Howard Rheingold's Library tagged no_tag →  View Popular

When it works right, an online gathering is a kind of organized
mind

pool. Everyone picks each other's brains. The informal nature
of online

conversation encourages people's amazing generosity in sharing
the things

that they know. It's a potluck for the mind.

The sysops don't create the information and sell it to everyone
so much

as the people themselves create the information and share it with
each

other. In a way we who manage online services are like operators
of a

picnic ground. We provide the tables and the people bring the
food.

The information doesn't flow in a top-down manner, but rather


horizontally among the peer group of the participants. I like
to call it

a People's Think Tank. People join online systems because they
are useful

personal tools. The horizontal information flow is really a by-product
of

this, but it has, I believe, a deep and abiding importance to
all of us.

Because the free flow of information among the people is essential
to the

health of a democratic society.

This is one of the most important decisions one has to make
in the online

realm, both as a provider and a user of a service. There is a
definite

tradeoff that will occur with either choice. One the side of anonymity


you have: easy entry, greater safety, more freedom to play with
one's

whims and fantasies and higher population. With declaration of
your real

identity you get: commitment, greater likelihood that people will
be

truthful with each other, stronger chance that relationships formed


online will blend into long-lasting "real life" relationships,
increased

confidence that minors could participate without being tricked,
and a

lower population.

My bias is towards declaring because when people don't have
to take

responsibility for what they say, then some of them will say a
lot of

irresponsible things. In an open group discussion, the signal
to noise

ratio develops a poor balance. Some situations are fine for open,
"who

cares" anonymity - single topic chats related to events like
the Super

Bowl, reader comments about specific current event topics, entertainment


and fantasy sites that are focused on that purpose - but community
as I

define the word isn't likely to develop from it.



Because we chose depth, reality and commitment, at the WELL, we
required

that people say who they really are

We knew we'd have to do something so we came up with a compromise
that

works quite well: you don't have to use your real name and you
don't have

to list your email address unless you want to, but you do have
to have a

consistent identity and you have to tell us, the managers of the
system,

who you really are so we can have a legitimate business and legal


relationship with you.

While system managers or hosts usually have the ability to
remove or

"censor" a given comment, I discourage it as a practice.
And I especially

dislike the approach where there are paid censors who prescreen


everything to make sure it conforms to their standards. Better
for

people to speak freely and frankly to each other because when
each

individual knows that he or she may speak freely and that they
in fact

take full responsibility for what they say, then it improves the
content

of the system.

I encourage all online systems to be places where controversial
subjects

may be discussed in a civilized way. Of course, how you defines


"civilized" determines what you will allow. I frown
on ad hominems,

personal harassment, and threats but otherwise give wide berth
to the

variety of tastes and styles found wherever individuals gather.

However, a problem can arise if you have a registration system
that

allows the person to make public comments before you validate
their

entry. If someone is a nuisance to the other participants and
you can't

get them to stop and decide you must bar their entry, it can become
a

kind of game for the other person to continually come back in
under new

names and make the same comments. Then you either let them control
the

conversation or you have to assign someone to spend considerable
time

following them around erasing their remarks. So, again, a decision
has

to be made between easy entry and ability to control the conversation


when necessary. You could just let anyone say anything at all
and

declare that anything goes, but those looking for some subtlety
in human

communication won't stick around.

In the online environment, just like any other social situation,
the

basic currency is human attention. In the public forums, you communicate


with groups that may have as many as several hundred people involved
-

even if they don't all make comments.

Some people make so many comments they seem primarily interested
in the

attention, but many people don't say anything at all. In fact,
most

people who use online services don't post any comments. They lurk.
In

the world of online services theory the lurker/poster ratio is
one of the

indicators. Ten or more lurkers for every poster is common. Many
people

who do post comments are aware of this fact and orate at times
as if they

are addressing the Roman Senate, the online Continental Congress,
or the

lunchtime crowd at Hyde Park. I have heard online discussion called,


"writing as a performing art." It sometimes reminds
me of Amateur Night

at the Apollo or the Gong Show, because you don't know what reaction


people may have to the comment you make. Maybe you won't get any


reaction. Maybe you'll get email voicing support or dissent, maybe


someone will take you on in the discussion, or maybe you will
have said

something good enough to warrant a string of online "amens."
At any

rate, many are reticent to say anything at all because of this
version of

stage fright, while others take to it like Vaudeville troupers.
An

online system is a place where you have to give yourself permission
to

step out and participate.

There is concern amongst some participants that a topic or
a forum won't

feel "safe" to them. This elusive quality of safety
depends on a few

factors. The size of the group, the nature of the subject matter,
the

personalities of the people who happen to be in there talking,
and the

way that forum is hosted.

A forum environment that has a hostile atmosphere will discourage


participation by those who have less aggressive tendencies. The
hosting

is important because in overseeing the discussion, you don't want
things

to sink down too far but setting too high of a standard for "niceness"


can also kill off a discussion before anything worthwhile gets
figured

out. That means that some temperatures will rise some of the time.


There will always be some rough spots whenever a group works to
define

itself. Without any ferment at all, the "brew" will
quickly go flat.

Some of the arguments and debates we've had over the years
have been

pointless personal hassles, but many have led us to a fuller

understanding of what we were as an entity, or what we thought
we ought

to be. It is important to note that policy and custom has been
shaped at

times by arguments and hassles that were often quite personal
in nature.

Like everything else in a scene there is a lot of blending of
different

elements. Disagreement about a point or a matter of principle
can get

complicated when mixed in with dislike for the other person's
style or

personality.

There is, however, always a challenge for the regulars to remember
what

it is like for a newcomer.

It must be remembered by all that newcomers are essential to
the survival

of the group because they refresh the place, strengthen its vitality
and

replace the people who move on. Without ne

Your primary job

As manager of an online service, everything you do boils down
to one

thing: keep the dialogue going.

The real fuel that drives the engine of online interaction
is enthusiasm.

And you work to build and preserve that just as much as you work
to keep

the equipment together.

An informal atmosphere

You need to have rules and policies, but leave a lot of room
for judgment

calls. I like to run it similar to the way they referee NBA basketball


games. There actually is a certain amount of body contact that
goes on,

but at some point you decide to blow the whistle and call a foul.

While I believe that it is important to have wide acceptance
of various

personal codes of conduct, I do like to cultivate a social atmosphere


where it's basically not OK to be a jerk. What that means in practical


terms is rightfully a hot, ongoing discussion topic that helps
a group

arrive at its social equilibrium.

Suggestions and advice happen at one time or another in just
about every

area of a system. In that sense the whole thing is like one huge


suggestion box. While you don't have to do everything that everyone


tells you, and ultimately you make the decisions, it is essential
that

people know that you are listening and that you not only listen
to advice

and suggestion, you welcome it.

You need a big fuse

If you want to manage an online system that is devoted to the
free

exchange of ideas and opinions, then you need to have your tolerances
set

very high so that you don't melt down when the disagreement gets
too

thick.

There will always be people who disagree with your views or
your approach

and sometimes they may even be right. This is your opportunity
to show

what you mean by tolerance, because you have to expect a certain
amount

of criticism and you can't freak out when you get it.

My own preference for censoring or removing a comment is that
if someone

says something that is outright illegal such as, "hey everybody,
I just

found this credit card. Here's the number!" then you remove
it. But if

it's something controversial or personally offensive, then I prefer
to

let the comment stay there and perhaps make a comment after it,
saying

something like, "here is an example of a truly offensive
comment which

says a lot more about the person making it than the person to
whom it is

directed."

Then there is the more extreme action: booting someone off
of the system.

In the six years I was at the WELL, we did this only three times.
At The

Gate, in three years, we have done it twice. I feel booting should
be

limited almost soley to deep and repeated harassment by one person
to

another.

Principles of Cyberspace Innkeeping

The currency is human attention. Work with it. Discourage abuse
of it.

You are in the relationship business.

Welcome newcomers. Help them find their place.

Show by example.

Strive to influence and persuade.

Have a big fuse. Never let the bottom drop out.

Use a light touch. Don't be authoritarian.

Affirm people. Encourage them to open up.

Expect ferment. Allow some tumbling.

Don't give in to tyranny by individual or group.

Leave room in the rules for judgment calls.

Encourage personal and professional overlap.

Think "tolerance."

Published well before the digital revolution, the work addresses the implications of modern communications technologies only in a cursory and fragmentary fashion. Habermas’ work on the public sphere is frequently attacked by post–modernists who question the emancipatory potentials of its model of consensus through rational debate.

It must be noted and emphasised that the term Öffentlichkeit, the original term for its better known translation "public sphere," is conceptual rather than physical. The public sphere is "not a marketplace, nor is it a coffeehouse, a salon, an organisation or a newspaper" (Hinton, 1998). Rather, the public sphere transcends these physical appearances as an abstract forum for dialogue and ideology–free public opinion, a lively debate on multiple levels within society.

Rheingold (1998), although generally quite upbeat about the opportunities of the new medium, believes this conclusion to be premature. He stresses the importance of active participation: Electronic media do offer a unique channel for publishing and communicating, which is fundamental to democracy. Communication media are necessary but not sufficient for self–governance and healthy societies: "When we are called to action through the virtual community, we need to keep in mind how much depends on whether we simply ‘feel involved’ or whether we take the steps to actually participate in the lives of our neighbours, and the civic life of our communities."

Earlier, Rheingold (1994) argued that the ICT industry is a business like any other, viewed primarily as an economic player: "Telecommunications gives certain people access to means of influencing certain other people’s thoughts and perceptions, and that access — who has it and who doesn’t have it — is intimately connected with political power. The prospect of the technical capabilities of a near–ubiquitous high–bandwidth Net in the hands of a small number of commercial interests has dire political implications. Whoever gains the political edge on this technology will be able to use the technology to consolidate power."

Two powerful and opposed images of the future of communications technology exist. There is the utopian vision of the electronic agora made possible by new technology and implemented through decentralised networks: "This technology, if properly understood and defended by enough citizens, does have democratizing potential in the way that alphabets and printing presses had democratizing potential" (Rheingold, 1994). Rheingold stresses the importance to hear from the other side: "We owe it to ourselves and future generations to look closely at what the enthusiasts fail to tell us, and to listen attentively to what the skeptics fear."

The second argument focuses around the way traditional notions of privacy are challenged by the "transparency" of digital information and the potential of interactive networks for gathering information, for panoptic surveillance, for control and misinformation of citizens, a process which could possibly undermine or even eliminate discourse within the public sphere. Michel Foucault’s describes the concept of Bentham’s panopticon, the inspection house, as a metaphor for social surveillance. His examination of the constructions by which elites exercise and maintain power in order to control the masses greatly influenced the debate on the public sphere.

The panopticon, Foucault argued, is not a value–neutral technology. It is a technology that allows a small number of people to control a large number of others that comes in many guises:

"Compared to the traditional media, many more people have access to debate and opportunities for the formation of political will. They also have access to information that is hard to obtain from traditional news media." Yet she considers commodification of the Internet as inevitable, and that the Internet will become commodified; "the process has already begun." The original Internet custom of sharing information freely within the community is diminishing (Thornton, 1996).

As for the participants in the public sphere on the Internet, Thornton diagnoses a tendency towards reframing identities, a shift from "citizens" to "consumers": Publicity becomes more prevalent as a mode of discourse, "Public" slides into "publicity" as the notion of "character" is steadily replaced by "image." Yet the Internet, Thornton concludes, does provide opportunities for revitalisation of the public sphere. Limited to privileged groups, they still represent an increase in the activities of the public sphere, however modest: "If Internet use expands into middle–income groups, lower–income groups and women, it may yet present a real opportunity for greater participation, democratic communication and a true revitalisation of the public sphere"

Not just the structure of the mass media, the entire society is subject to change as new network structures come into place. The technological infrastructure of communication networks is influencing the social structure of society; its development is closely related to the development of social structures in a process of interchange and mutual dependence [13].

Theoretically, a network is both able to disperse and to concentrate power. In practice, however, there is a definite tendency towards concentration of power when no adequate measures are taken to counteract this process, van Dijk argues. He concludes that society is increasingly organised in network structures, which fulfil vital economic functions in increasingly complicated systems [14]. As modern society’s dominating structure, networks are quintessential to the future of the public sphere.

The national embeddedness of the public sphere and public opinion no longer goes unquestioned and the formation of public opinion increasingly takes place across national boundaries. A transnational if not global public sphere has emerged as a forum for political discussion and opinion formation. Although news media increasingly transcend national borders, this process does not automatically create a public sphere at a transnational or global level.

At the same time, Hjarvard argues, it is often the case that major decisions and actions concerning transnational or global matters take place without intense public attention. They may often receive news coverage, "but rarely do they induce a transnational dialogue involving people other than cosmopolitan elites."

Clearly, processes of globalisation and media concentration affect the public sphere. Hjarvard identifies the process of globalisation as a powerful factor in the gradual deterritorialisation of the public sphere. At the same time, he points at the danger of its fragmentation: Media globalisation does not automatically entail the creation of a singular global public sphere, but rather a process of gradual blurring and differentiation of the public sphere to a multi–layered media structure, accompanied by an increase in interconnections: "Media are becoming independent institutions that do not share the social geography of other political or cultural institutions" (Hjarvard, 2000).

We have seen that the emergence and convergence of the electronic mass media have radically changed the notion of the public sphere. Its concept transcends these physical appearances, it has survived post–modern critique and it is still very much alive in the network society today. Its strength lies in the presumption of reason, the human ability to define and solve problems.

The public sphere is alive and well, although it will never be quite the same. Habermas’ coffeehouse discourse has evolved in the direction of mediated communication within electronic networks: Its future is with the digital media, which offer exciting possibilities as digital networks enhance and change social structures. In a sense, the public sphere has always been virtual: Its meaning lies in its abstraction. Habermas’ classical argument that the public sphere is intermittently threatened by — latent — power structures that attempt to inhibit and control the individual is undoubtedly correct. Yet at the same time, groups and individuals can indeed accomplish change by communicative action, and digital communications technology may empower them to do so.

In that old paradigm - to which many editors and journalists still cling - news was one-way traffic. We conceived it. We gathered it. We published it and broadcast it. It was justification enough that people bought our newspapers or tuned in to our radio and TV channels.

Blogging turns that model on its head. It allows people to question the information we provide. It allows them to produce their own information. It offers them a space to air their own views.

I have tended to predict that future news organisations will consist of a small hub of "professional journalists" at the centre with bloggers (aka amateur journalists/citizen journalists) on the periphery. In other words, us pros will still run the show.

I'm altogether less certain about that model now. First, I wonder whether us pros are as valuable as we think. Second, and more fundamentally, I wonder whether a "news organisation" is as perfect a model as we might think.

The growth of media in the last century or so has been dominated by the growth of big media, which really means the growth of big media people, whether they be individual entrepreneurs or corporate chiefs. It is entirely conceivable that the digital revolution may, in the fullness of time, sweep the media mogul aside.

When we journalists talk about integration we generally mean, integrating print and online activities. But the true integration comes online itself. The integration between journalists and citizens. Of course, there should be no distinction between them. But journalists still wish to see themselves as a class apart.

We have to open ourselves up to a new thought process. There is no us and them. I had a sudden thought to end this posting with a Marxist-style call to arms: "Bloggers of the world unite". But it is the lack of unity that makes blogging so vibrant, so critical and also so self-critical. And, of course, so revolutionary.

. Increasingly, we are not seeking information out – instead, it finds us. The scarcity is not in information, but in our time to wade through it, make meaning of it, and act on it.

Information is changing, and so journalists must too. I

In this part I want to look at personnel – and how we might move from a generic, hierarchy of ‘reporters’, ’subs’ and ‘editors’ to a more horizontal structure of roles based on information types.




Quality versus quantity




The strategy of many news organisations so far has been to simply require existing journalists and editors to do more – to make videos and podcasts, take photos and write blogs; to scour social networks and forums and video sites; to encourage user generated content and audience participation. Some have created new positions for community editors, Flash developers and even ‘Data Delivery Editors‘, but those positions are still relatively rare – and the skillsets to do those jobs, even rarer.




I’ve identified 6 journalist roles based on 3 core types of information that I see journalists dealing with in a networked environment. Perhaps you can suggest other roles – or other types of information: This is by no means a complete list.




The 3 types of information:



• Feeds (RSS) – not just from news sites and blogs, but anywhere. This post on Passive Aggressive Newsgathering has more.
• Social networks – online and offline. You might have called them ‘contacts’ before, but the online element puts things on a different scale and footing. And here’s why: contacts should now be as likely to seek you out, as vice versa.
• Databases - publicly available, accessed through processes such as Freedom of Information requests, and built in-house.

he strategy of many news organisations so far has been to simply require existing journalists and editors to do more – to make videos and podcasts, take photos and write blogs; to scour social networks and forums and video sites; to encourage user generated content and audience participation. Some have created new positions for community editors, Flash developers and even ‘Data Delivery Editors‘, but those positions are still relatively rare – and the skillsets to do those jobs, even rarer.




I’ve identified 6 journalist roles based on 3 core types of information that I see journalists dealing with in a networked environment. Perhaps you can suggest other roles – or other types of information: This is by no means a complete list.




The 3 types of information:



• Feeds (RSS) – not just from news sites and blogs, but anywhere. This post on Passive Aggressive Newsgathering has more.
• Social networks – online and offline. You might have called them ‘contacts’ before, but the online element puts things on a different scale and footing. And here’s why: contacts should now be as likely to seek you out, as vice versa.
• Databases - publicly available, accessed through processes such as Freedom of Information requests, and built in-house.

The strategy of many news organisations so far has been to simply require existing journalists and editors to do more – to make videos and podcasts, take photos and write blogs; to scour social networks and forums and video sites; to encourage user generated content and audience participation. Some have created new positions for community editors, Flash developers and even ‘Data Delivery Editors‘, but those positions are still relatively rare – and the skillsets to do those jobs, even rarer.




I’ve identified 6 journalist roles based on 3 core types of information that I see journalists dealing with in a networked environment. Perhaps you can suggest other roles – or other types of information: This is by no means a complete list.




The 3 types of information:



• Feeds (RSS) – not just from news sites and blogs, but anywhere. This post on Passive Aggressive Newsgathering has more.
• Social networks – online and offline. You might have called them ‘contacts’ before, but the online element puts things on a different scale and footing. And here’s why: contacts should now be as likely to seek you out, as vice versa.
• Databases - publicly available, accessed through processes such as Freedom of Information requests, and built in-house.



The 6 new journalist roles:




The Aggregator-Sub

The Aggregator-Sub

In the traditional newsroom, the sub sat between the journalist’s content and the reader. In the 21st century newsroom, this is inverted. In a world of information overload, those subbing skills take on a new role to collect feeds together (aggregating), identify the useful and relevant stuff (filtering), publish it (bookmark-blogging), identify legal issues and verify where necessary.

he Mobile Journalist (MoJo)

As news organisations cut the budgets and focused on efficiencies, reporters found it harder and harder to justify time outside the office, becoming increasingly reliant on public relations and official sources in their pursuit of regular, reliable copy.

Ironically, one of the most positive developments of networked technologies is to enable journalists to leave the office while still being connected via mobile phone and 3G/wifi-enabled laptop.

The MoJo, then, is permanently ‘on the road’, Twittering as they go, streaming live video from their phone and posting raw audio from the field. They have a brief to dig out the people and stories that are offline – and give them an online presence

The Mobile Journalist (MoJo)

As news organisations cut the budgets and focused on efficiencies, reporters found it harder and harder to justify time outside the office, becoming increasingly reliant on public relations and official sources in their pursuit of regular, reliable copy.

Ironically, one of the most positive developments of networked technologies is to enable journalists to leave the office while still being connected via mobile phone and 3G/wifi-enabled laptop.

The MoJo, then, is permanently ‘on the road’, Twittering as they go, streaming live video from their phone and posting raw audio from the field.

The Data Miner

The investigative journalist of the 21st century is someone who can work with databases and spreadsheets, picking out interesting patterns, pushing the powerful for data, and having an understanding of the vagaries of statistics. Adrian Holovaty’s ChicagoCrime.org is the godfather of the form, while the New York Times recently launched its own Visualisation Lab. More recent examples include Stephen Grey, Heather Brooke, Louise Acford, and Dominic Casciani.

The investigative journalist of the 21st century is someone who can work with databases and spreadsheets, picking out interesting patterns, pushing the powerful for data, and having an understanding of the vagaries of statistics. Adrian Holovaty’s ChicagoCrime.org is the godfather of the form, while the New York Times recently launched its own Visualisation Lab. More recent examples include Stephen Grey, Heather Brooke, Louise Acford, and Dominic Casciani.

For an idea of the job spec, here is what the Chicago Tribune was asking of applicants, and here is what the Roanoke Times expected the person to do. For examples of database journalism in action, see my Delicious bookmarks on the topic.

The Multimedia Producer

For all the quality versus quantity arguments, there is nothing inherently wrong with some journalists becoming jacks of all trades (after all, that’s what they have had to be editorially). An understanding of how a story or issue can be explored on a range of media makes a significant difference in how you come up with story ideas and gather information.

The Multimedia Producer has this understanding, and most likely technical skills across audio, video and image production, blogging, using databases, mapping and mashups. They may not do all the work themselves – for example, working with Flash developers on database-driven interactives, or asking a MoJo to get a particular piece of video – but they can see the possibilities.

The Multimedia Producer

For all the quality versus quantity arguments, there is nothing inherently wrong with some journalists becoming jacks of all trades (after all, that’s what they have had to be editorially). An understanding of how a story or issue can be explored on a range of media makes a significant difference in how you come up with story ideas and gather information.

The Multimedia Producer has this understanding, and most likely technical skills across audio, video and image production, blogging, using databases, mapping and mashups. They may not do all the work themselves – for example, working with Flash developers on database-driven interactives, or asking a MoJo to get a particular piece of video – but they can see the possibilities.

The Networked Specialist

This is the specialist reporter for the 21st century: now it’s not just about knowing their subject area, and the big names, but also being visibly networked in that environment, blogging, vlogging, bookmarking and commenting across their specialist parts of the blogosphere.

The Networked Specialist

This is the specialist reporter for the 21st century: now it’s not just about knowing their subject area, and the big names, but also being visibly networked in that environment, blogging, vlogging, bookmarking and commenting across their specialist parts of the blogosphere.

Community Editor

I said earlier that the online element puts community contacts on a different scale and footing. Sources become collaborators, co-writers and distributors, and the Community Editor’s role is to manage that, building communities, helping start or fuel conversations, preventing them turning nasty, supporting users, inviting guidance and help, and assisting them in certain projects.

Community Editor

I said earlier that the online element puts community contacts on a different scale and footing. Sources become collaborators, co-writers and distributors, and the Community Editor’s role is to manage that, building communities, helping start or fuel conversations, preventing them turning nasty, supporting users, inviting guidance and help, and assisting them in certain projects.

All this is conventional, except for the projection forward of present-day
mechanisms and gadgetry. It affords an immediate step, however, to associative
indexing, the basic idea of which is a provision whereby any item may be caused
at will to select immediately and automatically another. This is the essential
feature of the memex. The process of tying two items together is the important
thing.

When the user is building a trail, he names it, inserts the name in his code
book, and taps it out on his keyboard. Before him are the two items to be
joined, projected onto adjacent viewing positions. At the bottom of each there
are a number of blank code spaces, and a pointer is set to indicate one of
these on each item. The user taps a single key, and the items are permanently
joined. In each code space appears the code word. Out of view, but also in the
code space, is inserted a set of dots for photocell viewing; and on each item
these dots by their positions designate the index number of the other item.

Thereafter, at any time, when one of these items is in view, the other can be
instantly recalled merely by tapping a button below the corresponding code
space. Moreover, when numerous items have been thus joined together to form a
trail, they can be reviewed in turn, rapidly or slowly, by deflecting a lever
like that used for turning the pages of a book. It is exactly as though the
physical items had been gathered together from widely separated sources and
bound together to form a new book. It is more than this, for any item can be
joined into numerous trails.

The owner of the memex, let us say, is interested in the origin and properties
of the bow and arrow. Specifically he is studying why the short Turkish bow was
apparently superior to the English long bow in the skirmishes of the Crusades.
He has dozens of possibly pertinent books and articles in his memex. First he
runs through an encyclopedia, finds an interesting but sketchy article, leaves
it projected. Next, in a history, he finds another pertinent item, and ties the
two together. Thus he goes, building a trail of many items. Occasionally he
inserts a comment of his own, either linking it into the main trail or joining
it by a side trail to a particular item. When it becomes evident that the
elastic properties of available materials had a great deal to do with the bow,
he branches off on a side trail which takes him through textbooks on elasticity
and tables of physical constants. He inserts a page of longhand analysis of his
own. Thus he builds a trail of his interest through the maze of materials
available to him.

And his trails do not fade. Several years later, his talk with a friend turns
to the queer ways in which a people resist innovations, even of vital interest.
He has an example, in the fact that the outraged Europeans still failed to
adopt the Turkish bow. In fact he has a trail on it. A touch brings up the code
book. Tapping a few keys projects the head of the trail. A lever runs through
it at will, stopping at interesting items, going off on side excursions. It is
an interesting trail, pertinent to the discussion. So he sets a reproducer in
action, photographs the whole trail out, and passes it to his friend for
insertion in his own memex, there to be linked into the more general trail.

Presumably man's spirit should be elevated if he can better review his shady
past and analyze more completely and objectively his present problems. He has
built a civilization so complex that he needs to mechanize his records more
fully if he is to push his experiment to its logical conclusion and not merely
become bogged down part way there by overtaxing his limited memory. His
excursions may be more enjoyable if he can reacquire the privilege of
forgetting the manifold things he does not need to have immediately at hand,
with some assurance that he can find them again if they prove important.

The applications of science have built man a well-supplied house, and are
teaching him to live healthily therein. They have enabled him to throw masses
of people against one another with cruel weapons. They may yet allow him truly
to encompass the great record and to grow in the wisdom of race experience. He
may perish in conflict before he learns to wield that record for his true good.
Yet, in the application of science to the needs and desires of man, it would
seem to be a singularly unfortunate stage at which to terminate the process, or
to lose hope as to the outcome.

One can now picture a future investigator in his laboratory. His hands are
free, and he is not anchored. As he moves about and observes, he photographs
and comments. Time is automatically recorded to tie the two records together.
If he goes into the field, he may be connected by radio to his recorder. As he
ponders over his notes in the evening, he again talks his comments into the
record. His typed record, as well as his photographs, may both be in miniature,
so that he projects them for examination.

Much needs to occur, however, between the collection of data and observations,
the extraction of parallel material from the existing record, and the final
insertion of new material into the general body of the common record. For
mature thought there is no mechanical substitute. But creative thought and
essentially repetitive thought are very different things. For the latter there
are, and may be, powerful mechanical aids.

Teenager's space segmentation is slightly different. Most of their space is controlled space. Adults with authority control the home, the school, and most activity spaces. Teens are told where to be, what to do and how to do it. Because teens feel a lack of control at home, many don't see it as their private space.

To them, private space is youth space and it is primarily found in the interstices of controlled space. These are the places where youth gather to hang out amongst friends and make public or controlled spaces their own. Bedrooms with closed doors, for example.

Adult public spaces are typically controlled spaces for teens. Their public space is where peers gather en masse; this is where presentation of self really matters. It may be viewable to adults, but it is really peers that matter.

By going virtual, digital technologies allow youth to (re)create private and public youth space while physically in controlled spaces

With networked computers, people are creating alternative identities, forming disembodied relationships, and building imaginary places that are beginning to interest and involve us as much as those in the physical world.

The Macintosh (and Windows) interfaces -- which allow us to run several applications at once, cycling among different work and play identities throughout the day -- encourage us to think of our minds and selves as multiple and decentralized.

These changes can have positive effects, but only if we are willing to accept that they are already happening and be thoughtful in deciding what we wish to do with them. We must be aware of how computer-mediated relationships work if we want to optimize the human side of the relationship.

With networked computers, people are creating alternative identities, forming disembodied relationships, and building imaginary places that are beginning to interest and involve us as much as those in the physical world.

The Macintosh (and Windows) interfaces -- which allow us to run several applications at once, cycling among different work and play identities throughout the day -- encourage us to think of our minds and selves as multiple and decentralized.

These changes can have positive effects, but only if we are willing to accept that they are already happening and be thoughtful in deciding what we wish to do with them. We must be aware of how computer-mediated relationships work if we want to optimize the human side of the relationship.

A recent study from the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 53 percent of students in grades seven through 12 report consuming some other form of media while watching television; 58 percent multitask while reading; 62 percent while using the computer; and 63 percent while listening to music. “I get bored if it’s not all going at once,” said a 17-year-old quoted in the study.) They’re the ones whose still-maturing brains are being shaped to process information rather than understand or even remember it.

This is the great irony of multitasking—that its overall goal, getting more done in less time, turns out to be chimerical. In reality, multitasking slows our thinking. It forces us to chop competing tasks into pieces, set them in different piles, then hunt for the pile we’re interested in, pick up its pieces, review the rules for putting the pieces back together, and then attempt to do so, often quite awkwardly. (Fact, and one more reason the bubble will pop: A brain attempting to perform two tasks simultaneously will, because of all the back-and-forth stress, exhibit a substantial lag in information processing.)