I'm wondering how I happened upon COM125 (the 2007 source of yesterday's notion) to have it in my bloglines. I guess it might have been a link Michael Stephens shared as he was doing a class using a blog around that time too. And I am so very intrigued by the notion of using web2.0 tools for study programs.
Which brings us to the other reason I pinned that last post: 'theory' reminded his class (and attracted my curiosity) of the class studyguide wiki. The teacher appears to have used this as an assessment tool (points for submissions) while providing a mechanism for study in which students collaboratively built notes on the designated topics.
I wish very much that the collaborative components of one of my recent classes could have been done by wiki rather than e-portfolio. Both because I believe more workplaces are experimenting with wiki-style intranets and because it is easier to learn how to use and collaborate with a straightforward wiki than the multiple features of e-portfolio.
In e-portfolio for our separate contributions to be evidenced we were stuck with a jumbling method of commenting (like to a blog post) on someone else's work (with the backwards and forwards of quote and suggestion). While it is possible for group members to edit and work on the same document in eportfolio, it does not keep a history of the edits to evidence who has made what kind of contribution (relevant for assessment).
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Ah that's why we can't vote online
(While I continue to pin new interesting posts through Bloglines I've decided to start unpinning some of the old ones by reflecting on why I wanted to keep it)
Gee, this one I've had since April last year! It caught my eye because I've often thought that automating vote-counting would be nifty. But as Cheilla pointed out (in the summary she tabled and her teacher shared online) as voting is supposed to be anonymous in the online environment protecting anonymity is not compatible with preventing (or detecting and identifying) fraud.
Gee, this one I've had since April last year! It caught my eye because I've often thought that automating vote-counting would be nifty. But as Cheilla pointed out (in the summary she tabled and her teacher shared online) as voting is supposed to be anonymous in the online environment protecting anonymity is not compatible with preventing (or detecting and identifying) fraud.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
What's in those terms of use/service agreements?
Back in February this year another blogger brought up questionable clauses in terms of use or terms of service. I can't remember whether s/he referred particularly to this financial service provider but I've had the quote saved in blogging drafts ever since, till I had more time to think why it bothers me (and I note it could very well have been amended since then:
Why would this provider need copyright and publicity rights to my information? I've seen other service providers be quite clear about specifying that we grant them the right to use our information in order to provide the service we have requested, but this is way more than that: it states "to use the information you supply us with"... isn't that a bit carelessly broad given the right is to be perpetual and irrevocable? Surely the "to use" bit should be "to use only for the services you have requested"?
If this is not significantly suspicious can someone explain why?
"Solely to enable PayPal to use the information you supply us with, so that we are not violating any rights you might have in that information, you agree to grant us a nonexclusive, worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, sublicensable right to exercise the copyright, publicity, and database rights (but no other rights) you have in your information, in any media whether now known or not currently known."
Why would this provider need copyright and publicity rights to my information? I've seen other service providers be quite clear about specifying that we grant them the right to use our information in order to provide the service we have requested, but this is way more than that: it states "to use the information you supply us with"... isn't that a bit carelessly broad given the right is to be perpetual and irrevocable? Surely the "to use" bit should be "to use only for the services you have requested"?
If this is not significantly suspicious can someone explain why?
Saturday, July 05, 2008
Vegetabular
Discussing what to have for tea with the boys I pointed out that we need vegetables.... only the way I was saying it (which I've forgotten) came to requiring a one-word form of "containing vegetables" and I stumbled... vegetablish? vegetablic? vegetabular?
LOL... well can I use them?
I guess not, while others have used vegetabular, vegetablic and vegetablish before; they're not appearing in dictionaries.
LOL... well can I use them?
I guess not, while others have used vegetabular, vegetablic and vegetablish before; they're not appearing in dictionaries.
Word challenge
YAY I finally made a respectable score on Word Challenge (by playfish). (A round in which I recall there were finally no abbreviations or acronymns or foreign words).
My list of words I didn't know is growing, but so is the list of words I'm learning.
I like the way Word Challenge offers the hint of showing how many words are possible and then placing the words one scores with in alphabetical and length order, amongst blanks for those that one hasn't yet found.