In yesterdays symposium, there was much talk about what it means to be ‘literate’. There appeared to be an emphasis on knowing the mechanics behind the form in which content is produced, rather than the content itself. Although there were several views on it, at one point my brain just stopped registering what was being said and it left me in a state of severe confusion @_@

So I took matters into my own hands and consulted my trusty (digital) dictionary to define the word ‘literate’. It was defined as an adjective used to describe someone who is able to read or write, or has knowledge in a specified field. If we apply this to networking online, doesn’t that mean we are all network literate since we are able to read, write, and have at least some knowledge of how to interact with our blogs? Sure, we may not know the mechanics behind it, but I guess that just makes us not as literate as other people who can (?)

If we consider people who are deemed computer illiterate by employers or others in society, isn’t it the fact that they can’t use or navigate through computer programs or systems the reason for this? Aren’t people who are able to use programs like Word or Excel considered computer literate even if they may not understand the engineering behind it?

On the other hand, what happens when someone creates a ‘form’, be it a website, app, or keyboard which enables people to compose songs, but he himself doesn’t know the techniques behind song-writing? Although he knows the mechanics behind the form, he doesn’t know the mechanics behind the content. To me he is musically illiterate, but mechanically literate.

This may seem like an over-simplified way of understanding what it means to be literate, however this is the only way I can wrap my head around this concept. It’s probably obvious, but I’m still a bit confused and may have even contradicted myself somewhere, but if someone like Paul Graham was reading this then they probably wouldn’t mind.