— manovich (@manovich) October 1, 2016
» (…) La notion d’interopérabilité culturelle attire l’attention sur l’imbrication des savoirs dans des contextes sociomatériels, notamment le média de langue et le bagage de références historiques et culturelles partagées au sein d’un collectif, savoirs dont une part majeure reste souvent tacite, ce qui va bien au-delà de ce qu’en définit la norme ISO (IEC TR 20007:2014) sur l’interopérabilité culturelle et linguistique portant sur la définition des symboles, des icônes, des caractères et des glyphes. Plus fondamentalement, l’interopérabilité culturelle renvoie aussi au fait que les autres couches d’interopérabilité, y compris le fait de distinguer des couches d’interopérabilité (Zacklad, 2012), charrient une vision des choses — notamment de l’organisation des connaissances (Hudon et El Hadi, 2010) — et des pratiques, un modèle en partie implicite qui ne constitue pas nécessairement une référence partagée. Ce fait conduit à déplacer parfois radicalement la problématique de l’interopérabilité. »
Brigitte Juanals et Jean-Luc Minel, La construction d’un espace patrimonial partagé dans le Web de données ouvert [Texte intégral]
Andrew R. Schrock
Submission Deadline: November 15, 2016
Communication has a long and rich history of debating the relationship between publics and expertise. James Carey (1989) famously critiqued Walter Lippmann (1922) for an elitist reliance on expertise in the formation of public opinion. Carey preferred Dewey’s (1927) notion of “public,” deeming Lippmann’s stance elitist. Habermas’ public sphere similarly does not favor experts, and communication as a discipline has largely favored publics over expertise. However, Michael Schudson (2008) suggested that Carey’s framing of the Dewey-Lippmann “debate” favoring publics missed important reasons why expertise is vital to democracy. He argued that Lippman’s intent was that “experts were not to replace the public… rather experts were to provide an alternative source of knowledge and policy” (p. 10).
Technology imposes another level of complexity to this debate. By some readings, a need for technological literacies presents a challenge to public communication. Meritocratic or generation-based theories of “digital natives” and “geeks” seem to preclude the formation of broad-based publics (Prensky, 2001). Early concern about a divide of technological access has moved to focus on the unequal distribution of expertise and opportunities to gain it through acquisition of technical skills and media literacies (Jenkins et al., 2009). New forms of experts and expertise have emerged as particularly important to publics, even vital for their existence. Technological intermediaries, such as hackers, are increasingly important to translate and publicize technological issues of public importance (e.g. open data, digital privacy, surveillance). Networked publics on online platforms require expert maintenance work to exist, even when all members of the public need not be experts. The “horizontalist” movement Occupy developed and appropriated technologies to assist the public in the aftermath of hurricane Sandy. Expertise played a vital role that did not preclude a public, but helped it flourish.
We suggest that expertise and publics have always been productively entangled rather than on opposing sides of a binary. This special issue examines the role of technological expertise in constituting publics, maintaining publics, increasing publics’ communicative capacities, influencing existing structures of cultural and governmental power, and connecting with issues of public concern. We ask a set of related questions: how does expertise contribute to the formation of publics and enabling of collective action? Conversely, when does the unequal distribution of expertise inhibit the constitution of publics? How does expertise create public goods? How does it mediate the societal distribution of power? What are the diverse ways expertise can be conceptualized? What is the relationship between technological expertise and other kinds of expertise, such as communicative or social? How does the line between “the public” and “expert” become crossed or blurred?
Pour en savoir plus sur l’initiative d’Internet Archive en lien avec Mozilla.
AoIR routinely hosts several preconference workshops before the main conference. Attendees must register to attend a preconference; the price of the preconference is included as part of the main conference. All workshops will be held on October 5th.
Parmi elle celle organisée par Camille Paloque-Bergès (HT2S Cnam, membre de Web90 ) et Kevin Driscoll (University of Virginia):
404 History Not Found: Challenges in Internet History and Memory Studies
How did the Internet become relevant in today’s culture and politics? How were its codes and rules—whether technical, social or cultural—constructed, challenged, and normalized? How did net culture become a mass phenomenon of global importance? To understand why and how the “Internet rules” today, it is essential that we look back at the internet’s past. In this pre-conference, we will discuss the specific theoretical and methodological challenges that arise in the study of the internet through time and memory, for purposes of both historiography (what net histories and how?) and epistemology (net histories as an object of media research). Attendees will be invited to participate in three hands-on, interactive sessions organized around issues, sources and methods fundamental to researching net diachronicity.
Net history survives in unexpected places, unfolding through time and space, collapsing in on the present. The artifacts that surface may be incomplete or inscrutable absent their original contexts, requiring us to borrow creatively from other fields and develop new historical methods (Ankerson, 2011; Brügger & Finnemann, 2012; Paloque-Berges, 2016). From formal archives and oral histories to lingering web sites, software, and hardware artifacts, the material evidence of the past suggests a diversity of social, temporal, and technical regimes. Indeed, recent scholarship on early networks reveals a greater range of experiences, technologies, norms and motivations than is found in best-known histories of the internet (Brammer, 2015; Brunton, 2013; Driscoll, 2014; Hargadon, 2011; Mailland, 2015; Paloque-Berges, 2011; Rankin 2014, 2015; Russell, 2014; Russell & Schafer, 2014; Schafer & Thierry, 2012; Schulte, 2013; Streeter, 2011). In their wake, we question how to make sense of conflicts and contradictions while respecting the subjective lived experiences of individual participants. What is our responsibility to find and document hidden histories, obscure sources, and less visible networks? How will a richer understanding of the internet’s past change how we engage with its present and imagine its future?
This pre-conference will include three workshop sessions organized around core research challenges in net history: (1) epistemology, (2) sources and methodology, and (3) mediation and transmission. Selected participants, rather than present whole case studies, will intervene on specific challenges—for instance: theoretical paradoxes or deadlocks, methodological problem-solving, and demonstrations of born-digital artifacts. The audience will be involved by taking positions, suggesting ad-hoc solutions, and identifying common themes.
(…) This pre-conference will be a full-day workshop facilitated by Kevin Driscoll and Camille Paloque-Berges with support from the Agence Nationale de la Recherche project Web90. The discussions and hands-on activities will be accessible to all AOIR attendees but will be especially engaging for researchers encountering issues of temporality, memory, nostalgia, or a need to “go back in time” in their own work.
Les grands bouleversements engendrés par l’utilisation des techniques numériques et du réseau Internet sont jugés positivement, mais aussi parfois comme de nouvelles formes de contrôle et d’exploitation. On peut par ailleurs contester le caractère véritablement révolutionnaire de ces bouleversements présentés sous les traits d’une révolution numérique inéluctable qui échappe à toute volonté politique de transformation sociale.
Au-delà de ces différences d’appréciation, cet ouvrage fait un retour sur cinquante ans d’informatisation afin de revisiter les quatre grandes problématiques sociétales qui sont apparues au fur et à mesure de la progression des applications : la problématique du contrôle social, celle de la sécurité, celle de la communication et de l’échange, et enfin celle de la marchandisation. Il s’agit de retrouver les termes dans lesquels elles ont été formulées et, au besoin, de mobiliser des grilles théoriques pour mieux en saisir le sens et la portée. Toutes ces problématiques cohabitent, s’entremêlent et se télescopent dans la mutation numérique en cours, entre contrôle et liberté.
L’auteur: Membre-fondateur du CREIS et du CECIL, André Vitalis est professeur émérite à l’Université Bordeaux Montaigne. Il est l’auteur de plusieurs ouvrages sur la complexité des rapports informatique et libertés.
« Reviving an old computer is like restoring a classic car: There’s a thrill from bringing the ancient into the modern world. So it was with my first “real” computer, my Macintosh Plus, when I decided to bring it forward three decades and introduce it to the modern Web ». Jeff Keacher nous raconte son expérience, à découvrir sur The Kernel.
This article, focusing on France, explores the notion of a “Web of professionals” and seeks to establish its factual, epistemological, and methodological implications for the history of the World Wide Web in the 1990s. This research reflects on the promises of the New Economy and the roles of the various controversies, cultures, imaginaries, and forms of mediation affecting the business world in its appropriation of the Web. It also aims to reappraise the individual and collective stakeholders whose active part has been somehow underestimated or obscured by the image of the mass Internet user. The professionalization of Web activities, the development of a new generation of entrepreneurs and the conversion of business models to online practices are all significant parts of the emergent Web culture in France, as well as factors contributing to this emergence.
How the Internet Became Commercial:
Innovation, Privatization, and the Birth of a New Network
Princeton University Press, 2015.
In less than a decade, the Internet went from being a series of loosely connected networks used by universities and the military to the powerful commercial engine it is today. This book describes how many of the key innovations that made this possible came from entrepreneurs and iconoclasts who were outside the mainstream—and how the commercialization of the Internet was by no means a foregone conclusion at its outset.
Shane Greenstein traces the evolution of the Internet from government ownership to privatization to the commercial Internet we know today. This is a story of innovation from the edges. Greenstein shows how mainstream service providers that had traditionally been leaders in the old-market economy became threatened by innovations from industry outsiders who saw economic opportunities where others didn’t—and how these mainstream firms had no choice but to innovate themselves. New models were tried: some succeeded, some failed. Commercial markets turned innovations into valuable products and services as the Internet evolved in those markets. New business processes had to be created from scratch as a network originally intended for research and military defense had to deal with network interconnectivity, the needs of commercial users, and a host of challenges with implementing innovative new services.
How the Internet Became Commercial demonstrates how, without any central authority, a unique and vibrant interplay between government and private industry transformed the Internet.
Shane Greenstein is the MBA Class of 1957 Professor of Business Administration and cochair of the Digital Initiative at Harvard Business School, and codirector of the program on the economics of digitization at the National Bureau of Economic Research. His books include Diamonds Are Forever, Computers Are Not and Standards and Public Policy.
Yay! Nicole Starosielski's _Undersea Network_ won this year's best first book award at @ SCMS! Much deserved! pic.twitter.com/zpAmFF2W1U
— Shannon Mattern (@shannonmattern) March 31, 2016