AUTHOR
László Fekete

ABSTRACT

It goes without saying that knowledge and information are the most valuable com-modities in the new economy. Though knowledge and information as private goods could provide great business opportunities for rights holders in the global communications network, they exhibit the distinctive characteristics of public goods (Samuelson 1954, 387-389; Stiglitz 1999, 308-325). Therefore, the commodification of knowledge and information requires a strict proprietary regime which restrains free access to them and enforces effective legal pro-tection over their production, use, and dissemination. If the accessing and using rights of the individual users were free and unlimited the legal entitlements of rights holders would be worthless.

The pervasiveness of the new information and communications technologies as power-ful learning and knowledge sharing systems and the digitalization of knowledge and informa-tion goods facilitate their production, use, and dissemination, and at the same time make diffi-cult and expensive to enforce effective proprietary regulation and control over them. In addi-tion to the difficulty and the high transaction costs of the legal enforcement of proprietary rights, the social climate does not seem to be particularly supportive to the propertization of knowledge and information in the global communications network. In spite of the current trends of restrictive legislation and jurisdiction as well as of expansive and unprecedented private legislation of the rights holders, society persistently tends to believe that knowledge and information mainly belong to public goods and resists accepting their growing private appropriation and effective proprietary control over their production, use, and dissemination. Briefly, knowledge and information are usually conceived as a common pool of symbolic resources for the cultural reproduction of society. So, people are not willing to pay for knowl-edge and information goods to regain what they believe to be rightfully entitled to know, use, and contribute to. Without the empowerment of the possession and exercise of these individ-ual rights and freedoms, people merely are kept aloof from becoming the autonomous mem-bers of political-cultural community.

The rights holders also endeavor to control the flows of all forms of computer-mediated contents by means of the private ordering of accessing and using rights of users in combination with copy-protection technologies, digital rights management systems, platform dependent applications, micropayment system, zoning, and so forth (Benkler 2006, 397-459). They go well beyond the initial rights and legal entitlements originally assigned to them by the law and habitually infringe the basic constitutional rights of the users, like freedom of expression, the right to privacy, and the right to fair trial by taking advantage of the opportu-nity of forum shopping (Balkin 2004, 19-22; Boyle 2000, 345-350; Netanel 2000, 1879-1886; Walker 2003, 24pp). These private encroachments on the users’ individual rights and liberties further incite discontent and resistance. It is not surprising that hackers, cyberpunks, outlaws, and code breakers are usually regarded as public heroes and heroines in urban folklore who fight the enclosure of the public domain and the infringement of constitutional rights and lib-erties of the users. They are rarely stigmatized as villains therein.

The Tragedy of the Commons or the Anticommons?

Besides this common belief, many legal scholars, philosophers, scientists, and social scientists also emphasize that knowledge and information are social and cultural products made, shared, settled, and revised in democratic discourses, open scientific debates, and the pragmatic self-understanding of society. Therefore, the basic notions of mainstream economic paradigm about scarcity, exhaustibility, rivalry, and excludability, which are the distinctive characteristic of tangible goods, can be hardly applicable to the production, use, and distribution of knowledge and information (Kaul et al. 1999). In some respects, knowledge and information are not fit into the framework of neoclassical economics. Each individual can maximize the use of knowledge and information goods without exhausting the original re-sources, passing an excessive cost burden onto others, leaving anybody worse off than before, or excluding anybody from parallel exploitation and enjoyment. The overexploitation of knowledge and information does not bring about economic shortage and social threat; mean-while, their underexploitation could lead to economic backwardness and social degradation (Vanneste et al. 2004, 13-14). An open-access regime does not have inevitably harmful effect on social welfare, artistic, cultural, and scientific advancements as some law and economics scholars endeavor to argue against the public domain referring to Demsetz’s theory on the impact of externalities in the development of property right system and Hardin’s popular metaphor about the tragedy of the commons (Demsetz 1967, 347-359; Epstein 1989, 1488-1489; Hardin 1968, 1243-1248; Landes and Posner 2003, 471, 487-488). As a consequence of positive externalities and network effects, knowledge and information will never be exhausted under an open-access regime. In lack of rivalry, an open-access regime does not cause con-gestion or overcrowding in the use of knowledge and information, either. The opposite is the case: hedonistic and flamboyant behaviors in the consumption of knowledge and information goods are quite desirable. Therefore, converting Adam Smith’s frequently quoted proposition, every prodigal man appears to be a public benefactor, and every frugal a public enemy in the production, use, and dissemination of knowledge and information goods. Under an open-access regime, knowledge and information will be continuously proliferated. Meanwhile, un-der a proprietary regime, the strict private control of the production, use, and dissemination of knowledge and the flows of information can cause scarcity, underprovision, inefficient re-source allocation, endowment effect, holdup problems as well as deadweight social losses and cultural entropy (Heald 2007, 35-41; Gordon 1992, 153-163, 177-180; Netanel 1996, 306-336; Posner 1992, 277-278; Schultz 2002).

According to the mainstream economic paradigm, non-rivalry and non-excludability of knowledge and information goods are especially serious impediment which could frustrate the rights holders to recover production costs and to earn return on investments even if de-mands are sufficient and society attributes high cultural and economic values to innovative knowledge and novel information goods. For the reason that each additional user can con-sume knowledge and information goods, whether it is on-line newspaper article, scientific paper, symphony, or software once have been produced, at almost zero marginal costs, market itself is not a proper mechanism to set price above them. Knowledge and information as pub-lic, non-rival, and non-exhaustible goods are truly idiosyncratic to the established system of the market economy and the basic tenets of neoclassical economics. Therefore, knowledge and information as proprietary goods entirely rely on the existence of intellectual property laws and the effective legal enforcement of rights holders’ proprietary claims. Indeed, the law itself transforms knowledge and information into commodities. By marking out the boundary corners of knowledge and information goods in the elusive fields of culture and staking out the legitimate claims of rights holders in terms of the scope and length of protection, govern-ance, excludability, and exclusivity, the law makes knowledge and information scarce, rival, exhaustible, and excludable economic resources in order to recover the production and devel-opment costs and to ensure the economic gains and further commercial opportunities of pri-vate beneficiaries. The imposition of legal, judicial, and technological constraints on the pro-duction, use, and dissemination of knowledge and information goods serves the aims of the refutation of the basic feature of culture, science, and communication as collaborative enter-prise and the reinforcement of the well-established division between producers and consumers (Barthes 1974, 4-5). If the law provides individuals and business entities with proprietary rights and legal entitlements over the production, use, and dissemination of knowledge and information goods, non-owners’ rights and freedoms will be inevitably circumscribed.

The rise of the global communications network as a new public forum for collabora-tive enterprises, creative endeavors, and information exchange is juxtaposed with the private appropriation of knowledge and information goods from the outset. The enormous success of the global communications network demonstrates that it can very efficiently fulfill the func-tions of production, use, and dissemination of knowledge and information. Since the global communications network has become a cornucopia of knowledge and information in the last fifteen years, it proves that the digital amplification and global accessibility of the public do-main do not fade the spirit of innovation away. The exponential increase of cultural and tech-nological innovation renders the well-established economic argument inapplicable, that is to say, exclusive proprietary rights over knowledge and information goods are necessary to cre-ate suitable incentives for owners to produce them and efficiently exploit their inherent eco-nomic values. Economic data do not support the fear of underproduction of knowledge and information goods owing to the liberal or relaxed intellectual property rights regime as the advocates of strict and extended regime complain. And what is more, its smooth and evolving operation is also feasible from the economic point of view. However, it still needs to be proven that the expanding propertization of knowledge and information goods – ranging from gene sequences and mathematical theorems to scientific databases, software algorithms, and cartoon figures – and the complete internalization of the benefits of their inventions and uses will enhance social welfare in general; their private appropriation and the creation and enlargement of exclusionary anticommons will further stimulate the amplification of their production, use, and dissemination (Balkin 2004, 26-31; O’Rourke 2000, 1178-79).

AUTHOR
Matthew Edwards

ABSTRACT

In the US Technology Education is a broad term that attempts to put a myriad of vocations under one title. It was created to define needed curricula for various new technologies, and subsequently was used to define a degree. Technology education teachers come from a variety of backgrounds including, but not limited to: Graphic arts, carpentry, welding, electronics, agriculture, cabinet making, building construction, communications, and so forth.

In the mid to late 1980’s the “technology revolution” was an emerging monolith that moved so quickly that it was hard to get your arms around. The development of great amounts of technology encouraged the feeling among educators that it was necessary to develop curriculum that focused on training students how to use and be comfortable with these types of new technologies. In an effort to keep up with this educational need, educators developed a program that created as many problems as it did solutions.

US statistics have the general population graduating from a university at about 20 percent of the total population. The US public school system is like a giant funnel. This system is large at the top and allows every kind of individual to enter, regardless of education, language, culture, or desired results of the individual entering. This is good. However, our system attempts to take this entire body of individuals, and funnel them towards a four year degree in a university. There is very little effort in general put into promoting technical or trade schools, unless it is presented as a last resort for those who can’t otherwise make it in the esteemed university system. Trying to push every student to adhere to this narrow ideology is unethical.

With this thought process in mind, the vocational programs that existed in secondary education throughout the US have been the equivalent of an educational dumping ground. Therefore, it was no surprise that when educators looked for a place to put the “new technology”, they saw a way out of expensive and sometimes dangerous vocational programs. This solved the problem of where the money would come from to purchase new expensive technological equipment, but phasing out the old and bringing in the new had one main problem; who would teach this new technology?

Industrial Education was the degree that teachers received when desiring to teach in the vocational departments for secondary education. Revamping this degree became part of the program. The results of replacing vocational equipment with new technology also became the choice of life or death for one program or the other. Once a school made the decision to move towards technology, the shops died. This is when the battles began.

While it seemed that technology was winning the battles, it began to suffer from an unseen problem. The old school industrial arts programs have always been elective, or classes of choice, rather than mandatory courses that fall under the term “core” classes, and have always been funded based on the number of students attending those classes. Some of the new courses became academically more rigorous, and with statistics stating that the vast majority of students in secondary education will not continue to complete a university degree, the technology education teacher had a looming dilemma. Do they honor the curriculum developed for the new technology, or do they risk changing it by ignoring state mandates in an effort to keep more students in the classroom? This creates an ethical dilemma for the teacher, and shutting down excellent “on campus” vocational programs creates an unfair crisis for the student who wishes to pursue education outside the confines of a university.

One of the main problems is the lack of qualified individuals who are willing to teach the next generation of students. Our current education system struggles to pull qualified teachers from industry, and often loses good educators to industry based on the economic disparity between salaries. In many regions of the United States, legislators and educators have developed programs and policy in an effort to overcome these problems. For example, the State of Utah has a certification for individuals who would like to enter into the education field, but do not have the proper academic credentials. The certification is aptly called “Trade and Industry” or T & I certification. This certification allows the individual to teach in the secondary schools based on their particular aptitudes in their field. They must have a specified number of years work experience, and they must pass a written test. However, the area of expertise that they are allowed to teach under is so narrow that school administrators can rarely find a full time position for them.

Based on my past experience as a curriculum developer, career counselor, and classroom educator, and with a review of current studies, this paper makes practical suggestions on how to enhance the technology education courses, find creative solutions for finding a qualified workforce, create courses where vocational students don’t feel overwhelmed or out of place, and thus save the programs from diminishing all together. I would like to use some of my past experience as an educator to model possible solutions. For example, I developed a course in the secondary school system that used modern technology (a laser engraver with and X, Y, and Z axis) so that students could create beautiful trophies and other awards that were then sold for profit to educational institutions. The proceeds went back to the students for use as scholarships, and to purchase technology equipment for their own “future businesses”. The student motivation was high, and my student numbers were always at full capacity. I tied the curriculum to a “real world” experience, and the results were excellent. I was from industry, and I brought my experience to the classroom. It is hoped that this insight will provide valuable feedback to curriculum developers within universities.

AUTHOR
Massimo Durante

ABSTRACT

Trust is one of the key social concepts “that helps human agents to cope with their social environment and is present in all human interactions” (Gambetta, 1990). Without trust in other agents, infrastructures and organizations, human interactions are weakened and, ulti-mately, almost no social cooperation would be possible. Trust is fundamental to deal with different factors or situations all displaying a lack of certainty: a) with social environment (i.e., to rely upon incomplete information and beliefs in order to take decisions); b) with someone else behaviours (i.e., to rely upon never fully predictable other’s actions in order to obtain a goal); c) with organizations or infrastructures (i.e., to rely upon organizations or infrastructures whereas their functioning is not entirely visible or known). Trust is meant to exist insofar as there is a risk (Luhmann, 1979) or at least something beyond control.

Trust is not only concerned with establishing human relations but also plays a paramount role in the networked society of information. The importance of adopting networked co-operation, as to enhance creation and distribution of informational resources, has been re-cently stressed from a wide socio-political and economic perspective (Benkler, 2006). All the major aspects of multi-agent systems require trust for the success of operations, nego-tiations, and relations based on computer mediated-interaction or coordination between individuals or groups. In my paper I focus, thus, on the question of trust-building within web technologies based-environments, according to what is suggested by the topic of the Ethicomp meeting – living, working, and learning beyond technology.

Building trust is not only a question of assuring technological security (by means of rules, constraints, protocols, architectures, controls, guaranties, etc.). On the contrary it is mainly concerned with mental and social dispositions towards other agents, which has to be con-sidered within the framework of a specific model of online-social trust. This requires a tri-ple shift of paradigm in the study of trust: a) from technologically gained security to per-ceived security (i.e., security as it is perceived by agents disposing of incomplete informa-tion and predictions); from control trust (i.e., trust based on control mechanisms for as-sessing and establishing trustworthiness) to party trust (i.e., trust based on the dynamic so-cial interaction between a party – the trustier – and a counter party – the trustee); from a model of probabilistic trust (i.e., a model based on rigid methods of statistical inference) to a model of cognitive social trust (i.e., a model based on beliefs, expectations and concerns).

In the first part of the paper I analyse why this triple shift of paradigm is required by the specific evolution of the networked society of information and how conducive is the appli-cation of the cognitive social model of trust (mainly elaborated by Castelfranchi and Fal-cone) in order to account for the dynamics of online social cooperation. Building such a cooperation upon trust demands to clarify both the role of beliefs, mental representations and expectations of the trustier (which are modelled according to a degree of trustworthi-ness) and the status of the act of trusting itself (that is tied up with a sharp decision). In this regard, it is crucial the lack of certainty which trust lies on: nor we can speak of an absolute absence of information (since some elements are necessary to mould and evaluate trust-worthiness, let aside the extreme case of blind trust) neither of complete and certain infor-mation (which would exclude the dimension of risk inherent in the act of trusting, namely of relying upon what is beyond control).

In the second part of the paper the heuristic virtues of the socio-cognitive model of trust are to be tested in relation to a specific topic, that is to say the online social cooperation re-quired by the production of common goods within the theoretical framework provided by the economy of networked information. In particular, the model of trust is to be applied as a vi-able explanation for the success of social cooperation while creating and sharing informa-tion and knowledge. More specifically, the aim is to show why technological architecture does not suffice by itself to assure the non-market production of informational shared re-sources. In order to explain this result, the mental and social dispositions towards trustwor-thy forms of networked cooperation are to be taken into account.

The third and last section of the paper aims to draw some conclusions from the previous analyses in order to figure out how social trust can be part of the definition of rationality or at least of a rational system of decisions and behaviours in the sphere of networked society. In this perspective, we adopt a concept of practical reason suggested and put forward by the work of Friedrich Hayek, who remarkably noticed that “surely, one of the tasks of rea-son is to decide how far is to extend its control or how far it ought to rely on other forces which it cannot wholly control” (Hayek, 1982). An ordered and efficient multi-agent sys-tem is not based on a rigid organization of cooperation (by means of social control, author-ity of a third party, technological devices for security, protocols, rules or other constraints, etc.) but on its own capacity to promote online social cooperation by building a web of trust and a trust atmosphere (Castelfranchi, 2004). The inner practical rationality of the multi-agent system of the networked society of information is not to be found in a set of certain-ties (from which the social order should be deduced) but in its attitude to cope with the structural lack of knowledge characterizing the asymmetry between environmental and sys-temic information.

REFERENCES

Benkler Y., The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom, Yale University Press, New Haven CT, 2006.

Castelfranchi C., “Trust Mediation in Knowledge Management and Sharing”, in C. Jensen, S. Poslad & T. Dimitrakos (eds.), Trust Management, Second International Conference, iTrust 2004, Oxford, March 29 – April 1 2004, Proceedings Series: Lecture Notes in Com-puter Science, vol. 2995, 2004.

Castelfranchi C. & Falcone R., Social Trust: Cognitive Anatomy, Social Importance, Quantification and Dynamics, Proceedings of the first Workshop on Deception, Fraud and Trust in Agent Societies, Minneapolis/St. Paul, pp. 35-49, 1998.

Gambetta D., Trust, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1990.

Hayek F., Law, Legislation and Liberty, Routledge & Kegan, London, 1982.

Luhmann N., “Trust: a mechanism for the reduction of social complexity”, in Id. Trust and Power: Two Works by Niklas Luhmann, John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 1-103, 1979.

AUTHOR
Alfreda Dudley and Karen Mather

ABSTRACT

It is approaching fifty years since the publication of “A Theory of Justice” in which John Rawls advocated a principle of fair distribution of the social and economic benefits derived from community-living. Yet, the so-called “digital divide” signifies that information and communication technologies (ICT) have added a new dimension to the difficulty of bringing about genuine equality of access to the advantages of Twenty-first Century society. Van den Hoven (1995) argued more than a decade ago that data, and access to it, are a type of Rawlsian primary good. In this paper, that position is accepted: information and the technologies used to obtain it are seen as basic necessities. From that starting point empirical evidence from some contemporary research is used to explore one particular cross-section of the digital divide – along racial lines. From the evidence, certain conclusions are drawn and recommendations are offered as to how the digital divide might be narrowed.

To hold information is to hold power. Van den Hoven (1995) has argued that access to information is so important that it should be classified as a basic necessity of life, without which citizens are severely hampered in their efforts to gain fulfillment, to participate in civic life, to make rational plans for their lives and to pursue whatever their own legitimate ends may be. To Rawls the basic necessities are known as primary goods, and, as he wrote: “to give them broad categories, [they] are rights, liberties, and opportunities, and income and wealth. (A very important primary good is a sense of one’s own worth, but for simplicity I leave this aside until much later)” (Rawls, 1971, p. 79). Van den Hoven claims that government is responsible for ensuring that these primary goods are equally available to all citizens. In complying with this duty, the government “is directly responsible for [ensuring that] …a just framework for information services and provisions to citizens is designed and implemented” (Van den Hoven, 1995, p. 16).

Accepting this line of reasoning, this paper now goes on to evaluate the current situation concerning the divisions in society which render some groups of citizens fully able to harness the power of information whilst other sectors of society remain largely cut off from this essential service. Contemporary research is referenced, to provide an up-to-date picture of the way things are, and then recommendations are developed from that portrayal of the current situation.

Information is a powerful commodity. Digitized information is processed in a different fashion than traditional sources of information, such as people, books, newspapers and letters. The physical components of the computer connect individuals and databases to the Internet, but the content of Internet is not material (Katz & Rice, 2002). Katz & Rice say: “Particular forms of information that have the potential to contribute to the greater public good—such as governmental information, public education, and innovative research and development…” (Katz & Rice, 2002, p. 345)

An empirical study indicated that those who utilize information and communications technologies gained more accurate information than their peers (Mason & Hacker, 2003). This accuracy contributes significantly to the practical utility of information, particularly as is demonstrated by data in the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) 2006 report, entitled A Nation Online How Americans are expanding their use of the Internet. (http://www.ntia.doc.gov.). The report indicated that:

• Over 67% of those who accessed the Internet to find information about goods and services
• 62% of users found information about news, weather, and sports via the Internet
• 16% of users access the Internet to find job-related benefits
• Users are able to obtain financial benefits via the Internet
• Users are able to research medical information

Another key aspect of the power of ICT is experienced by ICT users in communicating and building relationships. This is evident in the increased numbers of online dating services and increased number of social online communities, such as Facebook, and MySpace. “…Internet users increase their level of communications with families and friends and make new contacts via IT” (Mason & Hacker, 2003, p. 43). The networks that are created by ICTs are dynamically restructuring the sense of community. Computer network technologies are used to connect people to each other in other social spaces. “At their best networks are said to renew community by strengthening the bonds that connect us to the wider social world while simultaneously increasing our power in that world” (Kollack & Smith, 2005, p. 1).

In addition, ICTs are being considered as tools for learning and instruction in educational institutions. “Many institutions of higher education are looking to ICTs, particularly computer conferencing, as a versatile medium for the delivery of educational programs that are inexpensive, widely available, accessible at all times, and allow for greater collaborative opportunities” (Luppicini, 2002, p. 88).

Implementing ICTs is seen as one way to break down existing restrictive racial and class boundaries, which exist in American culture, as discussed in Chisholm, et. al. (2002), who explain that information technology would support an effective pluralistic society because the medium is “color-blind”. However, it is their position that there are other factors in play, which lead to a lack of access to this technology and therefore, put people at a disadvantage (Chisholm, Carey & Hernandez, 2002, p. 58). In the next section, the factor of the digital divide and its affects are discussed.

This paper is subdivided into the following sections; leading up to the conclusion that more effort must be invested in the attempt to provide all citizens with the basic necessity of digitized information and the means and skills to make use of it:

• The Digital Divide
• Government Statistical Indicators
• Approaches to ‘Fix’ the Digital Divide
• Alleviating the Digital Divide through Education
• Providing Access through Libraries and Community Centers
• Employment
• Race, Culture and ICT
• Conclusion

AUTHOR
Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic and Margaryta Anokhina

ABSTRACT

Introduction

Gossip as a phenomenon have been investigated in different research fields such as anthropology, psychology and specifically evolutionary psychology, sociology, management, behavioral economy, sociology, and communication studies, (De Backer), organization studies and ethics. The aim of this article is to discuss the ethics of gossip at the working place. We present some interesting results of that research. We discuss the arguments of the proponents of gossip and different understandings of its social function, and we also give a number of critical views.

New ICT media contribute nowadays very effectively to spreading of rumors and gossip. The explosive growth of online communications calls thus for careful analysis of their mechanisms and consequences. Taking the information ethics perspective (Floridi) we discuss communication of information via gossip and its role in social networks. Ethical aspects of gossip are often related to questions of power and privacy, but also to deontological concerns of duty and respect as well as good will.

What is Gossip?

Gossip is sometimes described as a casual or idle talk between friends. Although many definitions are neutral, the term is often used with negative connotations, referring to spreading malicious information, unreliably sourced and unchecked rumors and misinformation. The other negative associations with gossiping is being trivial, invasive, and commonly harmful (Westacott). Several other authors also suggest generalizing the concept of gossip to refer to “talk about other people”. The aim for this “neutralization” of the term is to be able to identify in which cases talk about other people becomes problematic.

Evolutionary Programming of Communication Skills

In order to understand gossip it is instructive to learn about its historical role for evolution of human communication skills. Talking not only about ourselves but also about other people whom we know increases social cohesion through “long-range forces” (information exchanges). Instead of talking with each member of a group individually we use second-hand reports which increase effectiveness of communication and (at least approximate) knowledge about each other.

Bell and Sternberg (2001) have as well suggested that rumors and urban legends are kind of memes using Richard Dawkins’ analogy between ideas that compete for survival and biological genes.

Sharing Norms and Methods of Evaluation – Social Scrutiny

People take notice of each others behaviour, often discuss and critically assess each other. Besides passing information about others, gossip is also a means of calibrating of normativity within a social group. We compare our judgements about other people. However, in classical chat information has limited range, so not everybody gets the information about everybody else. With ICT the situation is radically changed. Information is communicated without any effort and reaches in no time around the globe. We will present our views of the present day gossip in digital media and how ICT are used both for sharing social information, norms and evaluation methods.
A Way of Suppressed to take Revenge on the Powerful and Privileged?

Bergmann, Sousa and number of others find a psychological motivation for gossip in that subordinate groups use gossip to undermine the power of dominant groups. [Just so that you know: men gossip as much as women! Research has shown that the alleged fact that female gossip more than male is not empirically well founded. (It is just a rumor!)] This chapter will address the question of power relationships and information channels – official and unofficial.

Gossiping as a Tool of Workplace Bullying

Many researches emphasize the role of gossiping as a tool for the workplace bullying. Vaida identifies gossiping on the workplace as a “dangerous and insidious” form of workplace violence and calls the gossiping “a form of personal attack”. Westacott expresses the opposite opinion about gossiping and its role in workplace and everyday life and refers to gossiping as “basic human activity that enhances our understanding of human nature and the world around us”. Both Westacott and Sousa discuss, based on utilitarian criteria, the gossiping as a way to bring “good” to the social relations. We will critically discuss all their claims.

The Information Ethics Analysis

In his informational study of moral dynamics, Floridi uses good will, power and information as elements of analysis. The supposition is that (given a constant good will) more or better information implies less evil. The ICT revolution with its information overflow has brought an imbalance between power and information. We will apply Floridi’s approach to information communication, comparing classical workplace gossip and rumors with gossips and rumors spread in online (often also mobile) communities. Pro- and contra- gossiping practices arguments will be discussed within the framework of informational ethics.

Conclusion

We need to re-think what public space such as working place means in terms of relationships with different degrees of closeness, how interpersonal relationships are configured and implemented and how their architecture shapes their functions and meanings. We need more work in this under-researched area to gain an interdisciplinary understanding of gossip and rumor and to be able to form a common understanding of those old human practices as they appear in our ICT age.

REFERENCES

Bergmann JR (1993) Discreet Indiscretions: The Social Organization of Gossip, Aldine de Gruyter, NY

De Backer C (2005) Like Belgian Chocolate for the Universal Mind. Interpersonal and Media Gossip from an Evolutionary Perspective, PhD Thesis, Gent University

Floridi L (2007) Understanding Information Ethics, APA Newsletter on Philosophy and Computers.7.1

Solove DJ (2007) The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor, and Privacy on the Internet, Yale Univ. Press

Sousa, R (1994) In praise of gossip: Indiscretion as a saintly virtue. In Goodman, B.F. & Ben-Ze’ev, A. (Eds.), Good Gossip, University of Kansas Press.

Vaida P (2006) Gossip- a form of Workplace violence (part 1 and 2).

Westacott E (2000) The ethics of Gossiping. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 14:1, p. 65-90.

AUTHOR
Richard Cozzens

ABSTRACT

This paper examines what the experts are listing as advantages and disadvantages of a web-based training course. The paper also takes a look at the effectiveness and feasibility as well as the ethical issues facing a web-based training course. This is accomplished by first finding out what the current experts are saying on the subject. The second step was to survey the instructors, students and administrators. All this information was reviewed and discussed to determine if developing a web-based CAD (computer aided design) training course is feasible, and to determine if there are any ethical issues.