Zuckerman on Xenophilia and bridging

[Ethan Zuckerman](http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2010/07/14/a-wider-world-a-wider-web-my-tedglobal-2010-talk/) [spoke](http://www.slideshare.net/ethanz/a-wider-world-a-wider-web) at TED Global. Stephen Downes [wrote about it earlier](http://www.downes.ca/post/52886), and the [BBC just posted an article about it](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10642697).

Here’s the video from TED:

Ethan [posted the text of his talk](http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2010/07/14/a-wider-world-a-wider-web-my-tedglobal-2010-talk/). Here are some choice quotes:

>It’s data like this that’s leading me to conclude that the internet isn’t flattening the world the way Nicholas Negroponte thought it would. Instead, my fear is that it’s making us “imaginary cosmopolitans”. We think we’re getting a broad view of the world because it’s possible that our television, newspapers and internet could be giving us a vastly wider picture than was available for our parents or grandparents.
>
>When we look at what’s actually happening, our worldview might actually be narrowing.

on filtering:

>We tend to use two types of filters to manage the internet – search, which is great at telling us what we want to know, and social, which promises to tell us things that we don’t know we want to know. There’s a lot of people trying to engineer serendipity by taking advantage of the fact that not only are you on the internet, your friends are also on the internet. And if your friends – or just someone with similar interests – finds something that’s interesting, it might be a serendipitous discovery for you as well.
>
>There’s just one problem with this method. Human beings are herd animals. Like birds of a feather, we flock together. And so what you see on a site like Reddit or Digg – or what links you get from your friends on Facebook or Twitter – is what the flock is seeing. The flock might help you find something that’s unexpected and helpful, but it’s not likely to find you something from halfway around the world.

This set my PLN radar pinging. The talk of crafting the personal learning network/environment, to harness network effects, etc… is the explicit construction of flock-powered echo chambers. We choose to include people whom we mostly agree with. Everybody gets a group hug. And we slowly shrink the subset of the world to which we pay attention.

on the power of bridges to connect different communities and flocks:

>For a wider web, we need this third form of filtering – we need search, social, but we also need these shepherds to help us break out of our flocks and find different voices.

and

>If we want a wider world, we need to celebrate, recognize and amplify the influence of these bridge figures.
>
>And we need people to walk across these bridges.

and finally

>How do we cultivate xenophiles, celebrate bridge builders and rewire the media so we’re experiencing a wide world and not just our flock?

Xenophilia. An affection for the unknown. The people that seek to connect different communities, cultures, flocks, etc… This is what’s needed – but not for some magic individuals to step up and take the role. We need to support and foster xenophilia in everyone. It’s the only way to break out of the insular withdrawal that results from flocking filtering.

from *[A wider world, a wider web: my TED Global Talk](http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2010/07/14/a-wider-world-a-wider-web-my-tedglobal-2010-talk/)* by Ethan Zuckerman

content flowing through the blog

I’ve been messing around with my blog as a hub of stuff, but think I’ve finally got it working the way I have in mind. I use asides for more-than-twitter but less-than-blog-post entries. I now have delicious.com exporting daily linkdumps into a Links category. Neither of these 2 things show up on the front page of the blog, nor in the RSS feed. But they ARE archived on the blog, and are searchable. Persistent archive of stuff, without the noise and ugly mess. I’m using Advanced Category Excluder to prevent the 2 categories (asides and links) from showing up on the front page and main feed – although they still have their own feeds through the category system.

Update: I decided to put the delicious.com daily link posts into the RSS feed after all, but not on the front page. Not sure if I’ll leave it that way or not…

defining ple

<rant>

If we have to talk about PLE (Personal Learning Environments) (blech. why does every damned thing need a name and/or acronym?), can we at least not define it to death?

“PLE” is a verb, not a noun.

“PLE” is something you do, not something you have. It’s an action, not a thing. It’s a way of interacting with others, not a way of “getting personalized learning.”

You can’t go out and set up your PLE. You are part of your PLE. You have it already. You can’t seek to personalize your learning – if your learning isn’t already personalized, you’re not learning.

</rant>

on the PLE

Chris posted a question on Twitter today asking for people to send him images representing our PLE (Personal Learning Environment). I sent back a flip, sarcastic response pointing to this photo set, saying that is what my PLE is. I didn’t think much more about it, but then I read later that Chris was taken aback by my (and others’) response. That surprised me, but caused me to take a step back to think about what my PLE really is, and what it would look like if I were to describe it to someone else.

My PLE is in a constant state of flux. My previous response to Chris was that my “PLE is people” (alluding to Soylent Green) – it’s a sarcastic shorthand that I use to mean that the exact technologies that are in use at any particular point in time don’t matter as much as the fact that it is people being connected through them. Tools come and go constantly, and the only constant is that the people are the important part of the equation. At that level, my PLE looks like this:

My (simplified) PLE

I admit that the image is way oversimplified, but the exact incantations of magic varies dramatically over time. For me, it began as BBS over 300 BAUD modems, extending over FidoNet to let me reach people in other cities. When I started my undergrad program, my PLE was listservs and gopher sites. Eventually, my PLE was listservs and community websites. It has occasionally included intense periods of instant messaging and video conferencing (with full screen video conferences combined with VNC screen sharing). This eventually evolved to what my current PLE looks like today:

My (some detail) PLE

Even this diagram is quite oversimplified. The “communities” item is a shorthand for things like project websites, open source project sites, wikis, BaseCamp, etc…

One of the things that I’ve had trouble with is defining what is in my PLE and what isn’t – it varies so rapidly based on context. Even within something like Twitter, there are people whom I consider part of a learning environment, and others are there for social value. They are both valid, but does that make Twitter a PLE tool or something else? Same with blogs. I follow a whole bunch of blogs – many I consider critical to my personal learning environment, but many are there for entertainment, distraction, or social value. Defining “blogs” as PLE or not-PLE isn’t a clean distinction. Even the core PLE blogs vary in content from day to day, so I can’t even provide a list of blog URLs to say “this is my definitive set of PLE-enable blogs that I follow”.

In the end, I sincerely do not mean to belittle or de-emphasize the genuine questions about PLEs – I just struggle to provide a concrete description of something that is by its very nature organic, dynamic, responsive, and intensely, individually unique.

I think the more important question involves the philosophy and strategies that make various tools effective (or not) as part of the “magic happens” cloud that helps connect people. I’m not sure what the concise definition would be, but I believe that it is strongly based on real, meaningful discussions as opposed to static publishing. I believe that it involves community and real involvement and interaction between members of the community. Tools that enable these kinds of interactions are viable candidates for inclusion in a PLE – but even that definition is so vague as to be essentially meaningless.

Update: I generated a new diagram with TouchGraph.com to show how my blog (which is my digital identity) fits into the context of my PLE.

University 2.0?

I’ve been thinking about what some of the possible implications of this various “2.0” stuff might be on Universities (or, I guess, on academic institutions in general). Likely nothing too earthshattering here, just some thoughts that were sparked over the weekend while thinking about the upcoming BCEdOnline fireside chat we’re planning.

Disclaimer: This blog entry is written by myself as an individual, not as a representative of the University of Calgary. I’m not advocating for anything here, just thinking out loud about what some of the implications might be if some trends continue for another 5/10/20 years.

If we assume that things like “web 2.0” tools, and concepts like the “PLE” are going to mature and evolve, and that individuals will be able to effectively manage their own online identities and resources, that has some implications for a University.

If a person is able to manage their own information, outside of the IT-mandated technobubble, they have the ability to negate any monopolistic tendencies of an institution. That is to say, if a student (or faculty member) is able to manage their own online identity and published resources, without the need for direct intervention by an Institution, they will be able to operate outside the boundaries of any single University. Extrapolating this, a student who is able to have relationships with more than one University, and who manages their own PLE, will be able to select what kind of relationship they want to have with each University. Perhaps they take their first-year biology courses from University X, chemistry from University Y, physics from MIT, philosophy from Cambridge, etc… Perhaps a professor is able to teach students who have relationships with any number of institutions (and are located anywhere they’re technically able to access the professor and course materials). In which case, to which University do the student or professor “belong”? Does that even make sense any more?

If individuals are in control of their institutional relationships, what is the role of the institution? Previously, it was (at least partially) to provide services that were not available to individuals without institutional support. Things like email, network access, classrooms, registration systems, scheduling systems, access to researchers, and access to publications were all offered by the University to its faculty, students and staff. If individuals are able to access any of these services as effectively (or moreso) on their own, what is left for the University? Perhaps the primary role becomes as a research institution? It’s still hard for individuals to conduct hard research on their own (chemicals, infrastructure, safety and security, protocols, etc…). Maybe Universities will become hubs of research activities, with teaching and learning under the auspices of the individuals that choose to have a relationship with a University?

So, the Institution becomes a place for individuals to come together to conduct research, and perhaps to facilitate discourse. Teaching and learning activities are perhaps supported by the Institution, but managed by individuals in any number of locations. What happens to curriculum? Degrees? Tenure? How different is this from where we are now?

I’m sure Stephen (one, two, three, four, five, six, seven), David Wiley (eg.), and many others have put much more thought into this than I have.

I’ve been thinking about what some of the possible implications of this various “2.0” stuff might be on Universities (or, I guess, on academic institutions in general). Likely nothing too earthshattering here, just some thoughts that were sparked over the weekend while thinking about the upcoming BCEdOnline fireside chat we’re planning.

Disclaimer: This blog entry is written by myself as an individual, not as a representative of the University of Calgary. I’m not advocating for anything here, just thinking out loud about what some of the implications might be if some trends continue for another 5/10/20 years.

If we assume that things like “web 2.0” tools, and concepts like the “PLE” are going to mature and evolve, and that individuals will be able to effectively manage their own online identities and resources, that has some implications for a University.

If a person is able to manage their own information, outside of the IT-mandated technobubble, they have the ability to negate any monopolistic tendencies of an institution. That is to say, if a student (or faculty member) is able to manage their own online identity and published resources, without the need for direct intervention by an Institution, they will be able to operate outside the boundaries of any single University. Extrapolating this, a student who is able to have relationships with more than one University, and who manages their own PLE, will be able to select what kind of relationship they want to have with each University. Perhaps they take their first-year biology courses from University X, chemistry from University Y, physics from MIT, philosophy from Cambridge, etc… Perhaps a professor is able to teach students who have relationships with any number of institutions (and are located anywhere they’re technically able to access the professor and course materials). In which case, to which University do the student or professor “belong”? Does that even make sense any more?

If individuals are in control of their institutional relationships, what is the role of the institution? Previously, it was (at least partially) to provide services that were not available to individuals without institutional support. Things like email, network access, classrooms, registration systems, scheduling systems, access to researchers, and access to publications were all offered by the University to its faculty, students and staff. If individuals are able to access any of these services as effectively (or moreso) on their own, what is left for the University? Perhaps the primary role becomes as a research institution? It’s still hard for individuals to conduct hard research on their own (chemicals, infrastructure, safety and security, protocols, etc…). Maybe Universities will become hubs of research activities, with teaching and learning under the auspices of the individuals that choose to have a relationship with a University?

So, the Institution becomes a place for individuals to come together to conduct research, and perhaps to facilitate discourse. Teaching and learning activities are perhaps supported by the Institution, but managed by individuals in any number of locations. What happens to curriculum? Degrees? Tenure? How different is this from where we are now?

I’m sure Stephen (one, two, three, four, five, six, seven), David Wiley (eg.), and many others have put much more thought into this than I have.