BlogPresentation1
and
BlogPresentation2
These are the Wiki pages from the presentation at IUSB which started me on this whole blogging thing. Had wanted to blog for a while but was afraid it’d take too much time.
Some parts of these Wiki pages are specific to IUSB and/or to Expression Engine, but the overall presentation could be useful to other would-be bloggers.

Ken Smith is known at IUSB for his blogging activities. He integrates those with academic and community activities.

Using Wikipedia and the Yahoo API to give structure to flat lists
Kind of proof-of-concept-ish, but neat nonetheless.

In my family, conversations often include overlapping interventions by different speakers. One person will start a sentence before somebody else has finished their sentence. This is a well-known phenomenon in different speech communities and studies in both ethnography of communication and conversation analysis have a lot to say about this. Oftentimes, this strategy is perceived, by those who use it, as active engagement in the discussion and/or as a way to “get the ball rolling” by bringing the interlocutor’s point forward in different directions. To those whose communicative rules discourage overlap, however, this conversational style may sound rude as a way for one person to cut off somebody else. In fact, some people sound so eager to preempt the cycle of turn-taking that it might sound almost aggressive.
In reverse, those of us who enjoy overlapping conversations may feel non-overlapping sequential turn-taking as “stiff” and overly formal, not to mention boring and unchallenging.
Again, all of this is well-known textbook case. Some speech communities in the US are well-known for this. I’m not exactly sure my family is representative of Quebecker attitudes toward communication in this respect as the most extreme examples I’ve been involved often took a style more representative of European French-speakers than Quebecker but most comments I’ve heard about this have come from non-Quebecker and I get the impression overlapping conversations are at least tolerated by most Quebecker.

One reason I’ve been thinking about this is that I’m often self-conscious in conversations with non-Quebeckers about not “holding the floor” for too long and about making sure other people have a chance to speak up. Usually, it works, but it can be hard and I feel relieved when I talk with people who share this conversation style so Ican just “be myself” and ride on the tail of someone else’s intervention knowing that other people will do the same, without any need to apologize. As my wife comes from a community in which overlapping interventions are less favoured than in my family, these occasions don’t present themselves too often.

Another reason I’ve been thinking about this is podcasting. Yes, podcasting has been on my mind lately. In this particular case, it’s the difference between “real” podcasts and podcast versions of radio broadcast in terms of time constraints. And although I don’t really like to do it, I’ll enter rant mode for a little bit. Feel free to react if you read this. 😉
One podcast to which I’ve been paying attention is taken from a live broadcast of an “international” (though US-centric and even very regional) public radio program. Roles are set in advance: professional host, prestigious guests, friendly callers, and precious listeners. As is typical of many production of the so-called “mainstream media” (yes, institutionalised public radio fits as a mainstream medium, at least in production mode), the host is positioned as not only the focal point of the conversation and the representative of the audience but as a kind of omnipotent expert on subjects mentioned on the show. In other words, the host should be (and often is) able to respond to every single intervention made on the show. An authoritative tone helps as do some quotes from classics which listeners are expected to know.
Listeners are put in a position of comfort. They can correspond with the show’s team through different means, including calling the show’s line, at which point they gain a new status. From “anonymous generic listeners out there” (allegedly anywhere the network’s affiliate may broadcast), they become someone, with a first name and a location (city and state). The host will often engage in a very brief small-talk session with a caller, as if to increase familiarity (already implied in the use of the caller’s first name, rarely reciprocated by the use of the host’s first name). Then, the caller is graciously allowed one intervention, expected to be a short comment or question. As can be expected, several callers try to squeeze in this intervention more than a simple comment or question and may even have no specific question or comment for the host and guests. If the intervention does conclude with a comment, the host will graciously thank the caller, reiterate the show’s phone number and go to another call. If the caller asks a specific question, the host then relays that question in streamlined form to one or more of the guests. Once the guests have spoken, the host may, on occasion, ask the caller if the responses were satisfactory. In the negative, the host may say that the issue is very interesting and should be raised later in the show. Standard practice.
Standard practice is also the fact that callers are very rigidly timed out to make way not only for the guests’ interventions but for those “breaks” around which the show seems to be based. A recent example had the host apologize for cutting off the caller at the exact time the caller was mentioning an important issue for that specific show. It was so important, in fact, that the host reused the issue later in the show, trying to get different guests to address it (nobody did). The caller was now just a name and had allegedly hung up. The host, though open to the caller’s intervention, had prevented the interaction to go further.
Obviously, the host is not responsible for the time constraints of broadcast radio. At most, the show is in charge of apologizing for the time constraints. “I’m really sorry to cut you off like that but we need to go to the break. Thanks a lot for calling!” In a context in which overlaps are discouraged, the host bears the burden of the show’s embedded rudeness. Given the importance of politeness in the US, the pressure of appearing rude must make hosting a radio show “tough work.”
Also, callers are the only ones to be cut off. Esteemed guests, frequently praised by the host (who then serves a much different role), are only allowed to make interventions which will fit in the show’s rigid structure. All par for the course? Oh, probably. But “it doesn’t need to be that way.”

A major advantage of podcasts is to be relatively unrestricted in terms of time limits. In this respect, they often resemble open-ended interviews typical of ethnographic research. The “host” of a podcast may get “guests” to talk as much or as little as they want. Granted, radio interview formats are ingrained enough in some people’s habits that it might be difficult to move away from the rigid time-constrained format into the scary unregulated world of open conversations.

M’amusais avec ce tableau de StatCan, à trier par différentes colonnes. C’est assez notoires que les villes les plus exclusivement anglophones du Canada soient à Terre-Neuve-Labrador et en Nouvelle-Écosse. Pour les villes les plus exclusivement francophones, elles sont au Québec, comme on aurait pu le deviner.
C’est ça, des statistiques arbitraires.

Was shuffling this table around and noticed that the most exclusively English-speaking cities of Canada are in Newfoundland-Labrador and in Nova Scotia. Unsurprisingly, the most exclusively French-speaking cities are in Quebec.
Yup. Your random stat factoid for the day.

Savage Minds: Notes and Queries in Anthropology – A Group Blog: The Rest of the World
En fait, j’avais lu une partie de l’article mais j’étais passé par-dessus ce concept de “bridge-bloggers” (décrit dans un journal de l’association américaine d’anthropologie). En tant que francophone écrivant en anglais et en français, je me sens plus ou moins concerné. Bon, bien sûr, la majorité de ce que j’écris est en anglais. En partie parce que ce que je lis est en anglais et parce que ce que j’écris dans un contexte académique est généralement en anglais. En fait, ce blogue est un peu, pour moi, une façon de pratiquer mon anglais. J’ai bien entendu l’habitude d’écrire en anglais depuis un certain temps (surtout depuis mes premiers pas en-ligne en 1993), mais j’essaie d’améliorer certains aspects de mon écriture.
Ce que j’aime faire, parfois, c’est d’écrire en anglais sur des sujets qui touchent des francophones. Sans même penser à un public précis, je me dis que ça peut éventuellement servir comme «traduction culturelle» du français vers l’anglais. Je fais pas trop le contraire. Entre autres parce qu’il y a fort probablement plus de francophones qui lisent l’anglais que d’anglophones qui lisent le français. Mais aussi parce que le français est mon «code-nous» et que j’ai tendance à être plus personnel en français. Comme je veux me distancer un peu du mode personnel sur ce blogue, j’ai pas trop tendance à traduire vers le français.
Justement, c’est une problématique assez personnelle, cette question de faire un pont entre différentes cultures. Quand on déménage en moyenne à tous les 4,4 mois, ç’a un effet sur notre perception de la réalité.

Justement… Je vais certainement écrire plusieurs choses là-dessus mais je viens de déménager à Northampton, dans le Massachusetts. Très intéressant comme endroit. Charmante petite ville universitaire (Smith College). Bonne ambiance. Gens intéressants. Cafés sympas, terrasses agréables, restos divers. Plutôt tranquille, surtout en comparaison avec le MidWest.
Nous sommes à distance de marche du centre-ville, du campus et de plusieurs services. En fait, c’est le logement que mon épouse va occuper puisque je vais enseigner à l’autre bout du Massachusetts pendant qu’elle fera des recherches post-doctorales à Smith.
Pour l’instant, je compare surtout à des endroits comme Burlington (Vermont) et Provincetown (sur Cape Cod) avec quelques aspects qui me font penser à Bloomington (Indiana) et Fredericton (Nouveau-Brunswick). Contrairement à Moncton (Nouveau-Brunswick) ou South Bend (Indiana), c’est une ville qui est assez favorable aux piétons. Très important pour moi.

Eh bien, quoi? J’ai dit «disparate», non?

Will RSS replace eMail? It will if I can help it.
Geared toward a specific form of file-based “collaboration” for which email seems to be a less than optimal solution. Strange that one should think one technology can simply replace a different technology. Maybe email will cease to exist because of thee problems cited in this piece but it’s quite unlikely that RSS would be used for everything people do with email.

OmniNerd – Articles: How Much Does iTunes Like My Five-Star Songs?
Apart from the typical comment about user perception, it’s much more scientific approach to the issue than has been used in most discussions so far. Still not completely convinced about how random my iPod 2G is in all situations, I still do perceive some clustering effect at times. Not that it plays the same artists over and over again but that some randomly-generated playlists seem to bring together tracks that have something in common, possibly based on hard disk location.
Still, this short test provides interesting data.

Wired News: A P2P Network for Bikes
Pas mal comme principe. Bon, l’analogie avec le P2P est plutôt indirecte, mais l’implémentation elle-même semble bien pensée.

Wired News: Shoplifting as Social Commentary
One movement at a time.

Is WiFi Good or Bad for Business
The linked piece is typical journalism. Transform a social phenomenon into an “issue” and then pretend to balance advantages and disadvantages of that social phenomenon.
The blog entry itself is more to the point.

As can be expected, many publications discuss this same issue, usually rehashing the same opinions. The trigger was probably this Wired article, though that piece is less about the “zombie” phenomenon than about a way to get people involved in new online activities. Those are not new ideas as Italian cafés were allegedly exploring similar solutions a number of years ago (as per Wired, IIRC).

Café owners were discussing this same issue recently. And the Valley Advocate’s “suggestion” to Woodstar Café in Northampton is to abandon WiFi.

So, what is this all about? Wireless access to the ‘Net has greatly increased in recent years, notably in cafés and other public spaces. In many of these places, patrons bring their laptops to do different things online. Typically, these laptop users have limited interactions with people around them while they use their computer and consume fairly little through the extended period of time they spend in the public space. Some people even hog large tables at inopportune times and can become rude when they’re disturbed by someone while using their computer.
That’s one way to put it.
A large part of the question is simply about café culture, whether or not the public space is in fact a coffee shop. Despite the romanticized notion that people go to cafés to meet new people and start revolutions, cafés can serve many purposes. It can be a quiet place away from home where one can read a newspaper. Or it can be, as in Vienna, a place where people spend hours writing their thoughts while observing other people (tea houses are also good places for that). People might set up meetings at cafés because it doesn’t matter if people are late. Some cafés are even about, gasp, drinking coffee!
A common thread is that cafés are a place where people can stay for a while without bothering or being bothered by anyone. A successful café is likely to be a place where people feel welcome and can stay for a while. Quite the reverse of McDonald’s where the idea is to get people in and out as efficiently as possible. Some cafés are closer to the McDonald’s model and may even succeed, but many cafés are very successful in making people feel comfortable whether or not they consume a lot while there.

Should follow this up at some point with personal experiences in different cafés in different places.