Open Mind Project

As someone who’s grown up in an age where being on line, and presenting in an on line world is the norm, it’s interesting to discuss the phenomenon of the people in Second Life, those who retreat almost entirely into that world. As someone who’s not always had the easiest time making friends (along with numerous self-esteem problems) I can understand why it might be nice to slip into a world where you can reinvent yourself. It’s a way to be yourself without actually having to be yourself.
As far as living in Second Life, I don’t really think that’s a good thing. There are many good aspects of having that kind of outlet for people, such as Rodica’s work with those with Aspberger’s syndrome. It extends even further to people who just have a hard time making friends. Somehow it’s easier to interface with a computer than to talk to a human being. The things that you need to learn, the awkwardness that needs to be overcome; Second Life and other programs like that are what can help to teach you that. It’s what you do with it afterwards that its important. Second Life is a step, a way for people to bond. But after that comes moving into the real world. The virtual world may have its perks, but only in the real world can we live.
In further posts, I’ll talk more about how Second Life provides a unique and innovative way to teach classes. Please leave your comments, I’d love to know what you think, whether you’re in the course or not.

I have an aversion to technology. I love my computer and everything, it’s not that. My computer is probably the most useful thing I own. But go beyond my general research skills and I tend to freak out. I have a friend, whom I’ve dubbed the anti-me, who loves programming. He’s even designing his own widgets for his Mac. He goes into this near ecstatic state when he talks about anything like it. So when presented with Scratch I was at an impasse. Here was the thing I’d shunned, the thing I’d made fun of.

The amazing thing was that I could actually use it. I don’t mean to say that in the hour total that I played with the program that I’m now an expert in it. Far from it. But it’s hard for me to see what’s so scary about it now. I’m a writer. And I’ll never be a computer programmer. But it’s pretty nice to see that I’m not as idiotic in that realm.

We talked in class about “learned stupidity.” I’ve got a lot of that in the math and computer science realm. You do badly one too many times, you start to think maybe you should do something else. I’m not a writer because I’m not good at math or computer science. I’m a writer because it’s what gives my life meaning. But it’s nice to know that we all have the capability to do something else, and to enrich what we’re already doing.

In the 9/12 class there was a discussion of Wikipedia, and the criticisms on whether or not Wikipedia can be relied on in the same respect as the Encyclopedia Britannica. Wikipedia is the ultimate in endless knowledge, pages on every subject you could imagine, available at the stroke of a key, and it did not exist until only a few years ago. It strikes me as similar to the Google phenomenon. In class, Charlie asked how many people use Google as their primary tool for clarifying new information. With the advent of Google, everything seemed possible. Of course, there had been search engines before and all the information found had always been there to be found, but it was the speed and depth of Google, which was what made it revolutionary. Type in any word, phrase, or name and in a fraction of a second; you would be given results both mundane and eccentric. So, it is with Wikipedia, which in its English version has now more than a million entries. Wondering when the Clean Water Act was signed? When Andrew Jackson was elected president? Type it into the search bar and watch the articles appear. There is all the information you wanted, all the references, eliminating the need to carry around a heavy book with all the same information. Of course, there are problems with Wikipedia, as there is with Google, because without a ten-person peer review on whatever is returned on the computer screen, there will always be mistakes.
So here is the problem. How can you trust Wikipedia? Well, how can you trust the Encyclopedia Britannica? The Encyclopedia Britannica is a compilation of entries written by one person and reviewed and edited, a repository of knowledge verified, as much as it can be, by fact. But to consider knowledge given down by “experts” in their respective fields, experts though they may be, is to consider that knowledge eradicates all prejudice and that true knowledge can only ever be found in facts in books. Wikipedia dramatically contradicts that notion. By allowing the world to create it, it allows for the integration of factual and practical knowledge on a large scale. Any textbook expert is free to create an entry on Wikipedia and they should, but by allowing open editing, it allows for others who have expertise to talk about the concepts and refine the knowledge. Who’s to say that a third generation Gloucester fisherman understands the migratory patterns of fish in New England or a French youth who actively speaks Verlan (a type of French slang) any less than an academic who’s compiled empirical evidence on the subject it doesn’t, and something must be lost without considering those perspectives. The rough spots in the Encyclopedia Britannica aren’t so cosmetic as those in Wikipedia, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist on all levels. Neither is really better. Only through looking at both, through looking at the academic and the practical, can knowledge flourish.

I’m sure everyone knows that this course is being taught both at the Harvard Law School and at the Harvard Extension School. Speaking 9/12 about their class at a Berkman Center luncheon, Rebecca and Charlie Nesson brought up a very interesting point, about how information produced by scholars at colleges should be transmitted. Should we tape every class and make it available on the internet? Probably not. But Charlie and Rebecca seem to have struck on an interesting way to bring students into the fold in a society that is ever-increasingly placest the highest premium on a good education.
It especially struck a chord for me, as someone in the process of getting a degree in journalism, as to how it is possible to make education available to everyone. Ask anyone with a passing knowledge of journalism history and they can tell you that 20-30 years ago the vast majority of journalists didn’t have college degrees. These days, any journalist thinking of specializing in a specific kind of journalism needs at the least a bachelor’s degree and possibly more. There’s no need to have a journalism, liberal arts or any kind of degree, but it’s what gives you the edge.
I don’t mean to imply this affects just journalism. It’s a market wide symptom. Getting better than a bad-paying job that doesn’t use any of the skills you learned is college is near impossible. Even harder is finding a job that pays off the loans most are faced with getting to attend the centers or higher learning.
My point? With an increased focus on higher education as marker for social wealth, this class seems to break the barriers of what most people are forced to live with, by combining the cream of the crop with those who have a passionate desire to learn without the means necessary to make it happen and moves toward finding some sort of solution to bringing the academics out of the Ivy Tower.

Welcome to this blog! I was asked to start this blog by the Charlie and Rebecca Nesson and I wanted to provide some insights into what this will be about. I called this blog Open Mind Project because it mirrors the scope of this class, looking into more than just what is presented in the class, but what those thoughts lead to. As a journalist, a lot of my commentary will have a media slant. How does what was talked about in class, or projects that are being done matter in the world of media. Please feel free to leave me comments, my ideas about what is going on are only meant to be a jumping-off point.