A very well presented analysis of the trade-offs between abundant information and limited attention (Globe and Mail). Just what are the demands of 21st Century Learning? We tend to encourage a shift from having information to thinking skills. However, other challenges are also evident. What about the challenge of shallow knowledge – the lack of depth necessary to make substantive contributions in a given area.
Personal cyberinfrastructure (from Educause). I like this idea. I also liked it 5-10 years ago when most operating systems (even Windows) come with an easy to implement web sharing option. Apple still has it and I have lost track of what Windows offer in the basic package. Problem is – we seem to have moved to DHCP and ISPs seem to resent users having something available on the upload side.
Mine still works (http://grabe.psych.und.nodak.edu) if my desktop machine happens to be on. This is now just a page that links elsewhere, but it could be more for anyone who wanted to get by without purchasing space elsewhere.
So this guy with an impulse control issue, Rep. Joe Wilson, shouts at President Obama during the President’s address on health care. The event has set off a secondary battle at wikipedia.
What is at stake is what can be said on Wilson’s wikipedia page regarding the event. The NYTimes blog post seems to imply that initial references to the outburst were removed and the page then locked. I checked and there is now a brief comment
Previously “a little-known Republican”, he gained widespread attention in September 2009 for heckling President Barack Obama during a speech to Congress.
This is a tough call for Wikipedia and this represents only a recent example. What does the source want to be? I suppose one could claim that any source reflects the biases of the authors but accountability can be lost when anyone is an author. Or – perhaps wikipedia might learn something from historians (or at least my nonhistorian take on what I think historians accept). There is no single history because the individuals who live events each experience an event from different perspectives. The “facts of the case” do not capture the stories as lived by individuals.
Wikipedia assumes the “facts of the case” somehow will emerge from multiple “stories as lived”. Not going to happen. A flaw in “wisdom of crowds” logic.
I read this post from David Warlich with interest because I find myself in a similar situation with similar questions. Warlich is working on a book and describes an exchange with another potential author regarding public sharing of a future product. Both self-pubish their work. With Warlich’s visibility, self-publishing probably works. I must admit I would take the self-publishing route only as a last resort because I am unable to rely on the lecture curcuit to bring attention to my work.
The posts are really less about self-publishing and more about making the authoring process visible. Can you trust the system vs. should one be worried about having others take of advantage of your sharing? I think these posts are interesting in that they externalize a distinction between what some advocate and what they then are willing to do. We propose openness, but we also want to support ourselves doing something we value. Nothing wrong with hoping to make a living doing something you value.
Here is the text of the speech to be given Sept. 8.
So what is the problem here? Perhaps comments made by the Secretary of Education did not set the proper tone. He was attemping to encourage students to watch and to be inspired. Perhaps it is that the President uses his own life as an example? You have to admit that it is an inspiring example. Not a sports story. Not the story of a musician. Not the story of a tech billionaire. Still a good examle. Are people jealous that their own stories are less inspiring?
Wesley Fryer comment on the speech controversy
Florida GOP Chair decides he would let his kids watch – ABC News
I have decided the debate over whether students should listen to a message from the President has done more to promote this event than about anything I can think of. The idea that someone might possibly not want them to hear what the President has to say should generate considerable interest.
You are also going to see multiple versions of the following (a wordle). Several educators have used the service to compare education speeches of several presidents. Yes, you may think this is the first, but it is not.
The Grand Forks Schools have decided not to carry the President’s message to kids. Evidently, administrators were intimidated by calls from local conservatives. In my opinion, a really bad decision and poorly handled. Why let the conservatives turn this into a political issue? Finally, a national leader willing to argue the value of education to our kids and our educational leaders are afraid of what the kids might hear.
