Week 13: Review and Conclusions

Week 13: Review and Conclusions

Narratives can be published in various online ways: 

• Voicethreads
• Skype
• Blogs
• Wikis
• Social Bookmarks/Folksonomy
• Diigo
• Evernote
• Flickr
• Netvibes
• Twitter
• E-mail
• Google Pages
• Facebook

Anyone Can Publish

A timely example of how even the youngest learners can demonstrate transliteracy (http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/3-little-pigs/id357980333?mt=8). Henry Dewey created his own illustrations to interpret “The Three Little Pigs” and then with the assistance of his father, created an iPhone app for people to read his version of the story, which includes Henry’s narration of the tale.

Henry Dewey is a typical 8-year-old. He loves to build with Legos and annoy his little sister, hoping to someday own a reptile to terrorize her with.

The first-grader at Trinity Episcopal School in Rollingwood is also doing some nontraditional things: Henry just released his first iPhone application, an e-book version of the folk tale “The Three Little Pigs.”

Using pen and ink, Henry spent the entire fall semester creating the illustrations for his book during an after-school art program at Trinity.

“I like being creative, making bobbleheads on paper,” Henry said.

Early in the process, he decided he wanted to transform his project into an iPhone application to provide more options on the gadget for children.

He told his father, Mark Dewey — himself an iPhone application developer — about his idea. When Henry finished the illustrations, the drawings were converted into a digital format. Then his dad helped turn the project into the application, rewriting the story and having Henry narrate it.

“At a young age to know you can be a creator, in the mainstream of American culture, that can be powerful,” said Mark Dewey, whose digital media company, Geoki, published the app. “We hope that carries on through his growing and his life.”

Occupy Publishing

There's been a bit of discussion on Google+ (John Baez - Jan 30, 2012) on the future of costly scientific journals. As print fades into history, there is no reason why scientists cannot have a system where their so-called pre-publications (e.g. on arXiv.org, a current source for many of these) can be reviewed, and with revisions acceptable to a peer community be qualified as being designated as published.

Proposal: arXiv.org continues as it is and some group createsarXiv-Review.org (completely independent of arXiv.org) that accomplishes the intended goal of reviewing the articles ofarXiv.org. When an article on arXiv.org gets a pass from thearXiv-Review.org scientific peer community, it's designated aspublished.

(The problem, as has been pointed out, is for some group to actually go and create arXiv-Review.org.)

What would be the result? A free and open article submission and access system as it exists now (arXiv.org) and a independent review system (arXiv-Review.org).



Update (2012-02-02): Looks like the site has been created.

networksolutions.com/whois-search/arXiv-Review.org:
Domain Name: ARXIV-REVIEW.ORG
Created On: 02-Feb-2012 03:35:26 UTC

(There's also a Google+ Page: +ArXiv Review)

The first step is to provide a Primer and Goals and Mission Statement for the site (along the lines of arXiv.org/help/primer).


Here is a start:

arXiv-Review.org 

arXiv-Review is an openly accessible, moderated forum for commenting on and reviewing arXiv.org articles. (For information about arXiv, see arXiv.org/help/primer). To provide for this, each article submitted to arXiv can potentially have a review thread in arXiv-Review for comments and reviews. 

Each review thread in arXiv-Review is identified by following the same reference scheme described inarxiv.org/help/faq/references. For example, corresponding to arXiv:math/9910001v1 <http://arXiv.org/abs/math/9910001v1> is a potential review thread arXiv-Review:math/9910001v1 <http://arXiv-Review.org/rev/math/9910001v1>.

Browsing arXiv-Review is open to everyone (the "readers"). Those who comment on and review articles (the "reviewers") must register on arXiv-Review. In addition, a reviewer may be a member of a select "board" (TBD) on arXiv-Review (and this identification will indicated). 

arXiv-Review system for evaluating arXiv articles: TBD.

arXiv-Review sponsors and operators: TBD!



Notes
1. See also: Proposal for A New Publishing Model in Computer Science, Yann LeCun.
2. Elsevier's Publishing Model Might be About to Go Up in Smoke - Forbes. Remarks on Google+: John Baez - Feb 1, 2012 


From Occupy Publishing.

New Media Writing Forum

Andy Campbell of Dreaming Methods (guest lecturing later on in the term!) has invited you all to participate in the newly established New Media Writing forum!

Here is his DM tweet:

Click here to access the hub.

Technology Narratives?

Week 3: History of the Book

It’s not just about the printing press! The history of the book presents us with a complete, observable communications revolution. The historical record allows us to examine the whole of a vast socio-cultural, political, and economic change over a period of some three to five hundred years (depending on whose perspective you prefer). By following the developments in manuscript and print book production, tied to the changes in the technologies used to produce those texts, we can also chart the various changes in social organization, politics and economics. 

“Can books only exist in the paper-printed media? Can the text be separated from paper to be reused as a book through digital media? Is such a discussion relevant to the subject of books?”

Some key ideas to consider:

• the history of the book
• the end of books (!?)
• the net_reading/writing_condition
• What are some current views about the emergence and diffusion of media?

Was There a Reading Revolution in the New American Republic?

Professor Robert Gross explores the history and historiography of book history and reading in pre Civil War America. This lecture was originally given at the University of Toronto in the fall of 2008.

Transdisciplinarity and approaches to new media

Some thoughts in response to the question on how different disciplines approach the study of media:

I thought initially that the study of media ran on a spectrum from macro to micro. Sociologists and anthropologists assume a macro view – the impact of media on society, and how culture adapts to new media (or, conversely, how media adapts to society or culture). Writers such as Jenkins (2006), take a macro view in their concern with “emerging cultural practices” and “the underlying logic shaping our current moment of media in transition” (p. 1).

In contrast, I find that in my work in communications I am often assuming a micro view of media. I am a graphic designer and work with copywriters and web strategists on such tasks as making sure that web banners work properly, messages are communicated clearly, and that graphic standards are met. Unreasonably lengthy discussions have occurred in my department around such micro issues as colour adjustments for online environments and naming conventions in social media.

Given this, it was interesting to come across Mark Linder’s thoughts in the Lecture Notes for week 1 on what transdisciplinarity looks like in practice, and the questions raised around how much someone should expand their established role in order to achieve transdisciplinarity. This is a tricky question – while breadth of knowledge (which for me contributes to a macro view of situations) is something to strive for, it’s also hard to achieve competence in a breadth of fields. Both generalization and specialization (the focus on the micro) come at a cost.

It was also interesting to discover Manovich’s (2003) historical perspectives and overview of different approaches. He draws a distinction between definitions of new media that focus on technology and definitions that focus on “cultural tendencies” (p. 20). I think that focusing on technology may lead one to more of a micro view, while a focus on cultural tendencies leads one to a macro view.

My hunch is that when we work in a communication role, as I do, we need to lean toward a transdisciplinary approach. A thorough understanding of the technology is only of benefit if we also understand how and why the technology will be used - i.e. the cultural context. We need to be thinking along the spectrum on various dimensions – macro to micro, and technology to cultural tendencies.