The thin red line….

We walk a fine line in our schools today.

To block or not to block, that is the question.

Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outraged parents,
Or to take arms against a sea of misinformation
And, by unblocking, free them.

OK. My apologies to William Shakespeare, who’s probably rolling over in his grave right now!

But the issue of blocking vs unblocking is a vexed one in schools. At my school, we are trying to be as open as possible. We want our students to learn how to navigate the Web responsibly. For many of them, there are no filters when they use the net at home. I think I’m right in saying that the philosophy we’ve adopted is that school should be a place where students can make the most of the resources the Web offers, with the help of responsible adults guiding them in their learning.

I’ve said it many times before, but it’s worth repeating. Sites like YouTube are at the core of my teaching now; I really don’t know how I’d function without them. I was speaking with a public school teacher today who was telling me how the Department blocks this wonderful site. It bothers me greatly that my counterparts in the public system are forced to download videos at home if they want to use them. Some of my best teaching over the past year has sprung from moments when we’ve been able to jump into sites like YouTube to enhance discussion and extend our thinking. Because we have a 20mg pipe, the videos load quickly and we are streaming just as quickly as our ideas are forming.

But sometimes, you just have to block. Sites like Omegle and ChatRoulette, where you are encouraged to talk to strangers, are just not appropriate in any school setting. ChatRoulette has upped the ante, using WebCams as the basis of their communication. I found out about ChatRoulette via Twitter last week, and immediately notified our Network Administrator to put a block on it. I was surprised this morning to see The Today Show, here in Australia, feature it as the site for discussion for their technology segment. Their pitch was that they were helping parents out there, and to some extent they were. But they were also giving national exposure to a site that may not have hit some teen’s radars yet. Plenty of families would have had television sets on this morning, and if the teenagers today are anything like I was when I was young, a segment like that would have been the Pandora’s Box I just had to open. I know, it’s probably spreading like wildfire through sites like Facebook and Myspace and old media like television is probably not where the kids are. But still, I wonder where the thinking comes from sometimes with the media; do they want to fire up a debate for ratings purposes or genuinely help out the unsuspecting public?

Danah Boyd has written an interesting post about ChatRoulette. I’d encourage you to read it to gain her perspective. She makes this interesting observation;

What I like most about the site is the fact that there’s only so much you can hide. This isn’t a place where police officers can pretend to be teen girls. This isn’t a place where you feel forced to stick around; you can move on and no one will know the difference. If someone doesn’t strike your fancy, move on. And on. And on.

The problem as I see it, is that our young people are not always blessed with enough maturity to make wise decisions like ‘move on’, particularly if they are with their peers while engaging with a site like this. The thin red line that is our ability to block is a defence needed in schools for sites that put our young people in situations that many do not have the maturity to handle.

Digital literacy lessons for all- me included! Glad you’re alive and well Jeff!

I woke today to the news that Michael Jackson was in hospital and it was suspected that he had died. I didn’t go to my computer, just followed the mainstream media on Channel Nine here in Melbourne for awhile. Eventually news broke that he had died.

I went to the computer and opened Twitter where the story was being discussed by all. Then Richard Wilkins on Channel Nine’s Today Show  announced he had just received a report saying that Jeff Goldblum had fallen from a cliff in New Zealand while filming and was dead. Now hearing it on mainstream media led to me sending out a tweet about it. That led to a series of retweets that spread like wildfire while I tried to verify if the story was true.

Some tweets came through pretty early on suggesting it was a hoax. The links wouldn’t open.  I went to Wikipedia and saw interesting developments take place within minutes. Jeff Goldblum’s page was open when I first visited. I refreshed not two minutes later and the page was locked to users who were new or unregistered.

Editing of this article by new or unregistered users is currently disabled.   

That led to me getting suspicious that something was up, be it truth or hoax. Right after this Richard Wilkins announced that New Zealand police were investigating the death of Jeff Goldblum from a fall while filming. Rightly or wrongly, I tweeted this, just as I had been tweeting about changes to the Wikipedia page. I searched the web for verification but the page that would have confirmed the hoax wouldn’t open. Later in the morning, Ann Van Meter sent the link that opened to Top Stories, a site that generates stories like this one.     

Refreshing the Wikipedia page was interesting over that period. At one stage they had information saying the reports of his death were likely a hoax. I tweeted this. At another stage this information was no longer on the page, but they had after his name his birthdate and death and referred to him in the past tense. Not soon after this the page was updated again with this information missing and he was once again discussed in the present tense.

Wikipedia page not long after mainstream media announcement.

Jeff_Goldblum_Wikipedia_page_-jsut_after_media_reports

Hoax detail.

Jeff_Goldblum_hoax_info_on_wikipedia

Past tense reference to Jeff Goldblum.

Jeff_goldblum_wikipedia_page_past_tense

(Using the history tab in Wikipedia enabled me to grab these screenshots of the relevant pages) 

At around this time, The Today Show’s, Karl Stefanovic, mentioned on Channel Nine that Twitter was reporting the story as a hoax. I tweeted this too.  I then started to read tweets about ethical behaviour and the like. I felt like some of this was directed at me. (Maybe that’s paranoia!) Here’s some of the flurry in a screen capture;

Jeff_goldblum_twitter_flurry

I’m prepared to admit that I feel pretty bad about putting out the Tweet in the first place. I trusted mainstream media. I honestly did not think Richard Wilkins would report something that had not been properly verified. The Today Show had been quite insistant earlier in the morning about saying that the reports of Michael Jackson’s death were coming from TMZ, a gossip website.   But I do think I was making a concerted effort to get verification from other Web sources.

It’s a lesson in Digital literacy for us all.

Should I have searched first and tweeted later? Probably.

Would this have been a good lesson to use with students as it happened? Absolutely.

Will I be using this post with the classes I teach? You betcha.

Have I learnt a lot this morning?  Too right I have. Snopes slipped my mind just when I needed it! 

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]