<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Ben Roberts &#187; Politics</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.benroberts.org/archives/category/politics/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.benroberts.org</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2012 23:18:16 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Links for workshop on new media</title>
		<link>http://blog.benroberts.org/archives/21</link>
		<comments>http://blog.benroberts.org/archives/21#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Feb 2007 19:41:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ben.l.roberts</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Academic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.benroberts.org/archives/21</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[These are the links for my presentation at a teachers&#8217; workshop entitled &#8216;&#8221;Broadcast Yourself&#8221;: how the internet is transforming traditional media&#8217;. On wikipedia Nature report on wikipedia which concluded that, for a subset of science articles, it was not not much less reliable than the Encyclopedia Britannica: http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438900a.html Encyclopedia Britannica&#8216;s response to Nature report: http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>These are the links for my presentation at a teachers&#8217; workshop entitled &#8216;&#8221;Broadcast Yourself&#8221;: how the internet is transforming traditional media&#8217;.</p>
<p><strong>On wikipedia</strong></p>
<p><em>Nature</em> report on wikipedia which concluded that, for a subset of science articles, it was not not much less reliable than the <a href="http://www.britannica.com/"><em>Encyclopedia Britannica</em>:</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438900a.html">http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438900a.html</a></p>
<p><em>Encyclopedia Britannica</em>&#8216;s response to Nature report:</p>
<p><a href="http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf">http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf</a></p>
<p><em>Nature</em>&#8216;s rebuttal of <em>Encylopedia Britannica</em>:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/britannica/eb_advert_response_final.pdf">http://www.nature.com/nature/britannica/eb_advert_response_final.pdf</a></p>
<p><em>The Guardian</em>: Can you trust wikipedia?: <a href="http://technology.guardian.co.uk/opinion/story/0,16541,1599325,00.html" /></p>
<p><a href="http://technology.guardian.co.uk/opinion/story/0,16541,1599325,00.html"> </a><a href="http://technology.guardian.co.uk/opinion/story/0,16541,1599325,00.html">http://technology.guardian.co.uk/opinion/story/0,16541,1599325,00.html</a></p>
<p><strong>On white phosphorus story</strong></p>
<p><span class="fnt0">Correntwire blog entry on White Phosphorus which provided links to online sources showing the U.S. military had used White Phosphorus in Falluja:</span></p>
<p><span class="fnt0"><a href="http://www.correntewire.com/shake_n_bake_us_used_illegal_chemical_weapons_in_fallujah_confirmed">correntwire blog story<br />
</a></span></p>
<p><span class="fnt0"><span class="fnt0">BBC News story on White Phosphorus (largely a write up of the blogs):</span></span></p>
<p><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4442988.stm"><span class="fnt0">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4442988.stm</span></a></p>
<p><span class="fnt0">BBC news journalist reflects on the power of blogging in the wake of the white phosphorus story:</span></p>
<p><span class="fnt0"><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/4696668.stm">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/4696668.stm</a></span></p>
<p><span class="fnt0">Bill Thompson (BBC technology commentator) on the power of blogging:</span></p>
<p><span class="fnt0"><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4492150.stm">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4492150.stm</a></span></p>
<p><strong>New Media and Copyright Issues</strong></p>
<p><span class="fnt0">Presentation on &#8216;Free Culture&#8217; given by Lawrence Lessig in 2002 at the OReilly Open Source Conference. Note that this is a flash presentation with embedded audio of Lessig speaking:</span></p>
<p><span class="fnt0"><a href="http://randomfoo.net/oscon/2002/lessig/free.html">http://randomfoo.net/oscon/2002/lessig/free.html</a></span></p>
<p>Lessig&#8217;s book, <em>Free Culture</em>, is freely available online:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.free-culture.cc/freeculture.pdf">http://www.free-culture.cc/freeculture.pdf </a></p>
<p><strong>youtube clips played</strong></p>
<p><a href="http://youtube.com/watch?v=z8SYHxlH9mI">http://youtube.com/watch?v=z8SYHxlH9mI </a></p>
<p><a href="http://youtube.com/watch?v=DLqCM16i6QY"> http://youtube.com/watch?v=DLqCM16i6QY</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.benroberts.org/archives/21/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Creative Commons wins</title>
		<link>http://blog.benroberts.org/archives/10</link>
		<comments>http://blog.benroberts.org/archives/10#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Mar 2006 12:29:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ben.l.roberts</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Internet Culture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.benroberts.org/archives/10</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Two wins for the Creative Commons. Firstly, the Open University have decided to release course materials under a Creative Commons license. It&#8217;s not yet clear which license they will use but this is a very positive move and, hopefully, will be followed by more U.K. universities. The other piece of good news is that the [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Two wins for the <a href="http://creativecommons.org/">Creative Commons</a>. Firstly, the Open University have <a href="http://oci.open.ac.uk/pressrelease.html">decided</a> to release course materials under a Creative Commons license. It&#8217;s not yet clear which license they will use but this is a very positive move and, hopefully, will be followed by more U.K. universities.</p>
<p>The other piece of good news is that the Creative Commons license has been <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060316052623594">upheld by a Dutch court</a>.  Actually the news here is less unambiguously positive.  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft">Copyleft</a> licenses (such as the <a href="http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/meet-the-licenses">CC licenses</a>) use the letter of copyright law against the spirit of intellectual property: in other words they encourage the sharing and copying of ideas and creative works rather than discouraging them. But some CC licenses in fact place certain restrictions on the otherwise-free distribution of the works they cover. In this case the photographs in question were under an <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/">attribution-noncommercial-sharealike</a> license. Essentially this means they can be freely used except in a commercial context, the original photographer has to be credited, and if you modify them you have to make your modified version freely available as well. So in this case the court has upheld the first two restrictive aspects of the particular license being used and not the copyleft aspect. From the restrictive point of view the CC license looks no different from any other copyright license. The &#8216;win&#8217; here is simply that the restrictions of the CC license have been recognised as valid. I guess it would be more interesting if the &#8216;copyleft&#8217; aspects such as the &#8216;share-alike&#8217; requirement had been upheld.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.benroberts.org/archives/10/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Guantanamo</title>
		<link>http://blog.benroberts.org/archives/6</link>
		<comments>http://blog.benroberts.org/archives/6#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2006 11:34:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ben.l.roberts</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.benroberts.org/?p=6</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It&#8217;s nice to see Lord Falconer, Lord Goldsmith and Peter Hain condemning the Guantanamo camp. What a shame it&#8217;s taken them four years to get round to this! Of course Tony Blair still refuses to openly condemn the U.S. actions here, preferring only to call the camp an &#8216;anomaly&#8217;. Hain claims this is &#8216;part of [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s nice to see <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4741780.stm">Lord Falconer, Lord Goldsmith</a> and <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4722408.stm">Peter Hain</a> condemning the Guantanamo camp. What a shame it&#8217;s taken them four years to get round to this! Of course Tony Blair still refuses to openly condemn the U.S. actions here, preferring only to call the camp an &#8216;anomaly&#8217;. Hain claims this is &#8216;part of a general approach to speak quietly to the Americans and not make big public statements&#8217;.</p>
<p>Phil <a href="http://blahsploitation.blogspot.com/2006/02/wow-according-to-john-simpson-lets.html">points</a> to a John Simpson piece that claims that only about 5% of the prisoners in Guantanamo were actually captured by the Americans. Simpson doesn&#8217;t cite his source other than to say &#8216;a thorough analysis by an American law professor&#8217;, so he won&#8217;t be getting a good grade for this essay, but the actual report appears to be <a href="http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/reports/report.asp?ObjID=JbXOo0pVIg&#038;Content=708">here</a>. The policy of internment for terrorists is of doubtful efficacy at the best of times, but when you have little reason to suppose that the majority of the people detained really are terrorists it becomes clearer than ever that this is purely a PR exercise for domestic consumption. The sad thing is that it appears to have worked for Bush.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.benroberts.org/archives/6/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

