The presentation analyzes #TateGate, the controversy around web-enabled annotation platforms such as Genius and Hypothes.is, as a case study of the ethics of open. Bloggers can moderate, delete, or forbid comments. Should they be able to do the same with annotations? What if the notes are abusive, or more like graffiti than reasoned commentary? Can the open web also be a safe space? Should it be? Hypothes.is, a popular annotation platform for web documents, says its mission is ""To enable a conversation over the world's knowledge."" What happens when conversation turns to argument? What happens when argument becomes hate speech? What happens when argument descends to catcalls and abuse? Yet what are the consequences of trying to protect and regulate speech on the open web, for any reason? Most of all, how does the possibility of unregulated and unmanageable commentary mean for educational practices such as blogging on the open web?
This session raises far more questions than it supplies answers. By examining the complexities of this question, however, and drawing analogies ranging from the Glossa Ordinaria and the Geneva Bible to Trump Chalking, and by including specific examples from the use of hypothes.is in teaching and learning, this session seeks to provoke and catalyze deeper learning and more searching, poignant modes of thought in both attendees and speakers. Come wrestle with some of the fundamental contradictions? paradoxes? riddles? tragedies? of the human condition, as revealed by a new World Wide Web affordance. (And yes, part of the session will be available ahead of time so attendees may annotate the document in real time as a semi-permanent backchannel, a new phenomenon in computer-mediated communication.
If you like "wicked problems," and if you have a mind for recursion, this is the session you won't want to miss.
