyclopedia citations are rarely my problem but Wikipedia as Cliffnotes is. I want students to be critical thinkers, not just piece together the varying levels of supposed critical thought that they find on the web. And if the web is useful to them, it should be as an interlocutor for argument’s sake, not a source of authority.
In both of these cases, comparisons to other media can be made and the problems that manifest are not necessarily new. The problem that i’m having with the Wikipedia hype is the assumption that it is the panacea for it too has its problems and those problems must be acknowledged, addressed and situated. It certainly has great value, both as a tool for information and as a site of community. But there are limitations and i believe that the incessant hype is damaging to being able to situate it properly and to recognize its strengths and weaknesses.
pedagogy of group projects
I have always loathed group projects, mostly due to personal experience in middle and high school. I was always the kid who knew what was going on and perennially pissed at those who didn’t or didn’t care. Pedagogically, i was always told that you needed to learn such a skill because it’s how the world works. I rolled my eyes at pedagogy (or, more accurately, at that age i gave it my finger). In college, i learned to appreciate group projects a bit more. My department was set up so that in the fourth semester, you had to choose a team for a huge final project. For the most part, we all knew each other by that point and there was a social cohesion that made such group work very manageable. Of course, there was always that one group made up of folks who didn’t know each other and inevitably got the lowest score.
I’ve always wondered about the pedagogical strengths and weaknesses of group project work in courses. How do you get past the rotten apple problem? How do you make group projects not have so much overhead that they take up a bazillion hours of negotiation? How do you help people contain their frustration? In other words, as a teacher, what do i gain/lose from group projects? And how do i overcome my own fears of them?
clouds begin to pass
I got the phone call late afternoon yesterday and felt my heart warm. I did the practical things i promised to do in response and then sat down in my office and let the tears drip down my face – tears of relief, of joy, of love.
The worries began many months ago and Google is the perfect tool for the intermittent hypochondriac. I had been prepared for the worst but when all began to unfold, i found myself overjoyed that it had an explanation at all. As the weight of the situation began to press down, i found that i could stand firmly on my feet, balanced, grounded. There was only one caveat – i could not deal with anything minor whatsoever. Meowing cats, laundry, the smog check people, people who couldn’t understand, couldn’t know. I fell out of my usual habits, partially by necessity and with that came the loss of many connections.
I don’t know if i was ever truly afraid – i had confidence; we had confidence. And we fed off of each other. We giggled over the practicalities, brought out our inner children, joked about Smurfs and found fascination in every scientific detail. I relished those phone calls. I stopped being able to distinguish if i was performing OK or just was OK. People worried about me, bless their hearts, and i tried to assuage their concern, whether or not they believed me. I guess it doesn’t really matter – in my heart, i started believing my performance.
So when that phone call came, i got to feel the weight as it melted down my cheeks, got to see just how much i’d been carrying around. Relief is a precious feeling, a tool of joy and love. The clouds have only begun to pass – it will be many months until a clear sky is truly visible. And i don’t know if things will ever be the same. Priorities become objects for inspection, as do habits. But in the meantime, i want to keep building on our childlike play.