I am working on the appropriate solution for a hypothetical problem. Let’s say you are searching for images for your own use and you locate an appropriate image within Flickr. The page claims the image is available under Creative Commons and the license says “attribution”.
What is the appropriate attribution? The owner of the image is Grabe (yes, that’s me), but one does not necessarily have to use a real name and Grabe is vague anyway.
The image came from the page – http://flickr.com/photos/grabe/1397669571/ – and providing this information allows me to demonstrate I am not claiming the image is mine. Still – I have not identified the provider.
If I have a Flickr account myself, there is a way to send a flickr email to another flickr person. Perhaps, the appropriate solution is to send an email and ask grabe just what type of attribution he/she would like.
Here is another suggestion from my wife. Mindmap generates an interactive “mind map” based the content of wikipedia. Enter a search term and that term becomes the starting point for the map. I am guessing what the application does is built the representation based on the embedded links (note correspondence between wikipedia entry and mind map below). I would have to think a bit to determine if I felt a “mindmap” met my definition of concept map. I assume the premise is that a mindmap captures the structure of the author(s). Perhaps it just captures the list of things they could find links to.
Anyway, it is interesting and worth a look.
From a map node, you can link to the wikipedia entry or expand the map.
It would be interesting if you could direct Mindmap at any mediawiki site, but at present the selection is limited to wikipedia versions.
Hmm – is authored hypermedia a representation of personal mental structure? Sounds like a research topic.
While much has been made of the digital native vs. immigrant distinction, there has often been little data on just how involved individuals of different ages are with specific technologies. Reuters now reports the results of a recent survey arguing that there is little age difference in cell phone use. I do understand that level of use is only one factor in what some regard as an important group difference. Supposedly having grown up with a technology results in a different perspective in contrast to having come to that technology after experiences with another way of doing things.
Perhaps I respond in defense of those of my age, but why would having one perspective be superior to having multiple perspectives? The fact that I have used a dial telephone, used a phone on a party line, and used a cell phone means I have multiple rather than a single perspective on issues (analog accent or not). Why do some continue to argue that this is a limitation?
For example, the common problem in which some say inappropriate things in social networking environments forgetting others may eventually become aware is hardly a revelation to me. Anyone who has used a party line phone system soon learned that one should never assume a discussion is private. Talk about social networking revisited.
I found a great blog post you should have read a week ago. This Lifehacker post explains how to mirror you laptop harddrive to an external harddrive so that if your laptop has a CATASTROPHIC CRASH all will not be lost.
File this under the heading – there is no way to avoid all problems in the real world.
I have been doing some exploration for a piece I am writing on educational uses of the social image sharing site – Flickr. Somehow, in this process, I began investigating a project that had students submit pictures they had taken that showed angles. As I scanned through the collection of images, I encountered the picture of a nude woman. My first thought and I am guessing the reaction of some might be that this image had purposefully been tagged to shock others involved in the educational project. There was really nothing about the posture of this particular nude woman that seemed to fit the concept “angle” so the tag made no sense.
I investigated further and found that the Flickr site hosting the image offered artistic photographs – very few of which involved any nudity. I then took a look at the tags and description. Here is my guess based on the context – I think the photographer intended to use the tag “angel” and made a typing error.
I pay attention to what is available in the way of CMSs and operate several open source CMSs just for the experience. I have been reading about a new CMS (SilverStrip) and considered setting up an implementation until I realized that I have no server running PHP5.
Somewhere in the middle of reading and thinking about CMSs I realized I have been talking about and experimenting with two kinds of systems without realizing CMS does not always mean CMS.
There are Course Management Systems such as Blackboard (or Moodle).
There are Content Management Systems such as Drupal or SilverStrip.
Now that I realize a CMS is not a CMS I may suffer from a sense of confusion. What if we changed course management system to class management system? I guess that wouldn’t solve my new found problem. Sometimes it is simply better not to know.
Maybe this personal insight into cognitive behavior seems intriguing to no one but me. I think it is one of those experiences that makes you go – “hmm”. Context must be everything.
BusinessWeek (Sept. 5) has a recent article commenting on new technology applications in K-12 environments. Use of “2.0” is beginning to annoy me. I am thinking it is a personal problem – I have a way of using the term in reference to technology applications and it is sometimes difficult mapping this personal understanding on the way the term is applied in another context. Maybe if this is a general reaction we should recognize that the term has no meaning and move on.
Anyway – the article contains some project descriptions that were interesting and new to me. Take a look.
There is a section that deals with safety and educational value. The topic is consistent with the way I think about “2.0” issues, but the discussion did not seem connected with the examples used in the rest of the article. I wonder if this is a journalistic technique – throw the odds and ends in at the end. I have one complaint about this section. There is a statement here I would like to verify:
About 1 in 5 children online is sexually solicited, according to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, which has created www.netsmartz.org to teach children, parents, and educators about online safety.
While the examples in the article are supported by links, the statements in the section on Safety and Educational value are not. I have read several studies from the Center for Missing and Exploited Children (see final comment) and know the organization has much more to say. What is said or not said makes a great difference in the context of the news item. For example, when students encounter online solicitation, where are they connecting from? If the connection is nearly always from homes, what might this say about the role of the schools? Perhaps social networking experiences and discussions related to social networking need to be emphasized in schools so that students are prepared for the encounters they might experience when mom is not looking.
Grabe summary of recent Missing and Exploited Children survey. Grabe summary of recent report from the National School Boards Association.
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
