Updates from September, 2011 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Pam Schwartz 5:44 pm on September 14, 2011 Permalink

    One more interesting article…I promise I’ll stop.


  • Pam Schwartz 5:35 pm on September 14, 2011 Permalink

    This really ties in to what we have been talking about in class, both talking about technology and who can/cannot have an authoritative voice.


  • chrislarry 2:14 pm on September 14, 2011 Permalink
    Tags: , collaboration, community, working in the open   

    Wow love the new header and sidebar cleanup! Thanks Pam! Anyone else have some ideas for the blog that need admin rights?

  • chrislarry 1:44 am on September 14, 2011 Permalink
    Tags: ,   

    Nina Simon Open Thread 


    Let’s use this thread to discuss the first five chapters of Participatory Museum and for you all to post which of Simon’s examples/case studies you decided to investigate deeper. Simply “reply” to this thread.

    Here is the link for Nina’s blog. Newest post is about fundraising and very interesting.


    • vshoffner 10:28 pm on September 14, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I investigated the I Like Museums marketing campaign, as well as the Tate Modern pamphlets.

      As Simone describes the I Like Museums campaign allows a user to either search through, or create a “trail” of museums in North East England, tailored to their interests (ex. I Like…Victorians). If a trail is created by a user it can be shared on the website for other users to view. Once you click on a trail, you are presented with the user created list of museum’s relevant to the topic, including website, address, telephone number, and sometimes a note on each from the creator of the trail. Options to print or e-mail the trail are also provided.

      Users can also score each trail after they’ve viewed it, or tried it out. Some examples of this are: I like…Fossils has a score of 9/10, and I Like…Pigs has a 4/10. I found this to be an interesting concept, streamlining the decision-making process for those who want to share or discover useful information on specific museums for a variety of interests.

      Simone makes the point: “These museum trails were accessible and relevant to people because they started with who they are, not what the institution offers.”

      One interesting user created trail was ‘I Like…things to do with a hangover’, which provides several locations including: an art museum to take your mind off how terrible you may feel; a cathedral; a place called Bede’s World where you can “act like a kid”; as well as a castle by the sea and a Roman Fort and Bath for some fresh air to make you feel better. This example and many others are interesting because they give the visitor reasons to attend these museums besides just the collection, and have tailored their experience before they walk through the museum doors. As Simone writes: “The website subtly gives you more and more reasons to visit a museum beyond viewing its collection.”

      The I Like Museums organization has s somewhat active facebook page with several posts a month, although there didn’t appear to be much discussion between those who had ‘liked’ the page. I tried viewing their linked twitter page but it wasn’t working for me.

      While discussing the I Like Museums campaign, Simone also mentioned the Tate Modern using pamphlets with tours based on a visitor’s mood. When looking at the Tate website and the unique tours listed, which they call Your Collection, many of them didn’t have much to do with mood but some were kind of random. Many of these collections are listed and able to be viewed on the website. The I’ve Just Split Up Collection features more heartbreaking and gloomy paintings. The I Like Yellow Collection just features the color yellow. The Rainy Day Collection features colorful paintings, and paintings of clear days. The I’m an Animal Freak Collection features paintings with all kinds of animals. The I Haven’t Been Here in Ages Collection reacquaints the visitor with some of the museum’s better-known pieces, as well as educating them on newly acquired objects that the visitor may not have seen yet. The Odd Faces Collection takes the visitor on a tour stopping at works of art with strange faces. Other Collections featured on the website and viewable in pdf format are: The I’m Hungover Collection; The Happily Depressed Collection; The Calming Collection; The I Come Here All the Time Collection; The Britannia Collection; The I Have a Big Meeting Collection; The Kids Only Collection; and the I’m In a Hurry Collection. The Tate website also allows the visitor to, in a small way, become a curator themselves, and create their own personal collection tour. The Tate Modern expresses on their website “All those works of art are yours.” This kind of approach is quite simple and, similar to the I Like Museums campaign, begins with the individual.

      Here are the links for the websites:




      • sdaugherty28 8:36 pm on September 17, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        The Tate’s pamphlet idea is so interesting. I wish I saw them when I visited!

      • klparman 2:44 am on September 18, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        I have been to a museum that has pamphlets based on how much time I had to spend in the museum. While they did point me to what the museum considered to be their most important objects, I wasn’t necessarily interested in seeing one object in each exhibit that had a bunch of people surrounding it. Who decides which objects are so noteworthy anyway?! I do think the emotional pamphlet ideas are really interesting. It really allows the visitor to reflect on themselves and their purpose for being at the museum (even if they are hung over and someone forced them to be there).

    • ktkeckeisen 7:32 pm on September 17, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I was intrigued by the “Odditoreum” exhibit at the Powerhouse Museum in Sydney, Australia that Simon used as a case study in Ch. 4. The fact that all of the labels that were near the object were fictitous and came from the minds of a children’s author and local schoolkids seemed to me to be the sort of thing I’d want to go visit and participate in.

      A quick Google search led me to the Powerhouse’s website and a blog post that was published just before the exhibit opened. It features an interview with Helen Whitty, the Public Programs Producer for the exhibit. Ms. Whitty mentions that this exhibit was first thought up because the museum needed something cheap to produce between two larger exhibits. So, the staff looked to objects that it had in its own collection that were just, well, sorta weird. Then, instead of having the curators write the normal museum label copy, the museum brought in children’s book author Shaun Tan to write fictitious labels for eleven of the objects. The other seven objects had labels which were written by children from the local elementary school.

      What I liked about this approach is that it gets people’s imaginations churning. Instead of showing these incredibly bizarre objects and telling the visitors it’s real purpose (which takes the bizarreness out), the children writing the labels simply used their imaginations to come up with what they thought the purposes of these outlandish creations were. Both these, and the labels written by Tan, would (as Simon says) “encourage visitors to think about the ‘why’ of these objects.”

      For example, Tan wrote a label for a giant shoe-shaped tricycle that looked to be covered in licorice. Instead of simply stating that this was used as a parade bicycle in the Sydney Olympic Games Opening Ceremony, Tan wrote the following label:

      Guide dog testing device number 6

      This enormous liquorice all-sorts shoe is one of several outlandish objects used to test young guide dogs for their susceptibility to distraction while on duty. A tricycle inside the shoe allows a rider to manoeuvre this colourful vehicle while prospective guide dogs are put through their paces. The shoe appears at the moment an important task needs to be performed, such as crossing a road, laying quietly in a restaurant, or entering a lift. Dogs are then assessed on their ability to maintain composure and focus, thus preparing them for the challenges of the real world.
      Other ‘canine distracters’ commonly used by training staff include a Volkswagen covered in sausages, an ice-cream van that spills colourful rubber balls, and a litter of kittens riding on a miniature steam train.

      Now that’s what I call a label! The Powerhouse took the whole, kooky thing one step forward by inviting the public to make their own labels for the objects. This, says Simon, “let visitors of all knowledge levels into the game of making meaning out of objects.” Instead of visitors feeling intimidated if they didn’t know the right answer, the Powerhouse Museum made it okay to be silly and to guess. Then after, it was all over, the last label showed the visitors to “Odditoreum” what they actual purpose of each object was. This made the correct information “available, but not the point of the experience.”

      Personally, I think every museum should try to do an exhibit like this at least once. It takes away the apparent stuffy facade and shows that public that the museum can be a play of silliness, too.



      Check out their flikr page! It’s quite fun and shows some examples of the “Write Your Own Label” area. http://www.flickr.com/photos/powerhouse_museum_photography/sets/72157621891871473/


    • sdaugherty28 9:13 pm on September 17, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I decided to further investigate the Brooklyn Museum’s “Click! A Crowd-Curated Exhibition” exhibition: http://www.brooklynmuseum.org/exhibitions/click/gallery.php

      Simon uses this interactive exhibition as a case study in Chapter 3. Developed in 2008, the purpose of this exhibition was to investigate if crowds could judge subjective works of art the same way experts did. Participants could judge the works based of their artistic quality and relevance to the exhibition theme: “The changing face of Brooklyn.”

      I really enjoyed browsing the photograph submissions and reading the various comments underneath. Many images sparked critical discussions about Brooklyn and artistic merit. In addition, the exhibition’s website is user friendly. It contains multiple tabs (Top 10 compared, most discussed, artists, etc) to help the visitor navigate through this online exhibition.

      Interestingly, the exhibition concluded that people with little art knowledge are likely to make similar choices to those made by art experts. This is apparent when you compare the top 10 images to “no knowledge” people, “some knowledge” people, “more than a little knowledge” people, “above average knowledge” people, and experts.

      Visitors can be trusted to successfully provide and engage with content!

      • sdaugherty28 10:14 pm on September 17, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Upon further reflection, I guess the idea behind this exhibit threatens the traditional relationship between a cultural institution and its staff. We tend to think of museums as authoritative, the ones providing the knowledge. This notion is challenged by participatory exhibitions and the like. Where does this leave us as museum professionals?

        I could get used to a “benevolent dungeon master ” title…

    • haljust 9:24 pm on September 17, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I decided to investigate Pandora.

      As a frequent user of Pandora, I found Simone’s study on it very interesting. I’ve used Pandora not only as an entertainment source when I’m bored and I just want to listen to music that peaks my interest, but also as a research tool. I would type in one of my favorite artists names and as I listen to the set of songs that it set up I would find a great interest in one of the new bands that I came across. Sometimes I would find bands that are already in my music collection, but other times I would find a band that I’ve never heard of. I could also learn more about that new band or something new about a band I already was interested in.

      Simone gave a great example of how to harness this for within a cultural institution. A person could generate of list of similar objects or exhibitions from one of their favorites. They could understand why it was chosen and why they like it. I thought that this could be expanded even more. Instead of just one cultural institution involved with it, it could be a massive group of them. A person could type in their favorite subject matter, artist, time period, object, etc. The program would generate a list of various objects and exhibitions at the various museums. It would give a reason why it was chosen, but also a history of that object or the meaning of an exhibit. People could use it as a research tool to find different museums that they might want to visit. They could also learn something new about an object. A person could type in Leonardo Da Vinci and get a statue that they might not have known was sculpted by him. I just think it would be a cool way for people to find a museum that would fit their interests or learn something new about an object, artist, etc. It would personalize their experience.


      Here is the link to Pandora.

    • erinlbradford 2:33 am on September 18, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I choose to look more into the idea of “Provocative Exhibition Design”, discussed in Chapter 4, and specifically the work of Fred Wilson and Mining the Museum. Simon discusses that, “one of the most powerful and simple ways to provoke social response is through juxtaposition”. I completely agree that through the positioning and placement of the objects themselves generates questions and dialogue among visitors.

      I think when you go to an exhibition that has a provocative exhibition design not only do the placement and selection of objects create dialogue among visitors (acquainted and unacquainted) this style of exhibition also causes physical reactions from visitors (mouths open, eyebrows raise, fingers point, eyes squint, elbows nudge, etc.), and an experience that is shared jointly among a large group of people through an exhibition can create for a significant experience. Visitors leave remembering how a display made them feel or how it made them react and observers recognize shared reactions to an exhibit almost solidifying that what they saw was something provocative and made to exhibit some response.

      I think that through the use of provocative exhibition designs an institution can almost gauge better what an audience’s reaction will be to an exhibit. And as Simon discussed Fred Wilson has been known for using such exhibition styles in the past. Visitors have these reactions to the work he produces not because a pair of slave shackles are displayed or because a silver tea set is displayed, it is because they are displayed together and the subtext that is suggested in that. “Juxtaposition implies obvious questions: “Why are these here and those missing?” “What’s going on here?” Curators and museum educators often ask questions like this, but these questions can fall flat when presented as teachable moments”. Hopefully it is through the display and juxtaposition of the objects that visitors are able to gain a participatory experience through the exhibition, as Simon’s mentions the objects themselves that Wilson used in Mining the Museum were not of any significant consequence, but it was the “platform” that was presented.

      Fred Wilson came to do a lecture at Seton Hall, maybe a year ago? a year and a half ago?, and he discussed all the reactions that came with the exhibit, his techniques and what he was trying to create and convey in his exhibition style. He was extremely passionate about his work and even commented at the unease some institutions have when employing him understanding the context that may come with the exhibition and that he will probably be rooting through a warehouse and/or storage facility somewhere. But for those who maybe have not heard of Fred Wilson I found this website that offers a lot of great information on him, and a couple of interviews. I definitely found him interesting to listen to and enjoyed hearing his ideas and theories on creating exhibits.


      Another link I want to share is about Mining the Museum, the article gives a little more information about what the exhibit was about, and why it attracted so much conversation for those who did and did not see it and why the conversation has lasted so long past the exhibit.


    • klparman 2:40 am on September 18, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I chose to do more research on Netflix (http://www.netflix.com) and the possibilities created by using this technology within cultural institutions. Simon writes that Netflix is trying to sell monthly subscriptions, so their goal is to keep customers interested in new movies, which they do by making recommendations based on a customer’s personal ratings. Not only does it keep customers interested, but it keeps all of their movies in constant circulation. This also gives lesser-known independent films more advertisement.

      Many websites, including http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/netflix2.htm, can give you more information about the math and algorithms, but Netflix uses a system called cinematch.com to match and recommend movies in groups according to genre, based on your ratings and other users’ similar ratings. Simply put, it matches your rating and rental history (including your queue) with those of other users. It also recommends based on the combined ratings of all Netflix users, not just users with similar interests. This is why recommendations do not necessarily have anything to do with plots or casts.

      Netflix, much like other resources Simon described, gets more accurate with every new and/or active customer/rater. The rating activity matches close to a billion movies to customers each day. If museums were able to have this categorization system with their databases, it would benefit the collection in many ways. First of all, it would connect visitors with lesser-known objects based on their common interests with other museum goers. My Netflix account always recommends “Sentimental films with a strong female lead” or “late-night comedies.” (Amazing how accurate it can be) It makes me wonder which museum objects would cater to these interests, especially objects that are not in permanent exhibits. Maybe it would recommend objects that are a little odd, but just as interesting to me.

      • ajwhipker 12:57 am on September 19, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        I always can’t help but to think that people just love it when others (whether computers, people, or tests) figure out their personality! It’s like an outside affirmation of your greatness!

    • amyrt 10:21 pm on September 18, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      In chapter 3, Simon discusses interactive exhibits and getting artist participation. She goes indepth into how to best present the interactives to the public. She uses examples from museums, I decided to look up the ontario science center’s exhibit, Facing Mars. There are some really cool interactive exhibits there she doesn’t mention..
      I like that she pushes museums even farther by saying that it would be nice to have interactives that encouraged people to talk with strangers about their differing opinions. In the Mars exhibit, visitors only can say yes or no would they go to mars, before and after seeing the exhibit, but imagine if once people voted there was a way for people to talk about why they voted that way and engage in discussion with others who voted differently. I think with mobile devices nowadays it is possible to do.

    • Pam Schwartz 10:31 pm on September 18, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Since Frank Warren released the first edition of Post Secret I have been interested in the “anonymous” type of crowd participation. I agree with what Simon says in that people may be more likely to get involved if their identity remains anonymous or if the final product (perhaps from an activity) can be displayed without having to put their face or name to it.

      I feel, especially with older generations, that keeping some participatory events anonymous will better encourage some visitors to get involved. With Post Secret Warren doesn’t an excellent job of balancing participatory scaffolding and freedom. When reading one of the Post Secret books or viewing an exhibition, like Warren, I feel I can relate to many of the artists/creators/writers.

      Additionally, I do like the idea of exhibitions that are entirely user/visitor generated, though there can be many issues with this as Simon mentions. They require heavy screening of submissions which can sometime cause display/share time to lag. With this process though you create an exhibition that is sort of “by the people, for the people”.

      You can check out the Post Secret blog here:

      Nina Simon’s blog post about hearing Frank Warren speak:

      This blog, 1000 Awesome Things, runs in a similar vein in that though it is narrated/curated by one person, the basis is user generated. I designed my exhibition for A-Z using inspiration from this book.

      • sdaugherty28 1:26 pm on September 19, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        I agree! I know I would be more comfortable participating if I knew my identity was kept anonymous! Especially if I were revealing my secrets…

    • ajwhipker 12:53 am on September 19, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I chose to investigate the Free2choose exhibit at the Anne Frank museum. Right off the bat I was pleased to see that visitors have the chance to view films on the social issues at hand and THEN vote. It allows them to see an up to date version of the debate and puts all conflicts fresh in their minds, maybe creating more controversial results? It seems to be very visitor friendly in being offered in 6 languages and allows for private voting. Simon wrote some suggestions for the exhibit to make it more social, such as physical voting by dividing down the room. Personally I find this a terrible way to go about discussing social issues with complete strangers. Those who have extremely strong opinions on one issue or another could become frustrated or even aggressive towards those with differing opinions. I have also taken part in activities like this and many people tend to follow the majority, even if it’s not their belief. Overall I think the set-up of private voting is ideal for a museum crowd and can promote social interactions and discussions of hot-button issues but in a controlled and safe environment.

      Other random thoughts on the reading…
      I really found the outlining of the 5 stages of social interaction really useful in chapter one. After seeing it used in an everyday example I could see how it applies to my life. It really reminded me of goodreads.com, a great site where you can track books you’ve read, write reviews, read the lists and reviews of others as well as comment on their material. Lastly once you post so many reviews you can get personal recommendations. It is basically as interactive as you want it to be (as there is no ‘facilitator’) and members can reach all five stages of interaction.(When I got to chapter two I saw Simon uses a similar website!) I also wonder if Simon read Siemen’s theories of connectivity, as she seemed to highlight the importance of participation happening on a larger scale in which people have a sense of team/doing their share.

      I was really shocked in chapter two that the NY Hall of Science essentially LABELS their guests with stickers (member, non-member, donor). Even if these stickers do not clearly ID the status of each guest, I think it’s a horrible way to treat a guest because in the end staff may end up paying more attention to donors or members. I did like the reference to other types of labels that are less related to the function of the museum, such as the Greek god personality quiz/tag or talk to me about… stickers. Simon said profiles should be flexible, the member, donor etc labels are clearly not and if I had a sticker I may be wondering why people have different colors and what they mean.

      • sdaugherty28 1:36 pm on September 19, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        I too was taken back that the NY Hall of Science “labels” their guests. While it is important to recognize donors and members, I believe this should be done more privately. Seeing people with “member” and “donor” badges may make “non members” feel intimidated and therefore reduce their motivated to engage with other visitors and staff. Yes, it is important to continue to cultivate a relationship with people who are already involved with the museum, but what about the people who already feel out of place in a museum?

    • sarahadlis 1:45 am on September 19, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I started off investigating both Pandora and Netflix as commercial enterprises which allow the user to choose something they like (such as a song or artists for Pandora, or a movie for Netflix) and which then makes suggestions given the nature of the user’s choice for what the user may like. I’m always amazed at what Netflix in particular comes up with for my movie suggestions (apparently I like Imaginative Foreign Sci-Fi and Fantasy, as well as Dark Cerebral Thrillers with a Strong Female Lead), and the loved it/really liked it/liked it/didn’t like it/hated it rating system seems to be really responsive to my votes as far as suggestions for upcoming movies. But what I kept coming back to while looking at both Netflix and Pandora was StumbleUpon, which Simon doesn’t mention in the first 5 chapters. The best way I can think of to describe StumbleUpon is as a reverse internet search engine: instead of typing in a narrow search query (such as ‘pumpkin pie recipe’) and getting related hits, the user creates a profile in which they choose their categories of interest, and are then directed to randomly generated internet sites which fit those categories. For example, on my StumbleUpon account I chose categories such as photography, cooking, arts and crafts, current events, literature, women’s issues, satire, and art. When I click the “stumble” button, the search engine takes me to sites which fit these categories. When I arrive at a new site, I have the option to ‘like’ or ‘dislike’ the page, which not only temporarily saves the sites I like for later perusal, but also further personalizes my profile. What differentiates this from sites such as Netflix and Pandora is that, instead of taking a movie or song and breaking it down into its thematic parts and from that information directing the user, StumbleUpon takes a user-declared category of interest(s), and from there creates completely new and randomized experiences for the user. I’ve found that using StumbleUpon has directed me to sites that I would never in a million years have found on my own. In addition to taking the user to new sites, sites themselves that have a relationship with StumbleUpon can create a greeting that appears only when visitors arrive at the site through the StumbleUpon search engine, creating a sense of community and user identity. Sites can even petition StumbleUpon users for “likes” in order to increase their popularity and frequency. While I appreciate Netflix’s and Pandora’s ability to tell me things about my music and movie tastes that I couldn’t have put into words, I also enjoy and see the merit in StumbleUpon’s approach which allows me to declare my categories of interest for myself. Not only do I think this kind of a philosophy can be applied to museums, but I think StumbleUpon itself can be a great tool for searching the web for resources that you didn’t even know were out there. I think it could be a great resource for students and museum professionals to find new and exciting ideas. But be warned: once you start Stumbling, you’ll find yourself looking up hours later and wondering where the time has gone!

    • corilinville 2:45 am on September 19, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I chose to look into the case study of the learning with strangers in the human library. I found this really inspiring that people would get together and form this event with these random people to ask questions. It is a great way to help get rid of social prejudices. This is different than everything else because this is getting people to step out of what they know and are normally “like”. They are now being challenged to try something different and new. This is great because it is not like a movie where you would be learning about this on screen but during this new experience you borrow a ‘book’ (aka a person) and have your conversation with these people are of certain stereotypes. Of course there is a time limit and there are people watching over but it sounds like it is set up perfectly. You actually get to have a conversation with a person who might be lesbian, Black Muslim, Goth, or a cop and you get to ask him questions. It sounds like a great experience and I understand why it has taken off so well and over so many countries too. It started in Denmark in 2000. It was first started by the Danish youth NGO “Stop the Violence”.
      fun fact- When in the US it has mostly been in library settings when it was Denmark they had it starting out in the music festivals and they normally had it in musical festivals and in large events. Which, when reading the pdf link and looking at the pictures on it, it actually looks like it works out really well. It makes me want to be a part of a human library but sadly I have never even heard of one before, has anyone else??

      And because Nina brings it in I thought I would too. She contracts the, It Is: Conversations About Iraq exhibit with the human library towards the end of the case study. And this exhibition is an interesting one, in that no one really talked to them even though it made it seem like they were open for questions. But even the name, It Is What It Is, that does not sound like it leaves much up for opinion so what would there be much to discuss except for them to tell you what they think.

      “Meet your own prejudice. Instead of talking talking about it, simply meet it.”


    • melanieodonnell 12:52 am on September 22, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply


      I decided to investigate the “World Without Oil” game from chapter 4. The game was played by 1,900 people in May 2007, and simulated what would happen if the world’s oil supply dried up, prices sky rocketed, and chaos followed. Each day represented a week, with updates on world events and gas prices influencing how people reacted. Participants updated through blog posts, youtube videos, audio recordings, and pictures ‘documenting’ their life during the fuel shortage. The goal of the creators is to use the group to brainstorm new ways to cut back on fuel usage, and how their world has changed around them. People even applied this to their real life, one user posted about a party they organized where everyone attending walked or biked. They held it a random bar, that so happened to be throwing a pirate party. It wasn’t just cars that are affected, airlines are cutting back on flights, the strategic oil reserves are being rationed and are feared to be targets of terrorism, food prices are spiking (because it costs more to transport), people are canceling netflix accounts (save the gas it takes for delivery), planting gardens, etc, etc, etc.

      The goal, per the website, was ‘By design, the gameplay in WWO generated ideas for solutions to the problems of oil dependency and energy policy. As players and viewers immersed themselves in the alternate reality and sought solutions to the situations brought on by the oil crisis, they brought this thinking back to their real lives. Many of them reported this resulted in change to their real lives: greater awareness about energy use, more conservative energy practices, more questioning of energy consumption and policy, and so on. They “played it, so they wouldn’t have to live it.”‘ It caused the players to think about their own oil consumption, and often to make changes in their own lives.

      This problem solving via game recently solved a problem that stumped scientists for 15 years in only 10 days. Using Fold.it, gamers modeled the enzyme, Mason-Pfizer monkey virus (M-PMV) retroviral protease, a protein in the monkey version of AIDS, in a manner that matched crystalline structures observed by scientists. Gamers created models, and the better the model, the more points the player earned. With this piece cracked, scientist may be able to create a drug that stymie the multiplication of the virus in humans. A real life application of a game that used the crowd to solve a complex problem.

    • johnviebrock 4:25 pm on October 17, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply


      I decided to look into the case study in chapter 3 called the Human Library. The idea of connecting people directly to their prejudices in a safe and friendly manner fascinated me. Their goal via the website is to “promote dialogue, reduce prejudices and encourage understanding.” The Human library itself is a place where visitors are given the opportunity to speak informally with “people on loan”; the people being loaned are extremely varied from age and sex to cultural background. The Human Library enables groups to break stereotypes by challenging the most common prejudices in a positive and humorous manner. It is a concrete, easily transferable and affordable way of promoting tolerance and understanding. I think it is a great way to bring people together and remove prejudices by actually facing them. By creating a free dialogue between the people and their prejudices they can connect and realize that they aren’t any different from themselves, bringing society together as a whole. By having a face to face conversation it impacts the user more profoundly then just reading it in a book or watching it on a screen.

      That social interaction lasts and can truly change a persons perspective on what they thought they knew. For example, Simon gave a quote from a Turkish reader “I’ve never had a gay friend. It was unbelievably exciting to find myself facing him with his body, opinions and identity. It seems he was not very different from me and especially he was not an alien. From now on, I will not disrupt my communication with the gays, I will enhance it.” The Human library to me has been a very successful experiment and has spread into multiple countries and is still growing. I for one am happy that something like this has come along to bring society together especially in the times we live in today where people are judged so harshly based on stereotypes and not who they really are. I would be very interested in taking part in the Human library and would be curious to watch the interaction between the books and the readers. I wonder if any serious arguments occur during these sessions?

  • chrislarry 1:19 am on September 14, 2011 Permalink
    Tags: , grades   

    Here are the badge icons! 

  • chrislarry 12:55 am on September 14, 2011 Permalink
    Tags: , notes   

    Here are the Siemens discussion notes that Pam took (thanks Pam!) Please feel free to add thoughts to this thread.

    Class Discussion 9-12

Compose new post
Next post/Next comment
Previous post/Previous comment
Show/Hide comments
Go to top
Go to login
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
%d bloggers like this: