The forum in which you are working for New Media Cultures is arguably a Community of Practice. We have shared goals, a joint enterprise, experts, newcomers and those with power. Try to put together some thoughts and reflections on which members fit into which category from our work so far and discuss your ideas of what is our joint enterprise and who fits into which role.
Students who are undertaking the New Media Cultures unit are arguably a community of practice. Wenger suggests that “a community of practice defines itself along three dimensions… what it’s about, how it functions and what capability it has produced” (Wenger reading, page 2).
So, the new media cultures community of practice can also define itself…
What it’s about: our joint enterprise is the work involved with the unit and the need to succeed and do well. This is the shared interest and goal of the members of our community of practice.
How it functions: students meet up if necessary, have Facebook threads, comment on each others blogs and raise questions and awareness in the forums. This is how members participate within the community of practice.
What capability it has produced: the shared repertoire of knowledge of the unit has given students the capability to complete weekly tasks, hopefully improve week on week and fully understand the concepts within the unit.
The people with the power in the community of practice would probably be the tutors as they are the ones who define the content students are working on and discussing. There are no newcomers because each member started the course and will finish it at the same time. The community of practice will mostly break up once the unit is finished, but some people may continue a community of practice, with a renegotiated joint enterprise of succeeding the entire Media culture and communications degree course.
However, I also think that it could be argued that there are communities of practice within the NMC unit, rather than just one…
All students who are taking the ‘new media cultures’ unit are part of a seminar group and also a study group within that seminar group; this would be their organisational unit. Each student has been put into their seminar group depending on their timetables. These groups are relatively formal as students have to be a part of that group. However, students may have friends in the other two seminar groups who they want to share their work with (follow their blogs, comment on posts, advise etc) and this would be their community of practice.
I think that both of these community of practice theories can be applied to the students taking new media cultures.
Friday, 27 February 2009
Wednesday, 25 February 2009
Week Six - Topic 3: Communities of Practice and Organisational Units
Wenger states "These 'communities of practice' are mostly informal and distinct from organizational units" What do you think Wenger means by an "organizational unit"?
I think that Wenger uses the term ‘organisational unit’ to mean a group or department of people who have been put together for a reason rather than formed themselves in a ‘self organising’ manner. I think that people in an organisational unit have to be together whereas people in a community of practice have chosen to be together.Wenger states that in a community of practice “membership is based on participation rather than on official status” and that members are “informally bound”. However an organisational unit membership is given to a person because they have to be a part of it and the membership is more formal.
Also, communities of practice are meant to be about a shared understanding and knowledge and the desire to learn, where as organisational units are more groups of people you have to work with, but many not have the same desires or understanding of the subject relevant to them.
An example I found was of a case study of Xerox machine repair workers. They formed a community of practice outside their typical organisational unit due to problems they were having. Their typical organisational unit would have been their boss, anyone who worked with them on repairs and also the company supplied manual, whereas their community of practice were others who did the exact same job as them (they don’t all work together). This community of practices’ joint enterprise was to help each other out and improve their work. Their community of practice included meeting up to discuss their stories and problems and help one another with any struggle they were having with repairing and also any problems with tricky customers.
Sharp, J (1997) Communities of Practice; a review of the literature, http://www.tfriend.com/cop-lit.ht
I think that Wenger uses the term ‘organisational unit’ to mean a group or department of people who have been put together for a reason rather than formed themselves in a ‘self organising’ manner. I think that people in an organisational unit have to be together whereas people in a community of practice have chosen to be together.Wenger states that in a community of practice “membership is based on participation rather than on official status” and that members are “informally bound”. However an organisational unit membership is given to a person because they have to be a part of it and the membership is more formal.
Also, communities of practice are meant to be about a shared understanding and knowledge and the desire to learn, where as organisational units are more groups of people you have to work with, but many not have the same desires or understanding of the subject relevant to them.
An example I found was of a case study of Xerox machine repair workers. They formed a community of practice outside their typical organisational unit due to problems they were having. Their typical organisational unit would have been their boss, anyone who worked with them on repairs and also the company supplied manual, whereas their community of practice were others who did the exact same job as them (they don’t all work together). This community of practices’ joint enterprise was to help each other out and improve their work. Their community of practice included meeting up to discuss their stories and problems and help one another with any struggle they were having with repairing and also any problems with tricky customers.
Sharp, J (1997) Communities of Practice; a review of the literature, http://www.tfriend.com/cop-lit.ht
Week Six - Topic 2: Joint enterprise
Sometimes it is difficult to think about community in different ways. For this task, I want you to think carefully about "joint enterprise". It is easy to belong to a community on the web, but for us to consider the community a community of practice there needs to be a joint enterprise - something that members are actively engaged in with progression and a goal in mind. Usually this means that the members have a vested interest in getting better at something together.
A joint enterprise is what a community of practice is about; the reason the CofP exists. A community of practice needs the shared interest between members and it is this interest which is the joint enterprise. Wenger states that a joint enterprise is “understood and continually renegotiated by its members”.
I found a community website called ‘Minti’ which is designed for parents, to provide them parenting advice and to share their advice with others. I think this site has a consideration for joint enterprise, as all users of the site have the same progression and goal in mind: to improve their parenting skills. All members want to get better at being a parent. One of the reasons this site was set up was to help parents to communicate their problems as they are happening, rather than going to a magazine which is a one way communication device published monthly. This site encourages learning by practice in the activity of actually being a parent. I would consider this community site a community of practice as although there is not a ‘meatspace’ “social setting in which learning takes place” (Wenger) there is an online social setting where members of the community can communicate and aid each others learning.
A joint enterprise is what a community of practice is about; the reason the CofP exists. A community of practice needs the shared interest between members and it is this interest which is the joint enterprise. Wenger states that a joint enterprise is “understood and continually renegotiated by its members”.
I found a community website called ‘Minti’ which is designed for parents, to provide them parenting advice and to share their advice with others. I think this site has a consideration for joint enterprise, as all users of the site have the same progression and goal in mind: to improve their parenting skills. All members want to get better at being a parent. One of the reasons this site was set up was to help parents to communicate their problems as they are happening, rather than going to a magazine which is a one way communication device published monthly. This site encourages learning by practice in the activity of actually being a parent. I would consider this community site a community of practice as although there is not a ‘meatspace’ “social setting in which learning takes place” (Wenger) there is an online social setting where members of the community can communicate and aid each others learning.
Week Six - Topic 1: Community of Practice and Wengers Model
Think of a CofP to which you belong (or have belonged) explain in your seminar forum how your example fits into Wenger's model
Wenger states that communities of practice are “groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly”. He also goes on to suggest that there are three vital features which differentiate a community from a community of practice; the domain (the shared area of interest), the community (building relationships and engaging in joint activities) and the practice (the shared catalogue of resources). (http://www.ewenger.com/theory/)
I belonged to a community of practice was when I worked in a clothes store before coming to university. The community of practice was between all the staff despite the job title they had; we all wanted to do well in our jobs and interacted to help each other out with improving. I used to have to work with sales assistants, managers, senior sales assistants and stock room assistants in our community of practice.
The domain between the members was the interest of helping customers out with the goal of getting them to make a purchase in order to secure the staff bonus. The community was the sales assistants working along side stockroom assistants to find sizes, colours etc and managers working along side senior sales assistants to make sure the shop was running correctly and everybody was where they were supposed to be. The practice was the knowledge that we all shared from helping each other out with problems ranging from customers, till operation to stock knowledge which meant we could as a team run the shop productively whilst being able to cover different sections as our ‘shared catalogue of resources’ meant we had a knowledge wider than our own specific job.
Wenger states that communities of practice are “groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly”. He also goes on to suggest that there are three vital features which differentiate a community from a community of practice; the domain (the shared area of interest), the community (building relationships and engaging in joint activities) and the practice (the shared catalogue of resources). (http://www.ewenger.com/theory/)
I belonged to a community of practice was when I worked in a clothes store before coming to university. The community of practice was between all the staff despite the job title they had; we all wanted to do well in our jobs and interacted to help each other out with improving. I used to have to work with sales assistants, managers, senior sales assistants and stock room assistants in our community of practice.
The domain between the members was the interest of helping customers out with the goal of getting them to make a purchase in order to secure the staff bonus. The community was the sales assistants working along side stockroom assistants to find sizes, colours etc and managers working along side senior sales assistants to make sure the shop was running correctly and everybody was where they were supposed to be. The practice was the knowledge that we all shared from helping each other out with problems ranging from customers, till operation to stock knowledge which meant we could as a team run the shop productively whilst being able to cover different sections as our ‘shared catalogue of resources’ meant we had a knowledge wider than our own specific job.
Week Six - Website Analysis
Glamour Magazine - http://www.glamourmagazine.co.uk/
a) How is your chosen site structured?
The glamour magazine homepage is a kind of gateway to lots of information, based on sections of the magazine. The site is structured to display a lot of hyperlinks, which is done in a logical and organised way using lists, subheadings and images.
Lister et al define hypertext as "made up from discrete units of material in which each one carries a number of pathways to other units" (2003: 24). Shields (2000) suggested that links are essential to both navigation and composition of websites. This is very true for glamour magazine.com the majority of the text on the main page is hypertext – a click of the mouse takes you off to the particular article you have chosen. Hypertext composes the majority of the page and also is the way of navigating around the site. Hypertext means that reading information takes a non-linear form; using glamour magazine.com is defiantly non-linear as the user can start wherever they choose and read as much as they want. Sonia Livingstone suggested that as hypertext is non-linear, you may need a new type of literacy to comprehend it. The user of glamour magazine.com doesn’t need a certain type of literacy to understand it, as although hypertext is the main function of the site, it’s clear and easy to use.
Bruns defines produsage as “the collaborative and continuous building and extending of existing content in pursuit of further improvement” (2006: 2). There is an element of produsage on the site, as users can submit their comments and thoughts about each article which is in a way 'extending existing content'. However, the produsage limit stops here, there is no moderation or produser content similar to produsage heavy sites such as Wiki sites or forum based websites.
b) What is it about on a cultural level?
On a cultural level, Glamour is about women, fashion, beauty and celebrities.
The website appeals to mainly women aged 20-35 who are readers of the magazine in real life.
There is an element of community within the site based on the fact there is an element of produsage. People who leave comments on the site obviously have a shared interest; they are visiting the same site, reading the same articles and caring enough to comment on them. However, there is not a feeling of community throughout the site because of the limited interactivity involved for users. McMilan and Chavis (1986) defined the concept of ‘sense of community’. According to their definition, I would say that there is no community within the glamour magazine website, which in turn eliminates and issues of privacy. Similarly, there is no openness to the small element of produsage which is in the site as any comments users do submit have to be authorised by Glamour before posting. Bruns has suggested that having a governed site would put people off, however this doesn’t really apply to this case as becoming a produser isn’t the reason people visit and use the site.
c) What is the appeal for you as a user?
The appeal for a user of glamour magazine.com is the fact it contains items which are in the magazine yet viewing them is easier on screen with the aid of hypertext compared to reading the magazine. On the website the user can be directed straight to the section, or even article that they wish to view, without having to search through the entire print. Another appeal for the user is that they can read other peoples opinions of the topics within the magazine and chose whether to participate become a produser, or just observe. There is trust between the user and the website, as users will feel ‘secure’ knowing that glamour is a big-selling magazine and company which means the user feels confident using the site and its information.
Shields, R. (2000) “Hypertext Links”. In Herman, A and Swiss, T (ed’s), The World Wide Web and Contemporary Culture, New York London: Routledge, 2000, pp. 145
Bruns, A (2006) ‘Towards Produsage: Futures For User-Led Content Production’ online at: http://snurb.info/files/12132812018_towards_produsage_0.pdf
McMilan and Chavis (1986) in Blanchard, A (2004) ‘Blogs as Virtual Communities: Identifying a Sense of Community’
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/blogosphere/blogs_as_virtual.html
a) How is your chosen site structured?
The glamour magazine homepage is a kind of gateway to lots of information, based on sections of the magazine. The site is structured to display a lot of hyperlinks, which is done in a logical and organised way using lists, subheadings and images.
Lister et al define hypertext as "made up from discrete units of material in which each one carries a number of pathways to other units" (2003: 24). Shields (2000) suggested that links are essential to both navigation and composition of websites. This is very true for glamour magazine.com the majority of the text on the main page is hypertext – a click of the mouse takes you off to the particular article you have chosen. Hypertext composes the majority of the page and also is the way of navigating around the site. Hypertext means that reading information takes a non-linear form; using glamour magazine.com is defiantly non-linear as the user can start wherever they choose and read as much as they want. Sonia Livingstone suggested that as hypertext is non-linear, you may need a new type of literacy to comprehend it. The user of glamour magazine.com doesn’t need a certain type of literacy to understand it, as although hypertext is the main function of the site, it’s clear and easy to use.
Bruns defines produsage as “the collaborative and continuous building and extending of existing content in pursuit of further improvement” (2006: 2). There is an element of produsage on the site, as users can submit their comments and thoughts about each article which is in a way 'extending existing content'. However, the produsage limit stops here, there is no moderation or produser content similar to produsage heavy sites such as Wiki sites or forum based websites.
b) What is it about on a cultural level?
On a cultural level, Glamour is about women, fashion, beauty and celebrities.
The website appeals to mainly women aged 20-35 who are readers of the magazine in real life.
There is an element of community within the site based on the fact there is an element of produsage. People who leave comments on the site obviously have a shared interest; they are visiting the same site, reading the same articles and caring enough to comment on them. However, there is not a feeling of community throughout the site because of the limited interactivity involved for users. McMilan and Chavis (1986) defined the concept of ‘sense of community’. According to their definition, I would say that there is no community within the glamour magazine website, which in turn eliminates and issues of privacy. Similarly, there is no openness to the small element of produsage which is in the site as any comments users do submit have to be authorised by Glamour before posting. Bruns has suggested that having a governed site would put people off, however this doesn’t really apply to this case as becoming a produser isn’t the reason people visit and use the site.
c) What is the appeal for you as a user?
The appeal for a user of glamour magazine.com is the fact it contains items which are in the magazine yet viewing them is easier on screen with the aid of hypertext compared to reading the magazine. On the website the user can be directed straight to the section, or even article that they wish to view, without having to search through the entire print. Another appeal for the user is that they can read other peoples opinions of the topics within the magazine and chose whether to participate become a produser, or just observe. There is trust between the user and the website, as users will feel ‘secure’ knowing that glamour is a big-selling magazine and company which means the user feels confident using the site and its information.
Shields, R. (2000) “Hypertext Links”. In Herman, A and Swiss, T (ed’s), The World Wide Web and Contemporary Culture, New York London: Routledge, 2000, pp. 145
Bruns, A (2006) ‘Towards Produsage: Futures For User-Led Content Production’ online at: http://snurb.info/files/12132812018_towards_produsage_0.pdf
McMilan and Chavis (1986) in Blanchard, A (2004) ‘Blogs as Virtual Communities: Identifying a Sense of Community’
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/blogosphere/blogs_as_virtual.html
Thursday, 19 February 2009
Week Five - Topic 1b: Moderation in collaborative sites
When collaborative sites have moderation functions to prevent a ‘free for all’, does this defeat the purpose?
Bruns reading: page 4
Bruns suggests: “If sites are seen as being controlled by a closed in-group of participants, they are unlikely to attract new produsers into the fold, as these are likely to feel alienated” and goes on to say that there is also the chance that without moderation, collaborative sites could loose structure and unity.
In response to this many sites have a hierarchical government where a group of certain people take a vote, or certain members are chosen randomly and given the right to moderate other produsers work.
I think that having moderators does kind of defeat the purpose of a ‘free for all’ concept as technically it is then not a free for all, but a moderated site. However, I think the term ‘free for all’ gives the undertone that anyone can write anything, and usually these collaborative sites do have a purpose about them. I think that some form of moderation is needed because if there was none then there’s a high chance of the site being flooded by inappropriate comments / articles or advertisements.
In this case, I would say that some form of moderation is needed, just not too strict or overpowering as this may put produsers off of using the site, and it is the produsers who create the content.
Wednesday, 18 February 2009
Week Five - Online research into blogs
Do some online research into blogs as a new media genre: their origins, development etc and share your findings in your entries.What forms of expression are they really good for?
The term ‘blog’ came from the word ‘weblog’, which was coined by Jorn Barger in 1997 and there are now more than a hundred million active blogs. (Wortham, 2007,). They are entries which are dated and posted in reverse chronological order onto a webpage.
The nature of blogs varies depending on the individual who writes the blog, some are personal diaries whereas some are rants, commentary on news, business / marketing related, or based on a subject such as politics, or travel.
“A blog is basically a journal that is available on the web. The activity of updating a blog is "blogging" and someone who keeps a blog is a "blogger".” (validwebdesigns.com/glossary/).
One of the earliest bloggers was Justin Hall, who began his ‘online diary’ before the term was even coined. Blogs used to be parts of websites, which were just updated regularly by the person who ran them; however, due to technology advancements these regular posts could now be put up in reverse chronological order and these advancements made the whole concept available to a bigger audience as it removed a lot of the technological aspects. The idea of blogs and blogging grew from there and has evolved into the phenomenon of blogging as we know it today; “a highly networked mass of online knowledge and communication” (Mark Brady, 2005). There are now even blog awards such as ‘the Bloggies’ (http://2009.bloggies.com/) and the ‘BOB – Best of blogs’ (http://www.thebobs.com/)
Blogs are particularly useful for expressing opinions, sharing your daily life and thoughts with your audience, marketing and advertising, creating news stories and keeping colleagues up to date.
Wortham, J (2007), "After Ten Years of Blogs, the Future's Brighter Than Ever", http://www.wired.com/entertainment/theweb/news/2007/12/blog_anniversary
Brady, M (2005), "Blogging: Personal Participation in Public Knowledge Building on the Web", http://www.essex.ac.uk/chimera/content/pubs/wps/CWP-2005-02-blogging-in-the-Knowledge-Society-MB.pdf
The term ‘blog’ came from the word ‘weblog’, which was coined by Jorn Barger in 1997 and there are now more than a hundred million active blogs. (Wortham, 2007,). They are entries which are dated and posted in reverse chronological order onto a webpage.
The nature of blogs varies depending on the individual who writes the blog, some are personal diaries whereas some are rants, commentary on news, business / marketing related, or based on a subject such as politics, or travel.
“A blog is basically a journal that is available on the web. The activity of updating a blog is "blogging" and someone who keeps a blog is a "blogger".” (validwebdesigns.com/glossary/).
One of the earliest bloggers was Justin Hall, who began his ‘online diary’ before the term was even coined. Blogs used to be parts of websites, which were just updated regularly by the person who ran them; however, due to technology advancements these regular posts could now be put up in reverse chronological order and these advancements made the whole concept available to a bigger audience as it removed a lot of the technological aspects. The idea of blogs and blogging grew from there and has evolved into the phenomenon of blogging as we know it today; “a highly networked mass of online knowledge and communication” (Mark Brady, 2005). There are now even blog awards such as ‘the Bloggies’ (http://2009.bloggies.com/) and the ‘BOB – Best of blogs’ (http://www.thebobs.com/)
Blogs are particularly useful for expressing opinions, sharing your daily life and thoughts with your audience, marketing and advertising, creating news stories and keeping colleagues up to date.
Wortham, J (2007), "After Ten Years of Blogs, the Future's Brighter Than Ever", http://www.wired.com/entertainment/theweb/news/2007/12/blog_anniversary
Brady, M (2005), "Blogging: Personal Participation in Public Knowledge Building on the Web", http://www.essex.ac.uk/chimera/content/pubs/wps/CWP-2005-02-blogging-in-the-Knowledge-Society-MB.pdf
Week Five - Well read blogs
Find some well-read blogs from outside the New Media Cultures unit community that impress you and analyse how the author/respondents use the blog as a forum to present themselves and share ideas.
http://shamelesslysassy.com/
Shamelessly Sassy is a blog written by Amanda Hill, a freelance writer and blogger. She uses the blog to discuss her life, and general issues that she has some thoughts on. Her writing style is humorous and honest. The blog was a finalist in the category of best writing of a weblog at the 2008 bloggies.
From what I read, Amanda presents herself as a busy, slightly quirky mother who is friendly, open and honest. Via the blog, Amanda shares her life with her audience, from stories about her daughter and family to testing products and recommending them to her general day to day activities.
The audience can comment on each post if they want to. From reading the comments, I got the impression that most people tried to present themselves as similar to the author, they agree with what Amanda says, or sometimes offer advice or tell stories about themselves which are similar to the authors posts.
In these terms, the blog is also used to share ideas, when the author posts a blog where she is questioning an issue, many readers respond to her with their thoughts. The responses are all positive.
http://www.soveryalone.com/
So very alone is written by ‘Harlan’. It is generally about his life, and how he ‘feels like he is drowning’ The posts are all about what is happening to him, updates on problems he shared with the audience previously and problems. The whole site is quite depressing compared to the upbeat nature of 'Shamelessly Sassy'.
The author presents himself as lonely, depressed and generally unhappy. All of the posts that I read were written negatively and expressed to his audience how upside down he thinks his life is.
The audience can post responses to each post. Most tend to be giving advice to Harlan about making him feel better where as some are agreeing with his situation, saying they have a similar outlook to him. I think some of the respondents find Harlan’s blog therapeutic or as a means of support, as one person commented “I am alone too - somehow I feel less alone knowing you are out there.”
http://www.iaindale.blogspot.com/
Iain Dale is the author and creator of Iain Dales Diary, a daily blog about politics. It is described as “A unique brand of political commentary, humour and gossip”. The blog is read by party leaders and cabinet ministers, attracting more hits than the three top party sites combined.
The author presents himself as having a knowledgeable opinion. The blog is also used to promote other aspects of his career, such as magazine interviews he has conducted. I found after reading through some posts that the blog that many posts seem to be a round-up of particular stories from a variety of publications with what his opinion of the situation is. The humour part of the blog is brought in through his writing style and gossip is included as some posts are about political speculations.
The readers represent themselves in the same way as the two other blogs; via commenting. The majority of comments are supportive, agreeing with what he has to say and stating that they like his work. The audience use the blog as a forum to share ideas about current political affairs.
http://shamelesslysassy.com/
Shamelessly Sassy is a blog written by Amanda Hill, a freelance writer and blogger. She uses the blog to discuss her life, and general issues that she has some thoughts on. Her writing style is humorous and honest. The blog was a finalist in the category of best writing of a weblog at the 2008 bloggies.
From what I read, Amanda presents herself as a busy, slightly quirky mother who is friendly, open and honest. Via the blog, Amanda shares her life with her audience, from stories about her daughter and family to testing products and recommending them to her general day to day activities.
The audience can comment on each post if they want to. From reading the comments, I got the impression that most people tried to present themselves as similar to the author, they agree with what Amanda says, or sometimes offer advice or tell stories about themselves which are similar to the authors posts.
In these terms, the blog is also used to share ideas, when the author posts a blog where she is questioning an issue, many readers respond to her with their thoughts. The responses are all positive.
http://www.soveryalone.com/
So very alone is written by ‘Harlan’. It is generally about his life, and how he ‘feels like he is drowning’ The posts are all about what is happening to him, updates on problems he shared with the audience previously and problems. The whole site is quite depressing compared to the upbeat nature of 'Shamelessly Sassy'.
The author presents himself as lonely, depressed and generally unhappy. All of the posts that I read were written negatively and expressed to his audience how upside down he thinks his life is.
The audience can post responses to each post. Most tend to be giving advice to Harlan about making him feel better where as some are agreeing with his situation, saying they have a similar outlook to him. I think some of the respondents find Harlan’s blog therapeutic or as a means of support, as one person commented “I am alone too - somehow I feel less alone knowing you are out there.”
http://www.iaindale.blogspot.com/
Iain Dale is the author and creator of Iain Dales Diary, a daily blog about politics. It is described as “A unique brand of political commentary, humour and gossip”. The blog is read by party leaders and cabinet ministers, attracting more hits than the three top party sites combined.
The author presents himself as having a knowledgeable opinion. The blog is also used to promote other aspects of his career, such as magazine interviews he has conducted. I found after reading through some posts that the blog that many posts seem to be a round-up of particular stories from a variety of publications with what his opinion of the situation is. The humour part of the blog is brought in through his writing style and gossip is included as some posts are about political speculations.
The readers represent themselves in the same way as the two other blogs; via commenting. The majority of comments are supportive, agreeing with what he has to say and stating that they like his work. The audience use the blog as a forum to share ideas about current political affairs.
Tuesday, 17 February 2009
Week Five - Topic 1d: Is open news quality news?
Is open news quality news?
Meikle reading: paragraph 18
“Open publishing means that the process of creating news is transparent to the readers. They can contribute a story and see it instantly appear in the pool of stories publicly available” (Arnison, 2001 in Meikle, paragraph 17). Therefore open news is news which has been created using open publishing.
Due to the nature of how open news stories are put together, I don’t think that open news is quality news. If anybody can fact check, spell / grammar check or take any part in the editorial process then the news article will end up being altered many times. I think that many alterations, by different people takes away any quality the story ever had. It becomes unreliable if open publishing is used and therefore lacks value.
One issue that Meikle brought up about Indymedia’s use of open news was “the large number of items being posted to sites, which meant that even especially well-researched or significant stories would be replaced quickly on the front page”. If the important news is constantly being replaced, I think it can indicate that the story wasn’t that worthwhile in the first place.
Another issue which Meikle mentioned, also about Indymedia, is that open publishing sites are inundated with spam. I personally think that this factor of spam defiantly takes away any sign of quality within a news story; seeing an article covered in spam can make you question the reliability of the site and quality of the news.
Meikle reading: paragraph 18
“Open publishing means that the process of creating news is transparent to the readers. They can contribute a story and see it instantly appear in the pool of stories publicly available” (Arnison, 2001 in Meikle, paragraph 17). Therefore open news is news which has been created using open publishing.
Due to the nature of how open news stories are put together, I don’t think that open news is quality news. If anybody can fact check, spell / grammar check or take any part in the editorial process then the news article will end up being altered many times. I think that many alterations, by different people takes away any quality the story ever had. It becomes unreliable if open publishing is used and therefore lacks value.
One issue that Meikle brought up about Indymedia’s use of open news was “the large number of items being posted to sites, which meant that even especially well-researched or significant stories would be replaced quickly on the front page”. If the important news is constantly being replaced, I think it can indicate that the story wasn’t that worthwhile in the first place.
Another issue which Meikle mentioned, also about Indymedia, is that open publishing sites are inundated with spam. I personally think that this factor of spam defiantly takes away any sign of quality within a news story; seeing an article covered in spam can make you question the reliability of the site and quality of the news.
Week Five - Topic 1b: Online Journalism
Are there ‘new kinds of journalist’ online? If so, how so?
Meikle reading: paragraph 9
Meikle suggests that there is an “ongoing shift in the boundary of what constitutes newsmakers”. Indymedia is a movement which does move the boundaries of who constitutes a ‘journalist’ or who gets to make the news. It is independent and self managing and John Downing defines it as “politically dissident media that offers radical alternatives to mainstream debate”. I think that the Indymedia movement provides a platform for a new kind of journalist online; it provides a network of journalists who use open publishing and democratic media method which allows anyone to have their say. Meikle describes Indymedia as “a forum for non-professional journalists” (paragraph 10).
A journalist is somebody who writes, commentates on or reports news. I think that there are definitely new kinds of journalist online, aside from mainstream news sites and indymedia. Mark Deuze says that “millions of individual users
and special interest groups have used the internet as an outlet for their news”
Personal websites and blogs, although a controversial type of journalism, are one way people become journalists. People can give their opinion, as news, to the world. Blogs are often kept very up-to-date and provide a different spin on current affairs. One example of a new type of online journalist is Perez Hilton, who became an American household name for his blogging about Hollywood happenings and celebrities.
Another form of online journalism is index and category sites. This is where journalists provide links to existing news sites, rather than presenting their own editorial content. A bulletin board system is usually in place on these types of journalism sites. Meta- and comment sites are also seen as online journalism. This can be seen as “journalism about journalism” and is sometimes projected as a ‘media watchdog’. One final type of online journalism is share and discussion sites. This type of online journalism sees the internet as “’just a communications infrastructure” (Rushkoff, 2000) providing a place to swap ideas, stories etc.
Not everybody will agree that all of these types of journalism are credible, but seeing as a journalist is someone who writes, commentates or reports on the news it can’t be denied that they are forms of journalism.
Deuze, M. (2003) “The Web and its Journalisms: Considering the Consequences of Different Types of Newsmedia Online”, New Media and Society, volume 5, pages 203-229.
Meikle reading: paragraph 9
Meikle suggests that there is an “ongoing shift in the boundary of what constitutes newsmakers”. Indymedia is a movement which does move the boundaries of who constitutes a ‘journalist’ or who gets to make the news. It is independent and self managing and John Downing defines it as “politically dissident media that offers radical alternatives to mainstream debate”. I think that the Indymedia movement provides a platform for a new kind of journalist online; it provides a network of journalists who use open publishing and democratic media method which allows anyone to have their say. Meikle describes Indymedia as “a forum for non-professional journalists” (paragraph 10).
A journalist is somebody who writes, commentates on or reports news. I think that there are definitely new kinds of journalist online, aside from mainstream news sites and indymedia. Mark Deuze says that “millions of individual users
and special interest groups have used the internet as an outlet for their news”
Personal websites and blogs, although a controversial type of journalism, are one way people become journalists. People can give their opinion, as news, to the world. Blogs are often kept very up-to-date and provide a different spin on current affairs. One example of a new type of online journalist is Perez Hilton, who became an American household name for his blogging about Hollywood happenings and celebrities.
Another form of online journalism is index and category sites. This is where journalists provide links to existing news sites, rather than presenting their own editorial content. A bulletin board system is usually in place on these types of journalism sites. Meta- and comment sites are also seen as online journalism. This can be seen as “journalism about journalism” and is sometimes projected as a ‘media watchdog’. One final type of online journalism is share and discussion sites. This type of online journalism sees the internet as “’just a communications infrastructure” (Rushkoff, 2000) providing a place to swap ideas, stories etc.
Not everybody will agree that all of these types of journalism are credible, but seeing as a journalist is someone who writes, commentates or reports on the news it can’t be denied that they are forms of journalism.
Deuze, M. (2003) “The Web and its Journalisms: Considering the Consequences of Different Types of Newsmedia Online”, New Media and Society, volume 5, pages 203-229.
Week Five - Topic 1a: News on the Web
What do you think constitutes ‘news’ on the Web?
Meikle reading: paragraph 7-9
Burnett and Marshall suggest there has been “a shifted boundary of what constitutes news”, and in response to this they established the concept of “informational news” where audience members become researchers in terms of information retrieval.
I agree with their idea that (online) news has become a wide search of information by people who use the web. When searching for a particular story, different sources are used rather than relying on the first one they happen to come across. I think that this is largely to do with the idea of ‘produsage’, people are aware that anybody can post their thoughts onto the web and dress their opinion up as ‘news’. Using a few reliable sources confirms the truth in the story.
I think that as the web is so full of people’s opinions, gossip and conspiracy theories, often ‘news’ is not very insightful. Therefore a lot of people will rely on professional media companies to provide honest, trustworthy news. I think that the information provided by reliable, professional sources is what constitutes news on the web. As there is an information overload, not all of the sources can be relied on; people’s opinions don’t form news: truthful information about recent developments, happenings or events is what does.
Meikle reading: paragraph 7-9
Burnett and Marshall suggest there has been “a shifted boundary of what constitutes news”, and in response to this they established the concept of “informational news” where audience members become researchers in terms of information retrieval.
I agree with their idea that (online) news has become a wide search of information by people who use the web. When searching for a particular story, different sources are used rather than relying on the first one they happen to come across. I think that this is largely to do with the idea of ‘produsage’, people are aware that anybody can post their thoughts onto the web and dress their opinion up as ‘news’. Using a few reliable sources confirms the truth in the story.
I think that as the web is so full of people’s opinions, gossip and conspiracy theories, often ‘news’ is not very insightful. Therefore a lot of people will rely on professional media companies to provide honest, trustworthy news. I think that the information provided by reliable, professional sources is what constitutes news on the web. As there is an information overload, not all of the sources can be relied on; people’s opinions don’t form news: truthful information about recent developments, happenings or events is what does.
Week Five - Topic 1c: Will produsage last?
As a trend, do you think produsage will last? Do you think commercial forces will find ways of exploiting it, or perhaps the ways people are involved will end up being short-term? Conflicts in the communities? Flagging energy/interest? Successful sites get bought out? Just a trend? Or the future of the Net?
Bruns reading: page 5
I think that produsage will last, people being able to create their own ideas, news or any product that produsers create is very appealing compared to being constantly on the receiving end of information.
I do agree that more commercial forces will find ways of exploiting produsage as it has already been done. The Sims game is 90% produsage even though the game is sold to produsers for a profit which goes to the games publishers, not the people who have created 90£ of the game!
I’m sure other ways of exploitation will be found, maybe a possibility that in the future produsage sites could incur a fee to ‘join’, or sites will become overloaded with advertisements.
I don’t think that there will ever be a flagging interest or energy of produsage as there are always going to be people who want to get their voice across; therefore it is not just a trend. I think that produsage will continue to grow, however this does depend on how or if the commercial industry takes advantage.
Successful sites could quite possibly get brought out, creating even bigger profits for the legal owners, despite the fact they are using produsers creativity for their own profit whilst the people actually doing the work are left empty handed. Although this may put people off providing their work for free, I don’t think produsage will completely disappear. As Bruns states: “Sites of produsage flourish if they can attract a large number of engaged and experienced participants who adhere to the ideals of the site”. I personally think that produsage sites will continue to attract people to help generate the content and therefore keep the site up and successfully running.
Bruns reading: page 5
I think that produsage will last, people being able to create their own ideas, news or any product that produsers create is very appealing compared to being constantly on the receiving end of information.
I do agree that more commercial forces will find ways of exploiting produsage as it has already been done. The Sims game is 90% produsage even though the game is sold to produsers for a profit which goes to the games publishers, not the people who have created 90£ of the game!
I’m sure other ways of exploitation will be found, maybe a possibility that in the future produsage sites could incur a fee to ‘join’, or sites will become overloaded with advertisements.
I don’t think that there will ever be a flagging interest or energy of produsage as there are always going to be people who want to get their voice across; therefore it is not just a trend. I think that produsage will continue to grow, however this does depend on how or if the commercial industry takes advantage.
Successful sites could quite possibly get brought out, creating even bigger profits for the legal owners, despite the fact they are using produsers creativity for their own profit whilst the people actually doing the work are left empty handed. Although this may put people off providing their work for free, I don’t think produsage will completely disappear. As Bruns states: “Sites of produsage flourish if they can attract a large number of engaged and experienced participants who adhere to the ideals of the site”. I personally think that produsage sites will continue to attract people to help generate the content and therefore keep the site up and successfully running.
Week Five - Wikimedia
Wikimedia is quintessentially collaborative creation of online content. All material on any Wiki site is produsage; the software of the site makes it this way. In the lecture notes, the question was brought up about wanting the site, or only producing it because the software makes it that way. I think that it is a mix of the two because obviously the software does make us become produsers, but I would say that the majority of people want Wiki – if it wasn’t for people who use Wiki sites, then it wouldn’t exist. Wikibooks was actually launched because of a request to build and host free textbooks. Wikipedia’s articles are written collaboratively by produsers, and can also be edited by anyone. Wikiversty provides learning resources projects and research from teachers, students and researchers; if people didn’t want to provide their ideas and donate to the site then they wouldn’t, however people do therefore people must want it that way.
Wiki exist by donations because people like what Wiki provides for them, nobody owns the materials on the Wiki sites and their ‘copyright’ policy is known as ‘copyleft’. The idea behind this is that anybody has permission to use, reproduce and edit the material available so long as that person does not place a copyright on the work they created from using Wiki material.
Relating back to the ‘is produsage a trend?’ question, I think that this backs up my ideas on it not being a trend – people like to contribute to articles, see their opinions voiced to the world and know they have attempted to make their mark.
Wiki exist by donations because people like what Wiki provides for them, nobody owns the materials on the Wiki sites and their ‘copyright’ policy is known as ‘copyleft’. The idea behind this is that anybody has permission to use, reproduce and edit the material available so long as that person does not place a copyright on the work they created from using Wiki material.
Relating back to the ‘is produsage a trend?’ question, I think that this backs up my ideas on it not being a trend – people like to contribute to articles, see their opinions voiced to the world and know they have attempted to make their mark.
Week Five - Topic 1a: Produsers, Produsage and Intercreativity
What do you understand by the words ‘produser’, ‘produsage’, and ‘intercreativity’? Are they useful in understanding collaborative creation of content online?
Bruns reading
Produser – New media has lead to the digitisation of content, which can now be created, published, edited and broadcast widely. This technology has broken down the traditional production chain of producer > publisher > distributor > consumer creating ‘produsers’ (Anyone Can Edit: Understanding the Produser, http://snurb.info/index.php?q=node/286). Alex Bruns defines a produser as a “break down of the boundaries between producers and consumers and instead enables all participants to be users as well as producers of information and knowledge”. I understand this as the people who use the information are also the ones who have produced it, the boundaries of producer/publisher and audience/consumer are broken and both are at the same time.
Produsage – Alex Bruns defines Produsage as “the collaborative and continuous building and extending of existing content in pursuit of further improvement”.
Four key principles apply in all Produsage environments; open participation and communal evaluation, fluid heterarchy and ad-hoc meritocracy (an elite group set up only in response to a specific problem), unfinished artefacts and continuing process and finally common property and individual rewards (Produsers and Produsage, http://snurb.info/produsage). I understand produsage as the continual process that produsers go through, the constant updating of information. Examples of produsage are Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia created by its users, multi-user online games such as the Sims and Second life, and citizen journalism - produsage in news and information sites.
Intercreativity – Tim Berners-Lee defines intercreativity as “it’s what underpins what we can look forward to on the Web. “Intercreativity” can unlock the solutions in our “concoction of half formed ideas”” (http://213.232.94.135/merlinjohnonline/news.php?extend.135). I understand intercreativity to occur when ideas are formed through different people putting together all of their partially formed ideas. People use the web to make their suggestions, which are then read by other people across the globe who in turn add their bit or suggestion, eventually a concept is formed through ‘intercreativity’. I found Berners-Lee’s phrase “one creative process together” helps to understand intercreativity. Basically, everybody helps to create an advanced, thought-through, continually developing idea.
I think that these terms are useful to understand the collaborative creation of content online, produsers create produsage, and the process of intercreativity means that produsers continue updating and advancing the produsage. These terms make the topic easier to discuss and understand, as the definitions also give an insight into the theory of collaborative creation of online content.
Bruns reading
Produser – New media has lead to the digitisation of content, which can now be created, published, edited and broadcast widely. This technology has broken down the traditional production chain of producer > publisher > distributor > consumer creating ‘produsers’ (Anyone Can Edit: Understanding the Produser, http://snurb.info/index.php?q=node/286). Alex Bruns defines a produser as a “break down of the boundaries between producers and consumers and instead enables all participants to be users as well as producers of information and knowledge”. I understand this as the people who use the information are also the ones who have produced it, the boundaries of producer/publisher and audience/consumer are broken and both are at the same time.
Produsage – Alex Bruns defines Produsage as “the collaborative and continuous building and extending of existing content in pursuit of further improvement”.
Four key principles apply in all Produsage environments; open participation and communal evaluation, fluid heterarchy and ad-hoc meritocracy (an elite group set up only in response to a specific problem), unfinished artefacts and continuing process and finally common property and individual rewards (Produsers and Produsage, http://snurb.info/produsage). I understand produsage as the continual process that produsers go through, the constant updating of information. Examples of produsage are Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia created by its users, multi-user online games such as the Sims and Second life, and citizen journalism - produsage in news and information sites.
Intercreativity – Tim Berners-Lee defines intercreativity as “it’s what underpins what we can look forward to on the Web. “Intercreativity” can unlock the solutions in our “concoction of half formed ideas”” (http://213.232.94.135/merlinjohnonline/news.php?extend.135). I understand intercreativity to occur when ideas are formed through different people putting together all of their partially formed ideas. People use the web to make their suggestions, which are then read by other people across the globe who in turn add their bit or suggestion, eventually a concept is formed through ‘intercreativity’. I found Berners-Lee’s phrase “one creative process together” helps to understand intercreativity. Basically, everybody helps to create an advanced, thought-through, continually developing idea.
I think that these terms are useful to understand the collaborative creation of content online, produsers create produsage, and the process of intercreativity means that produsers continue updating and advancing the produsage. These terms make the topic easier to discuss and understand, as the definitions also give an insight into the theory of collaborative creation of online content.
Saturday, 14 February 2009
Week Four - Topic 1c: Dangerous materials on the Internet
To what extent are ‘dangerous materials’ prominent on the Internet (or ‘junk and jerks’ as Kollock put it)? What does their existence mean in terms of the ‘freedoms’ the Net allows? Is freedom always positive?
Lister et al: page 181
‘Dangerous materials’ are prominent on the internet to quite an extent, in the forms of viruses and hackers, pornography, flaming, paedophiles, piracy and spam. Peter Kollock refers to these negative aspects of the internet as ‘junk and jerks’.
Both the internet itself and the freedom it allows are vast. Anyone with a computer and internet access can view anything they wish, give or take a few registration or payment processes.
The existence of these ‘dangerous materials’ along with the freedom the Net allows means that they are accessible to countless people, including children. Lister et al state that “the internet is often seen by consumers as a potentially open channel for frightening materials to enter the home”.
It’s highly inappropriate for children to see pornography which can easily be found innocently on search engines or even just appear as pop-up’s. Also for children who use chatrooms, paedophiles ‘grooming’ is a serious problem. Although I think the dangerous materials are more of a problem when it comes to children, they can also cause problems and stress for adults. Spam, viruses and hackers are a nuisance to any internet user. Logging onto your e-mail account to find hundreds of spam e-mails every day can become extremely frustrating and viruses can be an expensive problem both to prevent and fix.
Of course, the freedom of the internet has positive aspects in terms of researching, news, global reach and communication but the ‘dangerous materials’ means that freedom is not always a positive thing.
Lister et al: page 181
‘Dangerous materials’ are prominent on the internet to quite an extent, in the forms of viruses and hackers, pornography, flaming, paedophiles, piracy and spam. Peter Kollock refers to these negative aspects of the internet as ‘junk and jerks’.
Both the internet itself and the freedom it allows are vast. Anyone with a computer and internet access can view anything they wish, give or take a few registration or payment processes.
The existence of these ‘dangerous materials’ along with the freedom the Net allows means that they are accessible to countless people, including children. Lister et al state that “the internet is often seen by consumers as a potentially open channel for frightening materials to enter the home”.
It’s highly inappropriate for children to see pornography which can easily be found innocently on search engines or even just appear as pop-up’s. Also for children who use chatrooms, paedophiles ‘grooming’ is a serious problem. Although I think the dangerous materials are more of a problem when it comes to children, they can also cause problems and stress for adults. Spam, viruses and hackers are a nuisance to any internet user. Logging onto your e-mail account to find hundreds of spam e-mails every day can become extremely frustrating and viruses can be an expensive problem both to prevent and fix.
Of course, the freedom of the internet has positive aspects in terms of researching, news, global reach and communication but the ‘dangerous materials’ means that freedom is not always a positive thing.
Friday, 13 February 2009
Week Four - Topic 2: Social Networking Sites
Social Networking Sites
Social networking websites have become, for many people, a part of every day life.
In terms of theories of online identity or ‘identity play’, social networking sites are very simple. You register as your ‘real self’ and that is who you are online. The majority of people sensibly only accept ‘friendships’ from people they know of IRL, which means there are no issues of gender swapping, stereotyping or just pretending to be someone else for the fun of it. Of course, you can exaggerate or tone down your personality or characteristics but as the people who view your profile are those who know you IRL, it seems pointless. Social networking sites, unlike MUD’s or any unmonitored forums, are not places for personal experimentation.
After some web-based research, I noticed some suggestions of social networking being described as social communities. I don’t think I personally would describe Facebook as a community. Although you do know your some of your ‘friends’ on an emotional level, you interact on the site and have a continual membership, it is more of a means of peer-to-peer communication, being nosey, or part of the ‘look at me’ phenomenon than a community.
Social networking websites have become, for many people, a part of every day life.
In terms of theories of online identity or ‘identity play’, social networking sites are very simple. You register as your ‘real self’ and that is who you are online. The majority of people sensibly only accept ‘friendships’ from people they know of IRL, which means there are no issues of gender swapping, stereotyping or just pretending to be someone else for the fun of it. Of course, you can exaggerate or tone down your personality or characteristics but as the people who view your profile are those who know you IRL, it seems pointless. Social networking sites, unlike MUD’s or any unmonitored forums, are not places for personal experimentation.
After some web-based research, I noticed some suggestions of social networking being described as social communities. I don’t think I personally would describe Facebook as a community. Although you do know your some of your ‘friends’ on an emotional level, you interact on the site and have a continual membership, it is more of a means of peer-to-peer communication, being nosey, or part of the ‘look at me’ phenomenon than a community.
Week Four - Topic 1f: Is community in the eye of the user?
Having read the piece, is it fair to say that ‘community is in the eye of the user(s)’, in the sense that it is about what’s on offer and how people respond to it, rather than saying any collection of people interacting online is a community?
Blanchard Reading
After reading the article, I do agree that community is in the eye of the user(s). I definitely don’t think that any collection of people interacting online can be defined as community.
Using the ‘sense of community’ proposal as a starting point, I think that if a user of an online group/forum or whatever it may be feels emotionally connected to the other users, has a fair share of input and has a sense of membership then they would feel like they are part of a community. Only they know what they feel about that ‘community’, if someone from outside that community was to come across the site and read the postings they would probably just see it as a standard group because they do not have the feelings of being involved nor would they be aware to a big enough extent of the relationships involved. In this respect, I think it is fair to say that community is in the eye of the user.
Blanchard Reading
After reading the article, I do agree that community is in the eye of the user(s). I definitely don’t think that any collection of people interacting online can be defined as community.
Using the ‘sense of community’ proposal as a starting point, I think that if a user of an online group/forum or whatever it may be feels emotionally connected to the other users, has a fair share of input and has a sense of membership then they would feel like they are part of a community. Only they know what they feel about that ‘community’, if someone from outside that community was to come across the site and read the postings they would probably just see it as a standard group because they do not have the feelings of being involved nor would they be aware to a big enough extent of the relationships involved. In this respect, I think it is fair to say that community is in the eye of the user.
Week Four - Topic 1b: Virtual Settlement Concept
Is the ‘virtual settlement’ a useful concept? Why?
Blanchard reading
The ‘virtual settlement’ concept was proposed by Jones (1997). He describes it as the place in which people interact and suggests that it can be understood by looking at the artifacts: its postings, structure and content.
Jones states that a virtual settlement is present when “a) a minimal number of b) public interactions c) with a variety of communicators in which d) there is a minimal level of sustained membership over a period of time”. It is the relationships within the virtual settlements which can be said to be the difference between a community and a standard group.
I think that this concept can be useful when comparing communities and groups because I agree that for a group to be given the title of community, the factors that Jones proposes should be present. However, it is very similar to Blanchard and Markus’ (2003) proposal of ‘sense of community’. I think that the ‘sense of community’ notion is more valid as I prefer the idea of having an emotional connection and a feeling of membership when describing a community. Jones’ proposal, although a useful concept, I feel lacks detail about the relationships that need to be involved in order to have a community.
Blanchard reading
The ‘virtual settlement’ concept was proposed by Jones (1997). He describes it as the place in which people interact and suggests that it can be understood by looking at the artifacts: its postings, structure and content.
Jones states that a virtual settlement is present when “a) a minimal number of b) public interactions c) with a variety of communicators in which d) there is a minimal level of sustained membership over a period of time”. It is the relationships within the virtual settlements which can be said to be the difference between a community and a standard group.
I think that this concept can be useful when comparing communities and groups because I agree that for a group to be given the title of community, the factors that Jones proposes should be present. However, it is very similar to Blanchard and Markus’ (2003) proposal of ‘sense of community’. I think that the ‘sense of community’ notion is more valid as I prefer the idea of having an emotional connection and a feeling of membership when describing a community. Jones’ proposal, although a useful concept, I feel lacks detail about the relationships that need to be involved in order to have a community.
Tuesday, 10 February 2009
Week Four - Topic 1a - Do CMC groups deserve the status of community?
What do you think about the issue of whether or not all CMC (computer-mediated-communication) groups deserve the status of communities? What characteristics would you stress as important?
Blanchard Reading
I think that this question relates well to my thoughts on the notion that online community can be empowering / disempowering (post below).
All CMC groups could be described as communities, depending on your definition of ‘community’. As below, a community can be a group of people with common background or shared interests. In this case then I would say that most groups deserve the status of a community.
However, a community in real life is what I think of when the word community is mentioned. I agree that people within a community should get along no matter their differences. I agree with Jones (1997) that people’s feelings and the relationships between people are characteristics that help differentiate between a standard group and a community.
A sense of community has been defined by McMillan and Chavis (1986) to have the following characteristics: feelings of membership, feelings of influence, integration of fulfilment and needs and a shared emotional connection. I agree that these qualities define what a community is about and that a sense of community can also be a distinguishing factor between a group and an online community in the ‘reality’ term.
Blanchard Reading
I think that this question relates well to my thoughts on the notion that online community can be empowering / disempowering (post below).
All CMC groups could be described as communities, depending on your definition of ‘community’. As below, a community can be a group of people with common background or shared interests. In this case then I would say that most groups deserve the status of a community.
However, a community in real life is what I think of when the word community is mentioned. I agree that people within a community should get along no matter their differences. I agree with Jones (1997) that people’s feelings and the relationships between people are characteristics that help differentiate between a standard group and a community.
A sense of community has been defined by McMillan and Chavis (1986) to have the following characteristics: feelings of membership, feelings of influence, integration of fulfilment and needs and a shared emotional connection. I agree that these qualities define what a community is about and that a sense of community can also be a distinguishing factor between a group and an online community in the ‘reality’ term.
Week Four - Topic 1a: Online Community
What do you think of the notion that online community can be empowering/disempowering?
I think that online community can be both empowering and disempowering.
Online communities can help people get away from reality where they may be the ‘odd one out’, or not fit in. If they engage in an online community they will feel welcome, ‘normal’ and accepted. As discussed before, this can be very empowering and confidence boosting for an individual.
However, a community in reality is meant to be about accepting others, whatever their level of difference. When difficult times or situations arise, members of a community help each other out and are supportive, regardless of the individual. This is what a community is meant to be and makes it strong. Online communities don’t have this as they are mostly about being the same; anyone with differences is not welcome into their community. There are no obligations, dependence or stability in online communities, so can they be classed as real relationships? I don’t think that they can, as relationships are meant to be built on trust.
Both online and offline communities can be empowering or disempowering for different people. I think that although online communities tend to be about similar people coming together, this doesn’t make them any less of a community than ones in reality. After all, a community can be defined as ‘a group of people with common background or shared interests’. In this case, I don’t feel that trust or dependence is needed. The members don’t really know each other so being part of the community can just be an empowering thing for each individual in their own way.
I think that online community can be both empowering and disempowering.
Online communities can help people get away from reality where they may be the ‘odd one out’, or not fit in. If they engage in an online community they will feel welcome, ‘normal’ and accepted. As discussed before, this can be very empowering and confidence boosting for an individual.
However, a community in reality is meant to be about accepting others, whatever their level of difference. When difficult times or situations arise, members of a community help each other out and are supportive, regardless of the individual. This is what a community is meant to be and makes it strong. Online communities don’t have this as they are mostly about being the same; anyone with differences is not welcome into their community. There are no obligations, dependence or stability in online communities, so can they be classed as real relationships? I don’t think that they can, as relationships are meant to be built on trust.
Both online and offline communities can be empowering or disempowering for different people. I think that although online communities tend to be about similar people coming together, this doesn’t make them any less of a community than ones in reality. After all, a community can be defined as ‘a group of people with common background or shared interests’. In this case, I don’t feel that trust or dependence is needed. The members don’t really know each other so being part of the community can just be an empowering thing for each individual in their own way.
Sunday, 8 February 2009
Week Three - Topic 1a: Internets open architecture
In what ways can the Net be thought of as an ‘open architecture?’
Lister et al: page 164
In the terms of media, an open architecture is a computer or software architecture that permits adding to or improvement.
The Internet can be seen as an open architecture because anybody can create a website, which would be adding to the Internets architecture. Similarly, anybody can add to forums, create pages or profiles, write articles; people can basically post anything they like to the Internet.
This open architecture allows all opinions to be voiced, whether the audience is mass or minority people still are able to present their thoughts.
In this way, the construction of the Internet could be contrasted to other forms of media such as television or print media, which could be said to have a ‘closed architecture’ because it can’t be adapted; people are given what is broadcast or printed.
Lister et al: page 164
In the terms of media, an open architecture is a computer or software architecture that permits adding to or improvement.
The Internet can be seen as an open architecture because anybody can create a website, which would be adding to the Internets architecture. Similarly, anybody can add to forums, create pages or profiles, write articles; people can basically post anything they like to the Internet.
This open architecture allows all opinions to be voiced, whether the audience is mass or minority people still are able to present their thoughts.
In this way, the construction of the Internet could be contrasted to other forms of media such as television or print media, which could be said to have a ‘closed architecture’ because it can’t be adapted; people are given what is broadcast or printed.
Week Three - Topic 1e: Online and Offline relationships
Are online relationships the same as offline ones?
Lister et al: page 170
Lister at al state that “The interaction formed in the supposedly ‘virtual’ environment has profoundly ‘real world’ consequences for those concerned”. This is suggesting that relationships formed online are no different to those formed IRL; although two people may meet online, they can still have a normal relationship in reality. Andrea Baker has written many papers on the formation and continuation of online relationships and has found many to be as successful and genuine as relationships formed in real life.
Lister et al also suggest that as these relationships that are flourishing as well as relationships do in real life that the dichotomy between the real and the virtual may be false; there isn’t actually any major differences.
I do believe that two people can meet online and become genuine friends or a romantic couple, providing they have met IRL and continue to do so. In this scenario, the internet site / chat room / forum etc was just a meeting point for two like-minded people to get together. I agree a healthy relationship can bloom from this situation. However, it is when the relationship is entirely online with no IRL meetings that I think they are not the same as offline ones. Not getting together in reality means that you can be sure who you’re really talking to, I think in this case it’s a ‘have to see it to believe it’ situation.
Lister et al: page 170
Lister at al state that “The interaction formed in the supposedly ‘virtual’ environment has profoundly ‘real world’ consequences for those concerned”. This is suggesting that relationships formed online are no different to those formed IRL; although two people may meet online, they can still have a normal relationship in reality. Andrea Baker has written many papers on the formation and continuation of online relationships and has found many to be as successful and genuine as relationships formed in real life.
Lister et al also suggest that as these relationships that are flourishing as well as relationships do in real life that the dichotomy between the real and the virtual may be false; there isn’t actually any major differences.
I do believe that two people can meet online and become genuine friends or a romantic couple, providing they have met IRL and continue to do so. In this scenario, the internet site / chat room / forum etc was just a meeting point for two like-minded people to get together. I agree a healthy relationship can bloom from this situation. However, it is when the relationship is entirely online with no IRL meetings that I think they are not the same as offline ones. Not getting together in reality means that you can be sure who you’re really talking to, I think in this case it’s a ‘have to see it to believe it’ situation.
Thursday, 5 February 2009
Week Three - Brief analysis of a web forum
Choose a web forum and undertake a brief analysis of its dynamics as a communication form.
A web forum is a discussion site where people can post comments or thoughts about a certain topic. Web forums usually contain completely user generated content and are usually about a particular subject.
I have chosen to look at the IMDb (Internet Movie Database) discussion boards, which can be accessed via this link:
http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000002/threads/?p=2
I noticed that people interact mainly by replying to threads that a user has posted. For example, one person will pose a question then give their thoughts, and then other users, sometimes up to hundreds of people, will answer with their views.
I found that people don’t tend to present themselves to others; there’s no conversation regarding personal lives or identities. They are more inclined to express their opinion on the particular thread they’re commenting on. Users do have profiles, where they have the option to display personal facts such as name, age, location, likes and dislikes. The profiles can be accessed by clicking on usernames which are hyperlinks. Although this information can be retrieved I found it seems to be of low importance.
Due to the clear-cut nature of the forums I don’t feel you really get a sense of what kinds of people the participants are. The only information instantly provided are a username and their comments regarding the movie topic.
The characteristics of the site structure make it easy to view many different discussion topics so users can easily pick a subject of interest. I feel that the type of communication used in this forum is very straight to the point and the fact that there are lists of topics is what influences this. People see a topic, and display their opinion, nothing else needs to be included. The type of topic, which is movies, (including films, actors and actresses, games etc) also has a similar effect on the straight-forward communication. People that visit the forum have an interest in movies and a desire to share their opinions with other film fans.
Another thing I noticed about the communication within the forum is that it is very up to date. On the few different occasions when I accessed the site the latest posts were within the last few minutes or hours. Also, I observed that many of the comments on different threads are from the same user name. This shows that some people are very active users of the forum. I found this quite odd, as there don’t appear to be any ‘relationships’ between users despite the high usage. The IMDb forum appears to be used by genuine film fanatics. I see this in a positive light; there is no issue of identity or ethical issues of withholding information.
A web forum is a discussion site where people can post comments or thoughts about a certain topic. Web forums usually contain completely user generated content and are usually about a particular subject.
I have chosen to look at the IMDb (Internet Movie Database) discussion boards, which can be accessed via this link:
http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000002/threads/?p=2
I noticed that people interact mainly by replying to threads that a user has posted. For example, one person will pose a question then give their thoughts, and then other users, sometimes up to hundreds of people, will answer with their views.
I found that people don’t tend to present themselves to others; there’s no conversation regarding personal lives or identities. They are more inclined to express their opinion on the particular thread they’re commenting on. Users do have profiles, where they have the option to display personal facts such as name, age, location, likes and dislikes. The profiles can be accessed by clicking on usernames which are hyperlinks. Although this information can be retrieved I found it seems to be of low importance.
Due to the clear-cut nature of the forums I don’t feel you really get a sense of what kinds of people the participants are. The only information instantly provided are a username and their comments regarding the movie topic.
The characteristics of the site structure make it easy to view many different discussion topics so users can easily pick a subject of interest. I feel that the type of communication used in this forum is very straight to the point and the fact that there are lists of topics is what influences this. People see a topic, and display their opinion, nothing else needs to be included. The type of topic, which is movies, (including films, actors and actresses, games etc) also has a similar effect on the straight-forward communication. People that visit the forum have an interest in movies and a desire to share their opinions with other film fans.
Another thing I noticed about the communication within the forum is that it is very up to date. On the few different occasions when I accessed the site the latest posts were within the last few minutes or hours. Also, I observed that many of the comments on different threads are from the same user name. This shows that some people are very active users of the forum. I found this quite odd, as there don’t appear to be any ‘relationships’ between users despite the high usage. The IMDb forum appears to be used by genuine film fanatics. I see this in a positive light; there is no issue of identity or ethical issues of withholding information.
Week Three - Topic 2a: Identity and Ethics
Is withholding one’s identity ethically wrong?
This is a very broad question as it can be applied to many situations. Firstly there is the issue, similar to the question of should we always use our full name?, of protecting yourself. Providing your full identity can lead to problems so most of the time, especially online where your information is available world wide, it’s best to act carefully and only give parts of your identity out.
Secondly, and most importantly, I think that withholding your identity to the extent that you are actually pretending to be someone else is ethically wrong. Take the example of forums or chat rooms. The idea behind these is to chat amongst ‘like minded people’. This gives the impression that you should be being yourself as you want to communicate with similar people. I personally think that withholding your identity in this situation is ethically wrong as there will be many innocent people genuinely wanting to chat as themselves; I would say that this is deceiving.
Nevertheless, online communication can also be via MUD’s, or software such as Second Life, which are known for their role playing elements. Users themselves can take on a different character and are aware that others can do this also. Technophilic discourse suggests that new technologies such as MUD’s are a salvation in terms of being ‘set free’ online, you can be liberated from real life social constraints which is why some people choose to use these new media. I believe that in these cases, withholding one’s identity is not ethically wrong, as it is an acknowledged fact people are role playing and therefore withholding their real identity.
This is a very broad question as it can be applied to many situations. Firstly there is the issue, similar to the question of should we always use our full name?, of protecting yourself. Providing your full identity can lead to problems so most of the time, especially online where your information is available world wide, it’s best to act carefully and only give parts of your identity out.
Secondly, and most importantly, I think that withholding your identity to the extent that you are actually pretending to be someone else is ethically wrong. Take the example of forums or chat rooms. The idea behind these is to chat amongst ‘like minded people’. This gives the impression that you should be being yourself as you want to communicate with similar people. I personally think that withholding your identity in this situation is ethically wrong as there will be many innocent people genuinely wanting to chat as themselves; I would say that this is deceiving.
Nevertheless, online communication can also be via MUD’s, or software such as Second Life, which are known for their role playing elements. Users themselves can take on a different character and are aware that others can do this also. Technophilic discourse suggests that new technologies such as MUD’s are a salvation in terms of being ‘set free’ online, you can be liberated from real life social constraints which is why some people choose to use these new media. I believe that in these cases, withholding one’s identity is not ethically wrong, as it is an acknowledged fact people are role playing and therefore withholding their real identity.
Wednesday, 4 February 2009
Week Three - Topic 2b: Should we always use our last name?
Should we always use our full name?
I don’t think that we should always use our full name. Although it can be suggested that withholding one’s identity is ethically wrong, there can also be negative implications with being too open and honest.
One main issue with providing your full name is identity fraud. If you give out too much information about yourself, including your full name you may become a victim to being impersonated, which can vary from smaller scale issues like a person posing as you on a web forum for example, to bigger problems involving money, crime and bank detail / credit card fraud.
So many people, myself included, use their full names on social networking site profiles like facebook without thinking about the possible consequences. It is harmless providing you don’t give out any other details but problems can arise as some peoples profiles include their email address, employers, education, phone number and address.
I’m fully aware that pretending to be someone else, or withholding your identity in some situations, can be ethically wrong but there’s also nothing immoral about trying to protect your self.
A suitable medium is easy to find; being yourself but being careful with your details. I have seen that some people like to use their first name and initial (e.g. ‘Becky S’) which is probably the best ideas as your friends know who you are, but unknown people won’t.
I don’t think that we should always use our full name. Although it can be suggested that withholding one’s identity is ethically wrong, there can also be negative implications with being too open and honest.
One main issue with providing your full name is identity fraud. If you give out too much information about yourself, including your full name you may become a victim to being impersonated, which can vary from smaller scale issues like a person posing as you on a web forum for example, to bigger problems involving money, crime and bank detail / credit card fraud.
So many people, myself included, use their full names on social networking site profiles like facebook without thinking about the possible consequences. It is harmless providing you don’t give out any other details but problems can arise as some peoples profiles include their email address, employers, education, phone number and address.
I’m fully aware that pretending to be someone else, or withholding your identity in some situations, can be ethically wrong but there’s also nothing immoral about trying to protect your self.
A suitable medium is easy to find; being yourself but being careful with your details. I have seen that some people like to use their first name and initial (e.g. ‘Becky S’) which is probably the best ideas as your friends know who you are, but unknown people won’t.
Identity, Self and Persona
This section of the unit about people online has brought up many discussions about not only people’s identity, but their ‘self’ and ‘persona’ so I decided to look into the differences between these descriptions.
An identity is what identifies somebody, the name or essential characteristics which make somebody recognisable. It is the description that somebody acknowledges as belonging distinctively to him or herself and signifying his or her individual personality for life.
Similar to identity, self is a complete personality. A complete and individual personality especially one that somebody recognises as his or her own and with which there is a sense of ease. The person feels comfortable, and is natural in, their self.
A persona is an identity or role that somebody takes on. A persona, unlike identity or self, can be put on or feigned.
In my opinion, generally speaking, identity and self are what people have in real life and then when online they create a persona. Of course I understand that people can have personas in real life when acting or not being themselves, and similarly people can be who they really are online if they choose to be. However, from the reading and research, I have found that online more people tend to either exaggerate /tone down their personality and certain characteristics or even be a different person altogether.
I think we have one true identity, which is who we really are at our most comfortable. However, we have several personas; identities which we take on to fit our surroundings. Im sure not many people are the same 'person' when in company of their family compared to their friends, or similarly when in a seminar compared to a night out with friends.
An identity is what identifies somebody, the name or essential characteristics which make somebody recognisable. It is the description that somebody acknowledges as belonging distinctively to him or herself and signifying his or her individual personality for life.
Similar to identity, self is a complete personality. A complete and individual personality especially one that somebody recognises as his or her own and with which there is a sense of ease. The person feels comfortable, and is natural in, their self.
A persona is an identity or role that somebody takes on. A persona, unlike identity or self, can be put on or feigned.
In my opinion, generally speaking, identity and self are what people have in real life and then when online they create a persona. Of course I understand that people can have personas in real life when acting or not being themselves, and similarly people can be who they really are online if they choose to be. However, from the reading and research, I have found that online more people tend to either exaggerate /tone down their personality and certain characteristics or even be a different person altogether.
I think we have one true identity, which is who we really are at our most comfortable. However, we have several personas; identities which we take on to fit our surroundings. Im sure not many people are the same 'person' when in company of their family compared to their friends, or similarly when in a seminar compared to a night out with friends.
Week Three - Topic 2c: Adopting a mark or expressing yourself amongst like minds?
Far from adopting a ‘mask’, isn’t one appeal of the Net that you can express your true self among like minds?
Although it can be suggested that you can adopt a ‘mask’, or take on a different identity when online, another appeal of the Internet is that you can be your true self with others who are similar to you, or who share the same interests.
Shaun Wilbur put forward the idea that when you are online, you are free from any real life stress or worries from feeling outcast. As people from all over the world are on the Web, you can find other individuals who are similar to you. Knowing you’re not alone can result in improved self esteem and confidence.
Being able to express yourself and converse with people who are similar to you is extremely positive in many different ways. It can be from something like finding others who have the same rare hobby or who are fanatics of the same actor, to people who share very rare medial problems.
Whilst researching, I found a group called ‘The Society of Barefoot Living’ which is for anybody who goes barefoot as a lifestyle choice! Their mission is to provide a friendly forum to offer support for ‘bare-footers’ and to help promote acceptance of this lifestyle.
Wilbur’s theory can be applied to this as when the members are online, they are free from the outcast feeling which they probably have in reality.
In this case, the users are being themselves rather than adopting a mask. However, there are also people who exploit the Internet as a place to have another identity.
Although it can be suggested that you can adopt a ‘mask’, or take on a different identity when online, another appeal of the Internet is that you can be your true self with others who are similar to you, or who share the same interests.
Shaun Wilbur put forward the idea that when you are online, you are free from any real life stress or worries from feeling outcast. As people from all over the world are on the Web, you can find other individuals who are similar to you. Knowing you’re not alone can result in improved self esteem and confidence.
Being able to express yourself and converse with people who are similar to you is extremely positive in many different ways. It can be from something like finding others who have the same rare hobby or who are fanatics of the same actor, to people who share very rare medial problems.
Whilst researching, I found a group called ‘The Society of Barefoot Living’ which is for anybody who goes barefoot as a lifestyle choice! Their mission is to provide a friendly forum to offer support for ‘bare-footers’ and to help promote acceptance of this lifestyle.
Wilbur’s theory can be applied to this as when the members are online, they are free from the outcast feeling which they probably have in reality.
In this case, the users are being themselves rather than adopting a mask. However, there are also people who exploit the Internet as a place to have another identity.
Monday, 2 February 2009
Week Three: - Topic 3a: Second Life
Observe (but do not contribute to) at least one of the following and share your findings with your study group –and alert your seminar group:
Having never used or even heard of Second Life before, I registered at http://secondlife.com, and downloaded the software, then created an avatar. The process of registering includes choosing a name. You can type your chosen first name then pick a surname from a list of available names. Other details taken from you are DOB, email address and real life name.
Once the software had dowloaded and set up I entered the 'Grid' and looked at all the functions available. As I had not used Second Life, or anything similar, before I have used my interpretation of what I experienced along with some background research to answer the following questions.
How does it work?
Second life is a virtual, 3-D world which users, called ‘residents’, create themselves in the form of an avatar. It is inhabited by millions of users.
Second life works by a user creating an avatar – a movable 3-D image which represents a person in cyberspace. The avatar can be customised from clothes they are wearing down to their facial features and body type. Once the user has an avatar they can explore and meet people, and even buy land, create a home and business or travel the world, which residents call ‘the grid’.
Having never used or even heard of Second Life before, I registered at http://secondlife.com, and downloaded the software, then created an avatar. The process of registering includes choosing a name. You can type your chosen first name then pick a surname from a list of available names. Other details taken from you are DOB, email address and real life name.
Once the software had dowloaded and set up I entered the 'Grid' and looked at all the functions available. As I had not used Second Life, or anything similar, before I have used my interpretation of what I experienced along with some background research to answer the following questions.
How does it work?
Second life is a virtual, 3-D world which users, called ‘residents’, create themselves in the form of an avatar. It is inhabited by millions of users.
Second life works by a user creating an avatar – a movable 3-D image which represents a person in cyberspace. The avatar can be customised from clothes they are wearing down to their facial features and body type. Once the user has an avatar they can explore and meet people, and even buy land, create a home and business or travel the world, which residents call ‘the grid’.
Week Three - Topic 3b: What is it for?
What is Second Life for?
Second life is for anybody who wishes to create an alter ego and create themselves a ‘second life’.
It provides people with the opportunity to, as put by Sherry Turkle discussing MUD’s, “express multiple and often unexplored aspects of the self, to play with their identity and to try out new ones”.
It is also used by many real businesses and educational institutions (one example being IBM) who wish to integrate their real business into the Second Life Grid. They can then use spaces for communication, collaboration, training, and virtual meetings / classes.
Second life is for anybody who wishes to create an alter ego and create themselves a ‘second life’.
It provides people with the opportunity to, as put by Sherry Turkle discussing MUD’s, “express multiple and often unexplored aspects of the self, to play with their identity and to try out new ones”.
It is also used by many real businesses and educational institutions (one example being IBM) who wish to integrate their real business into the Second Life Grid. They can then use spaces for communication, collaboration, training, and virtual meetings / classes.
Week Three - Topic 3c: Appeal of 'acting out'?
What is the appeal of ‘acting out’ in such a forum? Is it something different from ordinary life or a projection of it?
I think that ‘acting out’ in a forum appeals to some people because they can do whatever they choose, talk to strangers and do things they may not usually do in real life. I imagine some people like the idea of Second Life because it’s an imaginative ‘game’, or even as the name suggests, they can create their own second life to live in a different way to their real life.
I think it can also be proposed that some people can use their avatars as the person they want to be in real life, but don’t have the confidence or skills in reality.
In a way, Second Life is a projection of ordinary life as you meet people, talk, visit different places, host events, have business’ and even their own currency; the ‘Linden Dollar’. It could be described as a very creative, imaginary version of life, which residents can altar according to their wishes.
I think that ‘acting out’ in a forum appeals to some people because they can do whatever they choose, talk to strangers and do things they may not usually do in real life. I imagine some people like the idea of Second Life because it’s an imaginative ‘game’, or even as the name suggests, they can create their own second life to live in a different way to their real life.
I think it can also be proposed that some people can use their avatars as the person they want to be in real life, but don’t have the confidence or skills in reality.
In a way, Second Life is a projection of ordinary life as you meet people, talk, visit different places, host events, have business’ and even their own currency; the ‘Linden Dollar’. It could be described as a very creative, imaginary version of life, which residents can altar according to their wishes.
Week Three - Topic 3d: Relationships and Identities
What kinds of relationships and identities are involved?
Residents of the 'Second Life Grid' can connect in various relationships; business, romantic, playful, or just friendship. However, problems can arise with virtual relationships just as they can with real ones.
When researching Second Life I came across a blogger who had said “This virtual world has so many opportunities and variations it is impossible to define a universal moral code”. (http://galenheron.blogspot.com/2007/09/relationships-partnerships-and-marraige.html)
I thought this was very interesting and can be applied to the types of relationships people have on Second Life. As there are no ‘moral codes’ in the virtual world people can act how they choose with no consequences, whereas in the reality it may be socially unacceptable to behave in that way. Are these ‘relationships’ really relationships when people are not necessarily being themselves?
There are many different identities involved as people can create whatever their imagination formulates. Also, users’ aren’t restricted to one avatar; they can create multiple alter-egos for themselves. The options are endless.
Residents of the 'Second Life Grid' can connect in various relationships; business, romantic, playful, or just friendship. However, problems can arise with virtual relationships just as they can with real ones.
When researching Second Life I came across a blogger who had said “This virtual world has so many opportunities and variations it is impossible to define a universal moral code”. (http://galenheron.blogspot.com/2007/09/relationships-partnerships-and-marraige.html)
I thought this was very interesting and can be applied to the types of relationships people have on Second Life. As there are no ‘moral codes’ in the virtual world people can act how they choose with no consequences, whereas in the reality it may be socially unacceptable to behave in that way. Are these ‘relationships’ really relationships when people are not necessarily being themselves?
There are many different identities involved as people can create whatever their imagination formulates. Also, users’ aren’t restricted to one avatar; they can create multiple alter-egos for themselves. The options are endless.
Week Three - Topic 3e: Turkle's Theories
Do Turkle’s theories based on MUDs apply here also?
I think that Turkle’s theories based on MUD’s do apply here as MUD’s have many similarities to Second Life in terms of role-playing, users and online personas; the main difference is Second-Life uses graphics and images.
Turkle suggests that users of MUD’s can very easily create several adaptable and unstable identities, even though this pushes the confines of the concept of identity. This is the same for Second Life; one user can create many ‘residents’ so they can construct themselves as they desire, often taking different aspects of their real life personality and emphasising that particular trait for each avatar.
One of the case studies in Turkles’ paper, a 21 year old college student, reveals that his violent characters on MUD’s are actually a part of him, however he chooses to use his violent side on the computer rather than in real life. I believe that many people will do this on Second Life just as they do in MUD’s.
I think that Turkle’s theories based on MUD’s do apply here as MUD’s have many similarities to Second Life in terms of role-playing, users and online personas; the main difference is Second-Life uses graphics and images.
Turkle suggests that users of MUD’s can very easily create several adaptable and unstable identities, even though this pushes the confines of the concept of identity. This is the same for Second Life; one user can create many ‘residents’ so they can construct themselves as they desire, often taking different aspects of their real life personality and emphasising that particular trait for each avatar.
One of the case studies in Turkles’ paper, a 21 year old college student, reveals that his violent characters on MUD’s are actually a part of him, however he chooses to use his violent side on the computer rather than in real life. I believe that many people will do this on Second Life just as they do in MUD’s.
Week Two, Reading Summary: Rob Shields 'Hypertext Links'
Reading Summary:
Rob Shields, Chapter 7 (page 145) in Herman, A and Swiss, T, The World Wide Web and Contemporary Culture
Links, which are often ignored by critics, are essential to both navigation and composition of web pages.
Shields argues that links disrupt the flow and static quality of a page as they are always viewed in motion and give viewers the opportunity to go elsewhere.
The Web is a dynamic, vectoral space which consists of action calls to servers, files and links and the full scale of the Web is very hard to understand. The internet as ‘big’ as it is, is represented to us as simply a tool, or straightforward object.
Many studies of the WWW assume a remarkable completeness of web sites / pages; however, this idea disregards the vibrant features of the users experiences. Shields suggests that it is important to look at the nature of hypertext and links as he thinks that movement is a key factor.
Hypertext links have a ‘double function’. They are both part of a page or text but also indicates to the viewer that they have the option to go and view another page instead. As links are both part of the text and also provide access to another page, they can be seen as contradictory.
Rob Shields, Chapter 7 (page 145) in Herman, A and Swiss, T, The World Wide Web and Contemporary Culture
Links, which are often ignored by critics, are essential to both navigation and composition of web pages.
Shields argues that links disrupt the flow and static quality of a page as they are always viewed in motion and give viewers the opportunity to go elsewhere.
The Web is a dynamic, vectoral space which consists of action calls to servers, files and links and the full scale of the Web is very hard to understand. The internet as ‘big’ as it is, is represented to us as simply a tool, or straightforward object.
Many studies of the WWW assume a remarkable completeness of web sites / pages; however, this idea disregards the vibrant features of the users experiences. Shields suggests that it is important to look at the nature of hypertext and links as he thinks that movement is a key factor.
Hypertext links have a ‘double function’. They are both part of a page or text but also indicates to the viewer that they have the option to go and view another page instead. As links are both part of the text and also provide access to another page, they can be seen as contradictory.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
