KerryJ's Neotenous Tech

Archive for the ‘Social networking’ Category

Ah Dilbert! You illustrate so much about what is ridiculous and this strip is a jewel.  Any educator who has been urged to integrate social media into their coursework, any communicator or marketer who has been pressured to “get us into this social media stuff” will relate to this:

Dear Linden Labs, It is often a struggle to convince administrators, policy makers and educators that virtual worlds in general and Second Life in particular are valuable resources for education. Educators I know have worked in their own time, fought the battles with IT to unblock ports and find a reasonable space and afterward, even if they get results, they STILL have to keep on struggling to gain recognition for their work. In short, making a case for the educational benefits can be lonely work. People like Joanna McKay or Jokay Wollongong in world who aggregate information and provide much needed advice, conferences and playspaces are a God-send to educators eager to learn. Her SLeducation Wiki has been a source of information and inspiration for years. So your notice to her that she has to re-name her site because of her use of SL which you’ve apparently trademarked is not only counter-productive to educators wanting to use your site, is not only a killer of a site that markets your services for you by its very nature – it is a slap in the face to your community. I’m assuming you’ll be gunning for SLoodle next? Oh, and  please tell Phillip to stop with the tale-spinning that Second Life, founded on the concept of the Burning Man festival, is an environment about sharing creativity built by and for its “residents”. It’s clearly hypocritical. It’s an environment by and for Linden Lab. But I do thank you for the wake-up call. I hope that others – educators, businesses, entrepreneurs – hear that wake-up call too: you must diversify your explorations of new technologies so that you are not reliant on a particular platform or provider.  Because SLack marketers who are too SLow to consider the community of passionate users that grow up around today’s platforms and brands will SLash their own wrists in an effort to control what they feel is theirs. Sincerely, KerryJ aka Pandora Kurrajong Second Life user since 2007 ReactionGrid / Open Sim user since 2009

I’d like to get your input on what you feel constitutes spam and how much discloure you expect in your network. Some spam is easy to spot – like the spam stunt pictured here in World of Warcraft or the unwanted emails you get when you open your in-box.  Others are more subtle. I’m a regular Twitter user – I treat it like a virtual coffee break where sometimes people can get silly, sometimes they’re profound but because I choose the participants (for the most part) they’re people I know or are friends of friends. Twice now, I’ve had these friends of friends “recommend” books to me based on a topic I raise and I have found the link goes to a site that gives them money for people who buy from the sites. I honestly have nothing against people trying to make a buck.  Or should that be I have nothing against people trying to honestly make a buck?   But when someone recommends a product they are in essence selling in a forum that is not retail in nature but trust-based — isn’t some sort of disclosure appropriate? Something like “I onsell a book about X, DM me if you’d like the link. If not, NP” or “I onsell the sevices/products of this site – let me know what you think.” A person whom I’ve met and who arranges get togethers for geeks recently suggested a site that helps you artificially boost the number of people who follow you on Twitter.  Big turn off here. Trying to rort the system in an attempt to create social status is dishonest.  And it cheapens it for everyone else. So can social media and marketing mix? I think it can, but it is not about spam.  I think it’s more about developing trust relationships and listening. And I feel that when a marketer shares personal information and asks after my health and then doesn’t disclose that he or she will make a buck if I click on a link they suggest, my trust has been violated. And as for the lady who is going to try to artifically boost her crediblity — consider it lost.

Let’s talk, use this amazing vehicle called the internet and Twitter. BUT PRIVATELY. Telstra, a communications company proving it just doesn’t get Web 2.0. Or customer service. Or transparency. Brought to my attention by the fake Stephen Conroy twitter.com/stephenconroy

I’ve been researching virtual worlds for Education.au’s Immersive Learning Unit and had an aha moment this morning in between hitting the snooze button on my N95 that I wanted to commit to pixels before it faded away in the morning routine. The issue of risk management in virtual worlds as with so many other virtual spaces stems from the fact that there are people there we don’t know. Would closed-off virtual worlds created within a school or institution solve the issue of risk while allowing for many of the pedagogical affordances such as collaboration, role playing, simulation building and modeling? Is there value in creating a safe space? But just as we don’t settle for a LAN or a closed off portal alone to solve the issue of viruses, scams and annoying people on the internet — settling for a localised virtual world cuts learners and educators off from their most valuable learning resources: other people and their ideas and information. These closed off environments also create funnels — someone other than the individuals using them decides what is relevant and valuable. If we’re truly going to move towards learner-centred teaching — then allowing a centralised authority to limit access to tools and information and decide what goes on a narrow portal is a ball and chain that has to be severed. Virtual worlds are 3D representations of  web sites.   Each personal plot is a blog or MySpace page in 3D.  Each island or simulation a web site or a series of smaller web sites.  Some of these destinations whether 2D or 3D are fluid, unique, wonderful, valuable and some are dangerous, scary, spammy and flawed.  Why are they this way? Because they are created by PEOPLE and that’s what people are. So, opting for a virtual world that is limited just to one institution is creating a LAN or a closed portal – not a virtual world experience. If educators and learners are limited to password protected virtual portals or LANs — on the net or in the virtual worlds space — they are shut off from a universe of original thinking, unique experiences andopportunities to broaden their worlds.  Plus, it prevents both groups from learning the digital literacy skills they need to have to be fully realised as citizens of the 21st century. Virtual worlds like the 2 D internet offer a wealth of experiences – one institution or jurisdiction cannot possibly create them all. And if they did, what a homogenous world it would be. PS: You may be asking yourself – what’s up with that photo? It is of a group of valued friends/colleagues  (and our waiter) that are an important part of my life and constantly enrich it with their insights, knowledge, friendship and laughter.  I got to know them all in Second Life. So glad I didn’t get limited to a LAN or portal or single closed off island.