WOT is a Firefox add-on that attempts to collect and convey “reputation” information about web sites. The free download allows you to both access reputation data and contribute your own impressions (offer testimony).
Once installed, you will note a symbol in the toolbar of your browser (it looks like a LifeSaver to me). The color of this icon indicates the overall reputation of the site you are visiting.
Clicking on this icon opens up a window offering additional information. You contribute your input by clicking on the individual sliders.
If you want, you can use the preference panel for this add-on to block sites that are not considered safe for children.
At face value, this approach appeals to me. I like the idea of a warning system more so than a filtering system and I like the idea of participating in the process. I wonder if this system would address some of the concerns of the proposed DOPA legislation. For example, as I understand DOPA, commercial social software sites would be blocked. Consider an app such as blogger.com. While the service is a commercial social software site, access is really to individual blogs (i.e., the URL is unique). It would seem a system such as WOT would offer reputation stats for individual blogs.
I wonder if “WOTs Up” is original. 😉 Probably not.
Andy Carvin has generated another post on one of his favorite topics – DOPA (now Protecting Children in the 21st Century). Andy does a great job of explaining what is happening with this legislation. The topic concerns the responsibility of school and libraries to prevent minors from accessing content/experiences that put them at risk and an important area of controversy involves access to commercial social networking sites.
What I would like to see in this debate is a discussion of the costs and benefits. What is known about the actual exposure to risk within schools and elsewhere? How much would total risk be reduced if the exposure within schools were eliminated (along with any related opportunities)? Will educators spend an equal amount of time addressing risks if such risks could not possibly be encountered within a school setting?
There are many examples of this kind of decision making involved in education. Students play football despite a certain level of injury. Students use power equipment in shop despite a certain level of injury. School buses do not require seat belts despite a certain level of injury. Students walk to and from schools despite a > 0 risk. etc.
Andy Carvin has generated a very complete analysis of the new version of DOPA. Included in his post is a link to the text of the proposed bill as included in the Congressional Record. One frustrating change in the new bill is that it mashes together a variety of topics some of which would generate nearly universal support and others (e.g., objection to many commercial social networking tools) that in my opinion are questionable. I guess this is the way politicians like to play the game. Just for the record – I am against child pornography and predators of any type. I am also opposed to this bill because it lacks the sophistication to differentiate criminal behavior from constructive educational practices.
Andy’s post summarizes the description of social networking sites as a site that:
is offered by a commercial entity;
permits registered users to create an on-line profile that includes detailed personal information;
permits registered users to create an on-line journal and share such a journal with other users;
elicits highly-personalized information from users; and
enables communication among users.
Just for the record:
I am using my own software and server to offer this blog so it is not commercial. Many teachers would not have the opportunity or skill to create a blog of this type and under this bill would not be allowed to offer the content because they would be prevented from using convenient and free commercial blogging sites.
If anyone wants to go to the trouble, they can contribute to this blog by commenting on my posts. They would need to share some information before I would let them do this (I regard this commitment on their part as a security requirement). I could also allow others to generate original posts, but I do not. I would encourage them to create their own blog and we can link back and forth.
I would hope this blog enables communication among users.
I am not certain what eliciting highly-personal information means – is this one of those you know it when you see it standards?
It is true that the bill stipulates that school personal can use social software in situations that they supervise. I have previously explained that most teachers are not in a position to turn filters on and off at will. I would also suggest that the beauty of social software is that it reaches beyond school walls to involve others at other times and from other locations.
Before the elections, potential DOPA (Deleting Online Predators Act) legislation was the target of posts on many educational blogs (including Learning Aloud). Now, it appears that active consideration of DOPA legislation is back.
How could anyone object to measures intended to thwart potential online predators? It is the means and not the goal (see my previous comments) that generates objections – blocking commercial social networking sites including commercial blog sites. Blocking potentially useful activities represents a significant down side. Failure to confront the most serious problems gives the appearance of doing something while accomplishing little (unsupervised access to the Internet outside of the school results in what data appear to indicate are the most serious problems). This is an issue with a political slant – the appearance that one is “fighting” for our kids sounds good and it may not be obvious what is lost when blocking a hodge-podge of sites.
The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children has released a recent study entitled Online Victimization of Youth: Five Years Later. Given recent political consideration of this topic focused on school and library access (DOPA), I read the report looking for some specific things. While any danger directed at our sons and daughters should concern us (I encourage you to take the time to read the report rather than rely completely on summaries such as this), each of us must also acknowledge that as adults responsible for children (as educators or parents) we constantly make decisions that expose our children to some element of risk. How do the risks match up with the educational potential of applications that may involve a certain element of danger?
A couple of data points from this study:
Four percent of those surveyed indicated experiencing an “aggressive sexual solicitation” (perpetrator made an effort to take the “experience” offline through phone contact, mail, or face to face meeting).
Location of computer when experiencing an agressive sexual solicitation – 79% home, 12% friend home, 9% school, library, or other.
Age of solicitor associated with “aggressive solicitation – 44% <18, 34% 18-25, 15% >25, 7% – no clue
Means of access – chat 32%, IM 54%, other 13%
Reaction – 44% removed self from situation, 23% warned solictor, 7% changed online name, 15% ignored, 2% reported to parent or authorities, 7% met person
It is the combination of these percentages we have to process. Is there a risk to adolescents? Obviously! Are school uses of communication technology involved? Rarely! Do adolescents act responsibly? Mostly!
While harsh, we have to make decisions about how a technology with a less than perfect record, but benefits to our children is to be implemented.
As a parent, I made a similar conscious or unconscious decision every time I let me children drive to school or take public transportation. It would probably have been safer for me to take the time to provide transportation myself. Maybe I was lazy. Maybe I decided that learning to drive responsibly or to handle the people one meets on the bus was part of the process of growing up.
What are the odds my son might have experienced permanent damage to his knee playing football? What are the educational benefits of playing football when evaluated against this potential for physical harm? Do a search on “high school”, “football” and “heat stroke”? You might be surprised by the number of deaths. It is interesting which risks seem to generate a response from the politicians.
I am writing to indicate my opposition to the “Deleting Online Predators Act” or DOPA. To me this proposal seems a misguided overreaction to a legitimate problem. Blocking social network sites will remove many significant learning opportunities without addressing the core problem. Students need to learn about the infrequent, but real dangers of the Internet. Blocking access to a wide collection of sites – many of great value – will not increase student understanding or eliminate the problem once students are outside of the relatively well-monitored environment of the classroom or library.
In my opinion, the opportunity to turn access to specific sites on and off is not a realistic compromise and is seldom actually used. Many small schools in North Dakota receive service through Edutech – a state supported provider. I believe if you check you will learn that it is impractical for this provider to manipulate access for individual web sites for individual schools.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.Ok
