Re: [DDN] FW: Gates Foundation Announcement (Action Required)
All, I am not sure why I should receive this kind of emails. IF DDN does not really want me to participate then PLEASE delete me from the mailing list ... pardon me ... GUEST list. I suppose that is the end of DDN? Cindy --- On Thu, 16/7/09, postmas...@boxbe.com postmas...@boxbe.com wrote: From: postmas...@boxbe.com postmas...@boxbe.com Subject: Re: [DDN] FW: Gates Foundation Announcement (Action Required) To: The Digital Divide Network discussion group digitaldivide@digitaldivide.net Date: Thursday, 16 July, 2009, 5:54 AM Hello The Digital Divide Network discussion group, This message serves as notification that you will not receive any more courtesy notices from our members for two days. Messages you have sent will remain in a lower priority queue for our member to review at their leisure. Future messages will be more likely to be viewed if you are on our member's priority Guest List. Thank you, dfd...@gmail.com About Boxbe This courtesy notice is part of a free service to make email more reliable and useful. Boxbe (http://www.boxbe.com) uses your existing social network and that of your friends to keep your inbox clean and make sure you receive email from people who matter to you. Boxbe: Say Goodbye to Email Overload Visit http://www.boxbe.com/how-it-works?tc=228795396_1006531852 -Inline Attachment Follows- ___ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list DIGITALDIVIDE@digitaldivide.net http://digitaldivide.net/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to digitaldivide-requ...@digitaldivide.net with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message. ___ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list DIGITALDIVIDE@digitaldivide.net http://digitaldivide.net/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to digitaldivide-requ...@digitaldivide.net with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.
Re: [DDN] in search of volunteer moderators (was The future of DDN)
Why not just have ddn activities in multiple places? There's no reason why this has to be an either-or discussion. In an ideal world, DDN would be via email, on Moodle, have a wiki, be on Facebook, Twitter, Friendfeed, YouTube, etc...In an ideal world, there would be money available to hire a full time manager to oversee DDN, but we do not have that kind of luxury. Perhaps I am wrong, my assumption is, the more different tools we have, the more volunteers DDN would need. Presently we sometime have to wait for days before emails are approved for publication, (2 of my emails took about a month for approval), I think that would kill Twiter, for example? Another hesitation I have is, from my own observation the past 3 years, I think there are only a handful of DDN members that are very skill at using different tools. What would that mean in finding volunteers? Personally even IF I am willing, I would not dare to offere my service. = cindyho...@gmail.com --- On Fri, 2/1/09, Andy Carvin andycar...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Andy Carvin andycar...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [DDN] in search of volunteer moderators (was The future of DDN) To: The Digital Divide Network discussion group digitaldivide@digitaldivide.net Date: Friday, 2 January, 2009, 2:46 PM Why not just have ddn activities in multiple places? There's no reason why this has to be an either-or discussion. In an ideal world, DDN would be via email, on Moodle, have a wiki, be on Facebook, Twitter, Friendfeed, YouTube, etc... Andy Carvin andycarvin at yahoo com www.andycarvin.com www.pbs.org/learningnow ___ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list DIGITALDIVIDE@digitaldivide.net http://digitaldivide.net/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to digitaldivide-requ...@digitaldivide.net with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.
Re: [DDN] in search of volunteer moderators (was The future of DDN)
Any thought of moving DDN to Moodle? I think Moodle provides a centralized platform and better features than the email listing. It provides functions where we can build library related to DDN issues, members can conduct training, discussions etc. all within one location. The 'meaning' of DDN has changed since the beginning of DDN. What I see the future of DDN should go beyond discussions. Cindy = cindyho...@gmail.com --- On Wed, 31/12/08, Claude Almansi claude.alma...@gmail.com wrote: From: Claude Almansi claude.alma...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [DDN] in search of volunteer moderators (was The future of DDN) To: The Digital Divide Network discussion group digitaldivide@digitaldivide.net Date: Wednesday, 31 December, 2008, 11:13 AM Thanks for your constructive personal opinion, Taran: it is all the more valuable because of your experience as admin. I've only been a user - well, theoretically managing some on-site discussions for a while before they got scrapped, but their were very few posts there. Between your lines: On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 11:36 PM, Taran Rampersad taran.a.ramper...@gmail.com wrote: Personal opinion, meant constructively: DigitalDivide.net used to count, I think. I've gone through with admin powers and removed spam blog postings, deleted spam users, and so forth. I'm not sure exactly when that problem started - probably along the timeline that all the spam comments on the blogs started showing up. The explanation for how all of that happened and was handled is a bit sketchy, so it's difficult to say. As far as I remember, there was a chonological coincidence between the rise of spam comments to blog entries and the big hacking of the on-site discussion boards during the 2nd WSIS in 2005. Spammers started using redirecting scripts in their profiles and in their comments. So script use was made impossible by admins. Then they directed to other free-hosted pages where they used those scripts. Etc. But already before that, the mailing-list had become the main exchange tool for DDNers, I think. We'd post to our DDN blogs, but often just fed them from another blog through RSS. I've been doing that for a while, because the DDN blog filter always tells me I'm attempting to post improper stuff I am unable to identify if I attempt to do it straight, whereas it doesn't if the same stuff comes through RSS. The email list is stifled. And honestly, if I did have the time and energy to volunteer for moderating this email list, I would. But I have moderated email lists and discussion boards before, and they can be very problematic. Moderation requires someone whose eyes are on every message and who has the time to do things. Yes, the e-mail list is stifled. But isn't it because people hesitate to post to it because they don't know when the post will get through? And couldn't moderation be technically simplified in part by making it plain-text no-attachments only (I'm thinking of Andy's message about people attempting to post messages with huge attachments)? Sure, moderation can be problematic: in the 3 Italian ones I mentioned before, I was made asst-manager because they had gone haywire in various ways, yet all based on the fact that the archives were private. People started to behave more decently after we made them public - after due consultation none of the trolls paid attention to: they left and limited themselves to sending the managers personal insults and threats. The archives of the DDN list are already public, so this should probably limit trolling. Present and past moderators could perhaps tell what proportion of trolling and spam they have to delete? And all of this gets back to the future of DDN because in my mind there is a question that there is a future of DDN. I think a lot of things are the result of the best intentions. If there is to be a future of DDN, we need to move past that and move into what the community wants. And while the community has pointed out that discussion has been stunted by moderation, the truth is that the wiki was presented and remains largely unused. There may still be a psychological reluctance to use wikis, even among DDNers. In other socially oriented projects and actions I participate in, the mailing-list seems to remain the prefered vehicle. Other tools get used by smaller sub-groups (wikis for the preparation of a statement then submitted to the list, e.g.). That might be a Digital Divide issue we might address. So before we get into technicalities again, as well as human moderation of email messages, I suggest that people on the list consider whether they want DDN to have a future. That seems to be missing. From there, we can decide what that future will be. Personally, I do. Web 2.0 - many applications of which I discovered thanks to DDN mailing list discussions - raised great enthusiasm and hopes, but it might time for an assessment of their actual opportunities, uses and implications. Some
Re: [DDN] The future of DDN
Hello Tom, First of all I did not mention about TAX Deductible. Perhaps from another person?? I think we have to understand who are the readers of DDN, and what would be our 'dreams and expectations' and reaching out to whom. $100 to some is petty cash, but to many is food for a family for many, many, many days. So, where do we want to go? Whom do we want to serve? We might also want to look at what is/are the added value of DDN to us. IS DDN still serve its purpose to the community as it was let's say 5 years ago? Should DDN survive on its own or should it be part of something bigger and therefore can be part of the umbrella? DDN was funded and had a 'manager'. To me, nothing sadder is to see a half-dead community. And that is what DDN is right now. And the root of the problem is DDN does not have a full-time, paid person to manage it, to promote it, to drive it ... My question is, even if we charged fees, what would be the structure of DDN? Would the fees be used to cover a paid person? What is the purpose of DDN? What is the target audience of DDN? What is the added value of DDN to this community and to the rest of the world? If we are going to collect fees, DDN has to be in a VERY different shape, it has to be managed professionally and have a focus/purpose of why it should be active at the minimum. These are just some of my thoughts. And I hope this posting would kick up some dust Cindy = [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- On Tue, 28/10/08, tom abeles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: tom abeles [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [DDN] The future of DDN To: The Digital Divide Network discussion group digitaldivide@digitaldivide.net Date: Tuesday, 28 October, 2008, 11:33 PM Hi Cindy First, on charging a ¨fee¨. Tax Deductable? As my farmer brother-in-law says ¨deductable against what? Second, given networking in the web 2.0 world with U-Tube, Twitter, Linkedin, Wiki´s and so many other social networks, what do we get for a fee that this list and other tagged, networked, distributed and . . . systems don´t give for free. Fees are the equivalent of the Great Wall that walls information out and not in. It creates filters that are normally made by those on the net who choose how to access and limit access to the one non-leveragable commodity, TIME. And that is the individual´s responsibility. thoughts? tom tom abeles Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 11:18:12 + From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitaldivide@digitaldivide.net Subject: Re: [DDN] The future of DDN Wiki is a good idea ... but I still think mailing list is a lot more VISIBLE. I have clean forgotten about THE Future of DDN until this mail. Yes. I agree DDN should look into methods of payment. Perhaps some thoughts on the following two items? 1) there should be perhaps free memberships for students for example. 2) As some of us at DDN have mentioned again and again during the debate on $100 for a One-child-per-laptop etc. etc. ... perhaps we might want to look at what is $100 to some in certain part of the world? Cindy = [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- On Sat, 11/10/08, Claude Almansi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Claude Almansi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [DDN] The future of DDN To: The Digital Divide Network discussion group digitaldivide@digitaldivide.net Date: Saturday, 11 October, 2008, 11:43 AM Hi All, I am answering on the mailing-list (with Bcc to Adam Clare and Taran Rampersad) rather than on the wiki because today I have a problem with logging in at the wiki (1). About: ...To make the site easier to manage we propose the removal of the communities functionality and discussion boards of DDN and replacing the categorization system with tagging. DDN's strength lies in the active mailing list and TIG realizes that the mailing list isn't perfect. In an ideal setup the mailing list will also be accessed online and have greater stability. Online communities encourage discussions between users in more than one place, right now that discussion happens on the mailing list for DDN and less so on the website. To encourage more discussions we would like to implement commenting on most DDN content. ... (in http://wiki.digitaldivide.net/index.php?title=The_future_of_DDN) - Removal ot the communities and discussion boards: I agree; at first, each community had its own discussion board, but this stopped (around 2005?), which meant that there could be no diaogue within the communities. Anyway, even with that first set-up, there was little dialogue in community discussion boards and in discussion boards in general. - Mailing list: the archive is actually accessible online, but I'm not sure it's really necessary to be able to post to it from the web. However, until August 2006, the mailing-list archive had an RSS feed through which the last messages were automatically shown bottom right of the site in the Featured RSS feeds (2). That was a
Re: [DDN] The future of DDN
Wiki is a good idea ... but I still think mailing list is a lot more VISIBLE. I have clean forgotten about THE Future of DDN until this mail. Yes. I agree DDN should look into methods of payment. Perhaps some thoughts on the following two items? 1) there should be perhaps free memberships for students for example. 2) As some of us at DDN have mentioned again and again during the debate on $100 for a One-child-per-laptop etc. etc. ... perhaps we might want to look at what is $100 to some in certain part of the world? Cindy = [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- On Sat, 11/10/08, Claude Almansi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Claude Almansi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [DDN] The future of DDN To: The Digital Divide Network discussion group digitaldivide@digitaldivide.net Date: Saturday, 11 October, 2008, 11:43 AM Hi All, I am answering on the mailing-list (with Bcc to Adam Clare and Taran Rampersad) rather than on the wiki because today I have a problem with logging in at the wiki (1). About: ...To make the site easier to manage we propose the removal of the communities functionality and discussion boards of DDN and replacing the categorization system with tagging. DDN's strength lies in the active mailing list and TIG realizes that the mailing list isn't perfect. In an ideal setup the mailing list will also be accessed online and have greater stability. Online communities encourage discussions between users in more than one place, right now that discussion happens on the mailing list for DDN and less so on the website. To encourage more discussions we would like to implement commenting on most DDN content. ... (in http://wiki.digitaldivide.net/index.php?title=The_future_of_DDN) - Removal ot the communities and discussion boards: I agree; at first, each community had its own discussion board, but this stopped (around 2005?), which meant that there could be no diaogue within the communities. Anyway, even with that first set-up, there was little dialogue in community discussion boards and in discussion boards in general. - Mailing list: the archive is actually accessible online, but I'm not sure it's really necessary to be able to post to it from the web. However, until August 2006, the mailing-list archive had an RSS feed through which the last messages were automatically shown bottom right of the site in the Featured RSS feeds (2). That was a useful feature: would it be possible to have it again? For instance by using a yahoo or a google discussion list that have RSS feeds? - Making content taggable and discussable: great idea but in this case, would it not be simpler and cheaper to move rather than revamp? I'm thinking of Ning.com, where Steve Hargadon set up http://www.classroom20.com. And then he convinced the Ning administrators to make a special, ad-less, free offer for educators and provide a network for them, http://education.ning.com/ . One problem might be back-ups, though. Re Taran Rampersad's addition to http://wiki.digitaldivide.net/index.php?title=The_future_of_DDN : The Membership level is certainly worthwhile and is one that shows promise, since DDN membership probably would be tax deductible, though that needs to be clarified. While that is sufficient given enough buy-in from the community, I'd also suggest continued monetization of content through Google Ads (such as those found on email list archives) and Amazon advertising. Further comments for funding would probably require a prerequisite of what TIG has already tried to do such that we can avoid repeating things I agree. Moreover, how could the payments be made? Some members may not have a credit card. Best Claude Almansi (1) Yesterday evening I was automatically logged in at the http://wiki.digitaldivide.net wiki, presumably because I was logged in at the www.digitaldivide.net main site, and even able to add some things on the resource page of the wiki. Today I am logged in at the main site, but not at the wiki. The URL of the log-in link at the top right of the wiki pages is http://www.digitaldivide.net/includes/error.php?pushpath=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.digitaldivide.net%2Findex.php%3Ftitle%3DThe_future_of_DDN which a) is on the main site where I am already logged in; b) has a message that says: Error, you must login to access this page. ; c) nevertheless also has login ID and password boxes, but they don't work. If I try to edit a page, say by opening http://wiki.digitaldivide.net/index.php?title=Main_Pageaction=edit, the page says Login required to edit, with a link to the Log in / create account http://wiki.digitaldivide.net/index.php?title=Special:Userlogin page, which a) doesn't have a create account option; b) refuses my main site login data (2) The last recorded instance (Aug. 4, 2006) of the set-up with Featured RSS feed at the Internet Archive is http://web.archive.org/web/20060804125420/http://digitaldivide.net/). On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 9:07 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi DDN members! (...)
Re: [DDN] PhD research on OLPC
Hello Joel, I think you misunderstood me. I was only asking for clarifications of the differences between the term 'community computers' vs. telecenters. If you read any of my previous posts you would understand that I am not supporter of OLPC. To my understanding 'community computers' is no different than telecenters. Just another new terms that says the same thing. Telecenter has been in existence for more than 20 years and there are many well researched documents written on telecenter. Why reinventing the wheels? Cindy = [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- On Mon, 22/9/08, Joel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Joel [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [DDN] PhD research on OLPC To: The Digital Divide Network discussion group digitaldivide@digitaldivide.net Date: Monday, 22 September, 2008, 5:55 AM On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 5:09 AM, Cindy Lemcke-Hoong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: what is the different between telecenters and 'community computers'? If they are the same, for search purpose, perhaps we could keep to the same terms? Cindy In the 3rd world countries, a PC is generally too expensive for individual ownership (hence the relevance of the OLPC). The cost is not just the purchase price of the HW, but must include the SW costs, and the user's time to learn and use the technology. It is simply that an OLPC is so out-of-context in the lives of the average citizen. It is our belief that this is because too little effort is placed in providing appropriate applications / solutions at the 3rd world point-of-view. The telecenter OTOH MUST contextualize at the community level. Can the same be said for the OLPC? J Galgana BayangPinoy Organization, Inc. ___ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list DIGITALDIVIDE@digitaldivide.net http://digitaldivide.net/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message. ___ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list DIGITALDIVIDE@digitaldivide.net http://digitaldivide.net/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.
Re: [DDN] PhD research on OLPC
We always think about, or are prod to think and look about, cost in terms of cash. We think in the 'accounting' way with proper columns, debits and credits, balance sheet. What we do not seems to want to know is the cost and benefits of the 'soft kinds' such as f2f social get together, knowledge sharing when people get the chance to see smiles and nodding in others, the old, old matter of getting knowledge out in REAL STORY telling etc. etc. Sometime it almost makes me laugh when I think about how we ooh and aah about the benefits of water-cooler/coffee machine at a office, or how to share knowledge by story telling. I laugh because these WERE the old ways we use to share knowledge that WE destroyed by letting technologies control us. Well, if we find a place such as a local town-hall, a school library and put in a few computers there and let the people share (a tele-center) what in effect is we are keeping the traditional way of life of most small villages ... a market place, a watering-hole, a place to mingle ... water-cooler effects flows naturally, stories would be told, knowledge sharing occurs ... . Imagine we give to each child in the village a OLPC. What DO we give them, how much what we give would benefits them, AND what are we taking away, and what are we destroying? I am not even going to go deep into what other problems are we creating. Perhaps we should stop for another moment to really understand what we are doing to our societies, to reflect what the internet technologies is doing to our own life? So do we really want to promote the same ?? I am not anti-technology, but I am concern many of us allow technologies to control us. We created the digital divide. Like drug addits, we want newer and newer technologies to fix our craves. Most of all, should we push our additions to others (the unfortunate souls, we think!) in the name of closing the digital divide gaps? Cindy = [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- On Sun, 21/9/08, Cindy Lemcke-Hoong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Cindy Lemcke-Hoong [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [DDN] PhD research on OLPC To: The Digital Divide Network discussion group digitaldivide@digitaldivide.net Date: Sunday, 21 September, 2008, 11:04 PM Hello Alan (Paperless), Well said ...things that we have argued the first round when OLPC first came to the scene. Below I quote what you wrote: Today, practically everyone from individuals to UNESCO etc has overlooked this crucial factor. ... the ability to deliver contents...not the hardware it is the software. apart from software/content, even when there is adequate telco infractures in placed, you still need 'people' to teach, to train, to maintain, to support the whole shebang of e-learning, BUT what is most annoying to me is, we seems to think, 'if we give them all they need, learning would occurred. There are generally a few different groups of learners, in my eyes. There are those that do not need any prompting, pushing and would find their own way to learn anyway, then there are some that for whatever reasons would need lots of prodding, pulling, pushing before learning occurred, and of course there are some that would need helping to get the balls rolling ... Last, we musn't forget. This list is for the lucky people such as you and me that can afford a PC, fast speed online internet, well educated and some even educators that know what learning is all about, and reasonable well to do that do not have to decide where should THAT one dollar should do ... food or phone bill ... so, we are armchair critics. We sit comfortably (that include me), and put in our few cents worth of opinons. Well, if we REALLY, REALLY, REALLY want to know what it is like to be disadvantage, perhaps we should ask the disadvantage to tell us what it is like in their world. We musn't forget either to ask, where the money shold come from to buy JUST the PC ALONE? I am not even talking about putting in, and supporting the network. Well, there are only so much money to go around. IF a country has to buy one million PC for 100 a piece (If I remembered correctly, the deal is, a country MUST buy minimum ONE million pieces of PC), what would happen to their budget for other needs? So, perhaps we stop for one moment and WONDER a little bit who is getting rich? So, OLPC for the rich and advanced world such as NY, is VERY different from OLPC for somewhere in India, or an African country. Very different. I am sure there are many success stories, but perhaps we should stop another moment to consider IF do differently such as instead of OLPC why not set up telecenters? What would be the cost different? MOST of all think about the benefits of social networking (not the online kind), the benefits of f2f etc. etc. etc. Cindy = [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- On Sun, 21/9/08, Paperless Homework [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Paperless Homework [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [DDN] PhD research on OLPC
Re: [DDN] The Digital Divide and Human Health
Actually the discussion of Taran about social-networking HAS a lot to do with digital divide. Assuming you are in need of some critical information, but you do not know where to find them (I know these days one can just go Googleling for info or Wikipediaing), don't you think it is nice if you could just turn to a trusted source for THE MOST EXACT info? That is where your 'community' becoming your best friends. We can have all the best communication technologies in this world, but if do not have the support of your 'communities' then what is the point of having all the knowledge? Do not assume either ALL the information one needs can be found online. Do not forget there are many knowledge are in someone elses's head and not put down on paper, or a disk. Furthermore there are times when the information one gets online is dubious, or you are in need of a sounding board to help you figure out the best way to tackle the problems, that is the time you would need a trusted community for expert help. Someone mentioned about different languages. Well, just take Wikipedia. The most entries is under the English language. BUT often time I found information in Dutch, of the same topic, gives me better info than English. But how many of us can speak more than one or two languages? Again, some human connections would be nice. Technologies is a media. Without HUMAN to pull or push for information or knowledge, technologies would forever remain some dumb media. Cindy = [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- On Sat, 9/8/08, Paperless Homework [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Paperless Homework [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [DDN] The Digital Divide and Human Health To: The Digital Divide Network discussion group digitaldivide@digitaldivide.net Date: Saturday, 9 August, 2008, 8:05 PM Just wondering ... all these talks. Where are they leading to? Lots of theories but would love to hear more about actual actions. Anyone here actually improving digital divide and Human Health activities? And how? Alan --- On Sun, 8/10/08, Mary Dawson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Mary Dawson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [DDN] The Digital Divide and Human Health To: The Digital Divide Network discussion group digitaldivide@digitaldivide.net Date: Sunday, August 10, 2008, 1:05 AM Hi there I think I asked the same question myself earlier?? Mary From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Jorge Gallardo Rius Sent: Sat 8/9/2008 16:11 To: The Digital Divide Network discussion group Subject: Re: [DDN] The Digital Divide and Human Health Hey guys, What does all this have to do with Health and the Digital Divide? --- On Fri, 8/8/08, Stephen Snow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Stephen Snow [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [DDN] The Digital Divide and Human Health To: The Digital Divide Network discussion group digitaldivide@digitaldivide.net Date: Friday, August 8, 2008, 3:10 PM Taran, Data is not a bad thing; it also is not every thing. Empiricism does not make for truth anymore than feeling makes for empiricism. [Was Decartes correct of did he just have it backward? Maybe instead of I think therefore I am, it is I am, therefore I think...and because I think I *know* that I am!] It takes a combination. Just as you say you need data, you cite a quixotic novelist as your own data. That's not a criticism, it is merely a reflection fo the way we all are -- needing both facts and knowing, the latter of which often is other than or beyond facts or empirical data. Now, of course, data matter. And there is a dearth of solid data in many areas of the electronic world. And from a data perspective, then, we can't really know what works or to what depth. (It raises a huge question about the actual validity of ANY online mechanisms, doesbn't it? About all we truly know is that a lot of people [20% of 6 billion is still quite a bunch in my limited thinking] use the heck out of this stuff and they use it in their own ways and for their own purposes, which often aren't OUR purposes or even purposes we believe are useful or valuable or, even, right. What was it Sam Clemmens once wrote? There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics. So it isn't just data but also the quality of the data -- how it was gathered, how it was conceived (!), how it was interpreted -- that matters, as well. As long as I have been actively involved in the online world, and I'd put that right at about 20 years, I have believed (felt, sensed -- not known) that no one really knows what is going on with all of the online things. As soon as someone says he/she does know, I am immediately skeptical. Companies often do this: they love to prognosticate value or usage or some certain future because it might benefit them in some way. The truth -- or better yet, my belief -- is that we all are still touching separate parts of the elephant and describing it as the whole. --Steve Snow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [DDN] The Digital Divide and Human Health
Correction -- MEDIA in the sentence below should be MEDIUM Technologies is a media. Without HUMAN to pull or push for information or knowledge, technologies would forever remain some dumb media. Cindy = [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- On Sun, 10/8/08, Stephen Snow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Stephen Snow [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [DDN] The Digital Divide and Human Health To: The Digital Divide Network discussion group digitaldivide@digitaldivide.net Date: Sunday, 10 August, 2008, 5:30 PM So..some concrete things: --In Alaska, people are using satellites and computers to get counseling in remote villages. Is this additive? Is it helpful? Don't know. No data. Yet. --Here in North Carolina, there is a multi-node telepsychiatry initiative; T1s to rural sites to bring diagnostic capability to areas where mental health care is largely nonexistent. Helpful? I don't have data to say one way or another. The equipment is expensive and the projects cost a lot to mount and sustain. Would it be cheaper/better to entice a psychiatrist to do this in person, even as a circuit-rider? Well, I don't know! IF you could find one willing, and IF you could pay him/her enough to make it worth their while...maybe. --Pew surveys suggest that upwards of 150 million people use the web to get health information every year...mainly people in the U.S. Is this additive? What is the quality of the information they reach, and how do they know it is actually the right information? Would they be better served going to a doctor? Or picking up a book? So there are these questions about, even on a cost-benefit basis, if internet-mediated communication and information is worth it. To those of us who are early adopters -- and that might be considered many of those on this list -- we might find a lot of utility in the web. But we have grown with the internet and the web and have an extended learning curve. Information on the web is inadequately aggregated and poorly arranged and not well-maintained. There is useful stuff there, but I don't think anything is served by a gee-whiz approach to the web; I can't say that I *know* this, but I do *think* that we have a long way to go before the web is really useful to a big number of people. Now, 20% of 6 billions *is* a lot of people, and they get some functionality out of all of this (probably mostly email!) but it is a far cry from Dave Hughes's vision of wiring the planet. We are still too west-focused, in information, usage and language to have big usefulness...and then there are larger issues about the narrowing of interests and parochializing thought through the vertical nature of the internetSo lots of questions. Health and the digital divide is right in there. Steve Snow [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 8/10/08 12:30 AM, Cindy Lemcke-Hoong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually the discussion of Taran about social-networking HAS a lot to do with digital divide. Assuming you are in need of some critical information, but you do not know where to find them (I know these days one can just go Googleling for info or Wikipediaing), don't you think it is nice if you could just turn to a trusted source for THE MOST EXACT info? That is where your 'community' becoming your best friends. We can have all the best communication technologies in this world, but if do not have the support of your 'communities' then what is the point of having all the knowledge? Do not assume either ALL the information one needs can be found online. Do not forget there are many knowledge are in someone elses's head and not put down on paper, or a disk. Furthermore there are times when the information one gets online is dubious, or you are in need of a sounding board to help you figure out the best way to tackle the problems, that is the time you would need a trusted community for expert help. Someone mentioned about different languages. Well, just take Wikipedia. The most entries is under the English language. BUT often time I found information in Dutch, of the same topic, gives me better info than English. But how many of us can speak more than one or two languages? Again, some human connections would be nice. Technologies is a media. Without HUMAN to pull or push for information or knowledge, technologies would forever remain some dumb media. Cindy = [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- On Sat, 9/8/08, Paperless Homework [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Paperless Homework [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [DDN] The Digital Divide and Human Health To: The Digital Divide Network discussion group digitaldivide@digitaldivide.net Date: Saturday, 9 August, 2008, 8:05 PM Just wondering ... all these talks. Where are they leading to? Lots of theories but would love to hear more about actual actions. Anyone here actually improving digital divide and Human Health activities? And how? Alan --- On Sun, 8/10/08, Mary Dawson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Mary
Re: [DDN] Intel, $100 Laptop program form new partnership
What I also find interesting is, we assumed the person who is using the system = to the REAL person who registered for the learning venture. Even if we have system that is similar to those startracks movies, or very high security system such as what I saw Tom Cruise on Mission Impossible (1996??) ... where finger prints, palm prints etc. are applied ... that would still not tell me who is behind the screen. But I supposed I can borrow REAL BOOKs and not read, and the library might thing I love that kind of books? Cindy [EMAIL PROTECTED] = [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list DIGITALDIVIDE@digitaldivide.net http://digitaldivide.net/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.
Re: [DDN] A Stand Against Wikipedia
I use Wikipedia for lots of research for my own consumptions. Some of them even related to medical information. I am even planning to give donation to show my appreciation of the work done by so many excellent volunteers. There are many excellent, high quality materials, but there are also the question of 'equal' quality on all the materials found on Wikipedia. Therefore I can see the point why Middlebury College is banning the use of it. I personally would Wikipedia anytime for background research and reference, but I do not think I should cite Wikipedia as source. In my case is because I do not know who is the author therefore I cannot research on the validity of the authors. Perhaps some would argue that an article from The Economist would not necessary have the name of the author either. But then The Economist would stand behind what she published. I am not sure Wikipedia would officially/legally able to do that. Cindy [EMAIL PROTECTED] David P. Dillard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Me again. I do not think a group of faculty members at various institutions changes the equation much. There is a growing group of professional educators who recognize and support value in the Wikipedia. A recent poster to EDTECH, an H-Net discussion group, who is a library science faculty member indicated in a post that she is beginning to have major second thoughts about prior negative attitudes toward the Wikipedia. I suspect many reference librarians in academic and public libraries see the good and try to teach students in reference encounters to use their thinking and analyzing skills to find and deal with any bad in the Wikipedia. EDTECH There are 173 posts that mention Wikipedia on EDTECH and these are quite interesting and overall more positive in overall trend than what one might find in discussion of this source on a medieval history scholars list or a discussion group of philosophy professors. Those who engage in rigorous scholarship will be very likely to miss the values of a tool like the Wikipedia and not realize as well some of the powerful uses of Google, Ask.com, Yahoo and so forth. But this will be counterbalanced by many in K-12 fields, as well as those in colleges who teach curriculums like business or journalism or even fields like sociology or medicine who see some important positive sides of this resource. I do apologize for the last segment of my first post as I was trying to finish rapidly as I needed to be at a meeting and I did not communicate in that last sentence. My point was that Google and the Wikipedia have been heavily covered as a source for information in lots of Net-Gold posts and as a topic of discussion in many Net-Gold posts. The Wikipedia will remain a controversial tool, but many will recognize its values and use it and this includes some of those folks in academic circles. Here is the quote of the library and information science professor that I alluded to above in this post. 4. Finally, have you changed your mind about some tech in the last year. For example, I used to be 100% leery of Wikipedia, but now see its pluses. I am interested in things that have just lately caught your eye. They do nothave to be brand new, but new to you. They can be useful, entertaining, or of course both! Only a few things come to my tired brain right now I have definitely changed my tune about wikipedia. I still teach kids to be more than a little sceptical - but you absolutely can't beat it as a place to start researching new trends/issues/people etc. From: Mary Ann Bell List Editor: EDTECH Editor-Jones Editor's Subject: HIT: New devices, apps, sites (second of two) Author's Subject: HIT: New devices, apps, sites (second of two) Date Written: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 21:31:47 -0500 * Try curiosity!--Dorothy Parker * Dr. Mary Ann Bell Associate Professor, Library Science Sam Houston State University Huntsville, TX [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] month=0701week=bmsg=2rqkHtOkpvr8SXYUnBSC4guser=pw= A shorter URL for the above link: Sincerely, David Dillard Temple University (215) 204 - 4584 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Net-Gold General Internet Print Resources Digital Divide Network Educator-Gold On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Kinyua Martin wrote: This is a blow to a wonderful resource. Professors should probably take a greater role in reviewing the material on Wikipedia. With time the resource will become more and more accurate as opposed to discouraging its use altogether. Martin Kinyua [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: David P. Dillard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 2:55 PM To: The Digital Divide Network discussion group Subject: [DDN] A Stand Against Wikipedia REFERENCE: ENCYCLOPEDIAS : REFERENCE: TOOLS: ELECTRONIC ONLINE AND INTERNET: A Stand Against Wikipedia A Stand Against Wikipedia
