Digital Citizenship
When I started the Metaliteracy course 18 months ago, week 2 was originally about “creating and sharing a social identity” which included some revelations of what you find by googling yourself, thinking about what others might think of what they find without a larger context (i.e., if an employer was to search), etc. At times, it seemed more like a Grandmother telling you to watch what you post online. One of the resources walked you through the googling process and the “types” of things you might find. Since I share the same name as a US politician, almost all of Google is dominated by his links. If you add “Ottawa” to the search, then I come up with my Twitter feed listed first. It made me think about whether I should (for branding and transparency) more accurately label my website, but I don’t feel the need to shout it out. I like being PolyWogg, but I’m not hiding my name either. Other resources looked at whether anonymity would increase authenticity and reduce trolls, but I’m not convinced that it’s a magic bullet. It also had some resources about privacy. Those are completely missing from the course so far in the new incarnation. The assignment at the time was to do a biography based on your googled persona, reviewing a privacy policy of a social platform (I did Twitter) and considering the implications of a poverty project that shared rather stark photos of people in Troy New York which then went viral and for which the project received a lot of backlash (https://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Churchill-An-unflattering-portrait-of-poverty-in-5649292.php). This seems to be gone from the current version of the course.
The previous version of week 3 was about “Becoming A Digital Citizen: Understanding Intellectual Property” which seems pretty close to this week’s material in the new version of the course. Week 2 is entitled: Becoming a Metaliterate Digital Citizen.
For the original course, I was disappointed as I thought we would end up doing a deeper dive into the issues around academic publishing and journals, and instead, we were treated to a one-size-fits-all promotional video of how big academic journal publishers are pillaging the land of academic freedom. To be honest, I learned far more from Michael Geist’s posts about the CRTC hearings back in December 2018 on potential reforms to the Copyright Act to address university usage of academic materials, and even more from the recent judicial decision in Canada. The current proposals before the White House to temporarily change academic licensing to be more “open” received a lot of backlash from academic publishers who pay authors nothing, pay reviewers nothing, and charge huge fees to schools to access the online magazines.
My real complaint at the time, however, was that most of the materials lacked any nuance between the concept of “free” vs. “open”. It just assumed “open” was better (free access, free mobility) and that “free” was the wrong term (confusing free movement with free cost). I don’t like the term because creators decide on licenses, but “open” is recipient-centric, not creator-centric. The materials also touted the idea of the 5Rs of openness (the ability to retain, reuse, revise, remix or redistribute) but they are far more complicated than as presented. I did like the focus on Creative Commons Licenses, at the time.
With the new format for the course, I found the CCL stuff a bit lighter than I was expecting.
Ethical Use of Information
Originally, the course had a “week 4” focus on the Ethical Use of Information which it is now bundled into this week. My favourite part was a great series of videos called “Everything is a Remix”. It shows, in a multitude of examples, how ideas and even content are remixed and re-used, built upon, edited, etc., all as part of new creations. And for me, it leads to a kind of intellectual conundrum. If, in many spheres of life like science, the goal is to build off of the efforts of others and to advance learning, how do you do that while respecting the intellectual rights of others in an ethical way? As I said, the remix videos are great, and worth watching even if you aren’t taking the course. The remastered version is below:
Funny, back when I did the first part of the original course, I thought licensing, remixing and ethics should be all part of the same week (as they are now). Yet now that I have done it, I feel they both get a bit too short treatment. The new assignment is to muse about the ethical use of information, which was easy for me, as it frequently comes up in forums dealing with astrophotography and the appropriate use of any images that are posted.
On to Week 3!
