"Call For Papers: 2nd International Mobile Creativity and Mobile Innovation Symposium, #MINA2012, Mobile Innovation Network Aotearoa, 23rd –25th November 2012, Massey University, Wellington, NZ ...
MINA [www.mina.pro] is an international network that promotes cultural and research activities to expand the emerging possibilities of mobile media. MINA aims to explore the opportunities for interaction between people, content and the creative industry within the context of Aotearoa/New Zealand and internationally.
The symposium will provide a platform for filmmakers, artists, designers, researchers, 'pro–d–users' and industry professionals to debate the prospect of wireless, mobile and ubiquitous technologies in art and design environments and the creative industries. MINA invites paper proposals relating (but not limited) to; mobile lens media, iPhoneography, mobile video production, mobile–mentaries (mobile documentaries), mobile network and transmedia, mobile communities, mobile media and social change, mobile visual arts, mobile locative media, citizen journalism, mobile visual literacy, mobile media in education and mobile technologies and civic media. ...
Paper proposals should be submitted by the 15th August 2012"
(Mobile Innovation Network Aotearoa)
"According to the 'long tail' principle, ICT innovations in content creation and distribution such as virtual inventories, Internet Protocol Television (IPTV) and other types of video on demand, music self–publishing in social networking sites and digital printing challenge old rationales that justified the adoption of mass–market models for the production and publication of cultural goods. These technologies dissolve the spatial and physical constraints which limited the range of creative content goods available in the market and open the gates for a flood of new (and old) media. In doing so they have created a new problem, of a navigational nature: in principle, diversity enables access to content goods better suited to a customer's preferences, but it also makes finding them more difficult (194).
The main reason for the success of Google's search services has been its ability to address Internet users' need for relevant resources, by adopting a scalable algorithm that establishes a webpage's rank according to its reputation. However, its user interface is still too rigid and makes it difficult, for example, to fully specify the type of content a user is looking for. Additionally, this technique, based on a 'Wisdom of the Masses' perception of the web, can in some cases promote content perceived to be useless over content perceived as useful, and be tampered with through search optimisation techniques such as link farming (195)."
(Juan Mateos–Garcia, Aldo Geuna and W. Edward Steinmueller, 2008, p.85)
194: In a context where information is abundant, attention becomes the scarce resource (Simon, H. A. 1971, 'Designing Organizations for an Information–Rich World', in Martin Greenberger, Computers, Communication, and the Public Interest, Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Pres).
195: i.e. exchanging reciprocal links with web sites in order to increase search engine optimization, as search engines often rank sites according to, among other things, the quantity of sites that link to them.
Fig.1 Perry Ogden (2003). 'Bono with Louis Le Brocquy'.
2). Fabienne Abadie, Ioannis Maghiros, and Corina Pascu (editors) 2008 'The Future Evolution of the Creative Content Industries: Three Discussion Papers', Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, EUR 23633 EN – 2008
"Institutions, teachers, and learners are increasingly turning to the open architecture and customizability of the web. In doing so, they are leveraging the tools and resources of the larger PLE to create their own personal learning networks (PLNs) to manage information, create content, and connect with others. Whether termed PLEs or PLNs, these approaches 'represent a shift away from the model in which students consume information through independent channels such as the library, a textbook, or an LMS, moving instead to a model where students draw connections from a growing matrix of resources that they select and organize.' Scott Leslie's impressive collection of PLE diagrams reminds us that PLNs are infinitely configurable to meet individual needs and preferences. They are, after all, 'personal.'
The vision of individually constructed PLNs and their potential to transform learning extends beyond merely aggregating and using a smorgasbord of web–based tools and content. Gardner Campbell advocated the cultivation of 'personal cyberinfrastructures' that teachers and learners can leverage to become the 'system administrators of their own digital lives.' Instead of implementing tools that simply help instructors 'manage learning,' Campbell argued that we should embrace technologies that enable co–learners to frame, curate, share, and direct learning 'engagement streams.' John Seely Brown and Richard Adler argued that learning with Web 2.0 tools is so different that we ought to call it 'learning 2.0.' They asserted that, unlike old passive forms of learning, the new learner–centric paradigm (facilitated and reinforced by new tools) emphasizes participation over presentation, encourages focused conversation over traditional publication, and 'facilitates innovative explorations, experimentations, and purposeful tinkerings that often form the basis of a situated understanding emerging from action, not passivity.' The net result is an 'open participatory learning ecosystem.'"
(Jonathan Mott, 2010)
Mott, J. (2010). 'Envisioning the Post–LMS Era: The Open Learning Network.' Educause Quarterly 33(1).
Fig.1 Vahid Masrour 'synthetic view of what a PLN/E is, and what it enables'.
Fig.2 Scott Leslie 'collection of PLE diagrams'.
"The reason that a focus on Web 2.0 is significant and needed is because the popular web applications it represents are driven by users providing endless and virtually unlimited information about their everyday lives. To put it in Lash's terms, they are clearly on the inside of the everyday, they are up close, they afford direct and routine connections between people and software. We have not yet begun to think through how this personal information might be harvested and used. A starting point would be to find out how this information about everyday mundane lives is being mined, how this feeds into 'relational databases', and with what consequences: the very types of question that are being asked by the writers discussed here. Alongside this it is also important that we consider how the information provided by users, and other 'similar' users, might affect the things they come across. If we return to Last.fm, which 'learns' users' tastes and preferences and provides them with their own taste–specific online radio station, it is possible to appreciate how the music that people come across and listen to has become a consequence of algorithms. This is undoubtedly an expression of power, not of someone having power over someone else, but of the software making choices and connections in complex and unpredictable ways in order to shape the everyday experiences of the user. How we find the books that shape our writing could be a question we might ask ourselves if we wish to consider the power that algorithms exercise over us and over the formation of knowledge within our various disciplines. (I know of at least two occasions when Amazon has located a book of interest for me that has then gone on to form an important part of a published work.) This is not just about Amazon, it would also include searches on Google Scholar, the use of the bookmarking site Del.icio.us, the RSS feeds we might use, or the likely coming applications that will predict, locate and recommend research articles we might be interested in. Readers based in the UK will also by now be considering the power of algorithms to decide the allocation of research funding as the role of metrics in the forthcoming Research Excellence Framework (REF) are finalized."
(David Beer, 996–997)
Beer, D. (2009). "Power through the algorithm? Participatory web cultures and the technological unconscious." New Media & Society 11(6).
"Hundreds of thousands of Africans, Asians and Latin Americans have started blogging, opening up a library of human knowledge in local languages to those who are willing to listen, and making the internet a far more multilingual and multicultural place (Block, 2004). A recent Technorati study found that Chinese and Japanese have overtaken English as the dominant languages of the blogosphere, and that growing native–language communities are emerging all over the net.6 Thus, the language issue in the context of Web 2.0 technology is increasingly less about content–creation and access, and more about content–transfer. Translating between two languages requires an appreciation of the 'intellectual, ideological and social understandings upon which speech is based' (Powell, 2006: 522). This is certainly one of the areas where Web 2.0 faces some serious challenges. Specialised sites, such as Global Voices Online (see Box 2), however, have been developed to organise, translate and distribute this local knowledge. And even when people are not blogging in their native languages, they are sharing knowledge about their local realities. Knowledge–creation is itself a hugely empowering experience for any individual, and the benefits of such empowerment will become more diffused as more people from the developing world join the global online discussion."
(Alberto Masetti–Zannini, p.21,22)
Alberto Masetti–Zannini, Web 2.0 and International Development NGOs
Knowledge Politics Quarterly, Volume 1 Issue 1 (Oct 2007), edited by Craig Berry