Second Life...why...

(not even the second life students came to class, image taken from RIT News article)

I like to think I usually look for the positive, but I'm having a hard time finding it for Second Life, or virtual worlds in general. I can see the value for architects and their customers, experiencing a building/park/etc. before it is built, understanding the details before making real physical structures.

But otherwise, I don't get it. And maybe that's caused I've never used it, I admit that.

Some institutions have begun using virtual worlds to demonstrate complex scientific machinery and technologies. But wouldn't video demonstration or pictures of the actual machinery be more beneficial...

Or virtual tours of their campuses, although isn't this covered pretty well with websites/pictures/videos of the actual campus? Some are experimenting with virtual worlds for the classroom, although (as far as I know) these platforms don't support PowerPoint and other tools commonly used by instructors.

Even when bringing together people from different geographic locations, it seems there's better ways to interact involving video conferencing, GotoMeeting, Skype, etc.

Please someone help me understand the benefits of virtual worlds???

Data shelf-life forcing better etiquette

The data never goes away. As this scholar notes, its more expensive to delete data than allow it to exist in cyberspace.

Certainly there are disadvantages to the long shelf-life of digital info:

• Status posts/tweets sent out of anger/hate/temporary stupidity/etc
• A forever living email from angry student to angry professor, likely destroying professional connections for one/both parties (or maybe not, i don't know)
• Private sexting messages from naive youths circulated everywhere

On the other hand, this finality and forever-ness of information might better regulate our behavior in this new age of openness. We're certainly learning as we go, but maybe people will be more careful in how they act behind closed doors, forcing more honesty. Imagine parents getting more involved in teaching their kids the consequences of messing up, digitally and otherwise. Or just in general people being more civil to each other for fear of the long-term consequences? I know I've deleted-rather-than-sent some angry emails which could've caused me problems if forwarded to the wrong hands...

Other ideas on the advantages of long-term accountability of your digital contributions?

Don't just add contacts, actually network with LinkedIn

There's some great social media platforms for professional networking out there. Some are more inclusive while others limit membership. The following are some examples of some of these popular tools:

1. LinkedIn

2. University alumni online groups (AU, UM, etc.)

3. Twitter job search

But one thing to keep in mind, is that these tools are limiting. You can build your LinkedIn contacts in quantity, but if you adhere solely to at-home-on-the-computer-in-your-pajamas-networking, you'll find difficulties when you need to draw upon your network. B/c such a network may be wide (many contacts), but not deep (weak contacts).

Don't get me wrong, I think these tools are great, and have benefitted professionally from them. But in my opinion, these should be used to facilitate face-to-face interactions, attendance at events, keeping in touch with, etc. etc. B/c otherwise, you're just another loose contact, barely remembered, not even in the back of someone's mind.

With that in mind, perhaps we should approach some of these tools sometimes as a picture of our network, and sometimes as tools for networking. The picture will show some contacts stronger than others, but still requiring pre-internet cultivation in the form of personal messages, grabbing coffee, happy hours, etc. And you still have to go that extra mile and help others to make yourself visible when your time of need comes. But if you let LinkedIn become your networking rather than represent it, you might have problems actually finding that next job...

Mobile GPS - Business Uses

Adding GPS apps to mobile devices can be a scary idea. Privacy issues arise, attacks have occurred, etc.

I created an earlier post to brainstorm ideas for reality mining while avoiding a conversation on privacy. How about some of the business uses for Mobile GPS:

1. Advertising: I'm not the first to come up with this idea. But imagine advertising for retail, truly capturing impulse buyers by sending coupons/deals to customers passing by your store. Couldn't be totally random though (that'd be annoying) but perhaps if someone signed up for the service for a chain of stores/restaurants they like.

2. Driver locations: I imagine large businesses have GPS services, but for small wholesaling businesses with a handful of drivers making deliveries this could present a cheap solution to knowing where your drivers are. They're already outfitted with cell phones. Just add the GPS app.

3. Safety: Also not an original concept. Some college campuses have utilized mobile GPS in their security escort service, following up on students that haven't checked in before making it to a certain location.

So there's just a few ideas, anyone have any other good ones?

Information Democracy Brings Out Crotchetyness

Web 2.0, the internet, wikis, blogs, social networking...these are scaring academics/professionals with jobs.

Technology is changing, and simultaneously, traditional experts' hold on information has fizzled. Some are speaking out against the mediums that threaten their elite status, suggesting they lack credibility. Yet they make some poor arguments:

1. Because someone has published papers and has degrees, their statements are correct. Younger less-experienced people's arguments are inherently incorrect due to their resume. Counter: Let the best argument win, regardless of the source. The next recognized expert probably doesn't have any credentials yet anyway.
2. Blogs and wikis lack verity because they are mostly written by teens and amateurs? Counter: What blogs are you reading? I can't think of a single popular blog on a professional subject maintained by teenager writing poorly and incoherently.

I say let the best man win regardless of who they are. Free market liberalism for ideas and expertise. (Here, let Adam Smith explain it to you since I'm just an amateur) Some subjects might not need a PhD and years of professional expertise in order to come up with a solution. Why not diversify the conversation?

An example: My friend went to the hospital with extreme abdominal pain. His girlfriend googled his symptoms, and the two were pretty convinced it was a kidney stone (ouch). They arrived in the ER, and after explaining all the symptoms, could the doctor figure it out? No. Not until his girlfriend said, "could it be a kidney stone?" Now, sure, doctors aren't replaceable, and this wasn't a bad doctor per say. But did the girlfriend need framed degrees in order to diagnose my friend? No. But by participating she got the process going (pain meds).

Info democracy in action.

Increasing the social divide?

Social networking undoubtedly brings many of us closer together. You can easily reach out to people all over the world within your network, staying in touch through mediums such as facebook, Twitter, etc. I'm sure you could argue somehow against, but with that given...

What about those that don't take part? The people that don't like sharing their information. Or those that don't like being on the computer all time. Or just like anonymous.

I might be talking about a tiny % of the population, but I definitely know people that fit that description. And they're not elderly non-technology users. They're young, smart, etc. etc. They just don't take part. For now I'll call them conscientious loners. [I don't mean loner with a negative context, but choosing to be alone]

With conversational marketing, many people are sharing more information and connecting with more people. They're influencing companies from the ground up, taking part in the brand image and making themselves heard. But the conscientious loners (CL) aren't in the conversation. They stay out of internet-propogated-networks. They don't even come up on the innovation adoption curve unless you use Paint:

My question is whether these people are more isolated now. Prior to online social networking they might've been more social in traditional ways. There's winners and losers from every movement or major societal change (when Asian countries entered light manufacturing industries, South Carolina's furniture industry fell apart). Anyways, maybe this is just a shout out to those we're leaving behind.

Crowdsourcing defended

Dan Woods wrote an interesting condemnation of the concept crowdsourcing in "The Myth of Crowdsourcing" (Forbes).

Woods makes some interesting points. For example, an individually talented innovator will not be overtaken by a random group of less-talented workers. But he misses the point of crowdsourcing. His piece raises some questions:

1. Wouldn't a team of talented innovators be more effective than one?
2. Taking into account different phases of a project or product, wouldn't it be helpful to integrate the end-users of the product as it is updated, redefined, and improved?

It seems to me, with crowdsourcing, the value comes in the open call in which you invite passionate/talented/intelligent people to contribute to your project rather than limiting it to your network/internal employees/etc.

I like his observation that one individual or team leads the crowdsourcing effort. But I don't see how that observation and opening your talent pool are mutually exclusive. Doesn't the undefined crowd make it more possible for a talented contributor to take part? The best idea might come from a source from a different professional field you never thought possible.

I'm sure Woods has an impressive background and has accomplished much, but he sounds like a crotchety old skeptic. Here's an interesting video summarizing crowdsourcing in case you're new to the concept.