In my first blog post about this topic, I started mentioning how planned obsolescence was making its way into the consumer market. The middle chapters of Made to Break provide an in depth look at how consumer products were affected by this from the early twentieth century up until the 1960's. Some of the topics that are touched upon are radios and radio wave technology, raw material manufacturing, automobiles, and household appliances. Aside from simply describing the evolution of these technologies, Slade also makes a strong effort to inform readers of the cultural nuances of the time that caused this the boom in planned obsolescence.
In chapter 4, Slade provides readers with a brief, yet very informative, introduction to the history of communication in America. He touches on all the big names in radio, focusing mostly on Edwin Armstrong who was the the leading pioneer in FM-radio technology. Right around the the time that FM radio was getting big, David Sarnoff, a friend of Armstrongs and leader of RCA, had planned for the television to be the invention that would make radios obsolete. This is one of the first instances where a major corporation, despite having a brand new technology, allready planned on inventing something that would replace it in a few years. Sarnoff referred to this as his 'supplantive theory' of business, which was very much related to the concept of planned obsolescence, a term which would be defined many years later. (Slade pg. 91)
Fast-forward to the 1950's, with Motorola's invention of the pocket radio. The pocket radio was revolutionary in the fact that its production had an enormous range of quality control. Motorola developed an automated soldering process that allowed for tiny transistor radios to be built very fast and very cheap. The problem with the radios was that they were not able to be repaired, so if they broke consumers would have to buy another one. This started a trend in miniature electronics that would continue for decades.
Slade makes reference to a periodical that describes three separate types of obsolescence. The first one is Obsolescence of funtion and what this term means is that a product performs the same function as another product, but with updated features or different craftsmanship. This technique is very much associated with the type of obsolescence used in retail personal computer market. The second term is obsolescence of quality. This means that the quality of a product is intentionally designed to degrade. Think of the pocket radio mentioned in the previous paragraph. The last form of obsolescence is obsolescence of desirability which refers specifically to style trends. Once a product is out of 'style' it is considered obsolete despite still performing its original function or not.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Obsolescence in America I
As a technology major, the idea of planned obsolescence is something that always struck my interest. From one perspective, it is a truly brilliant marketing scheme. Take technology, something that is all ready growing at an immense pace, and build devices that can only keep up for so long. This forces pressure on consumers to be in constant need of an upgrade, thus spending more money and allowing technology companies to flourish. I believe most users are aware of some of the growth trends of technology. I mean, why else would they be buying new computers every couple of months if they didn't realize this (I hope that not everyone simply takes what Microsoft and Hewlett Packard says as gospel). However, I do not think they realize how badly they are being suckered by these manufactures.
This is the point at which I admit that I worked in retail selling computers for four years and was more or less convincing people every day that their relatively recent computers were totally obsolete. At the same time I had a desktop computer that was five years old then (and close to 8 years now, I still use it) running fine with only a few small upgrades to the RAM and sound card. This ultimately took a huge toll on my conscience and I just couldn't do it anymore. It was probably the push to sell uselessly expensive warranties based on a pitch of lies that really put me over the edge. That which has no soul, surely should pursue a career in sales. So that's kind of a summation of my personal experience with planned obsolescence. With that being said, there were some things mentioned in Giles Slade's book Made to Break that just didn't even cross my mind.
Early in the book, Slade discusses a few points about early product marketing and development that led up to the idea of planned obsolescence. The first topic mentioned was the over the top branding that companies started utilizing. One of Slade's examples is Swinger sewing machines. They didn't want people to refer to their product as their 'sewing machine' but rather their 'Swinger'. So they slapped a huge logo of their name across the top. Soon every manufacture was creating clever ways to design or package their product to catch the eyes of consumers. This not only made their products nice and pretty, but started a new trend of brand loyalty where consumers developed trust that they would get the same quality product from a company no matter where the product was purchased.
At this point, companies that created expendable goods such as food products, soaps, and things alike were benefiting greatly. People had bought into their product and since these things run out, chances were they would buy them again the next time. But what about products that aren't expendable? With proper maintenance there are some things that could last a lifetime. The previously mentioned sewing machine for example. Well this is where the idea of annual model changes and probably the very first instance of planned obsolescence comes into play. Companies started creating a new line of products every year claiming to have more than last years model. Needless to say, people got hooked. These companies convinced consumers that it was important to stay ahead of the curve and own all the latest products. So back to the sewing machine example. You could purchase one sewing machine and probably keep it throughout several generations of upgraded sewing machines before your actually NEED another one, but the desire to have something new is an overwhelming sensation for some.
This idea carried over well into the age of computers, were obsolescence became a key marketing strategy. Somewhere along the lines there was someone that decided people were getting wise to the fact that they did not need a new product every year. Companies were losing money due to unsuccessful product 'improvements' that just were not as good as the previous generations. The solution was to start creating products that were made to only last a certain amount of time. This is undoubtedly where the title of Slade's book came from.
A Note on Ethics:
The idea of planned obsolescence is surrounded by a nasty air of deteriorating ethical standards. Major technology companies are kind of playing their consumers for saps by telling them that the products they put so much confidence in previously are no longer good now that the consumer all ready owns it and a new product is available. I get that these companies need to make money and I also get that new products need to come out in order for technology to advance, but there is a limit and I feel that more often than not this limit is tested. On a final note, Slade also mentions how the discarding of obsolete technology is having a negative effect on the environment. Of the millions of technology devices that get thrown out each year, and incredibly small percentage of them get recycled, Most end up eating away at the earth in dumps. Just another thing to think about.
This is the point at which I admit that I worked in retail selling computers for four years and was more or less convincing people every day that their relatively recent computers were totally obsolete. At the same time I had a desktop computer that was five years old then (and close to 8 years now, I still use it) running fine with only a few small upgrades to the RAM and sound card. This ultimately took a huge toll on my conscience and I just couldn't do it anymore. It was probably the push to sell uselessly expensive warranties based on a pitch of lies that really put me over the edge. That which has no soul, surely should pursue a career in sales. So that's kind of a summation of my personal experience with planned obsolescence. With that being said, there were some things mentioned in Giles Slade's book Made to Break that just didn't even cross my mind.
Early in the book, Slade discusses a few points about early product marketing and development that led up to the idea of planned obsolescence. The first topic mentioned was the over the top branding that companies started utilizing. One of Slade's examples is Swinger sewing machines. They didn't want people to refer to their product as their 'sewing machine' but rather their 'Swinger'. So they slapped a huge logo of their name across the top. Soon every manufacture was creating clever ways to design or package their product to catch the eyes of consumers. This not only made their products nice and pretty, but started a new trend of brand loyalty where consumers developed trust that they would get the same quality product from a company no matter where the product was purchased.
At this point, companies that created expendable goods such as food products, soaps, and things alike were benefiting greatly. People had bought into their product and since these things run out, chances were they would buy them again the next time. But what about products that aren't expendable? With proper maintenance there are some things that could last a lifetime. The previously mentioned sewing machine for example. Well this is where the idea of annual model changes and probably the very first instance of planned obsolescence comes into play. Companies started creating a new line of products every year claiming to have more than last years model. Needless to say, people got hooked. These companies convinced consumers that it was important to stay ahead of the curve and own all the latest products. So back to the sewing machine example. You could purchase one sewing machine and probably keep it throughout several generations of upgraded sewing machines before your actually NEED another one, but the desire to have something new is an overwhelming sensation for some.
This idea carried over well into the age of computers, were obsolescence became a key marketing strategy. Somewhere along the lines there was someone that decided people were getting wise to the fact that they did not need a new product every year. Companies were losing money due to unsuccessful product 'improvements' that just were not as good as the previous generations. The solution was to start creating products that were made to only last a certain amount of time. This is undoubtedly where the title of Slade's book came from.
A Note on Ethics:
The idea of planned obsolescence is surrounded by a nasty air of deteriorating ethical standards. Major technology companies are kind of playing their consumers for saps by telling them that the products they put so much confidence in previously are no longer good now that the consumer all ready owns it and a new product is available. I get that these companies need to make money and I also get that new products need to come out in order for technology to advance, but there is a limit and I feel that more often than not this limit is tested. On a final note, Slade also mentions how the discarding of obsolete technology is having a negative effect on the environment. Of the millions of technology devices that get thrown out each year, and incredibly small percentage of them get recycled, Most end up eating away at the earth in dumps. Just another thing to think about.
Current Events BLOG
The current events article that I spoke briefly about on Monday was titled Your Next Facebook 'Friend' Could Be A Federal Agent and it discussed the concern that government presence is starting to make its way on to social networking websites. The article suggests that federal agents will try to befriend people to investigate cases involving them. I always assumed that our private information on the web could magically be accessed by the government at at time so the fact that there is a need to 'befriend' someone came across as a little odd to me. Regardless, they claim that because having more friends may signify higher web status, people are willing to accept requests from users the do not know just to add another number on their friend list. I thought for sure that this fad of accepting strange friend requests went out of style along with MySpace, but apparently people have not quit seeking to be the one with the most friends... real or not. Sooner or later this will be back to bite them, I guess.
This article claims that the Facebook Feds are using the site to "reveal personal communications, establish motives and personal relationships, provide location information, prove and disprove alibis, and establish crime or criminal enterprises," which in my opinion is a little crazy. These sites were created for entertainment purposes and are, especially in the past year or two, getting a lot of people into trouble that could have been avoided if they hadn't been posting on Facebook like it was their private journal. The scariest part about this article is that it references playing Facebook detective as a new form of undercover policing where the government would have no problem pretending to be one of the friends of family members. Although its totally creepy for someone, even a federal agent, to go study what you say about yourself in order to build a profile, I could live knowing that it happens and just make sure I'm careful with what I say on there. For someone to pose as someone I know to extract information out of me sounds more like fraud than investigation and is not acceptable on ANY level.
I suppose that there are some positive aspects having government presence on the web. Assuming you aren't doing anything illegal, there's really nothing to worry about. There have also been examples of Facebook evidence proving people innocent. Rodney Bradford, for instance, updated his status to read "Where's my pancakes" at approximately the same time that a crime he was being charged for was committed. The courts checked the information from Facebook and came to the conclusion that Rodney was not their man, and he was let go. So while, I am an advocate for web privacy, I am not blind to the benefits of the government monitoring Facebook. My suggestion, however, is to ALWAYS think before you act... even on the web. Oh, and also update your status with inane comments frequently to provide a solid alibi.
Here's a LINK to the article.
This article claims that the Facebook Feds are using the site to "reveal personal communications, establish motives and personal relationships, provide location information, prove and disprove alibis, and establish crime or criminal enterprises," which in my opinion is a little crazy. These sites were created for entertainment purposes and are, especially in the past year or two, getting a lot of people into trouble that could have been avoided if they hadn't been posting on Facebook like it was their private journal. The scariest part about this article is that it references playing Facebook detective as a new form of undercover policing where the government would have no problem pretending to be one of the friends of family members. Although its totally creepy for someone, even a federal agent, to go study what you say about yourself in order to build a profile, I could live knowing that it happens and just make sure I'm careful with what I say on there. For someone to pose as someone I know to extract information out of me sounds more like fraud than investigation and is not acceptable on ANY level.
I suppose that there are some positive aspects having government presence on the web. Assuming you aren't doing anything illegal, there's really nothing to worry about. There have also been examples of Facebook evidence proving people innocent. Rodney Bradford, for instance, updated his status to read "Where's my pancakes" at approximately the same time that a crime he was being charged for was committed. The courts checked the information from Facebook and came to the conclusion that Rodney was not their man, and he was let go. So while, I am an advocate for web privacy, I am not blind to the benefits of the government monitoring Facebook. My suggestion, however, is to ALWAYS think before you act... even on the web. Oh, and also update your status with inane comments frequently to provide a solid alibi.
Here's a LINK to the article.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Wikipedia II
So I realized that my last entry about Wikipedia was pretty long. I am going to do my best to keep this one short and sweet; discussing briefly some of the trust issues associated with Wikipedia and its users. As we all ready established, most of the accuracy concerns with Wikipedia's content stem from the fact that it is mostly user generated. Dalby explains how there is no way of really knowing who is making edits or what motives they have for doing so. This also poses a problem when it comes to topics that little information is known about. In chapter 7, Dalby references an argument between two members of British Government about the age of famous painter, Titian. He mentions that the wiki article for Titian has provided several separate birthdays including some claims that the information is unknown. The article was edited and reedited quite a bit which made both of sides of the argument valid at one point or the other. It would have been pretty simple for one of those guys to go there, edit the article to favor his claim, and then show the other guy. Now think about this; two guys were having a dispute over the age of if Titian and one of them changes the Wikipedia entry to say he was born in 1490 to satisfy his claim. At the same time, someone researching the painter goes to Wikipedia for some basic knowledge and copies down the birthday into his notes. Although that information may or may not be correct, other people aside from the two disputing are constantly accessing it. This is why it is a difficult resource to trust.
Despite knowing that there is always the possibility of snagging some bum information from Wikipedia it is still one of (if not the) most trafficked reference site on the web. It's all about accessibility and Wikipedia has played that card so well. Not only is Wikipedia a given when it comes to getting any results from a search engine, but a wiki search bar has been implemented into the corner of many popular web browsers. Wikipedia is available is 262 languages with somewhere in the vicinity of 16 million articles that span across these editions. I mentioned in my last entry how in the past 3 or 4 years the people working at Wikipedia headquarters have dedicated a lot of time to preventing Wikipedia accuracy problems. They are at the point now where they feel Wikipedia is becoming a much more reliable source and are sure they can win the trust back of anyone that has been burned before.
Despite knowing that there is always the possibility of snagging some bum information from Wikipedia it is still one of (if not the) most trafficked reference site on the web. It's all about accessibility and Wikipedia has played that card so well. Not only is Wikipedia a given when it comes to getting any results from a search engine, but a wiki search bar has been implemented into the corner of many popular web browsers. Wikipedia is available is 262 languages with somewhere in the vicinity of 16 million articles that span across these editions. I mentioned in my last entry how in the past 3 or 4 years the people working at Wikipedia headquarters have dedicated a lot of time to preventing Wikipedia accuracy problems. They are at the point now where they feel Wikipedia is becoming a much more reliable source and are sure they can win the trust back of anyone that has been burned before.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Wikipedia I
In recent years, Wikipedia has become such a staple in the life of an everyday computer user. I myself consult it frequently on just about every topic I need to get some quick information on. It's a perfect place to start research due it's broad coverage of most topics as well as its citations section where scholarly articles are often listed as references. It's popularity keeps it so high in search return priority that almost no matter what query you type into google (or any search engine for that matter), a Wiki page will more than likely show up in the results. It was only a matter of time before someone decided to write a book about the history of this influential display of web 2.0ism.
The World and Wikipedia, by Andrew Dalby, explains the driving force as to how and why Wikipedia came to exist. Dalby traces its roots all the way back to ancient times and relates the formation of Wikis to how early encyclopedias were developed and a distributed. In the first half of the book, other than the history of the encyclopedia, Dalby focuses on two main points which are summed up with the chapter titles "Why 'They' Hate It" and "Why You Use It". 'It' obviously referring to Wikipedia while the terms 'they' and 'you' remain pretty ambiguous.
So who are 'they' and why do they hate Wikipedia? Well, according to this book and some of my own knowledge on the topic, they are authors and editors of traditional encyclopedias, scholarly journals, or other academic referential resources. They hate Wikipedia because it can be, and most often is, edited by your everyday Internet user. According to them, this leaves a much higher margin for error due to people not thoroughly researching topics or just haphazardly posting hearsay on the site. This claim has led to the complete dismissal of Wikipedia as a scholarly reference even though recent statistics have shown that Wikipedia's error rate of about 3.86 errors per page is not far off from the Encyclopedia Britannica's which is roughly 2.92 errors per page (see Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica).
Other criticisms of the site include the level of coherence to which the articles are written. Dalby makes a bold move and references a few Nicholas Carr statements about the idea that Wikipedia articles are nothing more than a "hodgepodge of dubious factoids." In my opinion, the presentation style of Wikipedia articles as critiqued by Carr and Dalby actually make it very easy to extract information from the site. Blurbs that are short and to the point give the ability to get a whole lot of information from simply browsing the article. This is nice if you are trying to get a quick overview of the topic or if you have many topics that need to be addressed. Whether or not a person finds the information to be relevant is subjective. They, like anyone else, have the power to update the site with clearer information if they so choose.
If these smart people frown upon Wikipedia then why do we use it?
There are actually quite a few reasons why we use Wikipedia. The first one, that has been mentioned periodically in this entry one way or another, is its convenience. It has a very easy to read layout, with loads of facts on some less traditional topics that you just wont find in a regular encyclopedia. The fact that user's can contribute to the page is also a huge reason why its so popular. People like to have presence, especially on the web. Wikipedia articles are easy to create/update and make regular people feel like pseudo-historians. Which apparently does wonders for someones well-being. I knew a few people that contribute to Wikipedia semi-regularly and have described this strange feeling of importance when they see their information available for other to learn from.
Google actually has a lot to do with the success of Wikipedia also. Google has been putting Wiki sites in their database since 2001 and making them available for searchers to access. Two things necessary to be popular on the Internet are accessibility and findability. Google provided both to the budding reference site. So yeah, we use Wikipedia because its a interesting site, but more than that we use Wikipedia because we've been force fed it with every search request for quite some time now.
Wikipedia really upped the ante in 2007 when it decided to make it a point to have all aspects of the site monitored and fact checked by a hired staff. This left the site looking really sharp and even more legitimate, which started to become a huge issue in schools. Students were using Wikipedia because it was a lot easier than reading books and displayed information similar to the type they would get from something like a sparknotes book (i.e. it was usually much easier to understand). Teachers would notice student responses that seemed slightly off and found that they were all using Wiki entries as their source. Wikipedia's founder, Jimmy Wales, was quoted in an interview with Businessweek saying "No, I don't think people should cite it [Wikipedia]... People shouldn't be citing encyclopedias in the first place. Wikipedia and other encyclopedias should be solid enough to give good, solid background information to inform your studies for a deeper level." (for the full interview see Wikipedia: A Work in Progress) I think this is a point that should be mentioned to middle school and high school students. Wikipedia shouldn't be the forbidden fruit of the reference world, it just needs to be used in the right context and taken with a grain of salt.
Just for fun: Check out some of the "Bad Jokes and other Deleted Nonsense" wiki pages
Still more best of: BJAODN
The World and Wikipedia, by Andrew Dalby, explains the driving force as to how and why Wikipedia came to exist. Dalby traces its roots all the way back to ancient times and relates the formation of Wikis to how early encyclopedias were developed and a distributed. In the first half of the book, other than the history of the encyclopedia, Dalby focuses on two main points which are summed up with the chapter titles "Why 'They' Hate It" and "Why You Use It". 'It' obviously referring to Wikipedia while the terms 'they' and 'you' remain pretty ambiguous.
So who are 'they' and why do they hate Wikipedia? Well, according to this book and some of my own knowledge on the topic, they are authors and editors of traditional encyclopedias, scholarly journals, or other academic referential resources. They hate Wikipedia because it can be, and most often is, edited by your everyday Internet user. According to them, this leaves a much higher margin for error due to people not thoroughly researching topics or just haphazardly posting hearsay on the site. This claim has led to the complete dismissal of Wikipedia as a scholarly reference even though recent statistics have shown that Wikipedia's error rate of about 3.86 errors per page is not far off from the Encyclopedia Britannica's which is roughly 2.92 errors per page (see Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica).
Other criticisms of the site include the level of coherence to which the articles are written. Dalby makes a bold move and references a few Nicholas Carr statements about the idea that Wikipedia articles are nothing more than a "hodgepodge of dubious factoids." In my opinion, the presentation style of Wikipedia articles as critiqued by Carr and Dalby actually make it very easy to extract information from the site. Blurbs that are short and to the point give the ability to get a whole lot of information from simply browsing the article. This is nice if you are trying to get a quick overview of the topic or if you have many topics that need to be addressed. Whether or not a person finds the information to be relevant is subjective. They, like anyone else, have the power to update the site with clearer information if they so choose.
If these smart people frown upon Wikipedia then why do we use it?
There are actually quite a few reasons why we use Wikipedia. The first one, that has been mentioned periodically in this entry one way or another, is its convenience. It has a very easy to read layout, with loads of facts on some less traditional topics that you just wont find in a regular encyclopedia. The fact that user's can contribute to the page is also a huge reason why its so popular. People like to have presence, especially on the web. Wikipedia articles are easy to create/update and make regular people feel like pseudo-historians. Which apparently does wonders for someones well-being. I knew a few people that contribute to Wikipedia semi-regularly and have described this strange feeling of importance when they see their information available for other to learn from.
Google actually has a lot to do with the success of Wikipedia also. Google has been putting Wiki sites in their database since 2001 and making them available for searchers to access. Two things necessary to be popular on the Internet are accessibility and findability. Google provided both to the budding reference site. So yeah, we use Wikipedia because its a interesting site, but more than that we use Wikipedia because we've been force fed it with every search request for quite some time now.
Wikipedia really upped the ante in 2007 when it decided to make it a point to have all aspects of the site monitored and fact checked by a hired staff. This left the site looking really sharp and even more legitimate, which started to become a huge issue in schools. Students were using Wikipedia because it was a lot easier than reading books and displayed information similar to the type they would get from something like a sparknotes book (i.e. it was usually much easier to understand). Teachers would notice student responses that seemed slightly off and found that they were all using Wiki entries as their source. Wikipedia's founder, Jimmy Wales, was quoted in an interview with Businessweek saying "No, I don't think people should cite it [Wikipedia]... People shouldn't be citing encyclopedias in the first place. Wikipedia and other encyclopedias should be solid enough to give good, solid background information to inform your studies for a deeper level." (for the full interview see Wikipedia: A Work in Progress) I think this is a point that should be mentioned to middle school and high school students. Wikipedia shouldn't be the forbidden fruit of the reference world, it just needs to be used in the right context and taken with a grain of salt.
Just for fun: Check out some of the "Bad Jokes and other Deleted Nonsense" wiki pages
Still more best of: BJAODN
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Story of Technology Pt. 2
As I had predicted in my previous blog post, the second half of 'The Life Story of Technology' is all about how personal computing has made its way into the lives of everyday people. There are so many contributing factors to how computers evolved to what they are today. Rather than discussing the importance of the computer hardware involved with getting to this point (like in my last post), I will be using this blog to discuss some of the social implications that technology brought with it. Chapter 7 brings forth some really important issues that were created in light of the presence of personal computers and the Internet.
A huge issue, starting in the mid 1990's, is the Digital Divide. The Digital Divide is essentially the split between people that have access to technology and people who are not using or cannot afford technology. The issue was emphasized the most in schools. The claim was that students who had access to information technologies (such as the Internet) at home had an advantage over students who did not. Also, that schools which had computer facilities were tracked to produce more graduates seeking further education than schools without computers. Here in lies the controversy behind the Digital Divide. Yes, computers and Internet access are amazing tools that, when used to their fullest potential, can produce an incredibly efficient learning experience. The fact of the matter is that there are a few things standing in the way of that. The first thing most people bring up is that computers are as much of a distraction as they are a tool for education. Many of us have some experience in this claim. Right now, for instance, I'm doing a bunch of other things while periodically coming back to this blog. I've been working on it for an hour (and counting) and I am only this far in. It is really amazing that I could have 6 tabs open at once, each allowing me to do something different, but there is a time where multitasking increases to a point where productivity actually goes down. We also have to take into consideration the learning curve associated with computing. You cant just stick a computer in front of a kid that has never seen one and expect them to be able to extract information from it. It takes time, effort, and willingness to learn. The last topic ill address regarding this issue is information overload.
Information overload is a pretty strange idea. It's very similar to walking into a huge library with millions of books and walking out not finding the information you were looking for. The difference now is that people who probably wouldn't go to a library are still likely to have a computer and are even more likely to use it for information gathering. Many people, including myself run into a problem with information overload and it can be a truly nerve-wracking experience. It is not that the information doesn't exist, it is just that there is so much of it and its often very difficult to find a starting point. Practicing web searching skills is best way to combat information overload, but like learning anything it takes some effort.
So now, at the end of the first decade in the new millennium, we can start to see a shrinkage in the digital divide. Personal computers have now become so inexpensive that most anyone can afford them and everything in society is starting to digitize. Yet, for some reason we are not all geniuses. More and more people are going to college, but that's because of the pressure put on them by society claiming that they are unlikely to succeed otherwise. I am personally torn between the two sides of the Digital Divide controversy. In theory it makes so much sense that someone with a computer has an advantage over someone that does not in a learning environment. Like the one guy that forgets to bring his calculator to a math exam. At the same time, however, now that computers are on their way to standardization, it doesn't seem like they are making a drastic difference in peoples willingness to learn and I feel that this was an issue often over looked in the earlier years of the Digital Divide.
A huge issue, starting in the mid 1990's, is the Digital Divide. The Digital Divide is essentially the split between people that have access to technology and people who are not using or cannot afford technology. The issue was emphasized the most in schools. The claim was that students who had access to information technologies (such as the Internet) at home had an advantage over students who did not. Also, that schools which had computer facilities were tracked to produce more graduates seeking further education than schools without computers. Here in lies the controversy behind the Digital Divide. Yes, computers and Internet access are amazing tools that, when used to their fullest potential, can produce an incredibly efficient learning experience. The fact of the matter is that there are a few things standing in the way of that. The first thing most people bring up is that computers are as much of a distraction as they are a tool for education. Many of us have some experience in this claim. Right now, for instance, I'm doing a bunch of other things while periodically coming back to this blog. I've been working on it for an hour (and counting) and I am only this far in. It is really amazing that I could have 6 tabs open at once, each allowing me to do something different, but there is a time where multitasking increases to a point where productivity actually goes down. We also have to take into consideration the learning curve associated with computing. You cant just stick a computer in front of a kid that has never seen one and expect them to be able to extract information from it. It takes time, effort, and willingness to learn. The last topic ill address regarding this issue is information overload.
Information overload is a pretty strange idea. It's very similar to walking into a huge library with millions of books and walking out not finding the information you were looking for. The difference now is that people who probably wouldn't go to a library are still likely to have a computer and are even more likely to use it for information gathering. Many people, including myself run into a problem with information overload and it can be a truly nerve-wracking experience. It is not that the information doesn't exist, it is just that there is so much of it and its often very difficult to find a starting point. Practicing web searching skills is best way to combat information overload, but like learning anything it takes some effort.
So now, at the end of the first decade in the new millennium, we can start to see a shrinkage in the digital divide. Personal computers have now become so inexpensive that most anyone can afford them and everything in society is starting to digitize. Yet, for some reason we are not all geniuses. More and more people are going to college, but that's because of the pressure put on them by society claiming that they are unlikely to succeed otherwise. I am personally torn between the two sides of the Digital Divide controversy. In theory it makes so much sense that someone with a computer has an advantage over someone that does not in a learning environment. Like the one guy that forgets to bring his calculator to a math exam. At the same time, however, now that computers are on their way to standardization, it doesn't seem like they are making a drastic difference in peoples willingness to learn and I feel that this was an issue often over looked in the earlier years of the Digital Divide.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)