Return-Path: <nifl-technology@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f6QLLjf18465; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 17:21:45 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 17:21:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <v0300780db786550eff3f@[128.192.78.60]> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-technology@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-technology@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-technology@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: David Reinking <dreinkin@coe.uga.edu> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-technology@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-TECHNOLOGY:1945] Re: Opening questions for David Reinki X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Status: O Content-Length: 11615 Lines: 222 I've been lurking awhile to let others have an opportunity to jump into the discussion--some very interesting and thought provoking comments indeed. But, given my role, I thought that it's time to jump back in with some comments and responses. I've copied below some portions of the postings that I thought were key to me. My response follows each quote. David >Emily Hacker >The question you posed debating the concept of plagiarism, "When is it >ethically justifiable to deny people access to and dissemination of >potentially useful information?" made me think immediately about the open >source movement . . . "The basic idea behind open source is very simple. >When programmers can read, redistribute, and modify the source code for a >piece of software, the software evolves. People improve it, people adapt >it, people fix bugs." This is what I understand you are saying about >digital texts - that they are, by design, more "open" and we should be >looking for ways to expand on this ability, not restrict it according to >rules that apply to older technologies of reading and writing. Response: The concept of open source is exactly parallel to how I envision a major implication of digital texts. It's a good example that I will use in the future. Digital texts naturally invite such a stance, I think, and the "protectionism" that we have cultivated in the typographic world just doesn't fit the contingencies of reading and writing in a post-typographic one. Digital texts do not readily support the notion of a single author as authoritative source of original ideas encapsulated in a readily identifiable final product. They are more likely, if we don't resist the idea for the sake of "old times," to be evolving texts that are co-constructed with input from diverse sources. This reply is a crude example, where "my" text is intermingled with others in the form of a dialogue. **************** >Jana Sladkova >. . . the western notion of plagiarism, which is contrary to a view of >plagiarism held at schools I went to in the Czech Republic, then >Czechoslovakia. The best grades were given to people who could cite, >summarize or write as close as possible to the original source of the >studied material. I am not justifying either stand, just want to confirm >that the idea of plagiarism is very cultural. > The digital media as you pointed out can be an overwhelming source >of information, but for whom? How much accessible information is there for >people who don't read English at a certain level? . . .though the Internet >is supposed to bring people together and provide readily >accessible information, I wonder if it is on some level also making the >divisions greater. Response: Jana's example from Czechoslovakia is another great example that I plan to use in the future. Definitions of plagiarism (as one example of a broad range of print-based values) are culturally defined even when the technologies of reading and writing are the same and when the cultures arose from the same "western" roots. Changing the technologies of reading and writing always has some socio cultural effect, so I think we need to be at least open to the possibility that we may need to re-think the fundamental stances and values that we have inherited from a print-based culture. The second point that Jana makes and Tommy's first point below about the potential of the internet in bringing people together raises some complex issues. The internet can certainly bring people together especially when they have like interests (e.g., one of the secretaries in my department met her husband in an online chatroom devoted to discussing stockcar racing). There are also some prominent examples of how the internet can be a powerful force under certain circumstance for promoting dialogue and human interaction inside and outside educational settings (c.f., See Garner & Gillingham, 1996; Rheingold, 1993). But, its also hard to imagine that the internet won't further the dominance of English, which may exclude many around the world from participating in the dialogue. Actually, I'm more concerned about the effect of English in demolishing cultural diversity, in the literal, not the politically correct sense, of that term. Coke (the drink) is supposedly the most widely recognized word across the world's languages and in, with, and under that word there are insidious cultural effects. The internet, especially in relation to its increasingly commercial manifestations, is likely to bring us eventually together, but perhaps at the expense of many interesting and useful cultural variations. **************************** >Tommy B. McDonell >However, while I agree Jana, that it is difficult to find information on >the Internet that is made for our students or is in English that low >literate English speakers can read; I am, however, not sure that the >Internet is a place that is meant to bring people together. I think that >this is somewhat a myth that we have propelled ourselves because >information flies so quickly through the Internet from around the world. > >It seems that the Internet that was once considered to be a tool for >researchers has become instead some kind of a bad cross between serious >research information and the National Inquirer. Response. I'd like to respond to Tommy's second point here (having responded to the first part in the previous response). I think that the concerns about the reliability of information on the internet are grossly over-rated, although I agree that we need to develop better mechanisms for marking the quality and reliability of information. First, I think we tend to attribute much more reliability and accuracy to printed materials than they often deserve, especially today. For example, I quote former Dodger's manager Tommy (another Tommy) Lasorda's comment: "Never trust anyone who buys ink by the barrel." Newspapers and popular news magazines such as Time and Newsweek, almost never get it right whenever I read about something I know more about than the average person. Books too today have hidden agendas (e.g., are funded or published by political action groups) and/or are targeted toward "packaging" information to appeal to a wide audience to generate sales. The plethora of books published each year and the concomitant decline in their quality has undermined their authority as reliable sources of information. (It is estimated that 1 in every 383 Americans have published a book in the last 10 years--do you believe me? Why or why not? Would it make a difference where I found that information?) In many respects I'd rather look for information on the internet where I'd have quick access to multiple viewpoints (and agendas) for comparison and verification. There is no reason too that we cannot find operational (as opposed to conceptual) markers of reliability in digital texts that are not possible in printed texts. For example, we might be able to get a feel for the reliability and usefulness of a source of information if we could verify how many people were accessing it for what purposes. ************************* >Ajit Gopalakrishnan >Having said all this, do you think that adding multimedia to >the definition of digital text, makes more complicated, the process of >helping instructors integrate technology into instruction? Response: I definitely would include multimedia as a defining attribute of digital texts. But, defining exactly what multimedia means, indeed what a separate medium is, is theoretically challenging. It's one of those concepts that we hear a lot and think we know what it means, but it is very difficult to define tightly and in operationally useful ways. In fact, in one sense printed texts might be described as multimedia (alphabetic code plus graphical representation). I get at this dimension of digital texts a little differently. That is, I've said that one key difference between printed and digital texts is that the latter permit the use of a wider array of symbol systems. That is consistent with Salomon's (1979) way of defining a medium, and part of my argument that digital and printed texts are different media. As to the instructional implications, I suppose multimedia capabilities complicate traditional notions of instruction in some sense, but they also have the appeal of making learning much more active and engaging. ************************** >Shawn Usha >It is a question of others using one's work for profit or personal >advantage without permission, compensation or acknowledgment. The NWU is >also setting up an electronic publishing rights clearinghouse based on >principles very similar to established (and changing i.e. Napster) >practices in the music world. It is fundamentally a question of who is >going to shape the very different world digital media allows us so we can >use its profound reshaping of literacy and publication. >People do have to make a living. Response: But would we have to worry about others' using our (written) work for profit or personal advantage if we were all giving it away? That may seem a bit naive and utopian today, but it does point out that these issues are embedded in the ways things have been, not the way they have always been or have to be. A good book by John Maxwell Hamilton entitled "Casanova was a book lover and other naked truths and curiosities about writing, selling, and reading books" points out that many well-known authors of the past (e.g., Joyce) had day jobs and that the vast majority of authors past and present don't write for the money, because they couldn't make a living from writing. An interesting perspective on this was articulately stated in Wired Magazine not long ago (sorry, don't have the reference handy) by a former member of the Grateful Dead who described that bands strategy of giving away music to enhance their income from live performances. Indeed many authors today write books with the specific intent of launching lecture tours (although of course they don't turn down book royalties). I think scholars and educators carry a special burden of repudiating the commodification (is that a word?) of knowledge. We should be freely sharing our work that we collect a salary for generating and that is supposed to be generated and shared for the public good. I think Steve's comment is a good middle ground for the time being: >Surely there's a balance to be struck in the public interest here. The >open source movement, and the open content license I referred to above, >are ways that authors can voluntarily sidestep the copyright issues now on >the public's behalf, if they choose to make their works available. References Garner, R., & Gillingham, M. G. (1996). Conversations across time, space, and culture: Internet communication in six classroom. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hamilton, John Maxwell. Casanova was a book lover and other naked truths and provocative curiosities about the writing, selling and reading of books. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press, 2000. Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Salomon, G. (1979). Interaction of media, cognition, and learning. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. ******************************* David Reinking Professor & Department Head Editor: Journal of Literacy Research University of Georgia Department of Reading Education 309 Aderhold Hall Athens, GA 30602 706-542-4623 voice 706-542-3817 fax *******************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 18 2002 - 11:31:21 EST