Comment on Kristi's Blog

As I've taken to doing, I'm posting my comment to Kristi on my blog so that others can read it.

While I agree with your critique of the Ondrejka article, I'm going to play devil's advocate (because I can) and because I think it's important to his own argument.

First, we might claim that corporations should stay out of academic journals, especially since they're (most likely) going to "sell" the technology/interface/product with which they are affiliated. However, this inside view is necessary, I think, in order for us to 1) be able to have these conversations, and 2) understand what the technology does, from an "expert" position.

Second, I am wondering whether Ondrejka's essay invites discussion about who gets to write these kinds of essays. That is, since the face of education is irrevocably changing (if we believe him), then wouldn't it make sense that we should value and therefore not dismiss his claims as someone from the inside? Again, if we believe CO, businesses (etc) will "fail" if they do not embrace the trend; is academia among these "businesses" who will fail?

Finally -- and this is from a more personal standpoint -- so what if he's from the inside? I think his bias is clear (if not directly stated) and I think that it does not matter so much if he sells SL from the "corporate" viewpoint. I think academia in general is too caught up in their own biases against these "evil corporations" that they too readily, and easily, dismiss some great stuff. He's a businessman and technology guru, not a rhetorician, or a part of the academy. Therefore, he does not have to kowtow to our expectations in order for it to be a well-written, articulate, intelligent, and useful article.

Keep in mind that I'm not a huge fan of his redacted views of education and the role that technology plays in shaping it; at the same time, though, I find a lot of academic articles even WORSE. So, where does that get us?

I apologize if I sound angry. I'm not. :)"