The Museum of E-Failure
Since its inception in 2000, this website has logged 900 + websites that have "gone dark" from the years 1998-2004. Some of the sites just disappeared off the face of the planet without any reason why, whereas others showed an "epitaph" or some sort of farewell, webmaster written. Within this site are screen-shot recordings of the demised sites, much to the point of remembering what has passed through the ages unnoticed. The site mentions that this is to help find "insight" to see if the web has a "central role" in later history of dead media.
Beyond the seemingly endless pile of web refuse listed in center-screen, there is an explanation at the right pane of the page that discusses this page of Ghost Sites. This seems to be some sort of mock narrative, which implies an astronautical experience which led to the beginning of a 1996 project. This continues to creatively discuss the dot.com bubble. That is pretty much what is considered in the page, many examples of dead sites without any possible explanation for the occurrence, unfortunately bleem.com, which I believe is the same bleem software playstation emulator is among the list of casualties. Perhaps the cause of their demise was a lack of advertisement at cited in "The Great Web Wipeout", and insight before its due time.
It seems that with the passing of these sites, we learned how to make up from others mistakes and helped to create the booming internet-economy that exists today. I thought this site was quite interesting, somewhat morbid in a sense, but thought provoking to see how many need to fail for the few winners to pick up the pieces and achieve great success.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
The Great Web Wipeout
I see that I am the first to take advantage of the new two in the morning time extension. Here is a comb over of this article.
This article might seem irrelevant, because it is now around a decade old. However I don't believe that this article stepped too far out of its boundries. It didn't make any rash predictions, or suggest and ideas that never really came to be. It more so remained focused on its main theme, and that is the death of so man of the so called dotcoms during what was supposed to be the great media revolution.
The article highlights two main reasons as to why this complete collapse of profitable websites occured. The two are closely related to each other, as we can see that one reason would be the eventual cause for the other. The first reason sited in the article is what the article refers to as the provider's "general inability to add bandwidth." For those of us who are not entirely computer savey, what this basically means is that sites were getting more hits than they were capable of handling, forcing them to become "off the net" at some point on a daily basis because of overload. The reaction to this then, was that people were simply going to smaller sites that had less hits. This by itself is a problem, yes, but what it would eventually lead to would prove to be the nail in the coffin, so to speak, for many providers on the web.
As we all know, free websites depend entirely on advertisement dollars to turn a profit. Once advertisers got wind of the over load on their respective sites, investigations were carried out in order to find out how many users were actually getting to see their articles, and also for how long. The article states that advertisement expenses were at some point around 15 dollars a hit for some websites. After investigations however, it was found that users that did access the sites, were generally only there for a matter of minutes. On top of this, it was also found that 90 percent of the hits were not even real users, but rather produced by "spiders" and "crawlers." At this discovery, prices for advertising dipped all the way down to a dollar for every thousand hits.
My favorite idea touched upon by this article, was the comparison of heavily used sites such as Yahoo.com, among many others (especially in the present day, ten years later), with big time corporations such like Wal Mart, calling the sites the Wal Marts of web advertising, which "drove the price points into the basement."
I would now ask, after reading this article, in todays world, has the "media revolution," which was thought to be occuring back in 1996 six, occured yet? Was the great web wipe out simply a case of entreprenuers getting too far ahead of themselves and attempting to accomplish goals that they did not yet have the means to accomplish? Do we have the means now, in the present day?
I see that I am the first to take advantage of the new two in the morning time extension. Here is a comb over of this article.
This article might seem irrelevant, because it is now around a decade old. However I don't believe that this article stepped too far out of its boundries. It didn't make any rash predictions, or suggest and ideas that never really came to be. It more so remained focused on its main theme, and that is the death of so man of the so called dotcoms during what was supposed to be the great media revolution.
The article highlights two main reasons as to why this complete collapse of profitable websites occured. The two are closely related to each other, as we can see that one reason would be the eventual cause for the other. The first reason sited in the article is what the article refers to as the provider's "general inability to add bandwidth." For those of us who are not entirely computer savey, what this basically means is that sites were getting more hits than they were capable of handling, forcing them to become "off the net" at some point on a daily basis because of overload. The reaction to this then, was that people were simply going to smaller sites that had less hits. This by itself is a problem, yes, but what it would eventually lead to would prove to be the nail in the coffin, so to speak, for many providers on the web.
As we all know, free websites depend entirely on advertisement dollars to turn a profit. Once advertisers got wind of the over load on their respective sites, investigations were carried out in order to find out how many users were actually getting to see their articles, and also for how long. The article states that advertisement expenses were at some point around 15 dollars a hit for some websites. After investigations however, it was found that users that did access the sites, were generally only there for a matter of minutes. On top of this, it was also found that 90 percent of the hits were not even real users, but rather produced by "spiders" and "crawlers." At this discovery, prices for advertising dipped all the way down to a dollar for every thousand hits.
My favorite idea touched upon by this article, was the comparison of heavily used sites such as Yahoo.com, among many others (especially in the present day, ten years later), with big time corporations such like Wal Mart, calling the sites the Wal Marts of web advertising, which "drove the price points into the basement."
I would now ask, after reading this article, in todays world, has the "media revolution," which was thought to be occuring back in 1996 six, occured yet? Was the great web wipe out simply a case of entreprenuers getting too far ahead of themselves and attempting to accomplish goals that they did not yet have the means to accomplish? Do we have the means now, in the present day?
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Another comment on the videos- We all have fairly disturbing taste...
"Dot Bomb"
Joseph D'Hippolito's article focuses on the rise and fall of the dotcom economy wave, why it happened, and what can be learned from the early internet failures of the mid-nineties. As D'Hippolito concisely puts it, "The supersonic growth of dotcom businesses—and their equally supersonic collapse—is one of the most spectacular developments in technological and commercial history."
Pets.com, the feature of two other articles this weeks, is the symbol of the dotcom disaster. The monitary loss quoted by D'hippolito is substantial, as I understood it somewhere near 62 million dollars. How did this happen? According to the article, it was the ability for entrepeuners to start business without any assets. Ideas had investors, money thrown at them, and were off the ground trying to run all without a business plan or competent management. Ralph Oliva, executive director of the Institute for the Study of Business Markets and a marketing professor at Penn State University said, "“An entrepreneur should not get money until that idea is translated into a great business design. If all venture capitalists are doing is funding ideas and the business infrastructure hasn’t been put in place, then a very important part of the capitalist system has broken down.”
Dotcom economy failed for the very reason that Internet succeeds, an extension of net neutrality. Anybody with computer experience could feasibly open their own online business, without economic training, and with the correct greedy corporate connections without even their own assets to risk in the venture.
What can be learned from this failure? A digital Market is still a market, business theory works the same in the digital world as in the real world. Though the internet economy failed in the nineties, it will revive as all economies eventually revive, "Once the current market anomalies are over, I feel there will be an incredible demand for people who really know how to coach in this converging economy,” Oliva says.
Before the readings for this week, I hadn't understand the true disaster of the dotcom economy. Most of all, why did these big businesses not see the holes and why did they keep throwing money at a non-returning venture? I'm not sure if it was greed, or hope.
"Dot Bomb"
Joseph D'Hippolito's article focuses on the rise and fall of the dotcom economy wave, why it happened, and what can be learned from the early internet failures of the mid-nineties. As D'Hippolito concisely puts it, "The supersonic growth of dotcom businesses—and their equally supersonic collapse—is one of the most spectacular developments in technological and commercial history."
Pets.com, the feature of two other articles this weeks, is the symbol of the dotcom disaster. The monitary loss quoted by D'hippolito is substantial, as I understood it somewhere near 62 million dollars. How did this happen? According to the article, it was the ability for entrepeuners to start business without any assets. Ideas had investors, money thrown at them, and were off the ground trying to run all without a business plan or competent management. Ralph Oliva, executive director of the Institute for the Study of Business Markets and a marketing professor at Penn State University said, "“An entrepreneur should not get money until that idea is translated into a great business design. If all venture capitalists are doing is funding ideas and the business infrastructure hasn’t been put in place, then a very important part of the capitalist system has broken down.”
Dotcom economy failed for the very reason that Internet succeeds, an extension of net neutrality. Anybody with computer experience could feasibly open their own online business, without economic training, and with the correct greedy corporate connections without even their own assets to risk in the venture.
What can be learned from this failure? A digital Market is still a market, business theory works the same in the digital world as in the real world. Though the internet economy failed in the nineties, it will revive as all economies eventually revive, "Once the current market anomalies are over, I feel there will be an incredible demand for people who really know how to coach in this converging economy,” Oliva says.
Before the readings for this week, I hadn't understand the true disaster of the dotcom economy. Most of all, why did these big businesses not see the holes and why did they keep throwing money at a non-returning venture? I'm not sure if it was greed, or hope.
First I would like to say I enjoyed everyone's videos very much. Good times.
"Pets.com latest high-profile dot-com disaster" by Troy Wolverton
This article is about Pets.com, an internet pet food company, that had to close down during the "Great We Wipeout" or "Dot Bomb." Basically, like many other web based companies at this time, they spent more than they made. According the the Dot Bomb article in 1999 the company spent $21 million in advertising (the awesome sock puppet dog) and only earned $5.4 million. Doesn't quite even out. Eventually the company shut down and sold everything, the article didn't say to who but if you go to the website now, it is no surprise.
All of these articles talk about the same thing, web based companies shutting down or going bankrupt. Before and during the time these articles were written a lot of companies were starting online businesses thinking it would make them quick money. Unfortunately, a lot of the people didn't know how to run a business and most of them shut down. I'm sure a lot of those sites are now shown on the Museum of E-failure.
My first thought on this was, "Wow, I didn't know this happened." Maybe I was too young to care about news. To me the internet has always seemed like a great place for business. I hope I'm not the only one in the class to hear about this for the first time, although I'm sure I am. My next thought was, "Is this still happening?" I'm sure it isn't as bad as it was then or I would be hearing about it. But, what I wonder is if the numbers are still relitively high or if we have managed to fix the problem? Obviously, a lot of businesses, online and else where, will shut down due to lack of interest and business skills, but this seems like an outrageous amount of failed businesses to me.
I guess the internet isn't as great as I once imagined huh?
"Pets.com latest high-profile dot-com disaster" by Troy Wolverton
This article is about Pets.com, an internet pet food company, that had to close down during the "Great We Wipeout" or "Dot Bomb." Basically, like many other web based companies at this time, they spent more than they made. According the the Dot Bomb article in 1999 the company spent $21 million in advertising (the awesome sock puppet dog) and only earned $5.4 million. Doesn't quite even out. Eventually the company shut down and sold everything, the article didn't say to who but if you go to the website now, it is no surprise.
All of these articles talk about the same thing, web based companies shutting down or going bankrupt. Before and during the time these articles were written a lot of companies were starting online businesses thinking it would make them quick money. Unfortunately, a lot of the people didn't know how to run a business and most of them shut down. I'm sure a lot of those sites are now shown on the Museum of E-failure.
My first thought on this was, "Wow, I didn't know this happened." Maybe I was too young to care about news. To me the internet has always seemed like a great place for business. I hope I'm not the only one in the class to hear about this for the first time, although I'm sure I am. My next thought was, "Is this still happening?" I'm sure it isn't as bad as it was then or I would be hearing about it. But, what I wonder is if the numbers are still relitively high or if we have managed to fix the problem? Obviously, a lot of businesses, online and else where, will shut down due to lack of interest and business skills, but this seems like an outrageous amount of failed businesses to me.
I guess the internet isn't as great as I once imagined huh?
One more rant! This is hearkening back to a previous discussion of making websites that are useful and actually work.
So my fiancee and I were looking at reviews of the (awful) movie The Number 23 with Jim Carrey, which took us to a wiki article on the 23 enigma. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/23_%28numerology%29 (if any of you have extra time and are a tad bored). The article stated that it takes 23 seconds for blood to circulate through the human body and my lady, being the scientist, said she thought that was incorrect. So I quickly tried to search it. I came across several websites which had no useful information, and this was one of them. Notice how the site poses the question, but gives no distinctive link to the answer. And furthermore, when you click on the only seemingly pertinent link, it takes you....tada!....nowhere. This is a how-to for the worst of the web. And, by the way, I never was able to find out how long it takes for blood to circulate. And, because there are people making useless websites such as this, I was all the more annoyed when we left for the movie which in and of itself, was somewhat useless and annoying. So much for trying to take a quick break from the semester! Here it is:
http://www.writer-tech.com/sre/body/circulatory.htm
So my fiancee and I were looking at reviews of the (awful) movie The Number 23 with Jim Carrey, which took us to a wiki article on the 23 enigma. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/23_%28numerology%29 (if any of you have extra time and are a tad bored). The article stated that it takes 23 seconds for blood to circulate through the human body and my lady, being the scientist, said she thought that was incorrect. So I quickly tried to search it. I came across several websites which had no useful information, and this was one of them. Notice how the site poses the question, but gives no distinctive link to the answer. And furthermore, when you click on the only seemingly pertinent link, it takes you....tada!....nowhere. This is a how-to for the worst of the web. And, by the way, I never was able to find out how long it takes for blood to circulate. And, because there are people making useless websites such as this, I was all the more annoyed when we left for the movie which in and of itself, was somewhat useless and annoying. So much for trying to take a quick break from the semester! Here it is:
http://www.writer-tech.com/sre/body/circulatory.htm
Monday, February 26, 2007
Hey folks - Thought we could all use a little relief being as how it's midterm season. This is a clip from the movie Sneakers with Robert Redford, but it pertains to class. The story follows a group of hackers/pseudo-techno-criminals who have created a business that allows companies to hire them and test their security vulnerabilities by breaking or hacking into their buildings and/or networks. But everything goes awry when Robert Redford's former buddy resurfaces after his alleged death decades before to become the Sneakers' nemesis....
In this scene, David Straithairn, who plays a blind man and the team's lead tech guy, uses a refreshable braille display to read computer information displayed on the screen. It takes a minute to load, but it's kind of fun, and it shows some of the accessibility technology we're talking about.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=360vFPX-T_g
In this scene, David Straithairn, who plays a blind man and the team's lead tech guy, uses a refreshable braille display to read computer information displayed on the screen. It takes a minute to load, but it's kind of fun, and it shows some of the accessibility technology we're talking about.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=360vFPX-T_g
Web Accessibility Initiative
Making the web accessible to all people, regardless of disability, age, etc., is the goal of this initiative, with emphasis not only on websites but web software. The groups making up the WAI want to create a web where not only can people with disabilities access the web, but also contribute. They argue that the technological advantages of the web allow for new "unprecidented" possibilities for access to and interaction with information in a way never previously possible using standard tools like print or video media. The introduction has very little applicable information, so....
I dug a little deeper and began looking at actual evaluations and guidelines.
Essential Components of Web Accessibility employs a relatively simple-enough concept of interdependency between users and authors as the heart of web access. If the authoring tools and evaluative tools developers use produce content which are directly accessed by users employing assistive technology, browsers, and media players, and everything works the same way on each side of the coin, the system runs smoothly and users are not denied access because of some disability. Furthermore, if implemented and maintained correctly, the system is self-perpetuating in a sort of economic concept of proportionate supply-and-demand. If users can access the web universally using certain tools, those tools come into demand, as does the demand for developers to continue to create web media which universally interacts with these tools and users, and like a cycle, the system flourishes. This is essentially the goal of the initiative. The W3C and WAI have a trifecta of guidelines for creating and maintaining user accessibility aimed at the three levels of the web: developer, content, user. The ATA (Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines) looks at developing tools, the WCAG (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines) at the content in static terms, separate from user and developer, and the UAAG (User Agent Accessibility Guidelines) looks at how end-users receive and interact with web content.
There are mountains of information contained here and I couldn't begin to sort through it all in a few hours' time. The fact that these guidelines go so far as to evaluate content evemts triggered by mouse interaction is testimony to the extensive nature of considerations. I'm unable to comment with much authority without taking the time to look further into the policies and concerns, which would ultimately be an entire semesters' worth of work. I find it a daunting task to place all disabilities under one umbrella and try to shotgun web content in one fail swoop. It certainly seems to be a valiant goal and a worthwhile endeavour.
Making the web accessible to all people, regardless of disability, age, etc., is the goal of this initiative, with emphasis not only on websites but web software. The groups making up the WAI want to create a web where not only can people with disabilities access the web, but also contribute. They argue that the technological advantages of the web allow for new "unprecidented" possibilities for access to and interaction with information in a way never previously possible using standard tools like print or video media. The introduction has very little applicable information, so....
I dug a little deeper and began looking at actual evaluations and guidelines.
Essential Components of Web Accessibility employs a relatively simple-enough concept of interdependency between users and authors as the heart of web access. If the authoring tools and evaluative tools developers use produce content which are directly accessed by users employing assistive technology, browsers, and media players, and everything works the same way on each side of the coin, the system runs smoothly and users are not denied access because of some disability. Furthermore, if implemented and maintained correctly, the system is self-perpetuating in a sort of economic concept of proportionate supply-and-demand. If users can access the web universally using certain tools, those tools come into demand, as does the demand for developers to continue to create web media which universally interacts with these tools and users, and like a cycle, the system flourishes. This is essentially the goal of the initiative. The W3C and WAI have a trifecta of guidelines for creating and maintaining user accessibility aimed at the three levels of the web: developer, content, user. The ATA (Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines) looks at developing tools, the WCAG (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines) at the content in static terms, separate from user and developer, and the UAAG (User Agent Accessibility Guidelines) looks at how end-users receive and interact with web content.
There are mountains of information contained here and I couldn't begin to sort through it all in a few hours' time. The fact that these guidelines go so far as to evaluate content evemts triggered by mouse interaction is testimony to the extensive nature of considerations. I'm unable to comment with much authority without taking the time to look further into the policies and concerns, which would ultimately be an entire semesters' worth of work. I find it a daunting task to place all disabilities under one umbrella and try to shotgun web content in one fail swoop. It certainly seems to be a valiant goal and a worthwhile endeavour.
Disability Statistics
This article outlines—as the title would suggest—a number of facts and statistics concerning disabilities and socioeconomic status. Corollaries were drawn between household income & education levels, and various disabilities.
The statistic I found most important to our discussion was this:
People with disabilities are nearly twice as likely as people without disabilities to have an annual household income of $15,000 or less.
Although I for some reason think this report includes emotional or mental disabilities as well as some of the handicaps discussed in the scenario article, this statistic had me thinking of last week’s discussion of the digital divide. In this case it seems two-pronged—even if some of these disabled people have access to proliferating technologies, they are unable to use them.
As solutions are offered to close both of these technological gaps, it makes me happy to see governmental actions being taken to remove online discriminations towards the blind, deaf, crippled, etc. (I don’t feel entirely comfortable using the word “discrimination,” as it seems unrealistic that web-designers would harbor a misaligned hatred for the blind, intentionally designing web-sites as inaccessible, but I can imagined the disabled might see inadequate sites as offensive—no pun intended.)
This article outlines—as the title would suggest—a number of facts and statistics concerning disabilities and socioeconomic status. Corollaries were drawn between household income & education levels, and various disabilities.
The statistic I found most important to our discussion was this:
People with disabilities are nearly twice as likely as people without disabilities to have an annual household income of $15,000 or less.
Although I for some reason think this report includes emotional or mental disabilities as well as some of the handicaps discussed in the scenario article, this statistic had me thinking of last week’s discussion of the digital divide. In this case it seems two-pronged—even if some of these disabled people have access to proliferating technologies, they are unable to use them.
As solutions are offered to close both of these technological gaps, it makes me happy to see governmental actions being taken to remove online discriminations towards the blind, deaf, crippled, etc. (I don’t feel entirely comfortable using the word “discrimination,” as it seems unrealistic that web-designers would harbor a misaligned hatred for the blind, intentionally designing web-sites as inaccessible, but I can imagined the disabled might see inadequate sites as offensive—no pun intended.)
Sunday, February 25, 2007
This article discussed some different requirements of all government web pages for easy accessibility for people with disabilities. It includes requirements to add additional assistive technology capabilities to each government sponsored web page. Each guideline is rated on a scale of 1 to 5 in importance, followed by a rating describing how much evidence they have to support the claim. I don't know why this information was included. By saying that one of the guidelines is rated 3 with an evidence rating of 1, it makes style sheets seem almost a trivial guideline. TheWc3 piece shows that style sheets can be very effective in helping certain groups of people access the web.
I found this document to be very inaccessible, especially given the topic. There is a common phrase in many of the elements, saying something to the effect of ensure that the assistive technology can read the information. This wouldn't be a problem if a list was provided stating which languages/programs were incapable of interfacing with currentassistive technologies. None of the chapter titles address this issue. This document is making it difficult for web designers to adhere to these guidelines.
These guidelines are, however, necessary. I didn't realize that nearly 40% of all people with disabilities lived in the South (see Disability Stats and Facts). I would have been interested to know if disabilities are region-based at all. Relevant duplicate information needs to be available for those individuals who cannot engage in the web in the usual manner. I wonder if regulations like these will become mandatory for corporations, or a website like YouTube, where you would have to provide subtitles for all the video, as well as descriptions of what is occurring in the clip. This would make a lot more jobs for YouTube to get coders for their new content. This is probably why there has not been a push for this yet.
I found this document to be very inaccessible, especially given the topic. There is a common phrase in many of the elements, saying something to the effect of ensure that the assistive technology can read the information. This wouldn't be a problem if a list was provided stating which languages/programs were incapable of interfacing with currentassistive technologies. None of the chapter titles address this issue. This document is making it difficult for web designers to adhere to these guidelines.
These guidelines are, however, necessary. I didn't realize that nearly 40% of all people with disabilities lived in the South (see Disability Stats and Facts). I would have been interested to know if disabilities are region-based at all. Relevant duplicate information needs to be available for those individuals who cannot engage in the web in the usual manner. I wonder if regulations like these will become mandatory for corporations, or a website like YouTube, where you would have to provide subtitles for all the video, as well as descriptions of what is occurring in the clip. This would make a lot more jobs for YouTube to get coders for their new content. This is probably why there has not been a push for this yet.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
The Next Digital Divides
Howard Besser
(I jumped on here thinking I would respond to some other posts and I found that no one had written anything about Besser which is too bad. Therefore, since I missed my posting for tuesday, I thought I would respond to Besser's piece, The Next Digital Divides, I found it to be very interesting.)
Besser discusses a notion of "digital democracy," a term that is also used on Wikipedia's description of the digital divide as Sean discussed. But unlike Sean, I think the idea of digital democracy is a legitimate concern, what I think Besser is getting at and to a degree Wikipedia as well is not the idea that of force or imposition, but of opportunity. Simply providing the ability for all who may want to utilize the internet the opportunity to do so. The United States is full of people who choose not to participate, but those who do appreciate their freedoms would be hardpressed without them.
Besser goes on to discuss his ideas about digital democracy as beyond the digital divide. For digital democracy to work everyone must be able to participate, Besser discusses the digital divide as digital divides which prevent this. At this juncture Besser confronts a number of different aspects. These issues confront the problems that act as barriers.
Essentially these barriers simply come down to education and learning how to become an effective user of the internet, a "creator." Besser discusses three main barriers of the divide, but I am supposing there is another. Beyond access to content, appropriateness of content, and information literacy, I believe that there is also a cultural divide to this.
Wikipedia, Sean, Walton, and even Besser allude to this cultural divide, but none explicity assert the idea as causal. I believe that the cultural practices of a group stongly influences a person's existence. I doubt many will disagree with this position. For any group whether divided by race, nationality, income, or location, it is the culture one is within that determines the individual's existence. So by Besser's estimation there would have to be societal change along with digital change. This becomes a gory snow-ball effect, one that Sean alludes to. Giving people in a democracy a voice on the internet goes beyond educating, but it also requires social change (I realize this can be the same).
Howard Besser
(I jumped on here thinking I would respond to some other posts and I found that no one had written anything about Besser which is too bad. Therefore, since I missed my posting for tuesday, I thought I would respond to Besser's piece, The Next Digital Divides, I found it to be very interesting.)
Besser discusses a notion of "digital democracy," a term that is also used on Wikipedia's description of the digital divide as Sean discussed. But unlike Sean, I think the idea of digital democracy is a legitimate concern, what I think Besser is getting at and to a degree Wikipedia as well is not the idea that of force or imposition, but of opportunity. Simply providing the ability for all who may want to utilize the internet the opportunity to do so. The United States is full of people who choose not to participate, but those who do appreciate their freedoms would be hardpressed without them.
Besser goes on to discuss his ideas about digital democracy as beyond the digital divide. For digital democracy to work everyone must be able to participate, Besser discusses the digital divide as digital divides which prevent this. At this juncture Besser confronts a number of different aspects. These issues confront the problems that act as barriers.
Essentially these barriers simply come down to education and learning how to become an effective user of the internet, a "creator." Besser discusses three main barriers of the divide, but I am supposing there is another. Beyond access to content, appropriateness of content, and information literacy, I believe that there is also a cultural divide to this.
Wikipedia, Sean, Walton, and even Besser allude to this cultural divide, but none explicity assert the idea as causal. I believe that the cultural practices of a group stongly influences a person's existence. I doubt many will disagree with this position. For any group whether divided by race, nationality, income, or location, it is the culture one is within that determines the individual's existence. So by Besser's estimation there would have to be societal change along with digital change. This becomes a gory snow-ball effect, one that Sean alludes to. Giving people in a democracy a voice on the internet goes beyond educating, but it also requires social change (I realize this can be the same).
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Wikipedia - Digital Divide
The digital divide is essentially the schism between people with regular, stable internet access, and those without. The rift is dynamic, depending on any number of factors, from technological concerns (poor computers, slow connections), to socio-economic concerns, to global economic conerns. The article discusses studies of internet access, and how much reliable access is available to groups, some of which shows digital divide even within households (such as the father and mother having internet access at work, but the children having none at home). Simple access to technology is not the only staple in eliminating the divide, but both literacy and digital literacy also have profound effects on the schism where most internet content is written in English and anyone unfamiliar with computer use may not be able to access the web. The article suggests that the hidden rules of society keep lower class "have-nots" from becoming "haves" with internet access because even when presented with the possibility of access, the lower-class users don't know how take advantage of the access. I found this definition of "hidden rules" which is mildly useful, since the article made no attempt to expound this socio-economic concept: http://www.ext.wvu.edu/cyfar/rut/hiddenrules.htm
The article ends with several sections regarding democratic potential, which I found myself considering with some ambivalence. Ironically, the suggestion that eliminating digital divide is bringing true Athenian democracy to everyone is almost counterintuitive to the overall argument. After a long discussion of making internet access available to everyone in their native context (be it language, social class, etc.), the summation of this digital divide problem as a barrier to true democracy seems somewhat limited. It assumes that everyone wants to and thrives under democracy, which I think is a false and pretentious claim very pertinent to our times. Forcing democracy on the world has proven to be problematic and complex in the least. The article isn't suggesting the web is forcibly promoting democracy, but I found the sections of social benefit and democracy to be uniquely white, middle-class, American considerations, devoid of any consideration for what universal, stable internet access could do for Iranians, Aboriginees, or citizens of the African states. So Americans can participate in direct democracy via e-democracy. What good does that do lower-class Yugoslavians? The perspective seemed limited, and I couldn't help but assume that the contributors to this article were all on the "haves" side of the divide. I am interested in the voice of the "have-nots." What do they think of the implications and the possibilities?
Disgruntles aside, I do think the divide is true and compelling, and like many things in our society (and others) a significant problem. Equality is difficult to achieve. True equality within a society has never really been pulled off and may never see its day on this little blue globe. I think Walton was right. It seems logical that Bill Gates should fund the education of future tech users. Why not? If I ever became fortunate enough to make a good living writing, it would behoove me to support the teaching of reading, to ensure I would always have readers looking to obtain my work. Bill Gates should fund math, science, and technology courses, and place equipment for learning in schools and community centers.
Finally, I think it's interesting that the digital divide is sort of the melting pot for most of our inequalities. It really highlights a significant number of schisms, from racism, to poverty, to education problems. From age, to geography, to culture, the digital divide encompasses nearly all rifts in equality in a manner which is more inclusive than most other such examples. It's sort of the universal measuring tool for inequality, which is profound considering how much stock we all put in the glowing bright future of the world thanks to our shiny little laptops.
The digital divide is essentially the schism between people with regular, stable internet access, and those without. The rift is dynamic, depending on any number of factors, from technological concerns (poor computers, slow connections), to socio-economic concerns, to global economic conerns. The article discusses studies of internet access, and how much reliable access is available to groups, some of which shows digital divide even within households (such as the father and mother having internet access at work, but the children having none at home). Simple access to technology is not the only staple in eliminating the divide, but both literacy and digital literacy also have profound effects on the schism where most internet content is written in English and anyone unfamiliar with computer use may not be able to access the web. The article suggests that the hidden rules of society keep lower class "have-nots" from becoming "haves" with internet access because even when presented with the possibility of access, the lower-class users don't know how take advantage of the access. I found this definition of "hidden rules" which is mildly useful, since the article made no attempt to expound this socio-economic concept: http://www.ext.wvu.edu/cyfar/rut/hiddenrules.htm
The article ends with several sections regarding democratic potential, which I found myself considering with some ambivalence. Ironically, the suggestion that eliminating digital divide is bringing true Athenian democracy to everyone is almost counterintuitive to the overall argument. After a long discussion of making internet access available to everyone in their native context (be it language, social class, etc.), the summation of this digital divide problem as a barrier to true democracy seems somewhat limited. It assumes that everyone wants to and thrives under democracy, which I think is a false and pretentious claim very pertinent to our times. Forcing democracy on the world has proven to be problematic and complex in the least. The article isn't suggesting the web is forcibly promoting democracy, but I found the sections of social benefit and democracy to be uniquely white, middle-class, American considerations, devoid of any consideration for what universal, stable internet access could do for Iranians, Aboriginees, or citizens of the African states. So Americans can participate in direct democracy via e-democracy. What good does that do lower-class Yugoslavians? The perspective seemed limited, and I couldn't help but assume that the contributors to this article were all on the "haves" side of the divide. I am interested in the voice of the "have-nots." What do they think of the implications and the possibilities?
Disgruntles aside, I do think the divide is true and compelling, and like many things in our society (and others) a significant problem. Equality is difficult to achieve. True equality within a society has never really been pulled off and may never see its day on this little blue globe. I think Walton was right. It seems logical that Bill Gates should fund the education of future tech users. Why not? If I ever became fortunate enough to make a good living writing, it would behoove me to support the teaching of reading, to ensure I would always have readers looking to obtain my work. Bill Gates should fund math, science, and technology courses, and place equipment for learning in schools and community centers.
Finally, I think it's interesting that the digital divide is sort of the melting pot for most of our inequalities. It really highlights a significant number of schisms, from racism, to poverty, to education problems. From age, to geography, to culture, the digital divide encompasses nearly all rifts in equality in a manner which is more inclusive than most other such examples. It's sort of the universal measuring tool for inequality, which is profound considering how much stock we all put in the glowing bright future of the world thanks to our shiny little laptops.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Who's not online? Well according to the statistics from the Pew Internet project, mostly old people and folks who can afford it, which in fact correlates with education since most of the elderly generation didn't need higher education and education equates to money in the current world. Rather than recite and rehash the statistical analysis that bored me to tears because while it may be relevant I can only swallow so many numbers at once before they lose all meaning, I would rather explore what these demographic groups are missing by avoiding the internet, at least in the case of people who never plan to log on. And also, are there any positives to avoiding the internet?
Well, I have to say since I have been without internet for months at a time before, one of the big perks is all the extra time for actual face to face interaction. I also rediscovered kayaking, camping, cooking, and other hobbies. Of course, I love my webcomics and no internet makes school next to impossible so I always log back on but I can say there is life outside the Web and it isn't bad.
What are they missing? Acres of spam email, spyware, and pop ups. Loads of porn, even in places you would never want to see it. The need to log in and memorize 20 user names and too many passwords to count. Myspace. Personally I rarely use the internet for social interaction and I actually can understand why some never users think it isn't worth it. A lot of user created content is just noise and lights. I have certainly thought it wasn't worth the money some months. But when I think about how easy it makes research, shopping, and how it helped keep my family together when we were separated all last year and I know I'd rather not do without it.
Well, I have to say since I have been without internet for months at a time before, one of the big perks is all the extra time for actual face to face interaction. I also rediscovered kayaking, camping, cooking, and other hobbies. Of course, I love my webcomics and no internet makes school next to impossible so I always log back on but I can say there is life outside the Web and it isn't bad.
What are they missing? Acres of spam email, spyware, and pop ups. Loads of porn, even in places you would never want to see it. The need to log in and memorize 20 user names and too many passwords to count. Myspace. Personally I rarely use the internet for social interaction and I actually can understand why some never users think it isn't worth it. A lot of user created content is just noise and lights. I have certainly thought it wasn't worth the money some months. But when I think about how easy it makes research, shopping, and how it helped keep my family together when we were separated all last year and I know I'd rather not do without it.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Steven Johnson
This Steven Colbert interview allows Stephen Johnson to outline his book “Everything Bad is Good For You”, which makes the assertion that perhaps the popular culture that is seen as so damaging to today’s youth is actually making them smarter.
I have to agree that because technology is coming to a point with gaming systems that we may find it hard to distinguish reality from the game, yet this enables game makers to improve upon the idea of a game. We can now see that there are multiple purposes that games can be used for, not just entertainment, but for educational purposes, even if the players don't know they are learning.
This Steven Colbert interview allows Stephen Johnson to outline his book “Everything Bad is Good For You”, which makes the assertion that perhaps the popular culture that is seen as so damaging to today’s youth is actually making them smarter.
Civilization 4… the first Civ (board game) came out in 1980, this isn’t anything new. The idea that we are more intelligent based on more challenging games, they require more involvement on our part.
The Sims, chores, etc? To be honest, no one I knew liked this game, it was a flop in "real" gamer circles.
Spore sounds incredibly interesting, I would probably play that, I’m not so sure why Johnson believes we wouldn’t be able to understand the game play though. I have never come across a game that most people could not play, the learning curve can be significantly different in some cases, but never so much so that a person gives up completely.I have to agree that because technology is coming to a point with gaming systems that we may find it hard to distinguish reality from the game, yet this enables game makers to improve upon the idea of a game. We can now see that there are multiple purposes that games can be used for, not just entertainment, but for educational purposes, even if the players don't know they are learning.
I found the introduction more interesting than the conclusion, but here goes nothing.
Gee talks about video games as a very promising, yet under-used resource for learning. Gee advocates video games as a form of learning, because "They operate with...good principles of learning, principles that are better than those in many of our skill-and-drill, back-to-basics, test-them-until-they-drop schools." One of those principles is called projective identity. The ablility to become a hero (regardless of their social standing) leads people to see outside of their surrounding, and influence people to be greater than they currently are. Video games can be used to teach values and morals, much like literary works.
Gee talks of a Mary Smith, who was a shoemaker's daughter who found opportunities to learn from like-minded people through their literary accomplishments. People have been shaped by literature through the ages, but there is no distinction on whether texts are left or right wing, because both sides can argue a point, and find canonical literature to support their claims. If you don't believe this, read the Statesman Editorials for a week or two. Look especially at the topic of homosexuality. The bible is used to argue valid points for each school of thought.
Please don't take this to mean that I think the Statesman Editorials are great literature!
Another topic that is discussed is the "dummying down" of education. Gee says that because schools are teaching to standardized tests, kids are not taught critical thinking skills to project themselves into situations where moral decisions come into play. "Schools have, by and large, tamed the canon." The idea of a canon of literature is not a list that Gee wants created, but rather any literature (and certainly video games) that have shaped, or will continue to shape people. For my personal canon, I would include such things as C.S. Lewis' "The Great Divorce," Lois Lowry's "The Giver," Ray Bradbury's "Farenheit 451," the musical Wicked, and music by too many people to list. If you want a list, feel free to ask me, but I don't want to monopolize any more of the space on this blog.
I find myself finding out more about myself when I am listening to new music, reading literature, and playing games. I use this projective identity, and have never really put my finger on exactly how I learn these things, but this puts a name to it. I enjoy finding out about new cultures/people/exeriences through exploring these venues, and even if I don't agree with them, I find out why. People need to be exposed to quality art forms so they can become independent thinkers who are not yes men.
John
Gee talks about video games as a very promising, yet under-used resource for learning. Gee advocates video games as a form of learning, because "They operate with...good principles of learning, principles that are better than those in many of our skill-and-drill, back-to-basics, test-them-until-they-drop schools." One of those principles is called projective identity. The ablility to become a hero (regardless of their social standing) leads people to see outside of their surrounding, and influence people to be greater than they currently are. Video games can be used to teach values and morals, much like literary works.
Gee talks of a Mary Smith, who was a shoemaker's daughter who found opportunities to learn from like-minded people through their literary accomplishments. People have been shaped by literature through the ages, but there is no distinction on whether texts are left or right wing, because both sides can argue a point, and find canonical literature to support their claims. If you don't believe this, read the Statesman Editorials for a week or two. Look especially at the topic of homosexuality. The bible is used to argue valid points for each school of thought.
Please don't take this to mean that I think the Statesman Editorials are great literature!
Another topic that is discussed is the "dummying down" of education. Gee says that because schools are teaching to standardized tests, kids are not taught critical thinking skills to project themselves into situations where moral decisions come into play. "Schools have, by and large, tamed the canon." The idea of a canon of literature is not a list that Gee wants created, but rather any literature (and certainly video games) that have shaped, or will continue to shape people. For my personal canon, I would include such things as C.S. Lewis' "The Great Divorce," Lois Lowry's "The Giver," Ray Bradbury's "Farenheit 451," the musical Wicked, and music by too many people to list. If you want a list, feel free to ask me, but I don't want to monopolize any more of the space on this blog.
I find myself finding out more about myself when I am listening to new music, reading literature, and playing games. I use this projective identity, and have never really put my finger on exactly how I learn these things, but this puts a name to it. I enjoy finding out about new cultures/people/exeriences through exploring these venues, and even if I don't agree with them, I find out why. People need to be exposed to quality art forms so they can become independent thinkers who are not yes men.
John
Game Theories-
I'll admit, I didn't expect an article titled "Game Theories," by Clive Thompson, to be about economics. When I saw that it was, I was despondent. I was hoping for an article about programming strategies or the psychological implication of playing games. And though I read on begrudgingly, the article became engaging, interesting, and flat funny.
The article focuses on the work of the economist Edward Castronova. A professor at the Fullerton campus of California State University, an academic plateau he hadn't expected to reach at thirty-eight. In his free-time, Castronova began to play a game, Everquest.
Much like the World of Warcraft, which was presented in class, Everquest is a graphic massive multi-player online role playing game, or MMORPG. This game requires a subscription to play, and involves starting a character from nothing, and slowly fighting across the graphic country side, leveling up while amassing treasure and wealth. Castronova noticed the accumulation of wealth, then the trading of goods between players. He realized that Everquest had it's own bustling economy. Not only that, but upon further research he learned about "player auctions" where players could auction off acquired virtual goods and monies for actual U.S. currency. This discovery meant that the currency of Everquest, virtual money, had real world value. Once Castronova collected the data on 616 actions he discovered that the Platinum piece, the base unit of money in Everquest, was "worth about one cent U.S. -- higher than the Japanese yen or the Italian lira."
Though virtual worth may not seem important, the model of Everquest is one of the first clean slates economists can observe. Everquest is "the first egalitarian polity" where every player must start out with the same chances of success or failure. The ability for economists to study this unrestricted society was unheard of prior. As Castronova is quoted in the article ""It undoes all the inequities in society. They're wiped away. Sir Thomas More would have dreamt about that possibility, that kind of utopia." Players build and maintain the economy, unknowingly proving and disproving both economic and psychological theories.
The article continued following economic anomalies that have occurred in the numerous online societies, highlighting currency exchange Web Sites, gold farmers, and even a spattering of organized crime and brothels in some platforms. A short discussion on the ownership of virtual property also ensued, being that virtual property, though not something that can be held, retains a certain amount of wealth. Being that is the case, who owns it, the programmers, or the person who earned or purchased it.
However, what fueled the article remained the same, virtual currency has obtained real world value. Digital wealth is much less stable than that of material wealth however, and the thought of an economy based in a world that could be deleted at any point in time is concerning. However, this raises questions in philosophy that I could not articulate in this short blog, mainly that what we know as reality could be effectively deleted at any point in time, along with some arguments in morality.
I'll admit, I didn't expect an article titled "Game Theories," by Clive Thompson, to be about economics. When I saw that it was, I was despondent. I was hoping for an article about programming strategies or the psychological implication of playing games. And though I read on begrudgingly, the article became engaging, interesting, and flat funny.
The article focuses on the work of the economist Edward Castronova. A professor at the Fullerton campus of California State University, an academic plateau he hadn't expected to reach at thirty-eight. In his free-time, Castronova began to play a game, Everquest.
Much like the World of Warcraft, which was presented in class, Everquest is a graphic massive multi-player online role playing game, or MMORPG. This game requires a subscription to play, and involves starting a character from nothing, and slowly fighting across the graphic country side, leveling up while amassing treasure and wealth. Castronova noticed the accumulation of wealth, then the trading of goods between players. He realized that Everquest had it's own bustling economy. Not only that, but upon further research he learned about "player auctions" where players could auction off acquired virtual goods and monies for actual U.S. currency. This discovery meant that the currency of Everquest, virtual money, had real world value. Once Castronova collected the data on 616 actions he discovered that the Platinum piece, the base unit of money in Everquest, was "worth about one cent U.S. -- higher than the Japanese yen or the Italian lira."
Though virtual worth may not seem important, the model of Everquest is one of the first clean slates economists can observe. Everquest is "the first egalitarian polity" where every player must start out with the same chances of success or failure. The ability for economists to study this unrestricted society was unheard of prior. As Castronova is quoted in the article ""It undoes all the inequities in society. They're wiped away. Sir Thomas More would have dreamt about that possibility, that kind of utopia." Players build and maintain the economy, unknowingly proving and disproving both economic and psychological theories.
The article continued following economic anomalies that have occurred in the numerous online societies, highlighting currency exchange Web Sites, gold farmers, and even a spattering of organized crime and brothels in some platforms. A short discussion on the ownership of virtual property also ensued, being that virtual property, though not something that can be held, retains a certain amount of wealth. Being that is the case, who owns it, the programmers, or the person who earned or purchased it.
However, what fueled the article remained the same, virtual currency has obtained real world value. Digital wealth is much less stable than that of material wealth however, and the thought of an economy based in a world that could be deleted at any point in time is concerning. However, this raises questions in philosophy that I could not articulate in this short blog, mainly that what we know as reality could be effectively deleted at any point in time, along with some arguments in morality.
"Game Rating and Descriptor Guide"
This is your basic video game rating explanation piece, if you can call it that. It gives breif descriptions of all the individual ratings, consisting of: Early Childhood, Everyone, Everyone 10+, Teen, Mature, Adults Only, and Rating pending, which means the game hasn't been officially rated yet, obviously. Following this is a list of terms used by video game rating systems and explains what it is that they specifically mean as well. It looks that there are 31 terms listed, ranging from alcohol references, to mature sexual humor to drugs, tobacco etc.
There is not much to speak of about the actual piece, but after reviewing what the ratings actually consisted of, I found myself to be quite surpised at what younger people are allowed to be exposed to, especially the Teen category. The rating system has deemed material suitable for persons ages 13 and older which at least to me, seems rather questionable. I don't believe that many people would disagree with the notion that one's adolescent years are by far the most critical years of a persons growth and development. Is it then reasonable for us to deem, "...violence, suggestive themes, crude humor, ... blood, simulated gambling, and/or infrequent use of strong language..." suitable for children as young as 13 years of age? All others seem in order, however this category seems a bit out of sync with its respective age group. It makes me wonder if this has anything at all to do with money.
It is safe to say that the video game business's leading consumer would be the teenage age group precisely. Not all parents would be inclined to read the fine print, perhaps the word "Teen" or big letter "T" would be enough to convince them. It is interesting to wonder how much money the video game industry would lose if it raised its standards a little bit concerning that "Teen" catergory. Perhaps I am just digging to far for my own good, this is just one are that stuck out to me in particular.
One other thing that I found interesting was a term found in the list of terms proceeding the game rating descriptions. It is the term "Edutainment." This refers to games designed for educational purpose, mainly for children I would assume. As it is that there were no real video games to speak of when I was a kid, I sometimes wonder how educational it really is for a child to learn from a video screen rather than a book or actual experience. Is it the same thing as a college student learning online rather than in a classroom, or is the difference more vast? These are the questions that come to mind as I have reviewed this informational.
This is your basic video game rating explanation piece, if you can call it that. It gives breif descriptions of all the individual ratings, consisting of: Early Childhood, Everyone, Everyone 10+, Teen, Mature, Adults Only, and Rating pending, which means the game hasn't been officially rated yet, obviously. Following this is a list of terms used by video game rating systems and explains what it is that they specifically mean as well. It looks that there are 31 terms listed, ranging from alcohol references, to mature sexual humor to drugs, tobacco etc.
There is not much to speak of about the actual piece, but after reviewing what the ratings actually consisted of, I found myself to be quite surpised at what younger people are allowed to be exposed to, especially the Teen category. The rating system has deemed material suitable for persons ages 13 and older which at least to me, seems rather questionable. I don't believe that many people would disagree with the notion that one's adolescent years are by far the most critical years of a persons growth and development. Is it then reasonable for us to deem, "...violence, suggestive themes, crude humor, ... blood, simulated gambling, and/or infrequent use of strong language..." suitable for children as young as 13 years of age? All others seem in order, however this category seems a bit out of sync with its respective age group. It makes me wonder if this has anything at all to do with money.
It is safe to say that the video game business's leading consumer would be the teenage age group precisely. Not all parents would be inclined to read the fine print, perhaps the word "Teen" or big letter "T" would be enough to convince them. It is interesting to wonder how much money the video game industry would lose if it raised its standards a little bit concerning that "Teen" catergory. Perhaps I am just digging to far for my own good, this is just one are that stuck out to me in particular.
One other thing that I found interesting was a term found in the list of terms proceeding the game rating descriptions. It is the term "Edutainment." This refers to games designed for educational purpose, mainly for children I would assume. As it is that there were no real video games to speak of when I was a kid, I sometimes wonder how educational it really is for a child to learn from a video screen rather than a book or actual experience. Is it the same thing as a college student learning online rather than in a classroom, or is the difference more vast? These are the questions that come to mind as I have reviewed this informational.
I was not in class on Thursday. I've been out of town for a while so I wasn't able to sign up for an abstract. It seems that nobody has selected "Game Rating and Description Guide." So, I will do this one. If it is that someone else has taken this one, let me know and I'll just do another one for Thursday's class.
Doing homework when I don't even have school tomorrow, blah!
"You Play World of Warcraft? You're Hired!" by John Seely Brown and Douglas Thomas
First I want to say that I think it is quite funny that this one page article took two people to write it. But other than that I thought it was fairly interesting.
Basically it talks about how online worlds such as the world of warcraft teach you valuable work related skills, such as: flexibility in thinking, more sensitive to social cues, leadership, and just general people skills. All very good and very true.
I liked the idea that it is learning by accident. I don't think so many people would be interested in the game if they knew it was teaching them to be better workers, especially those with a "screw the boss" mantality.
The leadership thing was a bit of a strech to me. It had valid points, but not everyone in the game has their own guild and leads people accordingly. Maybe a better thought would have been it teaches you how to follow the leader (or kill monsters depending on your job).
I think over all the article just needed it a bit more to it. I don't think a page totally convinces me that playing this game is making me a better person/worker. I think an interesting point they could have gone over was that of Thompson's, or better yet, Castronova (the whole economy idea). They could have said it helps teach economics.
Other than that, I don't really have anything else to say. I wanted to link to something like you suggested Tom, but I couldn't think of anything relavent. Maybe I just haven't turned my brain back on from weekend mode yet.
Jessica
"You Play World of Warcraft? You're Hired!" by John Seely Brown and Douglas Thomas
First I want to say that I think it is quite funny that this one page article took two people to write it. But other than that I thought it was fairly interesting.
Basically it talks about how online worlds such as the world of warcraft teach you valuable work related skills, such as: flexibility in thinking, more sensitive to social cues, leadership, and just general people skills. All very good and very true.
I liked the idea that it is learning by accident. I don't think so many people would be interested in the game if they knew it was teaching them to be better workers, especially those with a "screw the boss" mantality.
The leadership thing was a bit of a strech to me. It had valid points, but not everyone in the game has their own guild and leads people accordingly. Maybe a better thought would have been it teaches you how to follow the leader (or kill monsters depending on your job).
I think over all the article just needed it a bit more to it. I don't think a page totally convinces me that playing this game is making me a better person/worker. I think an interesting point they could have gone over was that of Thompson's, or better yet, Castronova (the whole economy idea). They could have said it helps teach economics.
Other than that, I don't really have anything else to say. I wanted to link to something like you suggested Tom, but I couldn't think of anything relavent. Maybe I just haven't turned my brain back on from weekend mode yet.
Jessica
Thursday, February 15, 2007
I recently received my coveted gmail account, only to find a link on the bill to ban social websites site saying that gmail (web-based email run by Google) is going to be available to everyone without invitation. Previously, you had to be invited to get a gmail account. This article was interesting to me, because I didn't realize that they scan your emails before you send them out. This adds to our Minority Report conversation. Read more about it here.
Does anyone know if other web-based email providers like Yahoo and MSN look through your emails to see which advertisement they should be sending your way?
John
Does anyone know if other web-based email providers like Yahoo and MSN look through your emails to see which advertisement they should be sending your way?
John
I am intrigued by the mapping demonstrated in today's readings. I've noticed the "small world" phenomenon at my gym; there are two or three people whose name everyone knows. There's a lot of casual, low-level social interaction, but these few people seem to have a much greater number of "links." What's more fascinating to me is that, at least according to the movie, this apparently naturally occurring phenomenon can easily be exploited. It's sort of like how aliens on t.v. shows are attracted to humans' body heat -- they're attracted to the very thing that makes us human, something we can't change about ourselves.
To the extent that I can understand the Physics of the Web, the Internet, a physical structure, has the same small world properties as the Web, a virtual structure. These patterns make me wonder how information travels, and how do we find out what we want to know. The clubs in the Daily Show video seemed to be entirely without interconnectivity, though of course that interconnectivity is really just not mapped. I assume that links between Jewish Queers and Allies and Ballroom Dancing follow the same patterns that are described in the other articles.
It's interesting to hear you all talk about social networking sites being lame. They always struck me as something that would be really cool if you were an early teen, but I never understood the attraction for older people unless they were promoting themselves for some reason. But I've know college students who were completely addicted to these sites and found exploring them endlessly fascinating. Maybe it's similar to the way I used to play backgammon with my roommate in college for hours as a way to avoid studying and to relax. It didn't take any higher-order-thinking-skills, but it nonetheless kept my mind occupied.
A theme that recurs for me through all of these essays and posts is that links are citations as well as connections. Citations in print journals have always been for me highly restricted. Yes, if I'm reading an article as part of research for my own writing then I'll definitely read the works cited page and/or bibliography. Years of bitter experience, though, have taught me to be highly selective when I decide which citations to track. Not infrequently, the citations are incorrect and do not lead me to any source at all. Or, even more common, I find the desired citation, but it's really not relevant to my study. Sometimes, by the time I find or receive the source, I've moved on in my thinking about the subject and I'm no longer interested in that source. All of these things would be reproduced in online citation searchs, but the process of tracking full-text citations is much more dynamic. I'd be able to do much of it in a few hours rather than several weeks, and I wouldn't have to pay a dime per page to copy an article.
To the extent that I can understand the Physics of the Web, the Internet, a physical structure, has the same small world properties as the Web, a virtual structure. These patterns make me wonder how information travels, and how do we find out what we want to know. The clubs in the Daily Show video seemed to be entirely without interconnectivity, though of course that interconnectivity is really just not mapped. I assume that links between Jewish Queers and Allies and Ballroom Dancing follow the same patterns that are described in the other articles.
It's interesting to hear you all talk about social networking sites being lame. They always struck me as something that would be really cool if you were an early teen, but I never understood the attraction for older people unless they were promoting themselves for some reason. But I've know college students who were completely addicted to these sites and found exploring them endlessly fascinating. Maybe it's similar to the way I used to play backgammon with my roommate in college for hours as a way to avoid studying and to relax. It didn't take any higher-order-thinking-skills, but it nonetheless kept my mind occupied.
A theme that recurs for me through all of these essays and posts is that links are citations as well as connections. Citations in print journals have always been for me highly restricted. Yes, if I'm reading an article as part of research for my own writing then I'll definitely read the works cited page and/or bibliography. Years of bitter experience, though, have taught me to be highly selective when I decide which citations to track. Not infrequently, the citations are incorrect and do not lead me to any source at all. Or, even more common, I find the desired citation, but it's really not relevant to my study. Sometimes, by the time I find or receive the source, I've moved on in my thinking about the subject and I'm no longer interested in that source. All of these things would be reproduced in online citation searchs, but the process of tracking full-text citations is much more dynamic. I'd be able to do much of it in a few hours rather than several weeks, and I wouldn't have to pay a dime per page to copy an article.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Demetri Martin: Trendspotting—Clubs
This video does not have the same title as the one listed on the Syllabus, but Tom assures me it is the correct video to watch.
The video is a clip from The Daily Show, and it features resident "trendspotter" Demetri Martin exploring the Oklahoma State campus, and obtaining information about a few clubs out of the 800+ the student government sponsors. Some of the clubs are totally awesome like BBQ Club and Whip Club…actually based on these two clubs I’m guessing all the clubs are awesome. Rabbits Against Magic is not a club and never will be, although I would totally join it (if I were a rabbit…and against magic—but no, magic is awesome).
As was displayed, there is a roster of all the clubs listed on a website somewhere. This is the only portion of the clip I found to be digitally relatable, as the breadth of the story took place in the “real” world.
I suppose clubs are a form of social networking, but not on the same scale shown in some of the other pieces. Perhaps these clubs all have MySpace or Facebook pages, allowing their members to NETWORK WITH THEMSELVES. You are six degrees… from yourself! I really found this to be a healthy way to get together and share common interests without risking the prejudices clubs like Ballroom Dance could face if held spontaneously on the Quad. Although Martin continually pokes fun at the more esoteric (I’m surprised BBQ club didn’t have more members—as a school-sponsored organization, it could probably be a way to eat for free. I know BSU has a Pizza club, but I don’t know if it is privately funded. Dale will look into this!) it is something that people have been doing for years. End.
This video does not have the same title as the one listed on the Syllabus, but Tom assures me it is the correct video to watch.
The video is a clip from The Daily Show, and it features resident "trendspotter" Demetri Martin exploring the Oklahoma State campus, and obtaining information about a few clubs out of the 800+ the student government sponsors. Some of the clubs are totally awesome like BBQ Club and Whip Club…actually based on these two clubs I’m guessing all the clubs are awesome. Rabbits Against Magic is not a club and never will be, although I would totally join it (if I were a rabbit…and against magic—but no, magic is awesome).
As was displayed, there is a roster of all the clubs listed on a website somewhere. This is the only portion of the clip I found to be digitally relatable, as the breadth of the story took place in the “real” world.
I suppose clubs are a form of social networking, but not on the same scale shown in some of the other pieces. Perhaps these clubs all have MySpace or Facebook pages, allowing their members to NETWORK WITH THEMSELVES. You are six degrees… from yourself! I really found this to be a healthy way to get together and share common interests without risking the prejudices clubs like Ballroom Dance could face if held spontaneously on the Quad. Although Martin continually pokes fun at the more esoteric (I’m surprised BBQ club didn’t have more members—as a school-sponsored organization, it could probably be a way to eat for free. I know BSU has a Pizza club, but I don’t know if it is privately funded. Dale will look into this!) it is something that people have been doing for years. End.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Bill to Ban Social Sites in Schools Moves to Senate, by Barry Levine, is basically a press release which title is self explanitory. The bill, which has already passed through the house, calls for the banning of social networking sights which maintain personal profiles of their users as well as allow direct communication between users (i.e. Myspace, Facebook, Yahoo 360.) The Bill would affect those institutions which gain internet access through a lowered rate plan sponsored by the government. This includes all public schools and nearly two thirds of the public libraries, according to the ADA.
The reasoning behind this bill lies in it's official name, "the Deleting of Online Predators." DOPA was built off of Sen. Michael Fitzpatrick's assertion, that networking Web Sites are prime "hunting grounds" for sexual predators. According to the article, "The FBI has reportedly estimated that 20% of all children in the U.S. using the Internet have been sexually approached online, and that there are as many as 50,000 sexual predators online looking for contacts with children." However these statistics are not properly cited.
Once the bill becomes law, the institutions it affects would have to put a filter in place to restrict access to these social sights. However, the bill is unclear in its definition of social networking sights, therefore the institutions would have to rely on the ruling of the FCC as to what fell under the restrictions of the law and what did not.
An analyst for the Yankee group, Jennifer Simpson, believes that this motion by the government will soon be moot however, due to the recent availability of the internet via mobile and remote devices. "Access will become more pervasive," the article quoted, "with students connected anytime, any place."
This bill could concern more than elementary or high schools however. It is mentioned in the Idaho Technology Initiative Status Report, compiled by Robert Barr and Carolyn Thorsen of Boise State University, (http://csi.boisestate.edu/pdffiles/Idaho%20Technology%20Initiative%20Status%20Report%201994-2002.pdf) that many of Idaho's school districts receive the federal e-rate benefits to improve the amount of technology needed in the classroom. This statement does not exclude or include state funded universities, and though I've looked for information on the subject, I've yet to find a definitive yes or no on federal funding for the use of the internet on state university campuses. If our campuses are state funded, the proposed bill could shut down this branch of digital media for many college students, especially those living on campus. Though small in comparison to the entirety of blog society, entire social networks would perish. This Blog we are using for class discussion could be banned because of this new law and FCC regulations.
Though DOPA was created to help stop criminals, the government is on the edge of restricting freedom of speech. The bill was designed with minors in mind (who apparently don't have common civil rights being that they are minors) but is on the brink of overpowering basic civil liberties.
Frankly this article scares me.
The reasoning behind this bill lies in it's official name, "the Deleting of Online Predators." DOPA was built off of Sen. Michael Fitzpatrick's assertion, that networking Web Sites are prime "hunting grounds" for sexual predators. According to the article, "The FBI has reportedly estimated that 20% of all children in the U.S. using the Internet have been sexually approached online, and that there are as many as 50,000 sexual predators online looking for contacts with children." However these statistics are not properly cited.
Once the bill becomes law, the institutions it affects would have to put a filter in place to restrict access to these social sights. However, the bill is unclear in its definition of social networking sights, therefore the institutions would have to rely on the ruling of the FCC as to what fell under the restrictions of the law and what did not.
An analyst for the Yankee group, Jennifer Simpson, believes that this motion by the government will soon be moot however, due to the recent availability of the internet via mobile and remote devices. "Access will become more pervasive," the article quoted, "with students connected anytime, any place."
This bill could concern more than elementary or high schools however. It is mentioned in the Idaho Technology Initiative Status Report, compiled by Robert Barr and Carolyn Thorsen of Boise State University, (http://csi.boisestate.edu/pdffiles/Idaho%20Technology%20Initiative%20Status%20Report%201994-2002.pdf) that many of Idaho's school districts receive the federal e-rate benefits to improve the amount of technology needed in the classroom. This statement does not exclude or include state funded universities, and though I've looked for information on the subject, I've yet to find a definitive yes or no on federal funding for the use of the internet on state university campuses. If our campuses are state funded, the proposed bill could shut down this branch of digital media for many college students, especially those living on campus. Though small in comparison to the entirety of blog society, entire social networks would perish. This Blog we are using for class discussion could be banned because of this new law and FCC regulations.
Though DOPA was created to help stop criminals, the government is on the edge of restricting freedom of speech. The bill was designed with minors in mind (who apparently don't have common civil rights being that they are minors) but is on the brink of overpowering basic civil liberties.
Frankly this article scares me.
5 Reasons Social Networking Doesn't Work
Molly Wood
This article highlights what frustrates me the most about these new social networking forums like myspace, and then of course facebook, those being the two that I am most framiliar with. Wood points out five reasons why there really is no point at all to be using these networks, at least for a period of time longer than "three weeks."
She first admits that there was a time when she was caught up in one of these networks, buckling under peer pressure and joining the network Orkut. She reluctantly tells of how she used it obssessively for three weeks and then suddenly lost interest. Perhaps her five reasons social networking doesn't work can be attributed to why she lost interest all at once.
Perhaps after the three weeks on Orkut, she found that she was asking herself, "What is it that I am actually doing on herer?" And her answer must have been somewhere along the lines of "nothing." There truley is nothing more to do on these networks than look at pictures and talk to people, most of whom you've never seen, or otherwise would have no business talking to. I agree with Wood. I don't have a myspace, and have been constantly fighting the peer pressure to get one. Once i used one of my friend's and found myself asking that question, "What exactly am I doing here?" And nobody had an answer for me.
Two other reasons she gives seem to run along the same lines. Those being 2 and 5. The basic gist of these two is that along with there being nothing to do on these social networks, there is also nothing of any significence to find. If you are looking for information, it is much easier to just look it up on the web rather than go on these social networks and ask "friends" about it. This suggests that as more information becomes available to internet users, the less these users will want to consider a social network as a means for accessing information.
Another reason highlights the money problem these networks have. It seems that the only way these networks can gain any sort of revenue is from advertising. Wood suggests that in order to even have a chance at creating a profitable social network, creators need to go into it with a solid business plan in mind.
And finally, "strangers suck." When discussing this reason, Woods also seems to inadvertently create the idea of a paradox in social networks. She discusses the idea of talking and meeting strangers on line as being one which is not that entertaining. She implements a sort of "too much information" type attitude toward the idea. Conversly, then, she points out that if you only communicate with your close friends on these social networks, then it becomes very dull very quickly, as it is that you could just as easily pick up the phone, text, or actually meet them somewhere face to face, what a novel idea.
This article really touched on a subject that I have a lot of interest in. These reasons seem very legitimate and I find it interesting to think we are living in an era when productivity because of the web is at an all time high, and yet here we have these social networks that seem to be as unproductive as ever. I find it amazing to walk into a college campus library, a place of academics, only to find that 75 percent of people in there are doing nothing more than wasting time on these incredibly unproductive social networks. I wonder what they would say if they were to be asked what it is that they are really doing.
Molly Wood
This article highlights what frustrates me the most about these new social networking forums like myspace, and then of course facebook, those being the two that I am most framiliar with. Wood points out five reasons why there really is no point at all to be using these networks, at least for a period of time longer than "three weeks."
She first admits that there was a time when she was caught up in one of these networks, buckling under peer pressure and joining the network Orkut. She reluctantly tells of how she used it obssessively for three weeks and then suddenly lost interest. Perhaps her five reasons social networking doesn't work can be attributed to why she lost interest all at once.
Perhaps after the three weeks on Orkut, she found that she was asking herself, "What is it that I am actually doing on herer?" And her answer must have been somewhere along the lines of "nothing." There truley is nothing more to do on these networks than look at pictures and talk to people, most of whom you've never seen, or otherwise would have no business talking to. I agree with Wood. I don't have a myspace, and have been constantly fighting the peer pressure to get one. Once i used one of my friend's and found myself asking that question, "What exactly am I doing here?" And nobody had an answer for me.
Two other reasons she gives seem to run along the same lines. Those being 2 and 5. The basic gist of these two is that along with there being nothing to do on these social networks, there is also nothing of any significence to find. If you are looking for information, it is much easier to just look it up on the web rather than go on these social networks and ask "friends" about it. This suggests that as more information becomes available to internet users, the less these users will want to consider a social network as a means for accessing information.
Another reason highlights the money problem these networks have. It seems that the only way these networks can gain any sort of revenue is from advertising. Wood suggests that in order to even have a chance at creating a profitable social network, creators need to go into it with a solid business plan in mind.
And finally, "strangers suck." When discussing this reason, Woods also seems to inadvertently create the idea of a paradox in social networks. She discusses the idea of talking and meeting strangers on line as being one which is not that entertaining. She implements a sort of "too much information" type attitude toward the idea. Conversly, then, she points out that if you only communicate with your close friends on these social networks, then it becomes very dull very quickly, as it is that you could just as easily pick up the phone, text, or actually meet them somewhere face to face, what a novel idea.
This article really touched on a subject that I have a lot of interest in. These reasons seem very legitimate and I find it interesting to think we are living in an era when productivity because of the web is at an all time high, and yet here we have these social networks that seem to be as unproductive as ever. I find it amazing to walk into a college campus library, a place of academics, only to find that 75 percent of people in there are doing nothing more than wasting time on these incredibly unproductive social networks. I wonder what they would say if they were to be asked what it is that they are really doing.
This article discusses the forerunner to Myspace, which was called Six Degrees. It comes from an experiment by Stanley Milgram and Ithiel De Sola Pool. Milgram chose two random people from the states from random places off the top of his head (where he received a volunteer), and tried to send a package to that person through other acquaintences. The people who received the package had to send it to someone else who might know how to get it to the final destination. The only information they got was the address of the final destination.
Most of these flopped, but the ones that actually made it to the final destination had a mean of 6 people. Pool found out through another experiment that the chances that any particular person knows any other particular person in the US was 1 in 200,000. the chance that any two people could be linked by two other people was over 50%.
There is mention of a Dickens book (Bleak House) that tells how people interact through others (tell Jane that I said this kind of thing), so this idea wasn't new, but that someone went to the trouble of doing all the legwork was pretty new.
I agree with Milgram when he says "Though poor people always have acquaintances, it would probably turn out that they tend to be among other poor people, and that the rich speak mostly to the rich." I don't think that I could be linked to an actor or actress, much less Kevin Bacon. I can see possibly linking to Bill Bates, because I had a brother-in-law do some consulting for Microsoft once, and the likelyhood that the Microsoft employee knows someone who has met Bill Gates is pretty high. Same with government officials, because I have an uncle who works in the Census bureau. It seems highly unlikely that the hurdle of class can be jumped over, since people tend to know others within their same social status.
I admit that I signed up for this site when I heard about it in the early nineties, because one of my brothers invited me. I quickly became disinterested, because of many of the issues described in the Wood piece, but mainly because there was absolutely nothing to do. I didn't care if I knew people who led me to celebrities, because I really don't care all that much about the private lives of people I have never met. That is their business, in many instances.
I tried looking up the website (http://www.sixdegrees.org/), and found the website to be linked now to Kevin Bacon, who is soliciting funds with other celebrities to donate to charity. Instead of linking people, as the site originally did, it was now linking charities that celebrities are affiliated with. I found it kind of sad, because Kevin Bacon had raised about $50,000, but other many celebrities had not received any donations. I don't know if it was calculated by year, but the numbers did not look too great.
Most of these flopped, but the ones that actually made it to the final destination had a mean of 6 people. Pool found out through another experiment that the chances that any particular person knows any other particular person in the US was 1 in 200,000. the chance that any two people could be linked by two other people was over 50%.
There is mention of a Dickens book (Bleak House) that tells how people interact through others (tell Jane that I said this kind of thing), so this idea wasn't new, but that someone went to the trouble of doing all the legwork was pretty new.
I agree with Milgram when he says "Though poor people always have acquaintances, it would probably turn out that they tend to be among other poor people, and that the rich speak mostly to the rich." I don't think that I could be linked to an actor or actress, much less Kevin Bacon. I can see possibly linking to Bill Bates, because I had a brother-in-law do some consulting for Microsoft once, and the likelyhood that the Microsoft employee knows someone who has met Bill Gates is pretty high. Same with government officials, because I have an uncle who works in the Census bureau. It seems highly unlikely that the hurdle of class can be jumped over, since people tend to know others within their same social status.
I admit that I signed up for this site when I heard about it in the early nineties, because one of my brothers invited me. I quickly became disinterested, because of many of the issues described in the Wood piece, but mainly because there was absolutely nothing to do. I didn't care if I knew people who led me to celebrities, because I really don't care all that much about the private lives of people I have never met. That is their business, in many instances.
I tried looking up the website (http://www.sixdegrees.org/), and found the website to be linked now to Kevin Bacon, who is soliciting funds with other celebrities to donate to charity. Instead of linking people, as the site originally did, it was now linking charities that celebrities are affiliated with. I found it kind of sad, because Kevin Bacon had raised about $50,000, but other many celebrities had not received any donations. I don't know if it was calculated by year, but the numbers did not look too great.
This link was in one of the articles we read (I think Blogs of War), but I opened it up in another window and looked at it after my reading was done. Scroll down to some of the 97 or so items they have listed on the manifesto. I think a lot of organizations (including some within BSU) should take this to heart. I hate being treated like a customer when I am going to school. I am a student seeking to learn, not to get ahead of everyone else in the class. This isn't a cuthroat business environment.
http://www.cluetrain.com/
http://www.cluetrain.com/
Monday, February 12, 2007
How Not to Get Fired...
Biz Stone's notes on blogging policy and work environments are a light-hearted response to the blogging phenomenon. In a way, this article mostly suggests common sense, and reminds readers that blogs aren't just a casual comment to a friend at the water cooler, but are public domain messages that stay posted for significant amounts of time. Stone organizes the article into several headings:
1. Photos: Choose Your Captions Wisely
2. Understanding "Public"
3. Blogging Off the Company Pier
4. "They Would Never Allow It"
All of these sections essentially respond to a 2003 Seattle incident where a man was fired from Microsoft, allegedly for security reasons, because he posted a photograph of a Microsoft development lab recieving a number of Apple computers. Microsoft felt the photograph and caption contained sensitive information about the company grounds, and Michael Hanscom was let go immediately.
Stone's article is almost more a comment on corporate America than a comment on digital resources. He includes references to the movie "Office Space" and has a link to a website which has designed a one-click button that jumps the blog reader out of the blog to a fake screen which resembles a word processing document or similar "work-related" application so that bloggers can escape the watchful eye of their supervisors while on the clock.
The most interesting note for me was the mildly revolutionary tone Stone assumes through this piece, almost portraying blogging as an underground freedom, a reaction against the Big Brother oppression of corporations. He speaks of blogging in the same way others speak of snowboarding or any such passtime, and depicts bloggers as avant garde, minor revolutionaries, who are trying to get away with as much as they can without being caught. For me, that raises an interesting question: has the workplace become prison, and the internet freedom? I guess, as long as you don't get caught...
Biz Stone's notes on blogging policy and work environments are a light-hearted response to the blogging phenomenon. In a way, this article mostly suggests common sense, and reminds readers that blogs aren't just a casual comment to a friend at the water cooler, but are public domain messages that stay posted for significant amounts of time. Stone organizes the article into several headings:
1. Photos: Choose Your Captions Wisely
2. Understanding "Public"
3. Blogging Off the Company Pier
4. "They Would Never Allow It"
All of these sections essentially respond to a 2003 Seattle incident where a man was fired from Microsoft, allegedly for security reasons, because he posted a photograph of a Microsoft development lab recieving a number of Apple computers. Microsoft felt the photograph and caption contained sensitive information about the company grounds, and Michael Hanscom was let go immediately.
Stone's article is almost more a comment on corporate America than a comment on digital resources. He includes references to the movie "Office Space" and has a link to a website which has designed a one-click button that jumps the blog reader out of the blog to a fake screen which resembles a word processing document or similar "work-related" application so that bloggers can escape the watchful eye of their supervisors while on the clock.
The most interesting note for me was the mildly revolutionary tone Stone assumes through this piece, almost portraying blogging as an underground freedom, a reaction against the Big Brother oppression of corporations. He speaks of blogging in the same way others speak of snowboarding or any such passtime, and depicts bloggers as avant garde, minor revolutionaries, who are trying to get away with as much as they can without being caught. For me, that raises an interesting question: has the workplace become prison, and the internet freedom? I guess, as long as you don't get caught...
Sunday, February 11, 2007
The Blogs of War details how the new personal forum of soldiers' blogs are currently changing how war is reported and opening new sources of infomation for those seeking to understand what makes a professional soldier's life so different from a civilian's.
The article discusses four examples of types of soldier blogs currently being written, though it is clear that the blogs of soldiers vary greatly in topic, theme, mood, and political opinion as the individual soldiers do in background. Blogs are posted by everyone from reservists to active duty, lower enlisted and officers, from all four branches of the Armed Forces.
The four major clumps of blogs exemplified in the article were (my catergory names) emotive, active, punidative/political, and imflammatory. Emotive blogs focus of personal experience and emotive response to the war. Active blogs offer details from either front line experience and/or day to day work, considering a soldier's job may involve incidents that many civilains would never wish to learn to experience day to day. Political blogs often encourage readers to specific action and solicit donations for military causes. Inflammatory blogs allow soldiers to vent steam and express dissatisfaction with military life, often in a way that disgusts or brings unwanted attention from the chain of command. Obviously one blog can fit into all the categories but it is suggested that each blogs does have a specific focus, an area that the soldier is most interested in sharing, wither with family and friends or the larger world.
These blogs serve as memiors, as slices of an otherwise unfamiliar life, as thought provoking, insightful, and sometimes insulting opinions of war and the military culture surrounding it. For me the most interesting part of the article was the questions it raised about what these blogs are doing to the way the larger world see war and how our government will seek to control this expression. Because I absolutely agree with the consensus of soldiers: the DOD will continue to allow milbloggers such freedom of expression. They will restrict, spin, and seek to control what is view in these blogs and who it is viewed by. And if they are effective in their control, then in a few years, free speech among milbloggers may be little more that an interesting historical footnote.
As for new perspectives on war and military life given by milbloggers, they are worth understanding but they will only have a lasting impact on our culture if they are accessible by those outside of the military and are read by that audience. If civilains unconnected to the war by family of friends in the service don't reach out to understand what these people are going through then there will continue to be a rift between soldiers and civilians as great and complicated as the rift that stands between those that call themselves 'Americans' and those they would label 'terrorists'.
Oh and one tiny technical note. Did anyone notice links to these solider's blogs? Because I didn't and if there weren't any there should have been.
The article discusses four examples of types of soldier blogs currently being written, though it is clear that the blogs of soldiers vary greatly in topic, theme, mood, and political opinion as the individual soldiers do in background. Blogs are posted by everyone from reservists to active duty, lower enlisted and officers, from all four branches of the Armed Forces.
The four major clumps of blogs exemplified in the article were (my catergory names) emotive, active, punidative/political, and imflammatory. Emotive blogs focus of personal experience and emotive response to the war. Active blogs offer details from either front line experience and/or day to day work, considering a soldier's job may involve incidents that many civilains would never wish to learn to experience day to day. Political blogs often encourage readers to specific action and solicit donations for military causes. Inflammatory blogs allow soldiers to vent steam and express dissatisfaction with military life, often in a way that disgusts or brings unwanted attention from the chain of command. Obviously one blog can fit into all the categories but it is suggested that each blogs does have a specific focus, an area that the soldier is most interested in sharing, wither with family and friends or the larger world.
These blogs serve as memiors, as slices of an otherwise unfamiliar life, as thought provoking, insightful, and sometimes insulting opinions of war and the military culture surrounding it. For me the most interesting part of the article was the questions it raised about what these blogs are doing to the way the larger world see war and how our government will seek to control this expression. Because I absolutely agree with the consensus of soldiers: the DOD will continue to allow milbloggers such freedom of expression. They will restrict, spin, and seek to control what is view in these blogs and who it is viewed by. And if they are effective in their control, then in a few years, free speech among milbloggers may be little more that an interesting historical footnote.
As for new perspectives on war and military life given by milbloggers, they are worth understanding but they will only have a lasting impact on our culture if they are accessible by those outside of the military and are read by that audience. If civilains unconnected to the war by family of friends in the service don't reach out to understand what these people are going through then there will continue to be a rift between soldiers and civilians as great and complicated as the rift that stands between those that call themselves 'Americans' and those they would label 'terrorists'.
Oh and one tiny technical note. Did anyone notice links to these solider's blogs? Because I didn't and if there weren't any there should have been.
Into the Blogosphere
Laura Gurak, Smiljana Antonijevic, Laurie Johnson, Clancy Ratliff, and Jessica Reyman
University of Minnesota
Into the Blogosphere, a collaborative article, is quite literaly that, a plundge into the world of blogging and the "blogosphere." Blogs, originally "weblogs" (a name coined by blogging pioneer Jorn Barger about his online journal Robot Wisdom), are many things. Blogs are a versatile venue for commentary and discussion between bloggers (those who interact with blogs and regularly post on one or many) and blogs are beholden to the whims and fancies of the bloggers. Blogs are rarely defined by the content as Gurak supposes and blogs are limited only by the direction of those participating. This logically leads one to assume that blogs can be anything, but only regarding content is this true.
Initially in Gurak's article there is a comment about blogger "enthusiasts" and there foward thought that all voices can be heard on the blogosphere. That there is no limit to the voices that may be represented on the interenet, to this point I must amend. While it is true that the possibility of voices is there, the liklihood and power is questionable at best. Those without knowledge of or access to the internet are not likely candidates for bloggers, that is, those without means or the capacity to use the interenet will remain voiceless on the interent. While voices can be heard, whether they will or not is more pertinent to the conversation. Gurak acknowledges this criticism, but I believe that it bares repeting to establish that what we are talking about is not an "egalitarian" venue for communication, but an educated group of only eleven percent (at best) of those online (2004).
Another component to this article that was interesting to me was, "the new cultural practices of online communication," that Gurak asserts is the social ramifications of blogging. Gurak understands, as others, that the blogosphere both is and represents a paradigm shift in the way that people discuss and argue, or simply rhetoric. The idea stands as an important one and Gurak offers some examples of this sharing, combining, and collecting of "ownership, authorship, and legitimacy," at the end of the article when many individuals respond, much as they would on a blog. And indeed this article operates as a blog where others can comment on either the article or other comments made, which acts both as an effective demonstration and in itself lends to the articles meaning.
My final, possibly most "important" thought on this article would be in regards to "the value of blogging in composition pedagogy." The idea of "facilitating a more collaborative environment and supportive sense of community," is an interesting one. It reminded me of something-- Our class, blackboard discussions, a novel idea. But I would go beyond what Charles Lowe and Terra Williams assert and suggest that these environs allow for our writing to be displayed, openly refuted by tangible people that have counter arguments, differeing opinions. Our academic discourse or discourse in general are constantly tested from multiple angles and allows an author to manage discursive thought more readily.
Into the Blogosphere is really the realization of discourse in high-speed.
Laura Gurak, Smiljana Antonijevic, Laurie Johnson, Clancy Ratliff, and Jessica Reyman
University of Minnesota
Into the Blogosphere, a collaborative article, is quite literaly that, a plundge into the world of blogging and the "blogosphere." Blogs, originally "weblogs" (a name coined by blogging pioneer Jorn Barger about his online journal Robot Wisdom), are many things. Blogs are a versatile venue for commentary and discussion between bloggers (those who interact with blogs and regularly post on one or many) and blogs are beholden to the whims and fancies of the bloggers. Blogs are rarely defined by the content as Gurak supposes and blogs are limited only by the direction of those participating. This logically leads one to assume that blogs can be anything, but only regarding content is this true.
Initially in Gurak's article there is a comment about blogger "enthusiasts" and there foward thought that all voices can be heard on the blogosphere. That there is no limit to the voices that may be represented on the interenet, to this point I must amend. While it is true that the possibility of voices is there, the liklihood and power is questionable at best. Those without knowledge of or access to the internet are not likely candidates for bloggers, that is, those without means or the capacity to use the interenet will remain voiceless on the interent. While voices can be heard, whether they will or not is more pertinent to the conversation. Gurak acknowledges this criticism, but I believe that it bares repeting to establish that what we are talking about is not an "egalitarian" venue for communication, but an educated group of only eleven percent (at best) of those online (2004).
Another component to this article that was interesting to me was, "the new cultural practices of online communication," that Gurak asserts is the social ramifications of blogging. Gurak understands, as others, that the blogosphere both is and represents a paradigm shift in the way that people discuss and argue, or simply rhetoric. The idea stands as an important one and Gurak offers some examples of this sharing, combining, and collecting of "ownership, authorship, and legitimacy," at the end of the article when many individuals respond, much as they would on a blog. And indeed this article operates as a blog where others can comment on either the article or other comments made, which acts both as an effective demonstration and in itself lends to the articles meaning.
My final, possibly most "important" thought on this article would be in regards to "the value of blogging in composition pedagogy." The idea of "facilitating a more collaborative environment and supportive sense of community," is an interesting one. It reminded me of something-- Our class, blackboard discussions, a novel idea. But I would go beyond what Charles Lowe and Terra Williams assert and suggest that these environs allow for our writing to be displayed, openly refuted by tangible people that have counter arguments, differeing opinions. Our academic discourse or discourse in general are constantly tested from multiple angles and allows an author to manage discursive thought more readily.
Into the Blogosphere is really the realization of discourse in high-speed.
We Are the Web
This August 2005 article summarizes the explosiveness of the Netscape IPO. A considerable length of the article goes toward showing how people’s initial predictions can be completely incorrect and what really happens is truly unpredictable. The great change that was brought about by the IPO was the impetus for a new online culture that was completely based on participating in the sharing of information and data, through hypertext.
A change occurred on the Internet, changing its motivation from being funded for research to a newly commercialized forum of data exchange as the NSF allowed e commerce in May 1995. Netscape stock flourished from its IPO, and the start of the revolution began.
The Internet is filled with many resources that are available for us to tap, yet it seems that we take it for granted that we have such a powerful tool at our disposal. This things became are, from thousands making their living through eBay Internet auctions to increase in Amazon.com customers supplying decent product reviews. Blogs are considered, also completely created with the supposed audience’s time and energy, with the benevolent intent to share information.
Interests of users have inverted from a decade ago toward more of a recreational service. BitTorrent offers near-symmetrical data transfer, assuming that its users will participate in uploading data. The article includes mention of a Machine (related to AI) that will eventually surpass the number of synapses in our brain. AI may be first realized in this global Machine rather than a supercomputer capable of several teraflops. The Machine is learning every time we click, at least that is the assertion. The author finishes surmising that we are at a crucial juncture in history that will be examined potentially centuries from now; definitely something to consider.
I thought the article was generally pretty interesting, especially the part considering symmetry of data flow. The question—“What happens when the data flow is asymmetrical”— is a good one. Who will “veg out” if everyone is busy contributing? That is a future that seems much more productive than our present and would definitely be very dynamic. I enjoy the present but I revel in the possibilities of the future.
"Online Weblog Leads To Firing" by Leon Nefakh
Here is the gist of this article: A woman who worked at Harvard had a personal blog in which she said some pretty nasty things about coworkers and got fired for it.
I think the number one question here is whether Harvard did the right thing or not? I think they did in this particular situation. Let me explain.
This woman, Norah Burch, sounded like a crazy woman. In various blogs she talked about wanting to hurt or kill the people she worked with. Here are a few quotes they had from her in the article:
"I am one shade lighter than homicidal today. I am two snotty e-mails from professors away from bombing the entire Harvard campus."
"I am ready to get a shotgun and declare open season on all senior faculty members and students who dare cross me."
and something about some coworkers "random freaking out" and "anal retentive control freakishness."
Is it just me or does she sound like someone who might actually show up to work with a gun?
The social studies concentrator wrote an email stating that her supervisors only looked at entries where she was having a bad day and didn't pay attention to anything else. Burch herself said she didn't actually mean what she said, she was just blowing off steam. Even if that is true, I believe that these few quotes are reason enough to fire her. She is making threats on the school. I know I hate my job, most days, but I most certainly don't post threats online about my stupid boss. Also, if she hates her job that much, why didn't she just quit any way?
Now back to why I said it was a good choice "in this particular situation," I think it would have been overreacting on the school's part if they had fired her if she had just said "I don't like so and so" or "I hate my job somedays" or "sometimes they make me so mad." People are entitled to their beliefs and feelings. But when their feelings are homicidal the only person they need to be telling is a psychologist.
Jessica
Here is the gist of this article: A woman who worked at Harvard had a personal blog in which she said some pretty nasty things about coworkers and got fired for it.
I think the number one question here is whether Harvard did the right thing or not? I think they did in this particular situation. Let me explain.
This woman, Norah Burch, sounded like a crazy woman. In various blogs she talked about wanting to hurt or kill the people she worked with. Here are a few quotes they had from her in the article:
"I am one shade lighter than homicidal today. I am two snotty e-mails from professors away from bombing the entire Harvard campus."
"I am ready to get a shotgun and declare open season on all senior faculty members and students who dare cross me."
and something about some coworkers "random freaking out" and "anal retentive control freakishness."
Is it just me or does she sound like someone who might actually show up to work with a gun?
The social studies concentrator wrote an email stating that her supervisors only looked at entries where she was having a bad day and didn't pay attention to anything else. Burch herself said she didn't actually mean what she said, she was just blowing off steam. Even if that is true, I believe that these few quotes are reason enough to fire her. She is making threats on the school. I know I hate my job, most days, but I most certainly don't post threats online about my stupid boss. Also, if she hates her job that much, why didn't she just quit any way?
Now back to why I said it was a good choice "in this particular situation," I think it would have been overreacting on the school's part if they had fired her if she had just said "I don't like so and so" or "I hate my job somedays" or "sometimes they make me so mad." People are entitled to their beliefs and feelings. But when their feelings are homicidal the only person they need to be telling is a psychologist.
Jessica
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Unless I missed an e-mail, no one seems to have taken McCloud's "I Can't Stop Thinking," so I'll offer a few spontaneous thoughts (apologies if anyone did indeed ask for this article).
Isn't it interesting that Apple has indeed done what McCloud suggested in his strip on micropayments, with iTunes and the digital music store (forgive me for yet again referring to my much-beloved computer company)? For a flat rate of 99 cents, anyone can download any song carried in the catalog, and with the exception of some classical pieces which, unfortunately, Apple portions up and charges the dollar per slice, that rate of payment is simple and uniform no matter the genre, music label, artist, length of song, etc. It doesn't matter if the song is a rare, eighty-year-old Roaring Twenties ditty or the latest single by the most popular of artists (for example, does anyone else think like I do that Jive Records manages to up the price on Justin Timberlake music and extras because he's so popular right now, people will pay anything to hear Sexyback? - not on iTunes). Furthermore, iTunes itself is a free download, in spite of the fact that it is a highly complex, much sought-after application, and could probably generate a great deal of revenue for Apple were it to be sold for $29.99 (even bumbling Microsoft is intelligent enough to offer their much-inferior, and at least on my computer, rarely-working Media Player for free). I remember the spider-monkey chatter discussing the probability of iTunes Music Store success that abounded when Apple made the 99-cent-flat-rate-no-strings-attached-100%-legal announcement, and how many folks believed that the types of people (demographics, I suppose: dangerous to stereotype humans - not all digital music fans are the teenagers we see wreaking havoc in "Hackers") who had caught the digi-music wave would be willing (or have the financial means; "Daddy, can I borrow a dollar and your credit card before I practice for our 5th grade program?") to pay for the music they were getting for free off Napster two months previous. And now (one moment while I jump over to my own iTunes for statistics) iTunes houses more than 3.5 million songs (not to mention movies, television shows, games, etc.) and has sold more than 2 billion songs worldwide. I'd say it's a success story.
My list of why iTunes works for me:
1. Stability: I know the songs I'm downloading are the highest quality, free of viruses, and legal. No strings attached, no letters in the mail from the FCC saying I've been caught pirating, no hard-drive corrupting worms wound around Britney Spears'...ahem...lovely voice, no fuzzy digital noise/garbage in the middle of that song I so desperately wanted to own.
2. Versatility: I can have these songs anywhere I want. iPod them, burn them, plug in the headphones. I've got them in stereo on my computer at my desk, on the road in my car, or walking down the street. They're compact (hey, it's digital information: may as well be air I'm carrying around for all the physical room it takes to store 200 songs in my pocket these days), instantaneously accessible (no more waiting for the tape to fast forward, no more waiting for the laser-head to catch up after you hit skip 16 times, no more trying to remember if the song you really liked is number five or number eleven, and damn! how annoying! they both sound about the same for the first thirty seconds!), and so far have a much better shelf life (in my experience) than records, tapes, or even CDs. I've yet to have a single song file corrupt or go bad on me, but even the supposedly indestructible CD has fallen victim in my collection to a scratch or a skip here or there.
3. Discrimination: this is actually the most important one for me as a consumer - with iTunes, I have the ability to be a very discriminating customer and ensure what I buy is exactly what I want and nothing I don't. Bottom line: I love music, but I've never made more than a marginal yearly income in my life, and frankly, 18 bucks a CD is a lot, especially when I'm probably going to really like less than a third of the songs on the album. Prime example: the infamous Goo Goo Dolls CD, "A Boy Named Goo," with the song "Name," which helped Goo to break into the main-stream and become the powerhouse band they are/were for the past decade, but which also was the only remotely decent song on the album. There was a time I remember when "A Boy Named Goo" was the butt of jokes, being that one CD that everyone had owned at one time because they'd rushed out to pick up a copy after hearing "Name," but quickly pawned off to the local used CD shop after realizing it was a four-minute jewel amongst an hour+ of underground post-grunge sewage. Once everyone caught on, I would daresay there was a point when the Warner Bros. label couldn't have paid people to take a copy. Thanks to iTunes, everyone has their beloved "Name" at a price they can afford without paying the extra 17 dollars for background noise they don't want. In spite of arguments to the contrary, I now personally spend more money than I ever did in the past on music (legal, nonetheless), and am much more satisfied. Record companies housing one-hit-wonders are making money off me where they would never have in the past world pre-iTunes. In fact, amazingly (no one is more surprised than I) I've spent nearly $200 myself on iTunes downloads over the past three years. I've never minded paying a lousy buck for a song I like, and doubt I ever will. And guess what...I still DO buy CDs when I like the album overall.
To sum it all up, I think McCloud is on-target with micropayments, and iTunes has proven it. In fact, in my case, I found my online-shopping experiences (whether it be iTunes, Amazon.com, or elsewhere) to be on the whole much more satisfying than my real-life purchases, and I have in fact, purchased many artistic works (movies, books, music, posters and paintings) online that I wouldn't have picked up in an actual store because through various avenues, online dealers have made these works of art more accessible and more affordable.
So this is a narrow response to one argument in one of the strips, but I've already said too much!
Isn't it interesting that Apple has indeed done what McCloud suggested in his strip on micropayments, with iTunes and the digital music store (forgive me for yet again referring to my much-beloved computer company)? For a flat rate of 99 cents, anyone can download any song carried in the catalog, and with the exception of some classical pieces which, unfortunately, Apple portions up and charges the dollar per slice, that rate of payment is simple and uniform no matter the genre, music label, artist, length of song, etc. It doesn't matter if the song is a rare, eighty-year-old Roaring Twenties ditty or the latest single by the most popular of artists (for example, does anyone else think like I do that Jive Records manages to up the price on Justin Timberlake music and extras because he's so popular right now, people will pay anything to hear Sexyback? - not on iTunes). Furthermore, iTunes itself is a free download, in spite of the fact that it is a highly complex, much sought-after application, and could probably generate a great deal of revenue for Apple were it to be sold for $29.99 (even bumbling Microsoft is intelligent enough to offer their much-inferior, and at least on my computer, rarely-working Media Player for free). I remember the spider-monkey chatter discussing the probability of iTunes Music Store success that abounded when Apple made the 99-cent-flat-rate-no-strings-attached-100%-legal announcement, and how many folks believed that the types of people (demographics, I suppose: dangerous to stereotype humans - not all digital music fans are the teenagers we see wreaking havoc in "Hackers") who had caught the digi-music wave would be willing (or have the financial means; "Daddy, can I borrow a dollar and your credit card before I practice for our 5th grade program?") to pay for the music they were getting for free off Napster two months previous. And now (one moment while I jump over to my own iTunes for statistics) iTunes houses more than 3.5 million songs (not to mention movies, television shows, games, etc.) and has sold more than 2 billion songs worldwide. I'd say it's a success story.
My list of why iTunes works for me:
1. Stability: I know the songs I'm downloading are the highest quality, free of viruses, and legal. No strings attached, no letters in the mail from the FCC saying I've been caught pirating, no hard-drive corrupting worms wound around Britney Spears'...ahem...lovely voice, no fuzzy digital noise/garbage in the middle of that song I so desperately wanted to own.
2. Versatility: I can have these songs anywhere I want. iPod them, burn them, plug in the headphones. I've got them in stereo on my computer at my desk, on the road in my car, or walking down the street. They're compact (hey, it's digital information: may as well be air I'm carrying around for all the physical room it takes to store 200 songs in my pocket these days), instantaneously accessible (no more waiting for the tape to fast forward, no more waiting for the laser-head to catch up after you hit skip 16 times, no more trying to remember if the song you really liked is number five or number eleven, and damn! how annoying! they both sound about the same for the first thirty seconds!), and so far have a much better shelf life (in my experience) than records, tapes, or even CDs. I've yet to have a single song file corrupt or go bad on me, but even the supposedly indestructible CD has fallen victim in my collection to a scratch or a skip here or there.
3. Discrimination: this is actually the most important one for me as a consumer - with iTunes, I have the ability to be a very discriminating customer and ensure what I buy is exactly what I want and nothing I don't. Bottom line: I love music, but I've never made more than a marginal yearly income in my life, and frankly, 18 bucks a CD is a lot, especially when I'm probably going to really like less than a third of the songs on the album. Prime example: the infamous Goo Goo Dolls CD, "A Boy Named Goo," with the song "Name," which helped Goo to break into the main-stream and become the powerhouse band they are/were for the past decade, but which also was the only remotely decent song on the album. There was a time I remember when "A Boy Named Goo" was the butt of jokes, being that one CD that everyone had owned at one time because they'd rushed out to pick up a copy after hearing "Name," but quickly pawned off to the local used CD shop after realizing it was a four-minute jewel amongst an hour+ of underground post-grunge sewage. Once everyone caught on, I would daresay there was a point when the Warner Bros. label couldn't have paid people to take a copy. Thanks to iTunes, everyone has their beloved "Name" at a price they can afford without paying the extra 17 dollars for background noise they don't want. In spite of arguments to the contrary, I now personally spend more money than I ever did in the past on music (legal, nonetheless), and am much more satisfied. Record companies housing one-hit-wonders are making money off me where they would never have in the past world pre-iTunes. In fact, amazingly (no one is more surprised than I) I've spent nearly $200 myself on iTunes downloads over the past three years. I've never minded paying a lousy buck for a song I like, and doubt I ever will. And guess what...I still DO buy CDs when I like the album overall.
To sum it all up, I think McCloud is on-target with micropayments, and iTunes has proven it. In fact, in my case, I found my online-shopping experiences (whether it be iTunes, Amazon.com, or elsewhere) to be on the whole much more satisfying than my real-life purchases, and I have in fact, purchased many artistic works (movies, books, music, posters and paintings) online that I wouldn't have picked up in an actual store because through various avenues, online dealers have made these works of art more accessible and more affordable.
So this is a narrow response to one argument in one of the strips, but I've already said too much!
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Zelda: the Hero Archetype
Merin's presentation got me thinking, and I've been far too busy to toss this out there until now.
I have, since my introduction to the Hero Archetype during my freshman year of highschool, found the theory to be compelling, and in fact, have seen it resurface time and again. (I refer here to the Joseph Campbell work on the Hero's Journey, derived my Jungian psychology - see Star Wars, for example. Wiki has a somewhat pitiful introduction to the concept if any of you are interested.) It occurred to me that in spite of the fact that technology is moving us away from linearity, as Eilola suggests, into multi-faceted, parellel cognitive processes, it is ironic that in my opinion, there has been a massive revival of classic archytipal themes, especially in the case of video games and movies (technology being the CGI in film), where we are devoting the resources of these new technological advancements to bringing Middle Earth to life, and taking Link through the mythic Hero Journey to rescue Zelda. I am an abominable video-gamer, but my brother is gifted, and I found that although a number of the games he played on the Nintendo 64 console were fun and involving, none of them caught my attention the way Zelda did - ever. In spite of the technology, for me, it is still archetypes and classic themes which draw me in as an audience member, rather than the technology or non-linearity.
[As further example, I would cite the Final Fantasy series, for those of you who are familiar with it: although I have only played IX, and briefly seen VIII and X, I hear almost infallibly from everyone I've ever aske that FF:VII is the best of all the games. The surprising note here is the fact that the game is significantly less-complex, the graphics far inferior to more recent games, and game-play in general reductive and simplistic (it is much more linear and less multi-layered than its successive cousins) yet it is the most beloved of them all. Why? The answer I invariably get: it has the best story... Interesting.]
Merin's presentation got me thinking, and I've been far too busy to toss this out there until now.
I have, since my introduction to the Hero Archetype during my freshman year of highschool, found the theory to be compelling, and in fact, have seen it resurface time and again. (I refer here to the Joseph Campbell work on the Hero's Journey, derived my Jungian psychology - see Star Wars, for example. Wiki has a somewhat pitiful introduction to the concept if any of you are interested.) It occurred to me that in spite of the fact that technology is moving us away from linearity, as Eilola suggests, into multi-faceted, parellel cognitive processes, it is ironic that in my opinion, there has been a massive revival of classic archytipal themes, especially in the case of video games and movies (technology being the CGI in film), where we are devoting the resources of these new technological advancements to bringing Middle Earth to life, and taking Link through the mythic Hero Journey to rescue Zelda. I am an abominable video-gamer, but my brother is gifted, and I found that although a number of the games he played on the Nintendo 64 console were fun and involving, none of them caught my attention the way Zelda did - ever. In spite of the technology, for me, it is still archetypes and classic themes which draw me in as an audience member, rather than the technology or non-linearity.
[As further example, I would cite the Final Fantasy series, for those of you who are familiar with it: although I have only played IX, and briefly seen VIII and X, I hear almost infallibly from everyone I've ever aske that FF:VII is the best of all the games. The surprising note here is the fact that the game is significantly less-complex, the graphics far inferior to more recent games, and game-play in general reductive and simplistic (it is much more linear and less multi-layered than its successive cousins) yet it is the most beloved of them all. Why? The answer I invariably get: it has the best story... Interesting.]
Monday, February 05, 2007
The Web and the Future of Writing
By Chip Scanlan
This short piece by Chip Scanlan argues toward a central theme concerning web writing. And that is change, adaptation for the journalism writing in the twenty-first century. Adapting to what Scanlan calls "Broadcasting counterparts: tape recorders, video cameras, editing equipmentfor sound and video, and mastered the knowledge of how to transmit such material over the internet." This as he argues will be the new challenge for journalists to effectively get their message to readers and maintain their interest.
Scanlan develops an idea of information on the internet as an inverted pyramid. That is, gathering information on the internet is done by reading very small poignant bits of information that are connected to larger and larger parts of information pertaining to the headlines. The reason Scanlan believes can be attributed to audiences unwillingness to scroll down a page and read a story, unless they are genuinely interested. Scanlan's idea is to adapt the traditional ways of writing into other modes of communication commonly used on the interenet.
These "other modes," as I will refer to them, are what Scanlan considers the changed identity of old concepts, that is, the texts and documents of the past must be reconceived. The idea is an old one among our class discussions. The new "digital rhetoric" of the web is exactly what Scalan is referring to in this article. He believes that journalists must adapt to the new vernacular of the web and use it to their advantage. Our class has discussed the possible shift that writing in the future may have to some of the page with this emergent class of communicative medium, the other modes (video and audio).
Scanlan and his colleague Mario Garcia are markedly more optomistic about a writer's ability to maintain creative control over the operation of communication. Garcia writes in Redesigning Print for the Web that, "it is writing that I see the greatest possibilities for creativity, for pioneers to leave the legacy that historians will talk about." Both Scanlan and Garcia maintain that the internet is simply another venue for writing. Scanlan supposes that writing for the internet will offer just as many obstacles as print did, and that, "the challenge, to hold on to readers, is identical, even if the medium is different." Writing in the new digital platform will remain important.
Kathleen Welch, in her article, Electrifying Classical Rhetoric . . . supports the idea that writing will continue to play a prominent role in the development of digital rhetoric, but I wonder whether it will be the primary role.
I conjecture that writing will support everything that is on the interenet, but contrary to Garcia's belief that the interenet is a wonderous new venue for writers and Scanlan's view of a multi-dimensional journalist, I believe that writing will play only a minor role in the on-set of the new digital age. The age of video and audio.
I believe the internet goes beyond simply a new medium, a "different medium," I believe much like Welch, that the internet will usher in a new form of communication.
By Chip Scanlan
This short piece by Chip Scanlan argues toward a central theme concerning web writing. And that is change, adaptation for the journalism writing in the twenty-first century. Adapting to what Scanlan calls "Broadcasting counterparts: tape recorders, video cameras, editing equipmentfor sound and video, and mastered the knowledge of how to transmit such material over the internet." This as he argues will be the new challenge for journalists to effectively get their message to readers and maintain their interest.
Scanlan develops an idea of information on the internet as an inverted pyramid. That is, gathering information on the internet is done by reading very small poignant bits of information that are connected to larger and larger parts of information pertaining to the headlines. The reason Scanlan believes can be attributed to audiences unwillingness to scroll down a page and read a story, unless they are genuinely interested. Scanlan's idea is to adapt the traditional ways of writing into other modes of communication commonly used on the interenet.
These "other modes," as I will refer to them, are what Scanlan considers the changed identity of old concepts, that is, the texts and documents of the past must be reconceived. The idea is an old one among our class discussions. The new "digital rhetoric" of the web is exactly what Scalan is referring to in this article. He believes that journalists must adapt to the new vernacular of the web and use it to their advantage. Our class has discussed the possible shift that writing in the future may have to some of the page with this emergent class of communicative medium, the other modes (video and audio).
Scanlan and his colleague Mario Garcia are markedly more optomistic about a writer's ability to maintain creative control over the operation of communication. Garcia writes in Redesigning Print for the Web that, "it is writing that I see the greatest possibilities for creativity, for pioneers to leave the legacy that historians will talk about." Both Scanlan and Garcia maintain that the internet is simply another venue for writing. Scanlan supposes that writing for the internet will offer just as many obstacles as print did, and that, "the challenge, to hold on to readers, is identical, even if the medium is different." Writing in the new digital platform will remain important.
Kathleen Welch, in her article, Electrifying Classical Rhetoric . . . supports the idea that writing will continue to play a prominent role in the development of digital rhetoric, but I wonder whether it will be the primary role.
I conjecture that writing will support everything that is on the interenet, but contrary to Garcia's belief that the interenet is a wonderous new venue for writers and Scanlan's view of a multi-dimensional journalist, I believe that writing will play only a minor role in the on-set of the new digital age. The age of video and audio.
I believe the internet goes beyond simply a new medium, a "different medium," I believe much like Welch, that the internet will usher in a new form of communication.
Content, Structure, and Relevance: The Ploy’s the Thing (Part One of Four) by Geoff Hart
Description: In this article, Hart outlines the basic requirements for and entailed the problems with “attracting and retaining an audience on the Web.” One has to have a great amount of determination and wit in creating a webpage if they wish to have frequent as well as return visitors. The three elements that must be present in proper order are the following: content, structure, and relevance.
Content according to Hart includes the use of “Flash and Shockwave” and as long as the webpage creator is not Macbeth’s “idiot” there could be something to work with. One needs to use innovation in their writing to present their ideas in an interesting manner, less they decide it is time to lose the reader’s attention. Perhaps most importantly, content included needs to be adequately relevant to a reader’s needs or it serves them no purpose.
The problem with content that Hart mentions is with the unification of its definition; there are so many disjointed ideas of what the word actually means that it creates confusion in what a reader really wants (the need for “pretty pictures” vs. engineer quality design specs).
Structure is completely necessary, according to Hart, and without it your audience will have trouble in finding the content of fantastic quality which you have designed. The main problem with this is that people have very short attention spans—especially now—and unless the content is near in quality to the abstract for the cure to cancer Hart says that the reader won’t continue to buy it and will go on to something more structured. The key here is to understand how the reader will be expecting to find their desired information, in knowing their “behavior” and through process, one can help provide the outline for how to arrange a work.
The problem with structure in Hart’s mind is that a reliance on a built-in search engine in a site to pick up the pieces where there is a lack of necessary organization is an ineffective use of the digital salvaging of “information architecture.” The point is that there are times when a search engine is quite useless in finding what one wants.
Relevance requires that the information relate to the reader’s needs. The myth that content needs to be new to have relevancy is quite untrue, according to Hart. This does solely depend on the actual content, for example a news page should be somewhat updated with a certain subject whereas as the same importance for freshness might not be needed in say “sales figures for the recent Beatles anthologies.”
The problem with relevance lies with its subjective nature, that it is in the eye of the beholder will ultimately determine what is and isn’t pertinent to a certain listing.
In my opinion a written work can be very useful with possibly one or two of the above elements missing. For example, one could have a completely irrelevant article that has the utmost quality structure allowing a reader to easily envelop themselves in the material. However diverting or distracting this could be it nonetheless gathers the reader’s interest, so I would disagree on this point. The rest of the article seems to be fairly well constructed.
Sunday, February 04, 2007
"Effective Web Writing" By Crawford Killian
This piece concentrated on shaping textual writing for the digital environment, based on the audience one aims for. Because it seemed to set some guidelines for the medium, I will attempt to follow them.
Killian was firstly concerned with what makes the Web a bad place to read, citing the following as pitfalls of the digital environment:
- Like Pavlov's dogs conditioned for food after bell tones, we are conditioned for "jolts" (sensory and emotional rewards) after online actions, such as the loading of a web page. Killian's article gave me very few jolts.
- Reading off of computer screens is physically exhausting, and terrible resolution rates slow down reading rates by up to 25 percent. Computer screens also make it difficult to proofread accurately.
- Users of other media have carried their bad habits over to the online field, expecting the same visual stimulation, or strict formating they are accustomed to.
The author went on to reference Jefferey Zeldman, who classified Web users into four groups: viewers, users, readers, and listeners. Each group is very much as they would appear: viewers look for visual stimulation, and not much else; users search for data they can apply to their own causes; readers are in it for the long haul, pulling up text documents to actually READ them; listeners are like auditory readers, expecting a computer program to dictate a page to them. Killian posits that each of these groups has their goals in mind before even loading a site, and if they do not find what they need, they will move elsewhere. Using a constructivist communications model, Killian does away with unchangeable media, noting the user of a Web page can say "goodbye forever" to the page if they do not find what they want; it is most productive to be aware of one's audience on this level, and catering exactly to that. Killian describes this as "a relationship of equals" between web author and web user.
Basic Formatting Guidelines & Tips
- Keeping text simple, concise, and short seemed key the Web user is impatient.
- Chunks or blocks of text are more effective visually than one long scrolling page.
- Space between paragraphs helps to organize information.
- Use headlines and sub-headlines to draw attention and classify data.
- Put the needs of the visitor first!
Killian's points were insightful, and she obviously practices what she preaches. The text was easy to read, in a big, clear font, organized in the ways she recommended. Applying her guidelines from the "review yourself" section of the piece, her page accomplished what it was meant to very well. The content was geared towards an audience that really shouldn't care about appearance. The data was accessible and concise. I agree with most of what was said, I just desire to know when this was published--the font makes it seem dated to me. And I'm not sure if a static image or two still is not acceptable to place within a rich text document; a third party example would have been nice. I found her comparison to the printing press most interesting, as the political ramifications of that communications tool were vast: we can only expect to see such influence from the web in the future.
This piece concentrated on shaping textual writing for the digital environment, based on the audience one aims for. Because it seemed to set some guidelines for the medium, I will attempt to follow them.
Killian was firstly concerned with what makes the Web a bad place to read, citing the following as pitfalls of the digital environment:
- Like Pavlov's dogs conditioned for food after bell tones, we are conditioned for "jolts" (sensory and emotional rewards) after online actions, such as the loading of a web page. Killian's article gave me very few jolts.
- Reading off of computer screens is physically exhausting, and terrible resolution rates slow down reading rates by up to 25 percent. Computer screens also make it difficult to proofread accurately.
- Users of other media have carried their bad habits over to the online field, expecting the same visual stimulation, or strict formating they are accustomed to.
The author went on to reference Jefferey Zeldman, who classified Web users into four groups: viewers, users, readers, and listeners. Each group is very much as they would appear: viewers look for visual stimulation, and not much else; users search for data they can apply to their own causes; readers are in it for the long haul, pulling up text documents to actually READ them; listeners are like auditory readers, expecting a computer program to dictate a page to them. Killian posits that each of these groups has their goals in mind before even loading a site, and if they do not find what they need, they will move elsewhere. Using a constructivist communications model, Killian does away with unchangeable media, noting the user of a Web page can say "goodbye forever" to the page if they do not find what they want; it is most productive to be aware of one's audience on this level, and catering exactly to that. Killian describes this as "a relationship of equals" between web author and web user.
Basic Formatting Guidelines & Tips
- Keeping text simple, concise, and short seemed key the Web user is impatient.
- Chunks or blocks of text are more effective visually than one long scrolling page.
- Space between paragraphs helps to organize information.
- Use headlines and sub-headlines to draw attention and classify data.
- Put the needs of the visitor first!
Killian's points were insightful, and she obviously practices what she preaches. The text was easy to read, in a big, clear font, organized in the ways she recommended. Applying her guidelines from the "review yourself" section of the piece, her page accomplished what it was meant to very well. The content was geared towards an audience that really shouldn't care about appearance. The data was accessible and concise. I agree with most of what was said, I just desire to know when this was published--the font makes it seem dated to me. And I'm not sure if a static image or two still is not acceptable to place within a rich text document; a third party example would have been nice. I found her comparison to the printing press most interesting, as the political ramifications of that communications tool were vast: we can only expect to see such influence from the web in the future.
Flow in web design by Scott Berkun
This article was very straight forward. It talks about an interesting concept called flow. This term was coined by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. Flow can be described as being at the top of your game when doing something creative. It can also happen during more mundane tasks.
Flow should be used when designing web pages. Berkun didn’t have any substantial ways to tap into this creative peak in this article. He did have some good questions to ask regarding audience analysis. Berkun asks us to think about why a visitor to our website would be coming there. He asked us to make a list of the tasks a user is going to perform at the site, and prioritize that list. Once the list is created, design the site around the most important elements.
There was a useful analogy in the article regarding a rental car. The user knows they are in the correct location, but cannot find a keyhole to start the car. Berkun asks us to question how we get from one step to another, and what tools are there if we get lost along the way. I have often found websites that are useful, but I have problems gleaning the pertinent information. How many times have you tried to use Google as a research tool, and find a promising link, only to find that you have to sift through pages of information to find the matching text? I know that I have become frustrated, not only with Google, but with research databases as well, when searching for pertinent information.
Berkun encourages us to learn Microsoft’s Visual Studio (indirectly), but says that once the tool is learned, the effect on the end user can be helpful. Through intuitive design, the user will be able to accomplish the tasks that they set out to do in an efficient manner.
I found this article pretty lack-luster. I didn’t feel like it gave me anything to sink my teeth into. I could tell that Berkun really liked the concept of flow, and the idea intrigues me, but there are no references to how one can tap into this creative power to help you sync with your end users. Is it even possible to create a common occurance through print?
There is reference to usability testing, but this article seemed to be trying to tell me how to do something he didn’t know how to do. I felt like if I read the book on flow, I would have learned more from this article, but without the background, I came up short with palpable tasks that help design a better document.
Am I the only one who thought this was more of a sales pitch for Microsoft Visual Studio and the book Flow?
John
This article was very straight forward. It talks about an interesting concept called flow. This term was coined by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. Flow can be described as being at the top of your game when doing something creative. It can also happen during more mundane tasks.
Flow should be used when designing web pages. Berkun didn’t have any substantial ways to tap into this creative peak in this article. He did have some good questions to ask regarding audience analysis. Berkun asks us to think about why a visitor to our website would be coming there. He asked us to make a list of the tasks a user is going to perform at the site, and prioritize that list. Once the list is created, design the site around the most important elements.
There was a useful analogy in the article regarding a rental car. The user knows they are in the correct location, but cannot find a keyhole to start the car. Berkun asks us to question how we get from one step to another, and what tools are there if we get lost along the way. I have often found websites that are useful, but I have problems gleaning the pertinent information. How many times have you tried to use Google as a research tool, and find a promising link, only to find that you have to sift through pages of information to find the matching text? I know that I have become frustrated, not only with Google, but with research databases as well, when searching for pertinent information.
Berkun encourages us to learn Microsoft’s Visual Studio (indirectly), but says that once the tool is learned, the effect on the end user can be helpful. Through intuitive design, the user will be able to accomplish the tasks that they set out to do in an efficient manner.
I found this article pretty lack-luster. I didn’t feel like it gave me anything to sink my teeth into. I could tell that Berkun really liked the concept of flow, and the idea intrigues me, but there are no references to how one can tap into this creative power to help you sync with your end users. Is it even possible to create a common occurance through print?
There is reference to usability testing, but this article seemed to be trying to tell me how to do something he didn’t know how to do. I felt like if I read the book on flow, I would have learned more from this article, but without the background, I came up short with palpable tasks that help design a better document.
Am I the only one who thought this was more of a sales pitch for Microsoft Visual Studio and the book Flow?
John
Why Technology Matters to Writing...
Jim Porter's article on technology and cyberwriting examines the quintessential experience of his life as a writer, from the pen and pencil, to the typewriter, to the word processor, to internet and digital media writing. Although he speaks of having learned some good habits and techniques from the slower, more deliberate acts of hand- and type-written documents, Porter eventually seems to be embracing the new face of writing, focusing especially upon the virtual community. Porter suggests a that the computer is not simply another writing tool, and that computers themselves should not be the focus of cyberwriting discussion, but rather the manner in which networking has changed the world: this, he says, is the true revolution in writing, if indeed there has been any sort of revolution. In a posthumanist/Haraway cyborgian view, the computer should not be separated from the man, but rather viewed as a part of the body of a man (or woman). Porter speaks of the refusal of humanists, in their sentimentality, to acknowledge the reality of technology and its already-well-entrenched situation in this world, and argues that as a matter of intellectual honesty, we must all realize that technology plays a role in our contemporary existence (to speak colloquially, whether we like it or not). Postmodernists seek to answer the "how" questions: How will we use/design technology? rather than asking questions as to the pervasiveness and reality of technology on mankind, as humanists do.
Interestingly, Porter's article skirts around a concept I find to be central to this discussion. In my view, Porter answers the more mundane of two questions: Is technology important to current and future writers? and HOW is technology important...? Porter seems to address the first, but mostly ignores the second. He manages to prove that technology is significant in his life, but while I found the biographical quips to be endearing (ironic, considering his inclusion of the word ethos in a number of locations), I found that retrospectively, Porter had really only convinced me that HIS life had been altered by cyberwriting and technology, while he did little to persuade me (as a theoretically unbiased audience member) that technology had changed my life as a writer. (Here, we could enter into a complex metaphysical discussion, especially considering I'm composing this abstract on a computer and keyboard to be posted on the internet - but for the sake of argument, I'll pretend I'm impartial and have no reason from experience to initially believe technology has altered writing for me.) Porter devotes most of the article's academic space to the discussion of opposing viewpoints, after which, having listed the highlights of both sides' banter, he briefly denominates a winner, but fails overall to connect these minute contests to a larger view. In short, Porter gives us as readers information but doesn't do much to tell us why it's important.
I agree with a great deal of Porter's article, but in looking back over the portions of text I highlighted (ironically, I printed this article out to read it), I find that had I come from the other side of the fence, Porter would likely have failed to convince me of anything. He has no real statistics, no citation of evidence or information gathered from his classes or interactions with students/new generations of technology users (other than his son). He calls for a redefinition of terms and a re-evaluation of our views on technology and cyberwriting, but does not begin that analysis himself. In all, I find myself viewing this entire article as an enormous question, rather than an argument or thesis. Perhaps this was Porter's intent: I'll ask some questions you should think about and you answer them yourself. But, for me, considering he seems to be so utterly convinced of the profound alteration taking place because of technology, I would have liked to see him try to tackle a few answers as well as simply posing questions. Perhaps, Porter should have amended his title: "Why [Does] Technology Matter to Writing [,Dear Reader?]"
Jim Porter's article on technology and cyberwriting examines the quintessential experience of his life as a writer, from the pen and pencil, to the typewriter, to the word processor, to internet and digital media writing. Although he speaks of having learned some good habits and techniques from the slower, more deliberate acts of hand- and type-written documents, Porter eventually seems to be embracing the new face of writing, focusing especially upon the virtual community. Porter suggests a that the computer is not simply another writing tool, and that computers themselves should not be the focus of cyberwriting discussion, but rather the manner in which networking has changed the world: this, he says, is the true revolution in writing, if indeed there has been any sort of revolution. In a posthumanist/Haraway cyborgian view, the computer should not be separated from the man, but rather viewed as a part of the body of a man (or woman). Porter speaks of the refusal of humanists, in their sentimentality, to acknowledge the reality of technology and its already-well-entrenched situation in this world, and argues that as a matter of intellectual honesty, we must all realize that technology plays a role in our contemporary existence (to speak colloquially, whether we like it or not). Postmodernists seek to answer the "how" questions: How will we use/design technology? rather than asking questions as to the pervasiveness and reality of technology on mankind, as humanists do.
Interestingly, Porter's article skirts around a concept I find to be central to this discussion. In my view, Porter answers the more mundane of two questions: Is technology important to current and future writers? and HOW is technology important...? Porter seems to address the first, but mostly ignores the second. He manages to prove that technology is significant in his life, but while I found the biographical quips to be endearing (ironic, considering his inclusion of the word ethos in a number of locations), I found that retrospectively, Porter had really only convinced me that HIS life had been altered by cyberwriting and technology, while he did little to persuade me (as a theoretically unbiased audience member) that technology had changed my life as a writer. (Here, we could enter into a complex metaphysical discussion, especially considering I'm composing this abstract on a computer and keyboard to be posted on the internet - but for the sake of argument, I'll pretend I'm impartial and have no reason from experience to initially believe technology has altered writing for me.) Porter devotes most of the article's academic space to the discussion of opposing viewpoints, after which, having listed the highlights of both sides' banter, he briefly denominates a winner, but fails overall to connect these minute contests to a larger view. In short, Porter gives us as readers information but doesn't do much to tell us why it's important.
I agree with a great deal of Porter's article, but in looking back over the portions of text I highlighted (ironically, I printed this article out to read it), I find that had I come from the other side of the fence, Porter would likely have failed to convince me of anything. He has no real statistics, no citation of evidence or information gathered from his classes or interactions with students/new generations of technology users (other than his son). He calls for a redefinition of terms and a re-evaluation of our views on technology and cyberwriting, but does not begin that analysis himself. In all, I find myself viewing this entire article as an enormous question, rather than an argument or thesis. Perhaps this was Porter's intent: I'll ask some questions you should think about and you answer them yourself. But, for me, considering he seems to be so utterly convinced of the profound alteration taking place because of technology, I would have liked to see him try to tackle a few answers as well as simply posing questions. Perhaps, Porter should have amended his title: "Why [Does] Technology Matter to Writing [,Dear Reader?]"
"10 Suggestions for First-Time WebComics Artists," by Scott McCloud
It is a advisory piece that certainly works by example. Although actual text is fairly sparse, writing an advisory piece on WebComic design does not call for much text. What is covered most prominently is a WebComics artist's potential extent and range of design as well as accessability.
What is mentioned at the end is what is implied throughout, and that is that as a WebComic artist, you are your own boss. The extent of what you chose to design has no boundaries to speak of. Without an editor to pass work through, you may print and publish at will, and on demand. Writing or designing for a potential market is also a non-factor, which further enables the designer to create as they will. On top of all this, the audience is seemingly infinite. McCloud uses a great graphic to close the piece, and that is a picture of the earth. Obviously the message here is that when one is designing online, or perhaps doing many other things online as well, the audience is almost literally the entire world, if the designer or writer so chooses it to be. Certainly a designer has the freedom and ability to simplify their audience to their liking. But what is emphasized here by McCloud is the ability to write and design whatever you want, and also present it to an audience that spans the entire globe.
McCloud also fixates on technical matters that have to do mostly with access to certain needs and helpful aids to designing on the web. For instance, he suggests that registering your domain name is very important if you hope to avoid junk mail. He also provides helpful hints that direct you on how to use links, as well as encourage you to use the web to help guide you along, sort of a "help me help you help me" sort of relationship between a designer and the web itself. He also touches on shape design and color.
In the end, this web page proved very effective for me quite simply because it did what I felt was most important for it to do, it practiced what it preached. Nobody is going to pay much attention to an informational that doesn't even implement the ideas and strategies that it so boldly covets. Overall I feel that this would be something of use to anyone who is considering creating WebComics, or even just preparing to attempt any sort of we design in general.
It is a advisory piece that certainly works by example. Although actual text is fairly sparse, writing an advisory piece on WebComic design does not call for much text. What is covered most prominently is a WebComics artist's potential extent and range of design as well as accessability.
What is mentioned at the end is what is implied throughout, and that is that as a WebComic artist, you are your own boss. The extent of what you chose to design has no boundaries to speak of. Without an editor to pass work through, you may print and publish at will, and on demand. Writing or designing for a potential market is also a non-factor, which further enables the designer to create as they will. On top of all this, the audience is seemingly infinite. McCloud uses a great graphic to close the piece, and that is a picture of the earth. Obviously the message here is that when one is designing online, or perhaps doing many other things online as well, the audience is almost literally the entire world, if the designer or writer so chooses it to be. Certainly a designer has the freedom and ability to simplify their audience to their liking. But what is emphasized here by McCloud is the ability to write and design whatever you want, and also present it to an audience that spans the entire globe.
McCloud also fixates on technical matters that have to do mostly with access to certain needs and helpful aids to designing on the web. For instance, he suggests that registering your domain name is very important if you hope to avoid junk mail. He also provides helpful hints that direct you on how to use links, as well as encourage you to use the web to help guide you along, sort of a "help me help you help me" sort of relationship between a designer and the web itself. He also touches on shape design and color.
In the end, this web page proved very effective for me quite simply because it did what I felt was most important for it to do, it practiced what it preached. Nobody is going to pay much attention to an informational that doesn't even implement the ideas and strategies that it so boldly covets. Overall I feel that this would be something of use to anyone who is considering creating WebComics, or even just preparing to attempt any sort of we design in general.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)