Skip to content

Technology

Tecnología, neoliberalización de la educación y el software de código abierto.

Hoy en día, la encrucijada de cómo enfrentar el desafío de nuevos paradigmas tecnológicos en muchos casos más tiene que ver con lo ideológico que con el tema de la infraestructura y recursos. Pensemos en los campos del software, la tecnología de la educación, las plataformas en el área del aprendizaje. Hay alternativas a cualquier necesidad en el campo corporativo y en el campo de código abierto. La pregunta es si hemos trascendido esa ilusión neoliberal y mediática que nos permita enfrentar esta encrucijada desde una visión objetiva y sin perjuicios. El software libre plantea un horizonte de enormes posibilidades que afortunadamente se está afianzando en el Cono Sur y que nos pide más apoyo, investigación y análisis. La idea de que el mercado, desde sus fórmulas basadas en la oferta y la demanda, es la única alternativa, está siendo sólidamente cuestionada desde la opción que aquí en el norte planteamos desde el paradigma de lo open, lo abierto. Lo abierto no solamente en el espacio del software libre, sino como una propuesta ideológica que trasciende su espacio originario. Es decir, lo abierto como una propuesta filosófica que trasciende la aplicación y que se plantea en lo social en campos como la educación, la investigación, la democratización del proyecto social, etc. Este mecanismo me atrevería a decir, es el más sólido artefacto alternativo al proyecto neoliberal que hemos visto en los últimos años.

Read More →

Aaron Swartz

“Yace aquí el hidalgo fuerte
que a tanto estremo llegó
de valiente, que se advierte
que la muerte no triunfó
de su vida con su muerte”

CAPITULO LXXIV
De cómo don Quijote cayó malo, y del testamento que hizo, y su muerte

Aaron_Swartz
Aaron Swartz at a Creative Commons event.
(picture by Fred Benenson)

November 8, 1986, Chicago, Illinois, U.S. –  January 11, 2013 (aged 26) Crown Heights, Brooklyn, New York, U.S.

(English) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz
(Español) http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz

http://www.aaronsw.com/

http://www.demandprogress.org/

Articules:

 

@rjhogue writes in her blog “I did not leave the conference feeling that I was part of the community”

When Rebecca Hogue @rjhogue writes in her blog “I did not leave the conference feeling that I was part of the community” (referring to the MOOC Research Initiative conference in Arlington Texas #mri13) she is not alone. And perhaps this feeling of isolation is not because of her position, experience, connections or degree; I think it is because the MOOC movement, especially the one circulating around the Twitter tribe, indirectly promotes isolation and disconnection. It takes a lot of time and patience to generate connections in Twitter. This platform is ruled by a dynamic of neoliberal and postmodern characteristics in which the vision of success is attached to the number of followers and not to the number of people the user follows. (I was thinking about this part in her post: “I wonder, did I miss that session, or was that session part of the private party that happened before the formal MOOC conference?”) This routine, in which performance and unidirectional communication are a predominant factor, cannot be a platform for academic discussion or even pedagogical production, especially for outsiders or people not familiar with these dynamics. Many of these superstars in Twitter virtually exist under these implied premises with cases in which the user has thousands of followers and at the same time the user is following no one. I do not blame them at all, since the format in Twitter aims towards self-glorification and superfluous communication. Twitter is the quintessential platform of this era of performance, lack of content and pseudo-inversion of power. MOOCs (and the MOOC movement) sometimes follow this dynamic, proving the idea that massive communication is not communication at all.

This type of interaction here took me to a further and perhaps radical position of, not only, not applying to the initiative, but also, not going to the conference. Who would want to go to a conference in which the idea of openness has a registration price of $500 (the $495 was a great touch) and was founded by the Gates Foundation (le coup de grace). I assume this price was prohibitive for many people around the globe. Openness for me is something else, completely outside of these dynamics and performances. Openness is active inclusion, lack of hierarchies, distrust of preconceptions (including colonial ideas like the euro-centralist model of academia), and, of course, multi-directional and horizontal communication. Who wants to go to a conference to hear keynote speakers?