Fair Use or Misuse of open badges?

 

Screenshot of point of "badge" issue 

Over the weekend I got a notification on Twitter that I had been awarded a badge. Those who know me will know that I am usually enthusiastic about collecting badges, especially those which help me to keep track of the events I have presented at or recognise new skills I have worked to master. This one was odd though. It claimed to be a fake english language teaching certificate, TEFL. 

English is my first language but I have never been interested in teaching it. I loved learning other languages and chose to specialise in teaching French and Spanish. So where had this badge come from and why had it come to me? 

Intrigued, I followed what links were available. The badge had not been issued to my email address so it didn't exist as something I could accept (or rather reject!). So why did it bear my name? I queried the twitter account which had sent the tweet. I am writing this post as a record of what I discovered but I have removed the details of the "issuer" to spare his blushes, since he has now apologised and I can only accept that apology with good grace. Having engaged with the twitter account in question I also contacted the VP of the platform which had been used, someone I have interacted with before online and who I have always found to be trustworthy. I am grateful to Nate Otto for his prompt engagement. 

Here are some screenshots of the interactions that followed (read below in reverse order). The details of the "issuer" have been redacted for the reasons I outlined above. He has since removed the tweets to me and I have blocked him from my Twitter connections. 

Having asked why he had targeted me with this badge I did not feel the reason given added up. He claims the badge was a parody. I can understand wanting to poke fun at credentials which don't stand scrutiny but I enjoy parody and didn't find this at all funny. He said he wanted to parody diploma mills (I don't believe there is much open badge use there actually). I would totally agree that credit, credentials (micro or otherwise) shouldn't be issued without robust evidence that they are fit for purpose and that the construct behind the criteria for issue need to be clear. If anything, this act was demonstrating how not to create and issue open badges. 

I advocate the use of open badges as a means of open recognition and micro-credentialing. I have used them extensively in European projects to ensure that participants have a way to prove their engagement and expertise in virtual exchange. I have also enjoyed collecting and issuing badges through the open recognition framework which exists. I have researched, written and presented on these activities. 

Nate pointed out that this so called badge issuer had put my name on a badge without my consent. My feminist instincts had already kicked in, this was an act of micro aggression. It was encouraging to see that the platform owner was ready to examine this activity. 

Despite the "issuer" 's apparent contrition, I see he still has a fake badge invitation on his twitter feed. The link leads to this wikipedia page. 

Is this "having fun"? Are those that are interested in open badges are suckers? Not my definition of fun in the midst of a pandemic I'm afraid. Maybe my sense of humour (which is so subjective don't forget) has been blunted by the knowledge that we need experts to help us escape covid 19.  Perhaps though this experience is a timely reminder of how we must always question critically how technologies are being used. Now that's something I can get behind.