Post begun April 2009: Strolling through the months' old Bloglines that accumulated while the boys and I were busy moving last year, I try not to stop for long on every interesting post... and that is difficult, particularly when people are kindly sharing their notes from conference sessions and I want to absorb the details. Sigh.
Still, I had to stop when I reached the following slide from Meredith Farkas' presentation at The future is here, library conference in Iceland. (I'd link to that but it was a pdf and it seized for me so I shan't).
Aren't these all subjects that can be learned through professional development, self-education and a capacity to read, experiment, reflect and apply critical thinking?... aside from Management (and possibly not even that), none of these require "higher" education, merely a capacity for informacy, action, reflection and critical thinking.
Today: I've delayed posting this for almost a year. Each time I've begun to contemplate how much of these topics have been addressed throughout my Advanced Diploma course, and independent study I've been distracted. It seems absurd to me that our industry requires a library-degree (or worse a Masters!) for qualification to work as an entry-level librarian, when the job description could be filled by intelligent people with demonstrable knowledge and skills obtained through other means.
So there are a few themes I'd like to explore at some point, though not yet:
The actual skills and knowledge required in the most fundamental librarian positions - (the variety of ways such skills might be obtained and demonstrated/outcomes of LIS program) = should a degree (or whatever) be essential for a librarian position?
If there are certain topics desired to be learned prior to employment as a librarian which aren't in a LIS program does this necessarily mean the subjects should be in a LIS program? Might it be more logical to reconsider the required qualifications for librarianship?
In what ways are LIS Advanced Diploma and Degree programs significantly different and what difference, if any, does this make in job-performance-capacity?
Considering a discussion with my son today about "Don't sweat the small stuff" and "it's all small stuff", I might leave those ideas in the air. Feel free to comment.
Update Feb 2010: I've been informed that George Patterson Y&R were the agency who created this year's poster series for AustraliaDay.org. Hooray :-D I love their VB and LG ads.
Over the weekend, The Courier (Ballarat) displayed an impressive, amusing ad from australiaday.org.au that almost has me planning a BBQ. Unfortunately I couldn't find a good copy of the image anywhere on the Australia Day website, and elsewhere only a scan Viktor Blanke recorded, so my lovely sister scanned the newspaper ad for me.
[Update Australia Day: We did have a BBQ and the boys re-enacted the patriotic advertisement for me]
I've been trying to identify the patriotic propaganda image upon which I believe this is based. Something from the Second World War? At first I thought... the image asking women to take up jobs to support Australia's war effort? But then I found that floating image:
Thus if I read it correctly we (although the preamble refers to artists, that term is not defined and the policy itself grants permission to "You", defined as residents who receive permission, so I guess that means anyone with a camera button) are permitted (so long as we first check in land covenant that it does not prohibit snapshots) to capture and use snapshots of anything displayed in-world.
I had to work out how to do that in the new viewer:
In January 2010 I wrote:
Since returning to Second Life I've been searching for whether there are any particular rules or ethical considerations for publishing snapshots taken within SecondLife?
Would Second Life photographers, bloggers, creators, artists who might happen this way leave a comment with their opinions?
Some of my thoughts at this point:
Places: there are so many beautiful places, but they are someone's intellectual property... is it permissible to go snapping shots and sending them to Flickr in admiration? Is it actually comparable to taking photos of RL private land and buildings?
Assuming this is the case, I've begun posting snapshots of my Second Life travels to Flickr.
Today I chatted with Pipsqueak Fiddlesticks whose elegant creativity (her own and her choice and placement of others') at College of DuPage I have recently discovered and admired. I asked, in relation to SL landscape photography: whether the fact that objects are created puts any object in SL in the same category as artworks, which I believe require (or should require) permission before and attribution with publication of snapshots. We briefly notioned a scale of the nature of works: from art at one end to journalism at another. Pipsqueak said: "does a painter give credit to the company who made her paint" and "did Ansell Adams credit the creator of mountains?" We agreed though, that even in landscape photography there are times when acknowledging an object creator is courteous: such as if an object (say: a tree) is the focal point of the snapshot.
People: my personal ethics require permission to publish from anyone of whom I take a photo or who may appear in a photo. I know the world at large does not agree, but I wish it would :D --- however this will present a challenge if/when I want to blog about an event with a photo. I spent some time pondering how to achieve getting permission from a group of people. No tidy solutions yet.
So far no groups, but in 3/4 situations where I wanted other people in my photos I have obtained their permission both for the photo and for the right to post the photo to Flickr. For example: Cardboard cuppa with Troy Aristocarnas Flickrd with permission.
I admit that I do not recall obtaining permission from Clarissima and Kahuna Schumann to Flickr an image of them giving a concert at Music Island. While I believe it was right to not IM them mid-performance, and probably not right to ask mid-performance? I could have asked the event organiser in IM and if I did do so I have forgotten. Another aspect involved was that I wanted to email to Flickr and didn't want to risk losing the snapshot if I was disconnected while trying to gain permission. I could have saved to disk until I had permission.
Things: I was viewing some wonderful sculptures the other day month... If I were in a RL museum or gallery I believe photos are a no-no. Does that apply in SL? Unresolved at that point I opted not to snap.
So far I am assuming obtaining permission is the ethical approach. Before taking photos of Ritchey's Sealey's works at his gallery in Second Life I obtained his permission to snap and display at Flickr.
Walking past a "snow gum" (2010). Ritchey Sealy kindly resized Snow Gum so I could try to appear to walk among the gums, and gave permission for Flickring the snapshot.
Flickr description: "If you've walked through the Australian bush - Ritchey Sealy's works bring back all the sensations and memories: the heat, the dry dusty air, the prickly scratch of dry grass through sandal or socks, the smell of eucalypt, the bullants. If you're more familiar with our beaches, rocky coast, rivers or hills, Ritchey has captured those sensations too. I am very happy to have discovered Ritchey Sealy's main gallery in Second Life. I've been back a few times, and anticipate repeated visits. Ex-pats: stop by for a touch of home."
Interestingly, in the discussion mentioned below, Lem Skall suggested that the limitations on photography in museums may be less about copyright and more about paranoia (effect of light on exhibits, and examination of security measures).
Next I'll try to remember to check whether the other person prefers to limit my usual CC attrib-noncommercial-sharealike licence. Indeed I should check that with artists who give permission too.
I really ought to have read more before posting. In relation to contents 1 and 3, there was excellent discussion a couple of years ago stimulated by Bettina Tizzy in her post Proper attribution of images taken in virtual worlds at Not Possible in Real Life. Bettina asked "Where do we draw the line? What is the correct (and legal) way to attribute photography and video shot in virtual worlds?"
In the first few days of that discussion, aspects included:
who is the artist? - with related issues of copying or the work/skill/talent involved in obtaining a good photograph of another's creation (Zha Ewry) and inspiration (Venk)
who owns the image?
what are the obligations for attribution?
what are the limits of copyright (Ordinal Malaprop's opinion {expressed before Benjamin had his say} was interesting; as was Solo Mornington's on the rights obtained by purchase, although I don't agree that "come see my land" inherently includes "and take footage of it that you can use for whatever you like")
is it simply a matter of politeness?
does it ultimately all go to intention and context? (Alpha Auer)
for example, is it really only an issue if you have a commercial objective (Lem Skall), or hope to make any sort of gain (Alpha Auerand again)? Princess Ivory, referring to the first point above about how with work and modification a piece of art becomes hers, claims commercial gain is irrelevant - ignoring the issue of whether she first had responsibility to obtain permission to make use of someone else's work to make her art.
can we take guidance from the crediting practice in films: credit only those who create specifically for this film? (Zinc)
similar notions of the scale from journalism to art that Pipsqueak and I touched on (theresecarfagno)
methods of attribution (Alpha Auer recommends for using tags at Flickr)
permission is separate to attribution, but here rose the issue of how onerous it would be to gain permission (Lem Skall) although neither law nor ethics read obey unless it is too hard, and as Alpha Auer pointed, if a real life photographer can do it.
Does the different physics/realities between RL photography and SLcomputergraphicdisplay make a difference beyond semantics (A. Hosho thinks so, though his only point about ethics is in relation to "found art" & modification in relation to which Alpha Auer points out that SL prims are not in the public domain.)
The Linden Labs Terms of Service (TOS) was quoted at length by A.Hosho; although it did not seem to me to support his? point of view: it gave creators intellectual property rights (but not data ownership) limited only by licence to Linden Labs to use creations at their discretion in or out-world and to other users of Second Life "to use your Content for all purposes within the Service". Within, not outside the service.
However, eventually a "legal mind" Benjamin Duranske took the legal thread over to his blog suggesting that attribution is irrelevant, and that copyright includes rights over derivative works and thus requires permission. Lem Skall suggested there that when SL photography is transformative(a term that I gather from his quote of wikipedia arose in a decision not in the Act, and which might be a fair use) rather than derivative then copyright is not breached. A word Lem did not highlight from that quote is aims - with which the wikipedia article identifies the purpose (particularly commercial) as a key issue. That article also suggests that if claiming fair use in this way the onus is on the creator of secondary work to "demonstrate how it either advances knowledge or the progress of the arts through the addition of something new".
Although Kean Kelly at Dreambits: claimed the discussion was about greed & profits I disagree - it was intended and remained mostly about acknowledgement, credit, recognition.
Alex and I trounced Div and Luke at Articulate twice last night.
And yet there were many things (particularly world and people) that none of us could describe well enough for others to recognise. So now I (and future team members) have a new curriculum!
Wikipedia mentions that "it is considered a difficult route to navigate because of the unpredictable winds and currents and the narrowness of the passage."
Did you notice the mention of Francis Drake in the kwout above? He was one of the people the boys could not describe, I'll be checking my own possible memories about him another time. For now, an image of the Portuguese explorer after whom the strait is named:
Test post: How will Blogging with Windows Live Writer work?
Having recently upgraded computer components to enable faster graphics processing for Second Life, Div also recommended I upgrade to Windows 7.
Aside from the rather pretty default desktop view, two nifty features caught my immediate attention:
Sticky notes. I’ve been using these constantly for a variety of to-do lists. I wish I had tried to blog sooner about this because today (as I research to minimise my ignorance) I find that grooveDexter has described how to do the things I’ve wanted to and thought I couldn’t (like strikethrough) and more (creating a shortcut via which one can access a list of ones sticky notes).
Snipping tool. Previously I was in love with Sprint32 and was afraid it might not work in Windows 7… but Windows 7 has its own! Super duper :D
Of course I didn’t think to investigate the features of Windows 7 before now, so I didn’t have any idea about some of the nifty features shown in Getting Started videos (like shaking a window to dislodge other open windows; dragging windows to side of screen to view side by side with other windows).
And it seems there is a lot more I haven’t discovered. Like Windows Easy Transfer that might have done a neater job of importing files from my old hard drive. Ah well. Today at least I learned about Windows Live Writer, which was super-easy to install, and so far is very simple to use – but the ultimate test will be whether it talks to Blogger smoothly. I’m not hopeful: in the past I’ve found Microsoft uses a bundle of such unpleasant html that editing was nasty work.
Woken at 1:21 by Margie's SMS festive greeting; then around 4am worrying until a friend's text around 6am meant I could sleep again. And such a lovely sleep I could then enjoy for three hours until time to help the boys prepare for a seasonal visit with their father's family.
After lunch, GUF and I walked up to Black Hill. I didn't take the camera, but this is an older photo of a path we didn't take today :D It was a lovely walk in the sun, with enough breeze to keep us mostly cool enough. I enjoyed the wind in the trees, feeling the age of the eroding rocks and the passing of time shown in the shrubs crossing paths that were clear last time I was there.
Then this evening I pondered some of the puzzles GUF has been solving in The Eleventh Hour. Codes and puzzles are entertaining though I don't have nearly the gift or penchant for them that GUF has. We discovered that my sight (even requiring glasses) beats his magnifying glasses for finding the hidden mice.
So far with the help of a huge variety of proteins and salted pumpkin seeds, I've managed to get through the day without eating any traditional festive treats. Although once or twice as GUF prepared his sandwiches with Chocka Vlokken, or when I glanced at the tin holding Dutch rusks, or saw the Chocolate Hagel in the cupboard, it was a teensy bit tempting.
Tonight, a subscriber gift from Enniv Zarf in Second Life sent me to his Youtube Channel, and I introduced GUF to the joy of Paul Kwo's piano improvisations. I cannot choose a favourite, but of those I enjoyed tonight, this was the most mellow:
Has your research ever got hung up on pointless clarifications of terminology ... so much that you wonder whether the labels serve any function other than justifying a rehash (or mashup, or "recontextualisation" :D ) of old ideas by giving them new labels?
Today I'm browsing in Second Life letting my recent readings and contemplations on "Information Literacy" (aargh: that terminology is another example giving me grief) moosh themselves around in the back of my head. Having rezzed at the Movie Theatre where I quit at 6am this morning: I was tossing up my somewhat infinite options feeling for a purpose/preference. That is: do I go somewhere to sort my inventory, review my "to do" list, pick an unfinished study topic to pursue, head back to one of the places I've slooged to explore in more detail, explore one of the interesting-sounding places or groups I've noted...etc.
Thankfully, and coincidentally, the Information Literacy Group cut off that random mental browsing with a notice for an upcoming session. Entering the event "From Library 2.0 to Library 3D – Participatory Libraries of Today" into my Magic Compass made me realise I haven't yet visited Infolit iSchool (which belongs to the University of Sheffield). Decision made.
After a broom tour which ended head first in the wall of a hut :D I flew around exploring. I happened upon a structure created during a discussion on the nature of Inquiry Based Learning at the LTEA2008 conference...
Unfortunately I didn't come away with any better understanding of what was supposed to be significant about "Inquiry Based Learning" from any other instructional approach that aims to get students to develop their own questions, explore, discover, synthesise and develop their own answers, or new questions. Considering my own family unschools I was amused to see this comment:
Some glancing mention of assessment was made, but I didn't notice any discussion of whether the programs in which they use any of these "student-centered" approaches experience conflict with expectations in terms of assessment, or consequences or changes in the nature of assessment.
So, I googled elsewhere...
In the process of defining Problem based learning Savery (2006) distinguished it from inquiry-based learning and other experiential approaches to teaching. As he tells it:
In an inquiry-based approach the tutor is both a facilitator of learning (encouraging/expecting higher-order thinking) and a provider of information. In a PBL approach the tutor supports the process and expects learners to make their thinking clear, but the tutor does not provide information related to the problem—that is the responsibility of the learners (p.16)
Which is not quite the sense I received from the session discussers at LTEA although it may be true. It seems like a rather odd distinction.
but as the whole thing has begun to feel like a pointless diversion of my time (except to have developed an inkling that if I ever become involved in instruction I believe I will want to avoid using approach-labels; and I guess that could dry up funding opportunities) - I've decided to leave it there.
