What is it about?
One ‘Meatspace’ CofP that I belong to is the group of apprentices at the City of Lincoln Council. This is based in the ‘community’ of council employees, however our CofP is based on all the apprentices wanting to learn and experience a real working environment as part of our studies. Although I am not an apprentice, I still feel I belong to this CofP because I have shared/joint enterprise with the ‘real’ apprentices. We work at the Council to learn rather than to make money unlike all the other Council employees.
XXXXX
Lave and Wenger illustrated their theory of CofP ‘by observation of different apprentices’ (www.infed.org: 4) and I can understand why. Members’ status’s within my CofP is very interesting. It seems it is one that any youngster joining the council immediately becomes apart of, and bit by bit relationships are made and nurtured through practices of learning and interaction. (This is when you have become a fully fledged member). At present, I feel I am just out of the ‘newcomer’ stage, but not quite an ‘expert’ (in relation to Sue’s diagram, Week 6 study guide). This is because I am understanding how it feels to be an apprentice and I am building both working and personal relationships with them through “legitimate peripheral participation” (Lave and Wenger, 1991:29) when I first began my placement.
XXXXX
How it functions?
The CofP I am apart of at the Council functions in two different ways. Firstly, at work it is very formal. To build a good repertoire with other Council employees, we need to have full commitment and produce quality work. However, the CofP will always be associated with apprentices in a ‘bootlegged’ way (Wenger, 1998: 5). Therefore, however great our repertoire and the resulting positive collective identity, the CofP will still be considered a select/exclusive community of practitioners that no other type of worker can join.
XXXXX
The second function can only happen if the first has been accepted (though this is generally unspoken-members from their own ideas of others). This is the shared mutual engagement outside of work. The CofP in this context is much more fluid as we have no ‘outsiders’ of the CofP assessing us etc. By interacting outside the constraints of the organisation, the CofP develops and in my case has resulted in friendships. Although this does not necessarily have to factor into the success of the CofP, for mine it does- as the relationships built extend back into the workplace environment.
XXXXX
What capability has it produced?
As previously mentioned, the apprentice CofP has a very good repertoire between members and other Council employees. There is not any specific vocabulary or routines we undertake that other Council employees do not use. Different members have different levels of capability though. There is no sense of hierarchy between members, even though some are more experienced and have been in the CofP for longer. However I may have a slightly different view to other members as I am not a proper apprentice.
Thursday, 26 February 2009
Topic 6.2- 'Organisational Units'
I think Wenger means an ‘organisational unit’ to be something that is formally constructed such as a business, whereby those involved are there to complete a specific task. This task does not need or involve an interest from the individual in learning, nor do they have a ‘concern or a passion for something they do’ (Wenger circa, 2007).
XXXXX
A CofP is different to an ‘organisational unit’ because it is unofficial. As in Wegner’s Communities of Practice: Learning as a Social System (1998:5), CofP are the ‘informal fabric’. Without CofP in an ‘organisational unit’ the unit would be hard to successfully maintain, because if people do not build at least working relationships, it is harder to get tasks done/. For example http://autoforums.carjunky.com/Automotive_Repair_C1/General_Discussions_F5/ is an organisational unit. Knowledge is developed through the informal interactions between members of the website. The more the CofP moves from ‘coalescing’ to ‘active’ development (Wegner, 1998: 3), the greater its importance. This is because carjunky.com almost depends on more members engaging, to keep revising knowledge and adding to it. This will help maintain and possibly increase the ‘communal memory’ (ibid) and keep a high amount of hits on the website-as they need hits to keep the featured advertisers happy!
XXXXX
A CofP is different to an ‘organisational unit’ because it is unofficial. As in Wegner’s Communities of Practice: Learning as a Social System (1998:5), CofP are the ‘informal fabric’. Without CofP in an ‘organisational unit’ the unit would be hard to successfully maintain, because if people do not build at least working relationships, it is harder to get tasks done/. For example http://autoforums.carjunky.com/Automotive_Repair_C1/General_Discussions_F5/ is an organisational unit. Knowledge is developed through the informal interactions between members of the website. The more the CofP moves from ‘coalescing’ to ‘active’ development (Wegner, 1998: 3), the greater its importance. This is because carjunky.com almost depends on more members engaging, to keep revising knowledge and adding to it. This will help maintain and possibly increase the ‘communal memory’ (ibid) and keep a high amount of hits on the website-as they need hits to keep the featured advertisers happy!
Topic 6.3 - 'Joint Enterprise'
I have looked at the website http://www.elleuk.com/. It is a commercial website, however there is a sense of CofP because it is ‘organised around what matters to its members’ (Wenger, 1998:6). It also gives guides, ‘best practices, tips and feedback’ (ibid) if members have asked questions on forums.
XXXXX
On the forums there are both newcomers and experts with little and lots of fashion knowledge. Everyone who logs onto the website has the 'joint enterprise' of wanting to get the latest information on fashion trends, beauty and hair. This site definately encourages learning by practice, as it suggests different ways to do makeup etc on dedicated forums.
There is a definite hierarchy of experts, as any anonymous members (even if they know a lot) have to write on the forums; whereas those who work for Elle have personal blogs they can post on. They are considered to be those with the most power and expertise in the field, thus making them leaders of the CofP and the educators. The ‘re-conceiving of learning’ (www.infed.org/biblio/communities_of_practice.htm, 2009:2) is constant, as development and changes in fashion means the joint enterprise is always being updated.
XXXXX
On the forums there are both newcomers and experts with little and lots of fashion knowledge. Everyone who logs onto the website has the 'joint enterprise' of wanting to get the latest information on fashion trends, beauty and hair. This site definately encourages learning by practice, as it suggests different ways to do makeup etc on dedicated forums.
There is a definite hierarchy of experts, as any anonymous members (even if they know a lot) have to write on the forums; whereas those who work for Elle have personal blogs they can post on. They are considered to be those with the most power and expertise in the field, thus making them leaders of the CofP and the educators. The ‘re-conceiving of learning’ (www.infed.org/biblio/communities_of_practice.htm, 2009:2) is constant, as development and changes in fashion means the joint enterprise is always being updated.
Topic 6.4 - Is this a CofP?
I do think our NMC work is a CofP. Wenger (1998: 4) says ‘A community of practice is different from a team in that the shared learning and interest of its members are what keep it together. It is defined by knowledge rather than by task’. It is true, we all have a joint enterprise on here and people ‘participate in different ways and to different degrees’ (ibid). We are all engaging in the process of learning about NMCs though mutual interaction. However, it is organisationally led (i.e. by the university) and most of us would not be talking about NMCs if it was not a work ‘task’. On the other hand, our participation is self sustaining and all of us are keeping it together whether we find the subject matter interesting or not. What do others think?
Tuesday, 24 February 2009
Website Analysis
The website I have chosen to analyse is http://www.armyjobs.mod.uk/. This website has been created to answer any questions someone may have about joining the army.
A.) How is your chosen site structured?
This is a very complex website, however extremely easy to use. The main feature is a large photograph of an army convoy. Embedded within the website, on top of the photograph, are rich media helicopter graphics to simulate the convoy as being live. The homepage is based on a hierarchical navigation structure. If the yellow hyperlinks in the centre are clicked on, they each take you to a different page where a video can be streamed regarding the topic chosen; for example Army Life. The typeface is bold and strong, symbolising the stereotypical image of the army, and the basic colours are those seen on camouflage material.
The surrounding hyperlinks take you to related articles that are placed in a sequential structure. This is used because once you have got to the area you want, it is easier to describe what happens in the army though step by step articles; for example How do I join? http://www.armyjobs.mod.uk/howdoijoin/pages/default.aspx
B.) What is it about on a cultural level?
The ideology of the website is to promote the army as a good career choice, and through this, gain more recruits. It has been made to appeal to a mass, public audience so uses plain English and all articles and videos have positive spins on them. It is a government website therefore extreme care has been taken into how things are worded, to present the army as being a highly efficient and well skilled organisation. The website also shows the army as having a sense of community. This is apparent in the video interview with women officers: http://www.armyjobs.mod.uk/armylife/dailylife/Pages/WomenIntheArmy.aspx
XXXXX
Relating the website to work we have done, Shawn P.Wilbur refers to the Internet as ‘the emancipatory discourse of cyberspace’ (An Archeology of Cyberspaces: Community, Virtuality, Mediation, Commerce, 1995). The user should feel liberated and empowered to take control of their future, and most of all feel they have the choice of numerous roles if they were to become part of the army. Stewart Brand (Lecture Notes Week 4) said: ‘Information wants to be free’. Although that refers to the gift economy on the likes of open publishing websites, it does relate to the army jobs website; those in the army want the organisation to be perceived as being as open as possible. They want to give the user large access to information, so they gain your trust and you are encouraged to join http://www.armyjobs.mod.uk/contactus/Pages/default.aspx.
There is also an interactive ‘Army Pathfinder’ a fun questionnaire that tells you your perfect job in the army. However it is possible to do the questionnaire over and over again, which links to ‘identity experimentation’. Online ‘the self is a multiple’ (Turkle, www.wired.com/wired/archieve/4.01/turkle_pr.html) and people can complete the questionnaire using a range of different characteristics or identities in order to find what they think is the ‘right’ or ‘better’ outcome.
C.) What is the appeal for you as a user?
I was initially attracted to the website through the medium of television. To promote this fairly new site, a range of television adverts have been made, showing real action footage (or so it seems) that you can only see the end of online. I was inquisitive, like a lot of our ‘information hungry’ society and logged on. I did find the website to be extremely informative and opened my eyes a little bit to what life was really like in the army. The way in which the site is structured and its easy navigation through the hyperlinks and search boxes, made me want to keep looking at various articles. I did find myself becoming extremely interested in the organisations work and although I have no interest in joining the armed forces, it made me think about whether I would like a career in the army- which is exactly the website’s aim!
A.) How is your chosen site structured?
This is a very complex website, however extremely easy to use. The main feature is a large photograph of an army convoy. Embedded within the website, on top of the photograph, are rich media helicopter graphics to simulate the convoy as being live. The homepage is based on a hierarchical navigation structure. If the yellow hyperlinks in the centre are clicked on, they each take you to a different page where a video can be streamed regarding the topic chosen; for example Army Life. The typeface is bold and strong, symbolising the stereotypical image of the army, and the basic colours are those seen on camouflage material.
The surrounding hyperlinks take you to related articles that are placed in a sequential structure. This is used because once you have got to the area you want, it is easier to describe what happens in the army though step by step articles; for example How do I join? http://www.armyjobs.mod.uk/howdoijoin/pages/default.aspx
B.) What is it about on a cultural level?
The ideology of the website is to promote the army as a good career choice, and through this, gain more recruits. It has been made to appeal to a mass, public audience so uses plain English and all articles and videos have positive spins on them. It is a government website therefore extreme care has been taken into how things are worded, to present the army as being a highly efficient and well skilled organisation. The website also shows the army as having a sense of community. This is apparent in the video interview with women officers: http://www.armyjobs.mod.uk/armylife/dailylife/Pages/WomenIntheArmy.aspx
XXXXX
Relating the website to work we have done, Shawn P.Wilbur refers to the Internet as ‘the emancipatory discourse of cyberspace’ (An Archeology of Cyberspaces: Community, Virtuality, Mediation, Commerce, 1995). The user should feel liberated and empowered to take control of their future, and most of all feel they have the choice of numerous roles if they were to become part of the army. Stewart Brand (Lecture Notes Week 4) said: ‘Information wants to be free’. Although that refers to the gift economy on the likes of open publishing websites, it does relate to the army jobs website; those in the army want the organisation to be perceived as being as open as possible. They want to give the user large access to information, so they gain your trust and you are encouraged to join http://www.armyjobs.mod.uk/contactus/Pages/default.aspx.
There is also an interactive ‘Army Pathfinder’ a fun questionnaire that tells you your perfect job in the army. However it is possible to do the questionnaire over and over again, which links to ‘identity experimentation’. Online ‘the self is a multiple’ (Turkle, www.wired.com/wired/archieve/4.01/turkle_pr.html) and people can complete the questionnaire using a range of different characteristics or identities in order to find what they think is the ‘right’ or ‘better’ outcome.
C.) What is the appeal for you as a user?
I was initially attracted to the website through the medium of television. To promote this fairly new site, a range of television adverts have been made, showing real action footage (or so it seems) that you can only see the end of online. I was inquisitive, like a lot of our ‘information hungry’ society and logged on. I did find the website to be extremely informative and opened my eyes a little bit to what life was really like in the army. The way in which the site is structured and its easy navigation through the hyperlinks and search boxes, made me want to keep looking at various articles. I did find myself becoming extremely interested in the organisations work and although I have no interest in joining the armed forces, it made me think about whether I would like a career in the army- which is exactly the website’s aim!
Friday, 20 February 2009
Topic 1 Week 5: A/B - What constitutes news on the web?
There is "a shifted boundary of what constitutes news" (paragraph 9, Burnett and Marshall). Their research relates to the concept of 'we media', as audiences are now becoming the creators of news in the Web 2.0 environment. Web users are in constant search for information and its retrieval. One question I have about this is, why do we now have greater rates of reception and production? It is through the radical empowerment of people and the ability to have numerous written exchanges with millions of Internet users, or have we always had these ideas but didn't have them means to communicate them other than in localised 'Meatspace'? I would imagine it being the first, as I think society has become more media aware and thus more media active.
XXXXX
News on the web is far different to that of conventional television, radio broadcasts or newspapers, because there is no 'monopolising' businesses that can take control of what news is produced- the Internet is far to decentralised. A large constitute of news on the web is 'cultural democratisation' as the net 'allows more people to become involved in discussing and debating their interests with others than ever before' (lecture notes, Week Five).
XXXXX
News on the web is far different to that of conventional television, radio broadcasts or newspapers, because there is no 'monopolising' businesses that can take control of what news is produced- the Internet is far to decentralised. A large constitute of news on the web is 'cultural democratisation' as the net 'allows more people to become involved in discussing and debating their interests with others than ever before' (lecture notes, Week Five).
Topic 1 Week 5: C - D.I.Y News
Those who both create and participate in 'DIY News' sites are not necessarily part of an alternative culture but obviously have strong opinions about free and democratic expression. Although it is getting simpler, it is difficult in 'Meatspace' to voice your opinion without spending time and effort writing to newspapers or phoning radio stations (the likes of whom dominate and control a majority of media output). Whereas in the virtual world, it is easier and very quick to say what you want; it is all written down. People are more likely to voice their views on the net because of this. It will influence other Internet users to participate, meaning bit by bit communities and cultures are formed.
XXXXX
George McKay who created the term 'DIY culture' defines it as "a youth centred and- directed cluster of interests and practices..." (paragraph 14, Meikle) could be considered to be cultures in their own right; all of which must have originated form someones DIY idea (because how would the cultures have been made). Therefore the contributions to DIY news online could also exist offline- if that makes sense?
XXXXX
John Downing said it is "politically dissident media that offer radical alternatives to mainstream debate" (paragraph 13, Meikle). In this sense, those who are involved in DIY news can be thought of as being apart of an alternative culture, because they challenge conventional and more traditional 'Meatspace' media.
XXXXX
Although very different to Indymedia, www.Twitter.com could also be seen as a DIY news site. Yes, it could also be considered a SNS, however, people publish news about themselves that they feel is newsworthy to others such as friends and family. With reference to Richard Hell's lyrics (paragraph 14, Meikle) people start off as a 'blank' online identity until they start posting messages about what they are doing. This relates back to the Week Three topic of individualism. At present, some would say Twitter is a new alternative culture. However, I think in time this too will become part of mainstream media, as not only will individuals use it, but also different media forms. For example, BBC television has used it to publish 'their news' to followers who sign up for the service.
XXXXX
George McKay who created the term 'DIY culture' defines it as "a youth centred and- directed cluster of interests and practices..." (paragraph 14, Meikle) could be considered to be cultures in their own right; all of which must have originated form someones DIY idea (because how would the cultures have been made). Therefore the contributions to DIY news online could also exist offline- if that makes sense?
XXXXX
John Downing said it is "politically dissident media that offer radical alternatives to mainstream debate" (paragraph 13, Meikle). In this sense, those who are involved in DIY news can be thought of as being apart of an alternative culture, because they challenge conventional and more traditional 'Meatspace' media.
XXXXX
Although very different to Indymedia, www.Twitter.com could also be seen as a DIY news site. Yes, it could also be considered a SNS, however, people publish news about themselves that they feel is newsworthy to others such as friends and family. With reference to Richard Hell's lyrics (paragraph 14, Meikle) people start off as a 'blank' online identity until they start posting messages about what they are doing. This relates back to the Week Three topic of individualism. At present, some would say Twitter is a new alternative culture. However, I think in time this too will become part of mainstream media, as not only will individuals use it, but also different media forms. For example, BBC television has used it to publish 'their news' to followers who sign up for the service.
Topic 1 Week 5: D - Is open news quality news?
This is a very difficult question to answer, as what someone may think is quality news, another might not. There are many advantages and disadvantages to any arguments that could be made in relation to the quality of news. One being, if you look back to the traditional mediums of television, newspaper, radio etc it has always been thought by many (not everyone) that they deliver quality news, because at one time that was all we new and it is their business to do so. However, who can say what these mediums are publishing/broadcasting is the truth? [This could lead to a discussion about representation and mediation of reality in media products-but I won't for now!]. We have to form our own opinions on what we think is quality news, as we will never know the truth of every news story if we haven't been there to witness it firsthand.
XXXXX
Transferring this question over to the Internet- the same principles apply, but news is more available in open publication. This could mean more chance for users to lie, create or alter news, but on the other hand open publication allows for more research and opportunity for 'the truth' to be published.
XXXXX
This leads me to the term cyberdemocracy. Publishing 'open news' on the net requires an element of trust between users and contributors, to allow free debate on the news item. As Douglass Kellner notes 'for many users the Internet is one of the only decommodified spaces in the capitalist world' (week 5 lecture notes). By this he means it is one of the only places that society doesn't have to rely on the capitalist market. Linking this back to my point, open news means society doesn't have to rely on the large media companies to supply them with news. Although I do agree with Kellner, I do to an extent agree with the thoughts of Robins and Webster (Week 5 Lecture Notes), who suggest that New Media extends what we already have- capitalism. The more open publishing that occurs, the more competition for media companies to excel in what they do; hence 24 hour news broadcasts, SMS services, as well as developed websites.
XXXXX
The Internet can be seen as a new way of making money; so although new open news sites are constantly being created, the media companies are still there battling the ever "shifting boundary of what constitutes news" (paragraph 9 Burnet and Marshall).
XXXXX
After all this, I still cant give a definitive answer to my thought: How can you define quality for a universal user base? In other words, how can you pin point what is quality for something that can be seen all over the world? Any thoughts?
XXXXX
Transferring this question over to the Internet- the same principles apply, but news is more available in open publication. This could mean more chance for users to lie, create or alter news, but on the other hand open publication allows for more research and opportunity for 'the truth' to be published.
XXXXX
This leads me to the term cyberdemocracy. Publishing 'open news' on the net requires an element of trust between users and contributors, to allow free debate on the news item. As Douglass Kellner notes 'for many users the Internet is one of the only decommodified spaces in the capitalist world' (week 5 lecture notes). By this he means it is one of the only places that society doesn't have to rely on the capitalist market. Linking this back to my point, open news means society doesn't have to rely on the large media companies to supply them with news. Although I do agree with Kellner, I do to an extent agree with the thoughts of Robins and Webster (Week 5 Lecture Notes), who suggest that New Media extends what we already have- capitalism. The more open publishing that occurs, the more competition for media companies to excel in what they do; hence 24 hour news broadcasts, SMS services, as well as developed websites.
XXXXX
The Internet can be seen as a new way of making money; so although new open news sites are constantly being created, the media companies are still there battling the ever "shifting boundary of what constitutes news" (paragraph 9 Burnet and Marshall).
XXXXX
After all this, I still cant give a definitive answer to my thought: How can you define quality for a universal user base? In other words, how can you pin point what is quality for something that can be seen all over the world? Any thoughts?
Topic 1 Week 5: E
My initial thoughts about this question can open news ever be completely open? was about the amount of control both users and website owners have over content. I think open news always has had and needed even the smallest restrictions, so that no offensive material can be published such as anything racially discriminative, criminal, rude, or even anything plagiarised (which can be hard to do). However, I do think that this varies depending on the nature of the website.
XXXXX
People will always take different roles in collaborating and communications democracy whether it be voicing various sides of an argument/discussion, to uploading photos and videos. There are different ways of collaborating; businesses would probably write for example, more formally than the average user would. The you will get the 'lurkers' like we discussed last week, who do not contribute bar raising website hits.
XXXXX
People will always take different roles in collaborating and communications democracy whether it be voicing various sides of an argument/discussion, to uploading photos and videos. There are different ways of collaborating; businesses would probably write for example, more formally than the average user would. The you will get the 'lurkers' like we discussed last week, who do not contribute bar raising website hits.
Topic 1 Week 5: Meikle F
In a way, the Internet has already facilitated new types of media institution such as P2P, blogging and SNS that were previously impossible. 'The Digital Superhighway' has created user generated and filtered content and a cybersociety that relies on the technology as part of their 'everyday'. With the involvement of those already using open publishing, developers will push the boundaries of the net to create 'a new, more plural, news environment' (paragraph 20, Meikle).
Friday, 13 February 2009
Topic 1 Week 4: Empowering/Disempowering pp.174 Lister et al
On first thought, the Internet is very empowering. It is you the user who decides where you go and what you do online. This relates to one of my posts last week as it again involves the element of choice- as choice is empowering for an individual.
XXXXX
The need for group belonging is natural for humans - if anyone says they are happier by feeling alone, they are more than likely lying! It is our instinct to feel wanted, so when people get involved in online communities, bit by bit they will gradually feel acceptance. On the other hand, even if the individual does feel accepted, it does not necessarily mean that they are or feel empowered.
XXXXX
Looking at social networking sites, individuals go on them for many different reasons e.g. to express themselves, create an identity for themselves, to feel accepted by other users, or to simply communicate with friends and family. I think that some parts of social networking sites are empowering and some disempowering. We have all discussed in previous weeks about identity formation, experimentation and the ability to control your own space-all of which I think are very empowering. However, by joining these sites in a strange way it is slightly disempowering. As so many people use the likes of Facebook, MySpace etc it is like more and more are succumbing to the need and social pressure to join these sites. Maybe it is to be as involved and apart of a community as everyone else. This then meaning a sense of individuality is lost. Then again individuals choose to join, and you can express your individuality on these sites- it is a very complicated idea but I hope you understand what I am trying to get at!!
What do others think?
XXXXX
The need for group belonging is natural for humans - if anyone says they are happier by feeling alone, they are more than likely lying! It is our instinct to feel wanted, so when people get involved in online communities, bit by bit they will gradually feel acceptance. On the other hand, even if the individual does feel accepted, it does not necessarily mean that they are or feel empowered.
XXXXX
Looking at social networking sites, individuals go on them for many different reasons e.g. to express themselves, create an identity for themselves, to feel accepted by other users, or to simply communicate with friends and family. I think that some parts of social networking sites are empowering and some disempowering. We have all discussed in previous weeks about identity formation, experimentation and the ability to control your own space-all of which I think are very empowering. However, by joining these sites in a strange way it is slightly disempowering. As so many people use the likes of Facebook, MySpace etc it is like more and more are succumbing to the need and social pressure to join these sites. Maybe it is to be as involved and apart of a community as everyone else. This then meaning a sense of individuality is lost. Then again individuals choose to join, and you can express your individuality on these sites- it is a very complicated idea but I hope you understand what I am trying to get at!!
What do others think?
Topic 1 Week 4: Networks as Public Spheres pp.177-178
b). "The age of the public sphere as face to face talk is clearly over ..."(Poster, 1997: 220). This is the first limitation- that in 'real life' face to face is the most abundant (and most taken for granted) form of communication. Although there is now the ability to IM using web cams, watch videos and look at pictures, a vast majority of net content is still in text format. XXXXX
Interaction relies on all individuals being actively engaged, otherwise no discussion would take place. The net as a 'public sphere' can also include the media/press. As Lister indicates, journalism has now branched out onto the Internet, and is increasing. There is no limitation on journalists picking up on interesting posts, news feeds, forums and gossip and turning it into (what they consider) to be a newsworthy story. Unlike in 'real' community, the public get a greater chance to interact with those who create the media, whether they be a journalist who works for the press or an individual who lives thousands of miles away. It creates an open platform for discussion that probably would not happen in 'real' community.
Interaction relies on all individuals being actively engaged, otherwise no discussion would take place. The net as a 'public sphere' can also include the media/press. As Lister indicates, journalism has now branched out onto the Internet, and is increasing. There is no limitation on journalists picking up on interesting posts, news feeds, forums and gossip and turning it into (what they consider) to be a newsworthy story. Unlike in 'real' community, the public get a greater chance to interact with those who create the media, whether they be a journalist who works for the press or an individual who lives thousands of miles away. It creates an open platform for discussion that probably would not happen in 'real' community.
Topic 1 Week 4: Junk and Jerks/ Producers of Culture
c). It has only been in more recent years we have come to understand what dangerous material is lurking on the Internet. The prominence of it is strong, because most people now have to use anti virus, spam software and firewalls to keep their computers and personal information protected from those who produce and disperse the material.
XXXXX
Ironically, the reason why they exist is due to the great amount of freedom the Internet has to offer us. Therefore, it highlights a darker side to the net where freedom is not so positive. It has catalysed the creation of many online communities of people exchanging information on the latest viruses and how to stop/fix them. They also give software and computer companies a lot more business selling protection software! All these little communities add up to one big Internet user community, fighting back against Junk & Jerks (Kollock).
XXXXX
d). The possibilities are almost endless for net users to become producers of culture. Although response to media by users is still extremely high, it is now developing the more the Internet does (e.g. video replies to other videos on YouTube). The more active an audience, the more they want to get involved. Users can now create their own content from scratch and use it for whatever they wish. It makes me wonder, if we can do all this now, what will we be able to do in ten years or so? Will there be any powerful media conglomerates and companies left, or will the Internet be completely taken over as one huge public sphere of user-generated content where there is no control of what is produced? It is similar to what is currently being asked about the film industry; as more people create their own films, will we one day see the demise of Hollywood? Scary stuff!
XXXXX
Ironically, the reason why they exist is due to the great amount of freedom the Internet has to offer us. Therefore, it highlights a darker side to the net where freedom is not so positive. It has catalysed the creation of many online communities of people exchanging information on the latest viruses and how to stop/fix them. They also give software and computer companies a lot more business selling protection software! All these little communities add up to one big Internet user community, fighting back against Junk & Jerks (Kollock).
XXXXX
d). The possibilities are almost endless for net users to become producers of culture. Although response to media by users is still extremely high, it is now developing the more the Internet does (e.g. video replies to other videos on YouTube). The more active an audience, the more they want to get involved. Users can now create their own content from scratch and use it for whatever they wish. It makes me wonder, if we can do all this now, what will we be able to do in ten years or so? Will there be any powerful media conglomerates and companies left, or will the Internet be completely taken over as one huge public sphere of user-generated content where there is no control of what is produced? It is similar to what is currently being asked about the film industry; as more people create their own films, will we one day see the demise of Hollywood? Scary stuff!
Week 4: Theories of Community
I have had a read through of the online lecture material, and so I thought I'd start off by mentioning Levy's idea that 'old' community is restricted...whereas the Internet frees us from restrictions of space and time. The Internet is a place with no social boundaries, where people can choose what cyberspace they engage in. 'Real' community, I do agree is confined to place.
XXXXX
Without the social interactions in the 'real', our communication could not be transferred into online web 2.0 communities because we would not have the skills to know how to communicate properly with others. The Internet could be seen as an extension of social interactions from the real world into the virtual.
XXXXX
Willson argues against the goodness of virtual community as it 'disconnects the individual from the embodied interactions of their environment' and they can experiment. Whereas offline, 'we commit to real communities'. I do understand her thinking, but can't it also be said that our 'real' communities can be optional too? For example- us at university; we have chosen to involve ourselves in this higher education community. At first it was an experiment compared to other communities we had been used to previously. Therefore, I do think Willson's theory to be a little to dramatic in its reasoning!
XXXXX
The problem with some of the theories of community, is that they have to separate the Internet from 'old' or 'real' community. In reality there are two communication worlds- the everyday living and the virtual online. I am not suggesting everyone thinks of them as one because they are obviously not, but the Internet is not new anymore it is just updated. People need to understand that what was once a hyperreality, has now become part of our reality (I think it is very similar to the hyperreality term used by postmodernist Baudrillard).
XXXXX
Without the social interactions in the 'real', our communication could not be transferred into online web 2.0 communities because we would not have the skills to know how to communicate properly with others. The Internet could be seen as an extension of social interactions from the real world into the virtual.
XXXXX
Willson argues against the goodness of virtual community as it 'disconnects the individual from the embodied interactions of their environment' and they can experiment. Whereas offline, 'we commit to real communities'. I do understand her thinking, but can't it also be said that our 'real' communities can be optional too? For example- us at university; we have chosen to involve ourselves in this higher education community. At first it was an experiment compared to other communities we had been used to previously. Therefore, I do think Willson's theory to be a little to dramatic in its reasoning!
XXXXX
The problem with some of the theories of community, is that they have to separate the Internet from 'old' or 'real' community. In reality there are two communication worlds- the everyday living and the virtual online. I am not suggesting everyone thinks of them as one because they are obviously not, but the Internet is not new anymore it is just updated. People need to understand that what was once a hyperreality, has now become part of our reality (I think it is very similar to the hyperreality term used by postmodernist Baudrillard).
Friday, 6 February 2009
Topic 3.2) Week 3: Web Forum Analysis
http://digg.com/movies/Amazing_Cast_of_Tina_Fey_Downey_Stiller_On_Master_Mind
I chose a forum on the website digg.com for this analysis. I came across a discussion an article named Trio in Talks for 'Master Mind' in the entertainment section.
Expression:
People use screen names from the simple likes of jcroweall7 to the weird SaladCactusKing- some with and without profile pictures to go with them. Very little people have photographs of themselves (or what you think is them). A majority just have cartoon pictures. Digg is a very laid back site and will publish even controversial comments about a post. People tend to say what they think, but it is obvious some say things to provoke a response. Why is this? Is it because this is an argumentative cyber-identity they want to create or is it simply a reflection of their real personailty and is something they would say in real life?
XXXXX
Interaction:
People interact in a slightly more advanced way than on Blogger. You can post a reply back or give it a thumbs up or down by clicking on an icon. You can also choose to 'digg' an article i.e. show to other users you found it interesting. People present themselves to others in a very 'chatty' manner- like in a normal conversation you would have with a friend. Most comments are stated rather than users posing questions to others. It doesn't seem the place where you would meet up with or make online friends as analysis of the topic within responses is very limited.
XXXXX
What kind of people are they?:
It is difficult to say, but you do get an idea about the type of people they are based on assumptions and stereotyping related to their screen names, pictures, the style of writing and the types of stories they 'digg'. Stereotyping is wrong I know, but because you cannot see the person you do instinctively begin to see 'screen/online stereotypes'- which you base on mainly personality traits, rather than stereotypes in the real world that involve a number of influences e.g. looks.
XXXXX
Site Structure:
Again, very simple green and white are the basic colours with only the odd picture or advert here and there. This is probably so that users are more focused on the forum conversations and are therefore more likely to get involved, rather than browsing at pictures.
I chose a forum on the website digg.com for this analysis. I came across a discussion an article named Trio in Talks for 'Master Mind' in the entertainment section.
Expression:
People use screen names from the simple likes of jcroweall7 to the weird SaladCactusKing- some with and without profile pictures to go with them. Very little people have photographs of themselves (or what you think is them). A majority just have cartoon pictures. Digg is a very laid back site and will publish even controversial comments about a post. People tend to say what they think, but it is obvious some say things to provoke a response. Why is this? Is it because this is an argumentative cyber-identity they want to create or is it simply a reflection of their real personailty and is something they would say in real life?
XXXXX
Interaction:
People interact in a slightly more advanced way than on Blogger. You can post a reply back or give it a thumbs up or down by clicking on an icon. You can also choose to 'digg' an article i.e. show to other users you found it interesting. People present themselves to others in a very 'chatty' manner- like in a normal conversation you would have with a friend. Most comments are stated rather than users posing questions to others. It doesn't seem the place where you would meet up with or make online friends as analysis of the topic within responses is very limited.
XXXXX
What kind of people are they?:
It is difficult to say, but you do get an idea about the type of people they are based on assumptions and stereotyping related to their screen names, pictures, the style of writing and the types of stories they 'digg'. Stereotyping is wrong I know, but because you cannot see the person you do instinctively begin to see 'screen/online stereotypes'- which you base on mainly personality traits, rather than stereotypes in the real world that involve a number of influences e.g. looks.
XXXXX
Site Structure:
Again, very simple green and white are the basic colours with only the odd picture or advert here and there. This is probably so that users are more focused on the forum conversations and are therefore more likely to get involved, rather than browsing at pictures.
Topic 1 Week 3: Online Indentity Continued...
d) Analysing both paradigms on page 168 I do agree with parts of both. Cyberidentities are like an extension of an already existing social reality, because we wouldn't know how to communicate with each other (if that makes sense?!) However, it can be a retreat from social reality- a kind of escapism. In Turkel's reading it gives the case study of Doug a college junior. He mentions how he has different characters, all with different characteristics. All of these are, I would imagine, completely different to what he is like in real life- hence me leaning towards the idea that cyberidenitities are more of an escapism than extension of reality. What do others think?
e) Online relationships aren't the same as offline ones-especially if you don't know the person you are communicating with. Exceptions are the likes of Facebook and MSN etc because you tend to have communicated in real life first. In Turkel's reading, a man called Stewart said "...within a week you feel like you've been friends forever...". I think relationships can be built quicker on the net, because if you are in the same chat room, using the same MUDs or MOOs then there is already a common interest there.
e) Online relationships aren't the same as offline ones-especially if you don't know the person you are communicating with. Exceptions are the likes of Facebook and MSN etc because you tend to have communicated in real life first. In Turkel's reading, a man called Stewart said "...within a week you feel like you've been friends forever...". I think relationships can be built quicker on the net, because if you are in the same chat room, using the same MUDs or MOOs then there is already a common interest there.
Topic 1 Week 3: Online Indentity
a) The net can be thought of as an 'open architecture' because people have the power and a growing and a growing control of how they use, develop and manipulate it. Anyone can use the medium to create a world of their choice whether it be for gaming, browsing or simply sending emails.
b) How people view and use the Internet varies from person to person, therefore the way in which people assume online persona's will also be different. It depends on how much each individual wants to experiment with their identity; some may feel they should tell 'the truth' because they think it isn't ethically viable to create (or alter) a persona. However, this leads me to think- is truth necessary on the Internet? People are becoming so used to the fact that others can lie and aren't always themselves, that we have just learnt to accept it. Then again, there are always those who take what they see as the whole truth and it is these people who are more susceptible to risks as they truthfully express their 'real' identity. The anonymity of all that is communicated online is an essential element in identity formation and online discourse. I agree with the likes of Poster and Turkle that our sense of self can be changed. I think this can be influenced, the more multiple identities we show/create on the Internet.
c) 'Identity is understood as a fluid process in which 'self' and environment are constantly interacting...'(Lister et al. page 167). I do agree with the postmodern views stressing the fluidity of online selves. Again, it relates back to anonymity and the ability to adapt to ones current environment without any stereotyping coming into play because of physical looks. As Turkle mentioned, people aren't limited by the body. Identity online is not authentic unlike traditional identity is thought to be. Multiple identity creation shows fluidity of online selves because anyone can be whoever/whatever they want to be depending on the virtual community they're interacting in.
b) How people view and use the Internet varies from person to person, therefore the way in which people assume online persona's will also be different. It depends on how much each individual wants to experiment with their identity; some may feel they should tell 'the truth' because they think it isn't ethically viable to create (or alter) a persona. However, this leads me to think- is truth necessary on the Internet? People are becoming so used to the fact that others can lie and aren't always themselves, that we have just learnt to accept it. Then again, there are always those who take what they see as the whole truth and it is these people who are more susceptible to risks as they truthfully express their 'real' identity. The anonymity of all that is communicated online is an essential element in identity formation and online discourse. I agree with the likes of Poster and Turkle that our sense of self can be changed. I think this can be influenced, the more multiple identities we show/create on the Internet.
c) 'Identity is understood as a fluid process in which 'self' and environment are constantly interacting...'(Lister et al. page 167). I do agree with the postmodern views stressing the fluidity of online selves. Again, it relates back to anonymity and the ability to adapt to ones current environment without any stereotyping coming into play because of physical looks. As Turkle mentioned, people aren't limited by the body. Identity online is not authentic unlike traditional identity is thought to be. Multiple identity creation shows fluidity of online selves because anyone can be whoever/whatever they want to be depending on the virtual community they're interacting in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)