I realized if I made good, informed decisions I could solve problems in both normal and edge cases. Instead of a one-time answer, I could build a framework to answer any question. A mentality. The outcome of finding the answer, solving the problem, sharing the solution—rewards this mindset. A loop. Doing it over and over.
Journalism without effect does not deserve the special place in democracy that it tries to claim.
But rather than the headlines reflecting the most important events, perhaps they should reflect the most pernicious misconceptions. Good journalists already have some sense of this, and every so often we learn of an alarming gap in public knowledge.
Jonathan Stray’s latest masterpiece. As he notes, journalism must be about improving the day-to-day functioning of a society.
A bit about school from an excellent short essay by Jonathan Harris:
The class was a crash course in things that are usually picked up slowly and by accident, like lost coins, over the course of your life. This class was so memorable because it was so little like school, and so much like life. School is basically a way of keeping people occupied — a theatrical set piece designed to take up time and spit out consenting consumers.
Any adult knows that what he really knows he did not learn in school. The gradual accumulation of experience is really how we learn. But unlike school, life is unpredictable, so it would be dangerous to leave the teaching of life to life. Just think how much would get left out of the curriculum, and how hard it would be to standardize tests!
Difficult to pull just one quote from the recent Mark Pesce article but this is my favorite:
we need to think of every educator in Australia as a contributor of value. More than that, we need to think of every student in Australia as a contributor of value. That’s the vital gap that must be crossed.
The article is one of the clearer statements of what we can do in education by incrementally changing ourselves.
A few weeks ago Religion Dispatches published an article about medieval manuscripts and multitasking. The point is that for centuries our minds have referenced texts on multiple levels; the internet did not inherently create this distraction. There is also this gem from a David Brooks column:
The Internet-versus-books debate is conducted on the supposition that the medium is the message. But sometimes the medium is just the medium. What matters is the way people think about themselves while engaged in the two activities.
Here are some scattered annotations on what Pesce discusses:
- The arrival of the web as appliance (14:00)
- The depth of a universally connected world is the individual (~18:00)
- Once meaning is exposed it can be manipulated (20:00)
- Books are standing on a threshold (23:30)
- Personal health and medication management (or, the concept of a device as an interface to ourselves) (28:00)
An interesting project is underway that seeks to create a model for book publishing that can thrive on the web and across devices. More intriguing, though, is that the founders are taking WordPress as their starting point and developing the software through plugins. There’s even been a prototype book release.
Looking back over four years at Whitman, I am disappointed and frustrated with a system that could be doing so much. I think that there is a severe lack of encouragement and valuation of open knowledge systems at Whitman. While disappointing for my four years here, there is quite a bit that future students can do to force the institution to recognize the value of these learning systems.
These open systems can take many forms but essentially boil down to one key aspect: the ease with which others can view and contribute to the information being produced on campus. The tools should be public-facing, open to public contributions and use standards-based, open source software.
There are some cases of real innovation at Whitman, but, unfortunately, they are few and far between. They are the exceptions that prove the rule of confined learning. There must be a conscious shift toward a more open and collaborative educational environment. Even though this did not happen during my four years on campus I think that there is a tremendous amount of potential for Whitman to change, and to change rapidly, in the coming years.
First, if it wants to maintain its status as an elite liberal arts college that encourages students to address problems in new and critical methods, Whitman must do far more to encourage participation in open systems of knowledge.
Mark Pesce writes that, “The educational field does not recognize the boundaries of the classroom, the institution, or even the nation.” Education in general may not recognize these boundaries, but Whitman solidifies them. Classes here have driven home the idea that the legitimate participants in a discussion are those within the classroom.
In order to effectively address societal issues Whitman must produce knowledge that is open and public. It must create an environment within which students conceptualize knowledge as something that is a public good. It must seek to create databases of knowledge that are available to all online in a searchable, standards-based format.
Finally, it must work to actively create knowledge that is not just the privileged possession of its student body. If everything is kept within a tiny campus of 1,400 students Whitman will not be able to enact the type meaningful change it champions.
Don’t read this as a typical “break out of the Whitman bubble” argument. What I think Whitman can do goes far deeper than that. Whitman has the ability to re-conceptualize how information and knowledge are produced on a college campus.
The tools exist that would allow students to start creating knowledge that will be accessible to them, to their classmates and to the broader public for the coming decades. What is left is for departments on campus to recognize the validity of open learning and incorporate it into their curriculum. By calling for an end to assignments that never leave the walls of Whitman and organizing together outside of class to take part in public-facing discussions about their education, students can spur this change.
If we cordon off the knowledge produced in undergraduate education to a series of inaccessible PDFs and archaic printed copies we lose everything we’ve learned in the four years here. Put knowledge online, make it public, make it accessible. Make assignments carry weight and authority for the years after school.
Whitman needs to reframe knowledge as a collective endeavor instead of an individual possession. If others can see what has come before them then they can truly start working on the problems of tomorrow.
Whitman is a great institution and, because of its size and student body, could be doing really innovative things with its academic programs. Instead, Whitman classes recycle the same types of learning and assessments. This no longer works and, more importantly, is not what Whitties need if we are to go on to positions of leadership in our world. We need a Whitman College that embraces knowledge systems open to all and information that remains accessible beyond the confines and comfort zones of classrooms.
In an effort to start tracking some of the ideas I have while reading I want to start making note of ideas and questions that come up here. This is the first of such posts and we’ll see what form they take in the future.
Interesting article that examines some of the frustrations with current systems for tracking reading habits. Since I just finished writing an article for The Whitman Pioneer about open knowledge systems this got me thinking:
- What if colleges started working together on building an open standard for tracking reading? I’m thinking of a system that would get me set up as a Freshman with a way to keep track of every article, journal essay, and book that I read while in school. Then, when I graduate I can either move the system to my server, or the college provides an export file to import into various other services. If I could go back four years and be presented with a choice between a school that had this system and one that didn’t I know which I would pick in a heartbeat.
- Could we conceive of a service that would not only track reading but track conversations about books? What if I could record conversations with others about a book and upload them to a service, forever associating that conversation with that reading experience?
- What good is it to track book titles and authors if I don’t also have a canonical, searchable copy of that book online?
Long feature piece from The New York Times about the various ways people are tracking data about their everyday lives. It turns out that seemingly mundane things can offer remarkable insight into how our minds and bodies work. Couple points about this:
- All (unless I missed one) of the services mentioned are owned by single companies. Some, in the case of Nike+, by massive corporations. I think there’s a huge opportunity for someone to come up with an open source data tracking system that allows users to own their data. Follow up: what happens to all this wonderful, data-driven insight when these companies go out of business?
- How can we tie this data-tracking to business interactions? What ways could I track data that would reveal the companies that most consistently affect my day in a positive way?
- Academically, it’d be interesting to track attention during a semester-long course to see which subjects and discussions were most captivating.
Next week is the second iteration of BarCamp NewsInnovation Philadelphia. One of the ideas for a session is discussing the current state of knowledge management systems. Daniel Bachhuber describes this as:
how news organizations manage all of the data they’re privy to that is either stored in structured format or could be stored in a structured format if they had the tools to do so.
In preparation for the session there’s a thread going on Hacks/Hackers about what could be covered in such a session. Since I can’t make it out to Philly I wanted to outline my thoughts here.
I’m interested in three broad ideas about the way a knowledge management system could be effectively deployed in a news organization.
Cross-platform tracking of information
- Can knowledge be tracked in standard formats so that a news organization’s KMS is valuable to non-news organizations as well?
- What would it look like for various newsrooms to aggregate and integrate what is contained in their KMS? More importantly what would it look like if we had a system of standards-based KMSes from various fields that could be plugged into each other? What would the role of a news organization be here?
Role of a KMS in mobile
- How can we present all of this data in a way that not only works for the desktop environment but is also discoverable enough for mobile users?
- What forms could a KMS take that makes information even more relevant to mobile users?
Role of a KMS in ongoing coverage
- What are the ways that this structured knowledge repository can be used to analyze and make adjustments to a news organization’s coverage?
- Can tracking user interaction with the products of a KMS help us to create more (in both a quantitative and qualitative sense) journalism?
- Do the views of a news organization’s topics of importance mesh with a community’s?
For those interested in this session I would also recommend this discussion with David Siegel about the semantic web and the notion of a pull economy of information. This post from “the human network” is also worth reading as a background for the discussion.
Those are just some brief thoughts for now. Wish I could be there in Philly but I look forward to tracking the conversations on Twitter.