Real-World, Here I Come

Well I am officially not a graduate-school geek. That whole graduation thing happened a few months ago, and I’ve been acclimating to non-student life ever since. I had one last hurrah of a summer, thankfully, before turning into a “real-world” citizen who (thankfully) managed to find a job.

Summer went something like this: sleeping; some contract work; watching Sounders FC matches; sleeping; job hunting; sleeping; panic-attacks over lack of job; sleeping; buying a car; sleeping; family members from NY arriving (2 adults, 4 children under 7); international friend visitation; babysitting mentioned nephews & niece; job interviews; driving 1,000 miles in one week; Whistler-with-friends; job acceptance & paperwork; goodbyes to friend and family; driving more between Seattle & Ferndale; starting new job…

Notice how sleep stopped happening along the way? Yeah, I did too.

So now the new job is fabulous, even though it has felt akin to trying to drink out of a gushing fire-hydrant. I’m still working on figuring out the new life-work balance. The weekdays are still difficult to adjust to – full days in the office and trying to squeeze in some evening activities before a relatively early bedtime. It is stress-relieving to finally have a full-time paycheck, but the stress from trying to figure out repayment of student loans is epic.

By the way, I should make a note that if the federal government wants to stimulate the economy, they should do a student-loan forgiveness program en masse. There would be a HUGE influx of revenue into the market from all of us recent graduates who are currently putting at least half of our paychecks into paying off debt. I’d still have some privately-held debt, but it would cut my total amount in half.

And the whole system for repayment is terribly confusing, disjointed and poorly designed.

But regardless, the only direction to move is forward.

Women, Cyberspace, and Information

CC License Use (http://flic.kr/p/4TAdv6)

Well, the 2011 winter quarter, and all its insanity, is officially over and done. What a whirlwind it has been, both in my life and the world.

So I had an interesting article sent to me the other day by a friend. One of the Financial Times (UK) blogs posted on "Inequality in Cyberspace", about the numbers showing that there seems to b. The author, Liz Bolshaw, mentions Noam Cohen's NYT piece left off talking about how only 13% of Wikipedia contributors are women, and Joseph Reagle's justification that women are “less willing to assert their opinions in public”.

HAHA. That's an interesting thought. Haven't gotten that impression from most of the women I've met.

My first though about the whole gender gap isn't concern, it's "women have better things to do than edit Wikipedia". Not sure how true that is, but it seems to me that the people who are the most qualified to do something don't have the time to do what they need to do. Not that women are more qualified by any means, but they're certainly not less qualified. I'm not convinced that women are less well-represented as an internet population, but really? Is it something we should be concerned about - that women are not contributors to Wikipedia? My association with Wikipedia-editors is drunk frat boys mucking around with various entries. Is that something women should be aspiring to? The power of outsourcing knowledge creation to the cyber community (Wikipedia is only one such example) is certainly a force to be considered, and the power of it comes from the diversity of the people who are contributing. I would be more concerned with those who are excluded from contributing (directly or indirectly), not those who chose not to participate.

An interesting side note - women are actually really well represented in my program. Less so in the undergrad version, but there is still a good number, or at least it seems that way to me. It has been quite an experience the past two years as I've studied in a hybrid field that mixes strong gender stereotypes. The program is based out of the field of Library Science, but it has been heavily influenced by Information Technology and Business. I have the feeling that there are less gender stereotypes because of this hybridization, but I have yet to really immerse myself into the working field. All I know, there are some kick-ass women out there who are managing information and sharing what they know with the world (see some Seattle folks like Karine Nahon, Vanessa Fox, Samantha Starmer, and Alix Han). Maybe we aren't writing in Wikipedia, but women are certainly invested in cyberspace and information.

The Knowledge Economy - Don't Kill the Education Budget

An article on the BBC News website yesterday was titled "Graduates - the new measure of power". The main take was from an education perspective, looking at the shift from raw resources as sources of power within nations to knowledge and intellectual resources. This is not a new topic - scholars have been exploring the shift to the "knowledge economy", but perhaps I've been abnormally exposed to the school of thought since I'm getting a degree in information. Nevertheless, it is a recognized fact that measuring the "power" of a nation must calculate the innovation, information, and knowledge that is being generated within its borders and its citizens. This article emphasized the role that formal educational institutions play in this generation of value, and how all across the globe governments are heavily investing in their future through students and schools.

Maybe the numerous states in the US, such as Washington, should consider this fact before they continue to viciously slash at the state-supported education budget for schools such as the University of Washington.  As the Governor's new budget presents a worst-case scenario of an additional 40% slash, it is important to understand what has come already (from a letter to the State legislative from Interim President Phyllis Wise).


The steepest decline in state funding for the UW came in 2009-2011, when the state and the nation entered the Great Recession.  Over a two-year period, the University of Washington lost over $132 million in state funding, roughly 30% of its state appropriation.  Even with two 14% tuition increases, over $57 million in cuts were still necessary to balance our core education budget. 


Major cuts included: 
• Eliminated 950 jobs 
• Froze enrollment for resident undergraduates 
• Closed/eliminated 12 degree programs; 14 MA programs now self-sustaining 
• Increased advisor load by 180 students per advisor 
• Closed 384 undergraduate lecture sections and 130 small group sections 
• Decreased number of lab sections by 20%, while average lab size increased 38% 
• Closed 4 writing/tutoring centers and 2 computer labs (loss of 1/3 student workstations) 
• Closed 1 library, reduced library hours, and canceled subscriptions to over 1,200 journals 
• Reduced hundreds of hours of student counseling services (advising, financial aid, health)  


As I'm preparing to graduate in June from a program that is not state-supported at all, I'm still concerned as a citizen of Washington about the future of education systems if these huge cuts are continued. Economies recover, but it is likely going to take years and years for educational institutions to recover from the hemorrhaging of funds out of their budgets. It seems awfully short-sighted for any government to pull money from the one resource that is almost guaranteed to reward the economy handsomely in the future.

Creativity, Law, and Change

I recently listned to a well-articulated TEDTalk by Larry Lessig on "Laws that Choke Creativity". A really interesting and thought-provoking piece about how the changes in culture are leading to creative conflicts in the newest generations.

"We made mixed tapes; they remix music. We watched TV; they make TV. It is technology that has made them different, and as we see what this technology can do we need to recognize you can't kill the instinct the technology produces; we can only criminalize it. We can't stop our kids from using it; we can only drive it underground. We can't make our kids passive again; we can only make them, quote, "pirates." And is that good? We live in this weird time, it's kind of age of prohibitions, where in many areas of our life, we live life constantly against the law. Ordinary people live life against the law, and that's what I -- we -- are doing to our kids. They live life knowing they live it against the law. That realization is extraordinarily corrosive, extraordinarily corrupting. And in a democracy we ought to be able to do better."

I thought this was one of the best summaries of one of the biggest social difficulties of the times - the shifting notions of right and wrong, and what kind of impact that has on us as a culture. I think I have some more thoughts on this, but for now I have to get back to writing a paper on the concept and ethics of a national "smartcard" ID. A fascinating topic that has led me down many tangents (such as this video) though most of the diverging hasn't been useful for the paper. Oh well. At least the tangents are interesting and educational.

Anonymity, Privacy and The Debate on National Online IDs

I think the National Internet ID conversation that has been recently taking place is quite an important and interesting piece to be discussed. I've been approaching a research piece on it from a risk-perspective, but part of that is a risk to privacy and anonymity. In an article by Helen Nissenbaum on anonymity, I thought she had a good point - that anonymity is really about being "out of reach" from consequences. Anonymity can be abused and used as a negative thing (think criminal activities) but many times it is critical for certain systems to work (as mentioned, voting and peer-review).

In the draft of the "National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace" released in June 2010, their vision of the future sounds pretty good. "Individuals and organizations utilize secure, efficient, easy to use and interoperable identity solutions to access online services in a manner that promotes confidence, privacy, choice, and innovation." (pg. 12) Some interpret the strategy to mean that Americans could begin to have unique online identities used to access password-protected websites. That's an interesting and slightly worrying thought. While "confidence, privacy, choice and innovation" sound good, what does that mean in a practical sense?

Would having some sort of online identification be a threat to anonymity and a violation of privacy? Already there is so little privacy on the internet - maybe if the government regulates more, there would be less abuse of breaches in privacy and security. But I am a bit leery of the idea of allowing a government to so in-depth access or observation to the behavior of citizens. Nothing sounds so tyrannical as being observed at every moment or having to curtail one's speech for fear of reprival. And I'm not sure that an Online ID would be the most conducive tool for an open and free democratic society. But on the other hand, I like parts of the idea in theory - but things look so good on paper sometimes when in reality they just are a really bad idea.

Keeping Our Troops Connected

A recent headline on Wired.com made me pause: "Tweet Away, Troops: Pentagon Won’t Ban Social Media".

There has actual been the serious possibility that the Pentagon would ban soldiers from using social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook? It boggles my mind - many of the troops now are being more and more made up of digital natives. You might as well tell them they're banned from talking as tell them they can't use social media, especially to communicate with their friends and family. As Robert Mason et al. describe them, these youngest generation of adults have “grown up in a world surrounded by connectivity and digital tools. They are ‘net natives’ or ‘digital natives.’ These are people who have never known a world without the Internet, instant messaging, online games, and the possibility of persistent digital presence with networks of people.” You're not going to be able to tell we of this digital native generation that we can't have our Facebook or Twitter fix. Sorry, it just isn't going to happen. Social media is a force that is moving forward, not winding down.

** Edit Note: If you read the comments, Jordan makes some very good points that should be integrated into my little ramble here. I really agree with her when it comes down to the fact that sometimes take an entitlement approach to social media. Just because we behave a certain way doesn't mean we should. **

Apparently, the bright idea of banning came from military officials who feared that social media caused too much security hassle, and took up too much bandwidth. So to say again, in 2009 the military was "seriously considering" a complete ban. The reason that this is now back in the news is because come March of this year, the 2009 policy that "enshrined military access to social media" is expiring, which only came after a long battle.

Hopefully, there wont' be any more malarky about banning or limited access. Because frankly, if the military did do something like this, the country would probably have to implement a draft. And then there would be riots in the street... and on Twitter.

Changing the World With Design

Since starting my graduate degree in Information Management, I've discovered an entire new and fantastical world called "design" that has entirely changed the way I think and view the world. The principles that make up the foundation of "user-centered design" can also serve not only to design better systems and stuff, but provide a framework through which to view the world.

One of the cooler applications of design to "everyday" life is the work that is being done by Emily Pilloton in North Carolina. Co-founder of ProjectH, a nonprofit design organization, Pilloton has taken on one of the scarier systems ever formed in the US - formal education - and has begun to tackle it with design.

Thinking about how to "fix" our underfunded, outdated, bureaucracy-laden public education system is a difficult, convoluted and systemically heartbreaking effort. But Pilloton has armed herself, and works to create "Design initiatives for Humanity, Habitats, Health, and Happiness". And it's working. They are doing some really awesome things over in North Caroline.

Check out her TED talk on "Teaching Design for Change". It is one of the most inspiring TED talks I've seen in a while. Often the people who speak for TED have these wonderful insights, challenges, and ideas, but this one is particularly strong because this a snapshot into work that is creating sustainable change in behavior and attitudes. And that's just cool.

More About Emily Pilloton:

A visit with Stephen Colbert on The Colbert Report (1/18/2010)

Writing for Design Mind about the need for design to "Get Local", a reflection around the one-year mark of their project in Bertie, NC.

Video of Jesse Schell: "Designing Outside the Box" DICE 2010

Last night I watched this 28 minute video of Carnegie Mellon University Professor Jesse Schell talking about "going beyond Facebook" and the emerging game development trends. I thought I'd share some of the key points that I took away from watching it - though it might make more sense to watch it first!

Some of the key takeaway points:

1) The unexpected force by which Facebook et al. stormed the world. The list of games (ClubPenguin, Wii, WiiFit, Guitar Hero) that were these huge hits that traditionally seem completely impossible. And I still don't see the appeal of Farmville. Apparently I'm too traditional.

2) That these phenomenon are all breaking through into reality. The blending of virtual and reality are on the path to blurring together almost indistinguishably. Interesting psychological reasoning that because we're cut off from nature and "we live in a bubble of fake bullshit" we're seeking out the "real" relative to our experiences. Maybe it's just because we've finally realize how artificial so many of our interactions have become.

3) Technology is going to continue to diverge in some respects, rather than unify into the happy box. Loved the idea of the iPhone as the Swiss Army knife.

4) Games are creeping into daily life more and more. I can totally see this, and I liked the examples he pointed out. These things have turned accepted and traditionally established processes and behaviors into something more.

• Fantasy Football - Even your grandmother does it.
• Geocashing - Because taking a walk is better when there is treasure at the end of it!
• Fox & The Simpsons - Watching TV has become a game.
• DARPA's red weather balloons - We'll do the work for them!
• Weight Watchers - Points are like a game.
• Ford Hybrid Car - Grow the plant leaves, save on gas. This has changed the way people drive!

5) Imagine if skilled game designers were involved in the development of these emerging "games". It would really change things up. I think that the marketing department in the way of hiring designers for a while, because marketers seem to always think they know what is best. Strength of game designers is that interaction-design emphasis.

6) We're heading towards a future where creepy sensors are always recording everything. Schell suggested that this potentially could be a huge behavior changer. A little big-brother-ish, but I think I like it in theory.

7) Disposable technology. I think we're already a good ways there. Think about how quickly we go through things. Schell makes an interesting point - the technology in a Furbie is greater than the technology it took to put a man on the moon, though that is true for almost any electronic these days.

8) Huge danger for games to turn into serious commercialized schmuck. Penny-Arcade made a comment or two about this trend in the game "Alan Wake". I haven't played it, but it is reported to have some serious crazy ass product placement in the game, perhaps the most blatant yet. Anyways, I thought of that when he was talking about the REM cycle device for some reason.

Wii Games - E3 2011 - Guitar Hero 5