Each year, I incorporate a component into classes for Y6-Y9 students instructing them about how to create bibliographies, why they are important, and why they should present information using their own words, not (notably) by cutting and pasting. This is an essential part of leading those students towards being information authentic - finding the right source is great, but so is presenting completed work in an original and honest form.
The project where students struggle most is when classes work together to create a wiki. Each group researches a topic of their choosing and then posts their findings on a wiki - a project that will be replicated in most schools in some form or other. A requirement of the project is that students must use books as two of their sources - I want students to utilise the collection and to develop their skills as users of non-fiction. But they can obviously use the internet for other sources. I point them towards EBSCO, Britannica, CIA World Factbook and other authoritative resources, and they will use those, but they will also by default almost universally eventually head back to Google, their comfort blanket.
And often, information they find using Google will end up cut and pasted into their final posting, sometimes attributed, but not always. Images and videos they have found decorate their postings, again sometimes but not always attributed.
Partly this is my fault. I discuss attribution, forms of bibliography and copyright with the classes, but often the overwhelming urge for these students is to discard the rubric and accept the gift the internet is offering them - attractive, easy to use information and images, that makes it easier for them to complete their work.
My point is that this ease of access and copying has created a generation of users who have come to view the internet as a catch-all resource - the information is there, it is attractive, and easy to use. It is difficult, often, to determine an exact author, or the origins of a photo or video. With a book, an author has their name on the spine label; a website has a coded address that means very little to a 10 year old.
I feel, then, that the onus, yes, does lie with librarians and information professionals to ensure that their students are information authentic; but because our contact with users of the internet is fleeting and our advice not always adhered to when we are not present, some of the onus also lies with the internet itself.
Which means, to my mind, that for copyright to have any lasting meaning on the internet, the internet community needs to support a from of copyright regulation that extends beyond the opt-in philosophy of the Creative Commons - all sites should have a universally recognised symbol indicating the level to which they can be used by internet users. If the symbol is not evident, the posting should be regarded as not being bound by copyright.
The last point is the biggest change and the most important, as it means that people who post information of any type are equally responsible (with the user) for ethically managing the copyright for that posting.
Why? Beacuse the internet is a different container than a book, or a newspaper, or first-run Hollywood movie. It is instantly accessible to billions of people, some of whom use the information they find on there ethically, some of whom don't, or don't know what that means, or don't care - or just view all information on the internet as theirs. It is not like they are taking a videocamera to the cineplex - they are just copying a photo of Hitchcock into their email, after all. The overwhelming sentiment I identify in users is that there is no owner of the information, so they can do what they want with it.
To some extent, the toothpaste is out of the tube, and it would take some expert stuffing to get it back in. But if there was a regualtory site (or if Creative Commons became universal) offering three options for internet posters (1, no use 2, use with credit 3, free use without attribution), it would be clearer how that site could be used.
The internet doesn't want to regulate, but it does want rights management. These positions are irrenconcilible, and until there is a shift, copyright on the internet will continue to be ineffective and confusing for the vast majority of users.
No comments:
Post a Comment