world of PWR

Extending propaganda to video games

2004-11-14T11:38:00.000-08:00

I wonder just how the professionals behind the creation of virtual warfare games are going to recreate scenes from recent (or ongoing) wars. I am really wary of the concept that is brought up in the CNN article "Game: Try your hand at nabbing Hussein's sons". I have no real issues with the level of violence in video games these days, but I was hoping that gamers would be spared the propaganda that is such a part of life in the "real" world.

The "bad guys" that the U.S. military chases around the globe are in many case seen as symbols of oppression in places outside the U.S. Of course, that is a cliched argument, but the fact of the matter is that these video games are only going to reflect a narrow way of looking at international conflicts. Personally, I would never want to play a game where the ultimate aim is to kill as many citizens of a foreign country as possible, but then again I am a national of a foreign country myself. I just think that brainwashing impressionable teenagers by hammering in how all the people in the games are "others" is not really a sophisticated way of approaching warfare games.

Sieberg mentions offhand that gamers do not necessarily have "follow along with whatever happened historically". In other words, the game developers will just do that for you. In recreating wars like the current one in Iraq, the developers are bound to emphasize the bravery of the U.S. soldiers. I admire the U.S. military for many reasons, but I somehow get the feeling that these games will not really have much on the many innocent Iraqis that died along the way. So, a naive 15 year old playing the game is going to have a very skewed perception of the war.

What makes it even worse is that "Kuma:War" won't even have a game rating. By cleverly selling the game online, the creators can just have everyone download it. I am positive that lots of junior high kids are going to be targeting Hussein's sons.

Blogging for Academic Purposes

2004-11-08T10:07:00.000-08:00

I don't really mind blogging in the form that we've adopted for this quarter's class. However, I've felt throughout that my blog posts can get sort of artificial in the sense that I might be feigning interest in articles that I don't really find engaging. I don't like forced writing, particularly when I'm the one who's generating it.

I definitely feel that linking the student's blog to his or her research process would be more beneficial. Researching for a major process can be a very frustrating process, and it would be helpful to be able to use the blog to share this frustration with others who can sympathize. Most importantly - and Tony brought this up - setting up a blog for this purpose would allow the people in Erhet next time to share their thoughts on the development of their writing style. While writing a reflection letter towards the end of the quarter might accomplish this to a certain extent, I don't think it can really do full justice to the process of conducting and writing about research. I know that once I finish my project, I will write about in a much different manner than I would if I were to talk about in different phases.

So, the current setup is good, but having a blog for the research process might be more helpful.

The Wikipedia Addiction

2004-11-08T01:24:00.000-08:00

Having used the Wikipedia over the summer, I can easily relate to what Ben Hammersley writes about in his article Common Knowledge. The vast maze of embedded and external links, and the power to actually contribute to an encyclopedia can really become a "compelling" way to spend your time.

I went through a phase last summer where I became really interested in the roots and history of the different languages spoken in my native country. For some reason, I had an identity crisis of sorts: even though I was ethnically a Punjabi, I could not fluently speak the language, having studied just English and Urdu (Pakistan's national language) in school. I was eager to learn more about my "mother tongue" and eventually turned to Wikipedia for help.

The impact was immediate. The moment I opened up the page on Punjabi, I was assaulted by the "massively linked" passages of writing that Hammersley talks about. I found it hard to read the article in a linear manner, since I almost felt obligated to click on some of the links. Once the initial euphoria subsided, I went back and read the article in its entirety. I found it hard to believe that it was a collective effort of many ordinary users, since both the material and the writing seemed very authoritative. I went ahead and typed in some random terms, and was pleasantly surprised to discover that the other articles all had the same high standard of scholarship.

By the time the summer was over, I had learned some very interesting (and obscure) information about Punjabi...along with Sindhi, Baluchi, Pashto, Seraiki, Hindko, and other languages. I had also branched out to Persian and from there to Arabic. I ended up with a fascinating mix of languages that all seemed to have common roots, but still managed to retain some unique features.

I find it refreshing that the online world provides for collaboration on such a wide scale - all we have to do is "put our heads together". The internet is much maligned these days for having a role in everything that affects our society negatively. People forget to acknowledge that ingenious concepts such as the Wikipedia would probably never work in the "real" world. All you have to do now though is press edit and start contributing. I am kind of relieved that I have not really done that so far; I found it hard enough to resist soaking in all the information when I was just reading.

IM as an educational tool

2004-10-31T15:46:00.000-08:00

My initial response to the article ITSS tests IM for campus system by Andrew Gray was one of skepticism. In my mind, IM is primarily associated with procrastination. I had never really stopped to consider that IM could actually hold educational value. However, now that I think of how extensively email is used at colleges like Stanford, I realize that a similar role for IM is distinctly possible.

I think that the single most useful feature of IM from an educational perspective would be fast, real-time communication between faculty and students, and Gray mentions this in his article. However, Gray only hints at the many possibilities that such interaction could hold. For one, faculty members could have “online” office hours, a practice that has already been initiated by a few instructors at Stanford. So, students who find it find frustrating to have to wait during regular office hours could use IM to drop messages to their instructors. Of course, a professor might still be busy online, but at least the student could find out in real time, and would be spared the ordeal of having to bike to an office far away. The professor could also reply to messages later, as long as they were sent in during the online office hours.

A campus-wide IM system would also offer a great deal of flexibility to both students and faculty. Say a student and a lecturer are supposed to go over a paper together, but they are finding it hard to fit an appointment into their respective schedules. They could simply use the video feature and the document editing option to work on the paper at whatever time suits them.

The only concern I have is that IM might be used to replace the traditional methods of teaching, instead of complementing them. I believe that there is no real substitute for the traditional form of physical interaction. Since IM is bound to "permeate higher education" soon, I just hope it does that in the form of a supplement to the conventional form of education. Perhaps, like my initial impression of IM, my belief in the sanctity of classroom teaching and personal interaction is just a misconception that will change 10 years in the future. A part of me really hopes that will not be the case.

PowerPoint: Not Evil

2004-10-18T01:49:00.000-07:00

Honestly, Edward Tufte and others like him have it wrong. By a long way. Decrying the over-dependence on PowerPoint is perhaps understandable. However, extending the criticism to PowerPoint as a medium makes no sense. How exactly is PowerPoint responsible for misleading and trivial figures, "smarmy, incoherent graphs", and an increase in stupidity levels?

Tufte's central argument seems to be that since speakers and the like use PowerPoint slides to break down information into smaller parts, they do not include the depth and details required. As Tufte puts it, the typical PowerPoint presentation "elevates format over content" and smacks of "an attitude of commercialism". In essence, he believes that PowerPoint presentations are dumbed down to make the case quickly, and hence, do not stimulate the interest of the audience.

My main problem with Tufte's line of thinking is his belief that PowerPoint slides should give the same amount of information as conventional reading material. That is simply not the function of PowerPoint. These slides are just aids that help to keep the audience informed about the main points under discussion - nothing more. The speaker is still responsible for explaining the subject matter in detail to people who might not be that well informed about it. In that sense, the speaker is always in a position of "dominance over the audience" - using PowerPoint does not bring this about.

Tufte's other main claim that PowerPoint slides are devoid of meaningful statistics does not make much sense either. The conventional and "intriguing" table that he cites as an example could easily be used in its original form in PowerPoint, and it probably would be in many cases. However, pie charts and graphs are actually helpful for many people, and representing the same data in more easily understood terms causes no harm. Visual graphics are an important learning tool and often help clear some of the confusion that cold, hard figures can cause.

Personally, I have always thought that a well thought out presentation involves the use of PowerPoint as an aid - not as the main tool. As long as it stays that way, I will firmly favor the use of this software. People have short attention spans - Edward Tufte should just accept that.

Matrimonials and Regulations

2004-10-04T01:01:00.000-07:00

Funny how new inventions in the digital world lose their novelty so quickly. If you happen to use the term "online matrimonials" (the plural form is common online) around here now, chances are very few people will act surprised. However, if you were in a less digitally advanced country like India or Pakistan, and advised someone there to find their soul mate over the internet, you'd probably provoke a mixture of incredulity and scorn. Still, not everyone from South Asia is completely skeptical of less conventional dating methods. About 2 million people are members of www.shaadi.com (literally wedding.com): a website tailored to address the unique marital requirements of South Asian men and women.

By far the most popular site of its kind, shaadi.com has a membership base that cuts across national boundaries, caste, religion, and the many other aspects of identity that are unique to people belonging to the Indian subcontinent. A quick look through the site reveals a fascinating little world that mirrors the "real" lives of ordinary South Asian people. Abstract factors such as "family values" combine with pragmatic concerns about education and even US citizenship. A more thorough search reveals an almost obsessive focus on religion and personal beliefs, along with skin color (there are three options for "wheatish" skin). I believe that I could make a intriguing project out of studying how online matrimonial sites such as shaadi.com, despite being revolutionary, still reflect the traditional ways in which people choose to identify themselves. At the same time, I could also examine if these websites are in a way "liberating" as well; whether by putting marital concerns out there in the open, they let people tackle such a complicated issue in a more confident manner.

As an alternative, I could focus on the role of the internet in countries with autocratic forms of government. As sites like spot.censoring.us demonstrate, "online" journalists in countries like Iran also have to face the strict censorship rules normally reserved for journalists working for the print media. Many governmental agencies worldwide routinely censor pornography and defend the practice as a moral obligation. Military authorities in countries like Myanmar adopt even more severe policies and look to limit the general use of the internet. I could research the manner in which these autocratic governments have responded to attempts to use the internet as a tool of liberation. In the process, I could analyze the reaction to modern technology in countries that are generally economically undeveloped. This would involve studying the issue from the two sides and arriving at an understanding of how both the users and those restricting their access perceive the internet.

It's really late at night now, and I keep making this corny connection in my mind between marriage and repression...