[iDC] Re: iDC Digest, Vol 28, Issue 4

Sat Feb 3 17:42:37 EST 2007

Hi,

For me, a great subject, your mentions of SecondLife
encounters/acquaintances since I've had ideas for quite awhile at
www.Re-Configure.org that anticipated SecondLife & GoogleEarth (and
for me, a convergence of the likes) before they became public to my
surprise.

I'm not kidding nor am I boasting, just stating something I rarely get
a chance at doing when I find it may be of some kind of mutual value.

I am also on a gaming list serv called "social issues games" also
called Serious Games or Games for Change.

I find that people on this list would have potentially great input for
the serious games movement seeing that many people in the gaming world
don't have attributes that people on this list serv have as far as
creative powers from what I've gathered and it's relation to the
education systems and social structures...many here seem to have an
interesting awareness and keen interest of pertaining to this.

Jason "JZ" Liszkiewicz
Re-Configure.org

On 2/3/07, idc-request at bbs.thing.net <idc-request at bbs.thing.net> wrote:
> Send iDC mailing list submissions to
>         idc at bbs.thing.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         http://mailman.thing.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/idc
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         idc-request at bbs.thing.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         idc-owner at bbs.thing.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of iDC digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: How does social media educate? (Ulises)
>    2. Re: (no subject) (Danny Butt)
>    3. Re: Second Life as educational tool (Chris Byrne)
>    4. Re: (no subject) (mlahey at artic.edu)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:37:29 -0800 (PST)
> From: Ulises <arsalaan1-idc at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [iDC] How does social media educate?
> To: iDC <idc at bbs.thing.net>
> Message-ID: <844992.40158.qm at web30804.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Tobias,
>
>
>
> I guess it makes sense to begin by asking: What is 'social media'? However, your questions and observations are already suggesting that it might not be that easy to provide an answer.
>
> Personally, I had been using the term 'social software' until it became sort of unpopular, perhaps because the word 'software' put too much emphasis on the tools. 'Social media' is more encompassing of the different actors and arenas. At the same time, I have a strong aversion to the term Web 2.0--it seems to exceed the narrowness of 'social software' by pretending that 'social' movements can be neatly organized and mapped. But that's just me.
>
>
>
> By defining the term 'social media' too broadly, we get everything that  involves humans and communication technologies. By defining it too narrowly, we might miss the forest for the trees, as you suggest, by collapsing 'media' with 'social medium,' ignoring the necessity to ask how 'the social' is being redefined in this collusion.
>
> But if precise definitions are a necessary evil, what do you think about Dion Hinchcliffe's attempt below?
>
>
> Defining Social Media: Some Ground Rules
> (as we understand them circa January 2007)
> http://java.sys-con.com/read/329052.htm
>
>
>
> 1. Communication in the form of conversation, not monologue.  This implies that social media must facilitate two-way discussion, discourse, and debate with little or no moderation or censorship.  In other words, the increasingly ubiquitious comments section of your local blog or media sharing site is NOT optional and must be open to everyone.
> 2. Participants in social media are people, not organizations.  Third-person voice is discouraged and the source of ideas and participation is clearly identified and associated with the individuals that contributed them.  Anonymity is also discouraged but permissible in some very limited situations.
>
> 3. Honesty and transparency are core values.  Spin and attempting to control, manipulate, or even spam the conversation are thoroughly discouraged.  Social media is an often painfully candid forum and traditional organizations -- which aren't part of the conversation other than through their people -- will often have a hard time adjusting to this.
> 4. It's all about pull, not push.  Like McKinsey & Company noted a year ago or so , push-based systems, of which one-way marketing and advertising and command-and-control management are typical examples are no where near as efficient as pull systems where people bring to them the content and relationships that they want, instead of having them forced on themselves.  Far from being a management theory, much of what we see in Web 2.0 shows the power of pull-based systems with extremely large audiences.  As you shape a social media community, understanding how to make embrace pull instead of push is one of the core techniques.  In social media, people are in control of their conversations, not the pushers. [I strongly disagree with Hinchcliffe here! What about power laws?]
> 5. Distribution instead of centralization.  One often overlooked aspect of social media is the fact that the interlocutors are so many and varied.  Gone are the biases that inevitably creep into information when only a few organizations control the creation and distribution of information.  Social media is highly distributed and made up of tens of millions of voices making it far more textured, rich, and heterogeneous than old media could ever be (or want to be).  Encouraging conversations on the vast edges of our networks, rather than in the middle, is what this point is all about.
>
>
>
>
> -Ulises
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:25:21 +1100
> From: Danny Butt <dbdannybutt at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [iDC] (no subject)
> To: IDC list <idc at bbs.thing.net>
> Message-ID: <8121F3D8-3D1A-4FFD-BEC5-D4A3D9757AC7 at dannybutt.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
> By way of giving some support to Kevin who has toiled so diligently
> on behalf of our recent discussions in a more generous way than I
> would (Brian, you *are* rude :)!), can I identify what bugs me about
> the recent (no subject) thread in more general terms, because the
> issues are fundamentally about pragmatism on mailing lists and not
> about academia.
>
> In any group dynamic, but particularly in politics, someone will
> attempt to shift the agenda of the group by saying one or both of the
> following:
>
> 1) There are events outside the discussion which are more important
> than what is being discussed.
>
> 2) The discussion is simply a function of a larger problem, if we
> address the larger problem we no longer need to have this discussion.
>
> These statements are almost always true - there is a "mom and apple
> pie" quality to them. Aliette Guibert's forward of information on
> ethnic cleansing in the West bank is undoubtedly more important than
> practice-based Ph.Ds. As someone who did my postgraduate work on
> marxist cultural theory, I share with Brian the knowledge that there
> is a global economic system called capitalism and its decomposition
> would result in the transformation of many of the critical problems
> we face in the world.
>
> In my experience, both these kinds of statements are demotivating to
> groups, because groups work best when they are focussed on issues
> where they can make a difference. There is a reason why this group of
> predominantly Nth-American new media academics came alive in the
> discussion on programs and curriculum, and it's because the
> discussion has the opportunity to expand and transform the
> participants' impact on their surroundings.
>
> I have no doubt that the tiny, yet tangible world of postgraduate
> arts education has been affected by the last months' dialogue. I have
> no faith in the ability of the group contributing any meaningful
> difference through its discussions to the overthrow of the capitalist
> university system, or the human tragedy of Israel/Palestine, or the
> many other issues that many of us make meaningful changes to in the
> world outside this list. So I am unimpressed by arguments that we
> need to "break silence" on "more important issues" - I think those
> making such arguments carry a responsibility to show how the group is
> likely to affect those issues, really affect them.
>
> Frankly, for the "more important" issues that I am personally
> involved with away from academic mailing lists, I can't see what this
> group would do by caring more about them. So why beat my head against
> a wall? To make myself feel more radical because I am introducing
> more important issues? People get tired of being made to feel
> politically inferior because they are not  engaged in a movement
> which they have no investment in, and in a "virtual community" that
> means they leave, because everyone has a lot on their plate. Self-
> styled "moral entrepreneurship" is always seductive but rarely
> subjected to rigorous evaluation as to its effectiveness.
>
> x.d
>
>
> On 02/02/2007, at 6:01 PM, Kevin Hamilton wrote:
>
> > Malian,
> >
> > Not everything is complicated, and not every complex problem
> > requires the presence of academics in order to be solved.
> >
> > But surely the ways in which we as individuals and collectives
> > contribute on a daily basis to the real problems you and others
> > describe require a less simplistic summary than yours in the last
> > post.
> >
> > I did not question the necessity of discussing our work and worlds
> > on the scale introduced by Luis or Brian. I don't think anyone did
> > in this thread. If my actions here towards you, Brian or Luis have
> > been received as an attempt to silence dissent, then I deserve
> > correction.
> >
> > I did seek clarification as to the intent of the manner in which
> > Brian addressed the (no) subject. He generously addressed this query.
> >
> > You describe one trajectory when there have been many represented
> > on recent threads. Admittedly, when compared to many other
> > contemporary trajectories of action and decline, the ones
> > represented on this list and in recent discussions begin to resolve
> > themselves into a single shade. But I don't think we should let
> > that form the basis of action, or dismiss action and inquiry
> > without examining the expressed (and unacknowledged) assumptions
> > unique to each effort.
> >
> > I agree that the problems are deep, that the assessments offered by
> > Brian and Luis cogent and real. But I disagree with your broad
> > ascription of motivations to the actions of whatever unified group
> > you think you are addressing.
> >
> > Calling attention to overlooked concerns and contexts within
> > earshot of privileged conversations is wholly called for, and
> > necessary. Assuming and describing complicity and complacency
> > without close reading and attention to the specifics of a person's
> > practice, let alone their posts, is mis-informed, and
> > counterproductive.
> >
> > Kevin
> >
> >
> >
> > mlahey at artic.edu wrote:
> >>
> >> So, I think that the answer to Kevin's question
> >>
> >>
> >>> But since you've framed the problem existentially, I'll put it
> >>> back to
> >>> you existentially - can't collective inquiry into the effects of
> >>> small
> >>> decisions on the world be more than self-justified indulgence or
> >>> delusion?
> >>
> >> Is: Not on our current trajectory, sweetheart.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity
> > (distributedcreativity.org)
> > iDC at bbs.thing.net
> > http://mailman.thing.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/idc
> >
> > List Archive:
> > http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/
>
>
>
> --
> Danny Butt
> db at dannybutt.net | http://www.dannybutt.net
> Suma Media Consulting | http://www.sumamedia.com
> Private Bag MBE P145, Auckland, Aotearoa New Zealand
> Ph: +64 21 456 379 | Fx: +64 21 291 0200
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 10:41:31 +0000
> From: Chris Byrne <chris at crowriver.net>
> Subject: Re: [iDC] Second Life as educational tool
> To: patrick lichty <voyd at voyd.com>
> Cc: IDC list <idc at bbs.thing.net>
> Message-ID: <51F35ACE-1949-4610-969E-A0196C060855 at crowriver.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
> As I hope I made clear, I did have some big reservations about the
> article, it's certainly not a work of critical theory... Despite the
> numerous and rather serious flaws, it took a position which has at
> least raised some questions.
>
> Maybe the question is: why did the author end up in the white
> suburbs? Do you just find what you're looking for in SL?
>
> Any other, more meaningful critiques/papers/discussions out there on
> SL and its significance (or otherwise)?
>
> C
>
> On 2 Feb 2007, at 14:02, patrick lichty wrote:
>
> > This was a pretty facile read on the matter.
> >
> > 1: I Use SL as a tool in class, and I have just about EVERY type in
> > my classes.
> >
> >
> >
> > 2. My closest associates in SL are:
> >
> > An orthodox Jew living in Buenos Aires.
> >
> > A gay African American living in San Francisco
> >
> > A Baghdadi Iraqi displaced by the war and scraping by in Amman,
> >
> > A househusband in Vancouver,
> >
> > A disabled writer from Cleveland,
> >
> > A Chinese-American student at the New School in NYC
> >
> > 2 Brazilians
> >
> >
> >
> > Did I miss something?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Patrick Lichty
> >
> > - Interactive Arts & Media
> >   Columbia College, Chicago
> >
> > - Editor-In-Chief
> >
> >   Intelligent Agent Magazine
> >
> > http://www.intelligentagent.com
> >
> > 225 288 5813
> >
> > voyd at voyd.com
> >
> >
> >
> > "It is better to die on your feet
> > than to live on your knees."
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: idc-bounces at bbs.thing.net [mailto:idc-bounces at bbs.thing.net]
> > On Behalf Of Skawennati Tricia Fragnito
> > Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 7:09 PM
> > To: Chris Byrne; IDC list
> > Subject: Re: [iDC] Second Life as educational tool
> >
> >
> >
> > I am pretty sure that that critique sucked!  It is true that SL is
> > very White, but, guess what: so is the Internet! I am sorry, dear
> > list members, that I do not have the mental bandwidth to write a
> > decent critique of this critique, but I just had to put in my two
> > cents.  Maybe I just don't have the time to talk about all the
> > things that are wrong with what Destiny wrote (though Chris
> > mentioned some biggies!).  I really hate it when people think that
> > minorities who have the same values as middle class White people
> > --  "university education, an open mind, a thirst for
> > learning" (according to Destiny)-- are no longer being true to
> > their culture.  Damn!
> >
> >
> >
> > This Mohawk/Italian chick, who considers herself fortunate indeed
> > to have a university education, is now going to her Second Life
> > where she meets up with other artists, nerds, Indians, and Others
> > to chat, have fun, make art and (dare i day it???) change the world.
> >
> >
> >
> > !!!!
> >
> > Love,
> >
> > Skawennati aka xox Voyager
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > At 8:36 PM +0000 1/31/07, Chris Byrne wrote:
> >> At the risk of being known as "the guy who just forwards snippets
> >> from The Register", I thought I would.....you get the picture.
> >>
> >> I'm not at all sure about this critique of Second Life, in some
> >> respects it is highly subjective, has a phobia about feminists,
> >> and is a tad narcissistic (but then it is about a fantasy role play).
> >>
> >> "Second Life is perhaps the whitest environmet I've ever
> >> experienced, and the most middle-class: I'm hard pressed to recall
> >> a single conversation with an undeucated resident. By and large,
> >> everyone is playing, and everyone has a fairly healthy bank
> >> account, as the basic costs of entry - even for a free account -
> >> are dictated by some rather pricey computing parephrenalia (sic).
> >> Everyone is concerned with arts and science, and speaks with pride
> >> about information technology; everyone likes to learn; everyone
> >> believes in progress. It is, literally, an online white suburban
> >> paradise."
> >>
> >> Whoever thought virtual reality could bring up so many 'real' issues?
> >>
> >> My big, fat, lily-white Second Life
> >> By Destiny Welles
> >> Published Tuesday 30th January 2007 15:11 GMT
> >>
> >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/30/lily_white_and_not_loving_it/
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity
> >> (distributedcreativity.org)
> >> iDC at bbs.thing.net
> >> http://mailman.thing.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/idc
> >>
> >> List Archive:
> >> http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sat,  3 Feb 2007 07:51:38 -0600
> From: mlahey at artic.edu
> Subject: Re: [iDC] (no subject)
> To: kham at uiuc.edu
> Cc: idc at bbs.thing.net
> Message-ID: <1170510698.45c4936a857a4 at webmail.artic.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>
> Quoting Kevin Hamilton <kham at uiuc.edu>:
>
> > Malian,
> >
> > Not everything is complicated, and not every complex problem requires
> > the presence of academics in order to be solved.
> >
> > But surely the ways in which we as individuals and collectives
> > contribute on a daily basis to the real problems you and others describe
> > require a less simplistic summary than yours in the last post.
>
> Well, I think that if you think about the implications of what I wrote, it's
> only how I stated the problem that is simple.  Following through on the
> solution is not simple at all!
>
> I guess I feel that convoluting my thoughts/using jargon might make me sound
> more clever, but it won't help me communicate.
>
> Besides, laying out a simple formula for a solution allows for many
> interpretations/applications.  One reason I get frustrated with philosophy and
> other academic writing is that their insistence on taxonomizing every detail of
> the discussion is a very controlling way to deliver information.  If I offer the
> raw materials or a general direction, it leaves it up to other folks how they
> want to live that out.  But if I'm prescribing and specifying, I start to get
> as Fascist as Henry Ford, who was big on timing how long it took to do each
> motion on the assembly line, and evaluated workers based on their ability to
> optimize efficiency as measured by him. (and yes, Ford was a Fascist, and
> donated money to the Nazis)
>
> >
> > I did not question the necessity of discussing our work and worlds on
> > the scale introduced by Luis or Brian. I don't think anyone did in this
> > thread. If my actions here towards you, Brian or Luis have been received
> > as an attempt to silence dissent, then I deserve correction.
> >
> > I did seek clarification as to the intent of the manner in which Brian
> > addressed the (no) subject. He generously addressed this query.
>
> Yes, of course.  No argument.  Please realize I was not addressing my post
> personally just to you.  However you did question if staying focused on the
> small picture could be anything but "delusion".  And I commented on that.  If
> only Brian is allowed to do that, that is news to me.
>
> Furthermore, the struggle to discover the form and origin of one's cage is
> universal.  It is not just you that has to struggle with that, it's everyone.
> Not personal to you, but including.
>
> It is not possible to break out of one's limitations when one is not even aware
> of them.  In a metaphorical way of speaking, you can't keep your nose to the
> grindstone and expect to escape slavery.  The point I made about the Jews: they
> *assumed* that the system is rational and that they could rationally figure it
> out.  It would have been much better for them if they had realized that the
> system was completely mad and acted accordingly; they could have overpowered
> their guards.  But they were living within the precepts of a rational society
> even when that society calmly and rationally stuffed them into gas chambers.
>
> >
> > You describe one trajectory when there have been many represented on
> > recent threads. Admittedly, when compared to many other contemporary
> > trajectories of action and decline, the ones represented on this list
> > and in recent discussions begin to resolve themselves into a single
> > shade. But I don't think we should let that form the basis of action, or
> > dismiss action and inquiry without examining the expressed (and
> > unacknowledged) assumptions unique to each effort.
> >
>
> Well, of course there are differences in what people have said.  But again, if
> you won't zoom out to look, then you won't really know what I am talking
> about.
>
> We all use computers to read this list, no?  Most, if not all of us live in
> industrialized nations.  Someone who has the education and the means to
> participate on this thread is making some pretty major concessions to the
> colonist/corporatist/globalist system, either tacitly or not.  How many have
> cars or watch TV?  How many ride airplanes (me).  How many work in multi-story
> offices?
>
> One environmental activist has said; "if we consider the Earth as alive we
> wouldn't be able to hurt her so much just to make a big building".
>
> But the people speaking in this forum aren't addressing such a major, structural
> change as taking the position that the Earth is alive.  It sounds simple but if
> you think about it, accepting it as true would imply a lot of complicated
> changes for our lives!
>
>
> > I agree that the problems are deep, that the assessments offered by
> > Brian and Luis cogent and real. But I disagree with your broad
> > ascription of motivations to the actions of whatever unified group you
> > think you are addressing.
> >
>
> Which motivations?  Which actions?  We're just writing here.  I don't think it's
> mistaken to say that on this list (unified group) it seems difficult to get
> people to talk about global scale concerns.  It's understandable that a group
> like this would have trouble questioning industrialized society, for example
> (for the reasons I mentioned above).  But that's exactly why it would be so
> exciting.
>
>
> > Calling attention to overlooked concerns and contexts within earshot of
> > privileged conversations is wholly called for, and necessary. Assuming
> > and describing complicity and complacency without close reading and
> > attention to the specifics of a person's practice, let alone their
> > posts, is mis-informed, and counterproductive.
> >
> > Kevin
> >
>
> Dear Kevin, we are all complicit.  We are all far, far too complacent.  I'm
> writing. on. a. damn. computer.!!!  That's complicity!  That's complacency!  I
> read your posts, but all I have to know is that you participate in academia and
> I know that you are as dependent on our current social infrastructure as much as
> I am.  and I want to talk about changing that.
>
> That one's *opinions* reflect an anti- slave corporate machine attitude does not
> mean that one has necessarily done the work to destroy our addiction to that
> machine.
>
> Here's some questions:
>
> If the global industrial infrastructure were dismantled, what would take its
> place?
>
> how would we ecologically, sustainably remain in communication with one another
> around the world?
>
> How would we visit one another?  I'm talking about, how would a Swiss travel to
> Texas, for example.
>
> Ecosystems change through a process of succession; that is, certain elements are
> replaced with others as the ecosystem changes through time.  I believe human
> beings are like that as well.  So I guess what I'm suggesting is that we make
> conscious decisions about what ought to be replaced, and what do we want to
> replace it with.  Let me also say that it would be unethical to do this without
> including impoverished third world people as equal partners in the discussion.
>
> Malian
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > mlahey at artic.edu wrote:
> > >
> > > So, I think that the answer to Kevin's question
> > >
> > >
> > >> But since you've framed the problem existentially, I'll put it back to
> > >> you existentially - can't collective inquiry into the effects of small
> > >> decisions on the world be more than self-justified indulgence or
> > >> delusion?
> > >>
> > >
> > > Is: Not on our current trajectory, sweetheart.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> iDC mailing list
> iDC at bbs.thing.net
> http://mailman.thing.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/idc
> _______________________________________________
> Institute for Distributed Creativity (iDC)
> _______________________________________________
> www.distributedcreativity.org
> _______________________________________________
> The research of the Institute for Distributed Creativity
> (iDC) focuses on collaboration in media art, technology,
> and theory with an emphasis on social contexts.
> _______________________________________________
>
>
> End of iDC Digest, Vol 28, Issue 4
> **********************************
>