Are you information literate?

How to have fun with history is available

on http://booklocker.com/books/4809.html

If you wake up to discover that the Internet and all cell phone towers are down, could you:

• Get directions by reading a physical map
• Identify north, south, east, west visually
• Do basic arithmetic, i.e. add, subtract, multiply and divide, in your head or on paper without the help of an electronic crutch
• Source the information you use and need on a daily basis manually
• And, if the downtime for the Internet and your cell was due to some disaster, could you source basic survival information manually?

If you said no to one of the above, you should be on alert. If you could not answer two or more of the above, you are not information literate, regardless of education or profession.

Information literacy is the ability to access, extract and comprehend information effectively and efficiently. If your only skill for accessing information is to google an answer, then the rest of the pyramid collapses.

Information literacy exists within the individual not within his or her ability to manipulate and bundle key terms on the Internet.

Alternative sources include individuals such as specialists, organizations, knowledge repositories such as libraries, and physical sources such as books, maps or documents. Two important factors in accessing information is to know what is available to you, and where. The process of discovering these can be fun and the journey packed with happy surprises.

The ability to memorize or retain information is also key to information literacy. This process is called building general knowledge. General knowledge is a personal database of useful - and sometimes trivial - information which can be relied upon when technology fails to deliver the answers - or when party talk flags.

Heather Vallance is the author of How to have fun with history which explores the principles of information literacy in the context of historical research. She is also the coauthor of How to be information literate which is a textbook for tertiary level education, particularly for students with English second language skills.

Who are you really texting?

Have you ever wondered about that unusual chat you had with a long-time friend, only to discover that s/he was away some place distant at the time? Or, about the sudden change in content, context and tone while engaged in a long bout of texting? Or, even the occasional emails from family members that make you wonder if they have stopped taking their meds?

Online voyeurism is a growing issue which few of us think about on a day to day basis, but which we should think about because it points to disordered personalities with potential access to intimate details capable of facilitating predatory behaviors against children and compromising adults.

In a recent experiment to test home camera systems, the New Zealand Herald hacked a collection of IP addresses with security cameras installed. The staff discovered that they could access homes and businesses with ease. Had they been true voyeurs they would have inserted themselves into the lives of their targets and learned more than any stranger has the right to know about the private moments of others.

It is probably wise to remember that everything has a camera attached these days, from  a simple dial-in dial-out to a smartphone, a tablet, laptop and desktop.

When dealing with the compulsive communicator in chats, texts or emails, it is easy enough, as an adult, to pick up change in tone based, often, upon basic levels of maturity, experience and intimacy. Most compulsive communicators lack the ability to adapt to the target's life experience and fail to incorporate those little personal details which build up over the years among and between people.

Sadly, it is easier for adults to think down to a child's level based, this time, on the lack of life experience, developing ego and trust issues. In other words, children as shown time and time again, cannot pick up on the nuance and subtleties of interpersonal communication.

The question now becomes, what do we do about the tablet camera as we prop up in bed, or that seemingly secure security system at home, or the smartphone which follows us into intimate places?

The Internet has moved beyond its cyber crime potential into a world of unrestrained voyeurism where we are visible in the street, at our windows, on the beach. Our voicemails are fair game to any sick mind with our password, and our correspondence is conquest and rite of passage in the real-time game of virtual reality.

And, we are the conduits, because we carry the tools voyeurs use against us with us 24/7.

The new eternal conundrum is, "What is privacy?"

With universal access to our lives, the issue of protecting online copyright becomes redundant.

The Internet is our perceptual signifier - the vehicle and expression of reality which makes life in the flesh a gossamer reflection on a screen.

Nothing is sacred, and everything is fair game.


Heather Vallance has worked extensively on defining information literacy as it applies to taken-for-granted knowledge and life skills. 

The statistical myth that is Fukushima

After a little more look-see I discovered a video in which Arnie Gundersen refers to a model used to project the one million deaths from Fukushima.

Although I have a great respect for Mr. Gundersen, I do have a problem with the source he quotes.

Models are projections, nothing more, nothing less. They are the what if factor often present in the absence of raw primary data. They anticipate possible statistical outcomes only and should never be viewed as substitutes for actual research data. 

My personal feeling is that if we really wanted to understand the human toll from Fukushima, qualitative scientists like anthropologists should be hired to perform a long term observational study in the areas mapped by European tracking systems which followed the spread of radiation during March/April onwards.

I can guarantee that their outcomes would be horrendously higher than a million because of the cumulative nature of observational research, and there is nothing more cumulative than radiation - especially when it is still seeping, and will continue to seep into our seas, our air, and onto our land and food sources for an unknown period, perhaps decades.

*

The feeling among quantitive scientists is that we will never know if diseases are caused by Fukushima radiation or some other factor. Observationally, I would argue that we can by studying the society itself.