[transliteracies]
According to UNESCO, in the world today there are about 1 billion non-literate adults.
This 1 billion is approximately 26 percent of the world's adult population.
Women make up two-thirds of all non-literates.
98 percent of all non-literates live in developing countries.
In the least developed countries, the overall illiteracy rate is 49 percent.
52 percent of all non-literates live in India and China.
Africa as a continent has a literacy rate of less than 60 percent.
This 1 billion is approximately 26 percent of the world's adult population.
Women make up two-thirds of all non-literates.
98 percent of all non-literates live in developing countries.
In the least developed countries, the overall illiteracy rate is 49 percent.
52 percent of all non-literates live in India and China.
Africa as a continent has a literacy rate of less than 60 percent.
Right. So what are we doing about this? Well for one UNESCO has launched a Literacy Initiative for Empowerment (LIFE) while others are developing country/province specific initiatives. In other words the world has recognised the extreme importance of being able to read and write. Literacy is an indispensable prerequisite to gain access to information about health, environment, education and employment.
ENTER TECHNOLOGY. With almost everything existing online (banks, clothing, food, shelter - buying and letting, friends, family,etc...) one must be technologically literate. Without this new literacy there is no access to this world. In Professor Sue Thomas's talk today at DMU she discussed the (alarming for some) speed at which web technology is progressing. Unfortunately, although technologies are converging at breakneck pace, research about them has not followed suit. Universities and some (can we say most?) academics seem to "fear" the progress of the internet. Perhaps they are worried that what is available is not academic...but that of course is the case for print as well. Good researchers recognise academic sources whether they exist online or offline. Perhaps the problem with the web (at least the new web, web 2.0) are the myriad of connections which abound. So universities retreat into what Thomas calls "gated communities;" communities where academics might feel protected from the wilderness but isn't collaboration and aren't connections central to any strong research? The question becomes how to "manage" the information (overload) which exists in the ether. There are all sorts of platforms and tagging devices but I think it comes down to each person being aware of what they want (subjective view, social view, academic view) and looking for sources which provide that.
If universities don't get involved now we'll have what Epic depicts - an internet where there is no "truth" to be found as newspapers have gone "offline" in protest and blogs become the news and, on top of it, each "news" story is tailored to each individual reader so the question of what really happened becomes impossible to answer. With universities not afraid to add to the "stone soup" of power and potential that is inherent in such a connective tissue the key words for information management will become "filtering," "ordering," and "delivering." In one word: we all need to be transliterate.


jess @ jesslaccetti.co.uk




3 Comments:
Few clarifications on the EPIC thing. First, Google News doesn't actually edit any news, it's just an aggregator. Second, TiVO is very much standalone (right now).
While the idea presented is interesting, and very scary, I don't really believe that it will happen. There aren't just two companies (Microsoft and Google) out there. While Google is spreading out in a constant fashion following a plan that only they know, they do have limits on cash. Media companies are actually owned by even larger companies which have more cash then MS and Google ever had. Besides, things are moving towards video-on-demand, not personalized text. Reading is the arena of the smart...
Yes, you're right, Google doesn't edit any news...yet! The premise, as I understand it, is that in the "scary future" Googlezon could exist. And I think it WILL, without a certain kind of "academic" investment.
Interesting comment about reading for the smart...not quite sure about that. Does that mean kids who "read" comics are smarter than those who "read" and understand "mash ups." (check out: http://isp.webopedia.com/TERM/M/mash_up.html) Anyway video would still require a certain degree of "literacy." Each medium has its own language which some people can read and some people can't.
Well, Google's core corporate philosophy is "do no evil." I personally don't think that it is possible - as a publically traded company they now have to do things the shareholder way, and not the personal philosophy way. Sooner or later they will get involved in the content itself, and not just the delivery of it, or targeted advertising for it.
I don't think you can compare a comic with a mashup. They're utterly different thing. One is a set of pictures, perhaps with words. The other is taking two disparate information streams and fusing them to get something different. I also don't believe that there are many "kids" with the technical know-how that can go forth and create them.
Ah, but now we're talking about literacy in different contexts. Originally we were just discussing textual literacy - i.e. people that can read and write. Contemplating subtext within a video or other form of presentation requires other types of skills. I think that I just have a very negative view of younger people and what they are (or more likely are not) capable of. I suspect it is a case of judging a book by it's cover ("Pull up your damn pants!").
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home