Final Essay, 475

My role in the Video Project

When the final project was first announced, we didn't know what topic we wanted to discuss. In our video. Just before the next class started (a group meeting day) I had the idea to research and investigate the Digital Divide as it is manifested on the WSU Pullman campus. During our meeting we discussed a few general ideas about what we could shoot for our video. I suggested my idea, and followed up with the idea of breaking it into three acts to cover the widest range of material possible. The group seemed to agree, and so we set out to create our video.

Two weeks later, we were beginning to get interviews lined up. I contacted DTC Faculty Kristen Arola, Suzanne Anderson, Lynn Gordon and Rebecca Goodrich about interviewing for our video, along with Academic Media Services and Surplus Stores. I managed to secure and record interviews with Kristen, Rebecca, and Surplus Stores. In the end, only the Surplus Stores interview made it into the final video, due to time constraints.

As we waited to hear back from our potential interviewees, I created the group website. I already had a WIX account, so I created and organized the website. I also started the Twitter and Facebook page (we ended up only using the Twitter page) to post updates on the progress of our project.

Part of the assignment guidelines called for a project proposal, complete with a summary of what our project was about, annotated sources for the group, and individual annotated sources. By this time we had each others email addresses, allowing us to communicate more easily. We started a group Google Doc and we each contributed to it to complete the project proposal. In this Google Doc, I wrote the thesis statement and the project summary, and, of course, my individual annotated bibliography. I also found some of the group bibliography sources, and contributed the annotation to one or two of them while the other members of the group found, read, and annotated other sources.

At this point, the project was rolling along smoothly. We were starting to hear back from our potential interviewees, and shortly thereafter I was able to interview Rebecca Goodrich (an interview which did not make the final cut). It was also around this time that Jordan disappeared for a short while and Maxwell disappeared for a week (I later learned that an issue came up that practically immobilized Maxwell for a week). At this point Sam and I began operating under the assumption that we would possibly be completing the rest of the project by ourselves. Sam decided to interview members of his fraternity about their computers, for Act I, and I was to interview Surplus Stores about E-Waste and myself about the Linux Operating system for Act III. I already had footage ready to go for Act II.

Though we were told that we didn't have to shoulder the burden of our missing classmates, I didn't want them to be shouldered out the process and thereby have their grades ruined. I emailed Jordan and Maxwell that night, asking them where they were. I suggested that they could work together and interview someone in the Com Department about the Com computer labs, which would give us insight into two colleges that rely heavily on computer labs (Jordan and Maxwell are both Com Majors as I understand).

Jordan showed up to the next class and began working on contacting someone in the Com department, but Maxwell was still missing. I was to interview Surplus Stores that Friday, and Maxwell emailed us that night, apologizing and explaining his absence, while also stating that he was ready to help wherever he could. I told him to be at the surplus stores the next day so he could help me interview Mike Campbell of Surplus Stores. Sure enough, Maxwell arrived, and we started the interview right away.

The interview with surplus went quite well, and soon we had our first big interview recorded, ready for editing. We continued interviewing people around campus until we had all the interviews we thought we needed. It was then time to start the editing process. Maxwell editied togethe his footage to form Act II, Jordan editied together Sam's footage to create Act I, and I edited together the surplus stores footage, the footage of me interviewing myself about Ubuntu Linux, and the closing footage with all four of stating what we thought the biggest “digilemmas” on campus were.

Finally, the three acts were ready for rendering. I spent an entire two hour lab session on the Com department being logged onto three computer simultaneously as I rendered out all three acts at the same time. Once all three acts had rendered out, I moved to the second open lab where Maxwell and I compiled the three acts into one final video, rendered the final video, and uploaded it to Youtube.

There were some issues with the final upload. Due to confusion with Premiere and due to time constraints, the video rendered in a lower quality than we would have liked. There were also a few bugs that we didn't quite figure out in time, such as the fact that the Act II title card was missing. The video also runs a bit on the long side, with a run time just under twenty-five minutes. Yet, we still have entire interviews that did not make the final cut. We tried our best to give an all-around look at the Digital Divide on the WSU campus, but I think that we just scratched the surface of what could be covered. I honestly think that four or five short documentaries could be made about WSU's Digilemmas. I suppose that task will have to fall into the hands of future students.

“My” Digilemmas

When I started working on this project, I became intrigued with the worldwide dilemmas of E-Waste. I had never paid much attention to what happens to old electronics when they are retired and discarded. I remembered noticing a symbol on my electronic devices advising me not to throw them away in the trash can when I was done using them, but I had never given the idea much thought. I just remember thinking “well if you can't throw them away there, then how do you get rid of them?”

I first became interested in the E-Waste problem as I created my “What is Digital Culture” Pintrest board for class. I focused my board on the life-cycle of digital technology. I started with the invention and innovation of new technology, followed by the mass production on digital devices (a process fraught with problems and nearly slave-like working conditions). I then focused on the excitement of getting the newest gadget (unboxing videos, anyone?), followed by the more geeky option of re-purposing older machines. Finally, I had to discover and face the reality of what happens to old computer technology when it is useless for anything other than scrap. The discoveries I made shocked me and led me to more critically analyze (and become more disgusted with) the ravenous habit that first-world countries have made of throwing away their digital devices as soon as the “newest model” is released.

Long story short, more often than not, scrap computers, collectively known as “E-Waste” is illegally shipped overseas to third-world countries where dangerous, unhealthy techniques are used to recover the valuable components from these computers. Scrap wire often has its insulation burned off, allowing the copper to be salvaged, but also releasing toxic fumes into the air. Meanwhile, computer parts that cannot be re-used are left strewn about the scrapyard, leaching toxic chemicals into the ground and nearby streams and rivers.

According to the many academic sources that I read, there is yet no good, clean system in place for recycling E-Waste. The sources seemed hopeful that such technology would be developed soon, but stated that, in the meantime, there is no good option.

With this rather bleak mindset, I decided to contact Washington State University Surplus Stores. I had visited the Surplus Stores a couple times before, as I love finding cool old stuff for sale at low prices. I recalled seeing bales of old gutted computer towers outside the Surplus Stores building in my previous visits, so I decided to ask if there was anyone there that I could interview about the process of scrapping old computers. I received a positive response from Mike Campbell of Surplus Stores, and within a few weeks I was on my way to the Surplus Stores warehouse to conduct an interview.

I went into the interview expecting to hear the same doom and gloom that I had found in my academic sources. I came away, however, with much more positive outlook on the E-Waste recycling process.

While Surplus Stores does rebuild and resell some of the retired University computers that arrive daily at the warehouse, many of them are considered too old or not worth the effort of repairing and reselling. These machines are dismantled for their scrap value. Mr. Campbell explained that they work with recyclers of the West Coast who have the systems in place to efficiently extract the valuable components of the scrap computers. Surplus Stores sells the printed circuit boards to the scrappers, and, as of this month, Surplus Stores will receive three dollars per pound for scrap PCBs. Meanwhile, Surplus Stores has to pay to scrap older plastic computer cases due to a non-recyclable flame retardant in the plastic, but the income from the scrap PCBs helps to fund the disposal of the older plastic cases.

After a computer tower has been gutted, hard drives can be destroyed in a crusher to make any data stored on them irrecoverable, and the empty tower shells are bailed and sent to a scrapper.

I was amazed when I saw how thorough the process was for scrapping and recycling E-Waste at Surplus Stores. Mr. Campell claimed that the operation was almost 100% green, and I have to agree with him. It seems that Washington State University Surplus Stores has done what many of the academic authors considered impossible. I came away from the interview realizing that recycling E-Waste in a green manner was achievable after all. I also realized that I would have to rethink what the biggest “digilemma” on campus was. Recycling the University's E-Waste, it seems, was the thing to be least concerned about.

I continued to try to schedule other interviews. Three interviews fell through, but the stars aligned and I was able to interview Kristen Arola, the head of the DTC department. In my interview with Kristin, we discussed the importance of student access to the hardware and software that students need to complete their assignments. Kristen confirmed my suspicion that there are students out there who cannot afford to buy the computer hardware and software that they need who also do not have access to campus computer labs which have that hardware and software. At first, I thought of this as a rather small problem. Little did I realize that I would later find this problem, the dilemma of students not having the resources they need to complete their digital homework, to be one of the biggest “digilemmas” on campus.

As we finished shooting our footage, we decided to start editing it together. It was around this time that I realzied the DTC 475, the pinnacle class of the DTC major which required creating a 15 minute documentary video, did not provide access to a single computer lab on campus. Fortunately, myself and two of my group members were taking classes in the Communications department, and so we had access to the computer labs there for a few hours a day. The labs were fairly small, but, thankfully, also fairly empty. During the editing process, I had to log in and work on three separate computers at once. I would edit footage on one machine while the other two slowly rendered out finalized video to the server. It was a slow process, but it worked. It also would have nearly impossible to do on my 2006 Dell running Ubuntu 12.04, a version of a Linux.

Towards the end of the project, I interviewed myself about the benefits of Linux, specifically the Ubuntu operating system, and how I wished that more people knew about this free software that could breathe new life into older computers and make them usable for a few more years. I have used Ubuntu nearly exclusively for my own computers for the past four years, and have been very pleased with it.

Even this paper that I am typing now is being created using the free, open source LibreOffice office software suite on a five-year old netbook that is running Ubuntu 12.04. Without this free, more effcient software, this computer would have been obsolete at least two years ago. However, the newer software has kept the computer usable in today's tech world for a few extra years.

In my interviews with Rebcecca Goodrich and Kristin Arola, we discussed the possibilities of expanding the use of open source software on campus, both through promoting its use on students' personal computers and in campus computer labs. I began to wonder if this would become the biggest issue, the biggest “digilemma” on campus that would need to be resolved.

The next week, our group finally had all of the footage we needed to complete our project. Maxwell and I began spending time in the Communications labs, editing our raw footage and assembling the final video. It was during this time that I discovered “my” digilemma.

Maxwell, Jordan, and I all had access to the Communications lab and the servers because we were enrolled in Communications classes. The class we were creating this video for, however, was not in the Communications College. In fact, this class, which required a 15 minute collaborative video as part of the final project, did not provide access to a computer lab for its students. I found this rather illogical, as DTC/AMST 475 is the competitive entry, pinnacle class of the Digital Technology and Culture major. How, then, do 475 students not qualify for the use of a computer lab? This, then, is what I find to be the biggest digilemma on campus, the biggest problem related to the digital divide on the Pullman campus of Washington State University.

During the editing process, I watched some of Maxwell's footage in which he interviewed the camputer lab technician for the Communications Department. I found it rather sad and disconcerting how, in the interview, the lab technician spoke of how he predicted the University would downsize and perhaps eliminate the computer labs rather than bringing them up to better, more fitting standards. I found this mentality rather depressing. Unless computer technology manages to hit a plateau and stagnate for awhile, computers that are up to the task of performing digital media creation the with latest software are not going to come down in price, and neither will the software needed to “stay current” with what is being used in the real world.

So, what then is to be done? How can a student keep up in the computer world where expensive new machine and expensive new software is needed every few years. I think, first of all, we need to look at why we replace our computers. Often, we replace them because they break down, which points to lousy, cheap manufacturing. Well-built machines should be able to be used for 100 years, even if no one is commonly using them anymore. However, many computers are simply retired because they are no longer “up to date”, or are “no longer supported”, which simply means that no company is interested

in maintaining infrastructure that allows older but functioning machines to continue to operate. Of course, open source software and operating systems will often allow older machines to operate several years after mainstream commercial systems would have considered them “useless”. Why, then, do not more people use these systems? I think that people are reluctant to try extending their computer's life-span for two reasons.

The first reason is that people are unwilling to try something that is unfamiliar to them. They have never used Linux, or they have heard that is only a thing that geeks use, so they don't want to even try it. They dismiss it without ever even trying it, a choice that ends up being an expensive and wasteful descision.

The second reason is that people have tricked into thinking that their new computer is actually better than their old one. They spend most of their money on buying that “cool factor” when they purchase a new machine, which will be outdated by manufacturers standards within a few years, just like their old one. They are a caught in the cycle that the manufacturer wants them to be caught in, and will forever be buying new machines and new software because the manufacturers want them to.

I think that if more people tried open source software, that the tech world could change for the better. Systems could be put in place to allow older computers to continue to function, despite their years. Open source software could be utilized in campus computer labs, cutting computer lab costs and making more computers available for students to use. Eventually, open source software may find its way to the “real world” where it could be used alongside or, depending on the company's needs, in place of expensive programs like the Adobe Suite.

This, then, is the biggest digilemma on campus. The University is unwilling to try open source software which could be put in place for a very low cost, which, in turn, would allow computer labs to be maintained and perhaps even expanded at a lower cost, thereby allowing students more access to the computer resources that they need to complete homework assignments and both become and remain competitive in both their college education and the real world.