Week Five. Topic One.
I think produsage (the act of being a "produser"-producer and user) will last for a while, and the in the future it will only increase. I believe more people will act as "produsers", as it becomes a more quick and easy way to do many things (create music/films etc). Capitalism will take advantage of this phase though, and I do believe it is a phase. I think people will eventaully get bored of this trend, as more interesting and new things become avaliable to pass the time. It is a fairly new trend, so people (including my friends) are constantly posting videos on YouTube or creating blogs, but I do think this will slow down. As mentioned, I think that big buisnesses will effect this culture. I think that eventually we will have to pay to post or watch videos on YouTube (for example), or an idea from Kay's blog, using a "point" system, this would work by one having to post or contribute to be able to watch videos or gain information.
I think using my "crystal ball"...that the trend will slow down eventually (not in the near future) due to flagging interest and new/better things will become more and more important as we live in a very fickle and consumer driven culture.
Friday, 20 February 2009
Meikle D&E.
Week Five. Topic One.
"Open news" can be quality news. I think this applies to all the web. I think it can be quality because of the "produser" culture on the web- anyone can post and be a researcher and use a massive and varied around of sources and influences. However, we dont know who is posting this information. This is not completley "open", websistes such as IndyMedia are still monitered and edited, even if its just for spelling mistakes. One asks-why does news have to "professional", what is really wrong with reading the news in "text speak"? So this "open" news is edited for no apparent reason than to make it generic to what we expect of news, if it was any different-then it would be a shock to read, which reflects as us on individuals and society, as we wish to be "open-minded" and "original" on the internet, in terms of what we post and read-and yet it appears that we want things like the news to be conventional. These "open" news websites are also controlled by moderaters etc and people act in a democratic way-such as the examples given in this text.
"Open news" can be quality news. I think this applies to all the web. I think it can be quality because of the "produser" culture on the web- anyone can post and be a researcher and use a massive and varied around of sources and influences. However, we dont know who is posting this information. This is not completley "open", websistes such as IndyMedia are still monitered and edited, even if its just for spelling mistakes. One asks-why does news have to "professional", what is really wrong with reading the news in "text speak"? So this "open" news is edited for no apparent reason than to make it generic to what we expect of news, if it was any different-then it would be a shock to read, which reflects as us on individuals and society, as we wish to be "open-minded" and "original" on the internet, in terms of what we post and read-and yet it appears that we want things like the news to be conventional. These "open" news websites are also controlled by moderaters etc and people act in a democratic way-such as the examples given in this text.
Meikle A&B
Week Five. Topic One.
I believe that a large part of the web is just "hear'say", and this is no different when it comes to the news. We do not know who is publishing the news, it could be anyone and these people are using a broad range of sources, from the reliable to the not so. I personally look at the BBC News online, as well as the online version of The Sun and even PerezHilton.com for celebrity news. "News" on the web, I believe can be anything, because no one moderates who posts the news or what is said. We choose to believe what we want. I take most of the news with a pinch of salt.
We flick through and find our own informaiton and news, learning from a mixture of text, audio and video, as well as archives which many online news sites have. We choose what we learn and how we learn it. We can publish out own news and information, we "copy&paste" from other sources-other websites, newspapers and the news we hear on the tv and radio, meaning we are the "researchers" of the news ourselves, meaning there are "new kinds of journalists" online.
I believe that a large part of the web is just "hear'say", and this is no different when it comes to the news. We do not know who is publishing the news, it could be anyone and these people are using a broad range of sources, from the reliable to the not so. I personally look at the BBC News online, as well as the online version of The Sun and even PerezHilton.com for celebrity news. "News" on the web, I believe can be anything, because no one moderates who posts the news or what is said. We choose to believe what we want. I take most of the news with a pinch of salt.
We flick through and find our own informaiton and news, learning from a mixture of text, audio and video, as well as archives which many online news sites have. We choose what we learn and how we learn it. We can publish out own news and information, we "copy&paste" from other sources-other websites, newspapers and the news we hear on the tv and radio, meaning we are the "researchers" of the news ourselves, meaning there are "new kinds of journalists" online.
Friday, 13 February 2009
Music and The Internet
Week Four. Topic Three.
Filesharing, online downloading and so on obviously changes the way music is consumed. Dispersal of music to many is very easy and can be done very cheapily (free-if illegal). Any band can "make it" through these sites a mainly its to do with word-of-mouth, I think if someone says "download X-they are cool", others will. Because its quick, free and easy-many people will do it because it takes little time and effort (and often-no cost) and therefore, people are more inclide to download and either like or dislike. Social networking sites, like MySpace make it easy to tell people from all ovthe word quickly and easily about new songs and bands-spreading the word globally and quickly.
This has changed the music industry because no record deal is needed to post music-anyone can be famous and becming popular, often gaining "real life" record deals and success due to their onlne fame (Lily Allen, Artic Monkeys etc.). As people are illegally downlading music, it means that no one gets any money from the song-artists, producers, no one. Elton John even went as far as saying that the internet should be "shut down", to stop the internet "destroying music" (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article251007.ece-2007).
I believe we will not need meda companies in the future as people can do the recording, editing, producing and even deistributing their music, films (and anything they wish) from their own bedrooms easily, and often cheaply (if software is downloaded for free as well). It is hard to consider what the music industry will be like in a few years if this continues, it askes the main question-in a few years, if its so quick, cheap and easy to post music online-will everybody have atleast one song that at least one other has downloaded? and how will this effect the future of music?
Filesharing, online downloading and so on obviously changes the way music is consumed. Dispersal of music to many is very easy and can be done very cheapily (free-if illegal). Any band can "make it" through these sites a mainly its to do with word-of-mouth, I think if someone says "download X-they are cool", others will. Because its quick, free and easy-many people will do it because it takes little time and effort (and often-no cost) and therefore, people are more inclide to download and either like or dislike. Social networking sites, like MySpace make it easy to tell people from all ovthe word quickly and easily about new songs and bands-spreading the word globally and quickly.
This has changed the music industry because no record deal is needed to post music-anyone can be famous and becming popular, often gaining "real life" record deals and success due to their onlne fame (Lily Allen, Artic Monkeys etc.). As people are illegally downlading music, it means that no one gets any money from the song-artists, producers, no one. Elton John even went as far as saying that the internet should be "shut down", to stop the internet "destroying music" (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article251007.ece-2007).
I believe we will not need meda companies in the future as people can do the recording, editing, producing and even deistributing their music, films (and anything they wish) from their own bedrooms easily, and often cheaply (if software is downloaded for free as well). It is hard to consider what the music industry will be like in a few years if this continues, it askes the main question-in a few years, if its so quick, cheap and easy to post music online-will everybody have atleast one song that at least one other has downloaded? and how will this effect the future of music?
Week Four-Topic One-Blanchard.
D: "Lurkers" are not important to online communities, but I do not think they should be removed. I think that some people might not necassarily have uch ton say, or ma simply enjoy learning from others. In life, there are people that jut observe and leanr from others,and this is the same as online. I do no understand why people are bothered by "lurkers", especially as I woud descirbe myself as a "lurker", especially on mixmag.net/forum and perezhilton.com. I do not contribute because on popular topics, people have already said what I think, or I simply think I do not often know enough on a topic to comment, this is possibly the casewith other "lurkers".
F:"Commnity is in the eye of the user(s)" is a theory I believe is true. Especailly in using Blanchard's text as a resorce. One peron can visit a forum (for example) and recieve a lifechanging sense of community by interacting with people with similar interests and experiencing some sort of "order" from the moderatersand so on.Even making friends that become real life friends (meeting IRL etc.) However, another individual could simply "lurk" or even post something and just feel that they are slightly contibuting but not recieve that feeling of "community". One questions that someone's level and investment in an online community is upto them as individuals; they can get fully into a fourm or just be occasional vistitors. I believe that things/events and people's personalities in the real world effect their involvement.
F:"Commnity is in the eye of the user(s)" is a theory I believe is true. Especailly in using Blanchard's text as a resorce. One peron can visit a forum (for example) and recieve a lifechanging sense of community by interacting with people with similar interests and experiencing some sort of "order" from the moderatersand so on.Even making friends that become real life friends (meeting IRL etc.) However, another individual could simply "lurk" or even post something and just feel that they are slightly contibuting but not recieve that feeling of "community". One questions that someone's level and investment in an online community is upto them as individuals; they can get fully into a fourm or just be occasional vistitors. I believe that things/events and people's personalities in the real world effect their involvement.
Week Four-Topic One-Blanchard.
A: The term "community" is over-used according to Harris (taken from Blanchard's text). believe there is many important characterstics to describe a blog or forum (and so on) as a "community", these are a variety of things. This includes a feeling of membership and beloning. I think that people on these forums etc, often have thigns in common and tehrefore feel like a collective. This is especially binding if the subject is quite nice and people in the "real" world do not njoy or understand, so the online "community" is their only outlet. This is emphasised with Mcmillian and Chavis view that communitis are achieved by a "fulfilment of needs", which can often be achieved by this sense of similairity in interests etc. In n onlnie "community" a sense of shared emotion is neede.A shared sense of history and "community spirit" is also needed, the indvdiuals need to work together as a group. to erase problems and form matual bonds and respect.
B: "Virtual settlement"is a sueful concept ecause it helps us understand the virtual communities. The "settlement" of online comntities are aspects such as its posting, structure and content. This is useful in understanding why the posters and membrs f the community are the way they are-how and why they post and so on.
B: "Virtual settlement"is a sueful concept ecause it helps us understand the virtual communities. The "settlement" of online comntities are aspects such as its posting, structure and content. This is useful in understanding why the posters and membrs f the community are the way they are-how and why they post and so on.
Monday, 9 February 2009
Brief Anaylsis of a Web-Forum
Week Three
http://www.mixmag.net/forum
The kind of people seem laidback and everyone is interested in some kind of dance music or clubbing. The people talk colliqually and friendly to eachother and often trying to help others with enquires about songs/mixes/clubnights and so on. People present themselves as knowing alot about music and peopleoften talk about the large amounts of cluubs in a variety of locations that they have attended. The peole tend to talk well, and in full sentences an "text speak" is not very common. It is hard to tell who is male and female as most people are hidden behind screenames. Everyone on this forum uses the same font (without signing up to the websites-one does not know if its even an option to change fonts) and hardly any have avators. I believe this lack of originlity is due to the topic of the forum, as the stereotype of "clubbers" is slightly cool, or too laidback to care about things such as avators. They are simply there to find out the information they want. There doesnt seem to be many "friendships" formed on the forum, the people just seem to be asking their question/posting their link (etc) and/or replying, there doesnt seem to be any kind of "banter".
The forum is laid out into sections such as "clubnights", "remixes" and on, this is to encourage people to discuss a variety of issues and makes it very easy to navigate around easily. This is fairly typical of a forum.
I think this forum works well for the topic it as well as sticking closely to the conventions of other forums.
http://www.mixmag.net/forum
The kind of people seem laidback and everyone is interested in some kind of dance music or clubbing. The people talk colliqually and friendly to eachother and often trying to help others with enquires about songs/mixes/clubnights and so on. People present themselves as knowing alot about music and peopleoften talk about the large amounts of cluubs in a variety of locations that they have attended. The peole tend to talk well, and in full sentences an "text speak" is not very common. It is hard to tell who is male and female as most people are hidden behind screenames. Everyone on this forum uses the same font (without signing up to the websites-one does not know if its even an option to change fonts) and hardly any have avators. I believe this lack of originlity is due to the topic of the forum, as the stereotype of "clubbers" is slightly cool, or too laidback to care about things such as avators. They are simply there to find out the information they want. There doesnt seem to be many "friendships" formed on the forum, the people just seem to be asking their question/posting their link (etc) and/or replying, there doesnt seem to be any kind of "banter".
The forum is laid out into sections such as "clubnights", "remixes" and on, this is to encourage people to discuss a variety of issues and makes it very easy to navigate around easily. This is fairly typical of a forum.
I think this forum works well for the topic it as well as sticking closely to the conventions of other forums.
Thursday, 5 February 2009
Online Relationships etc.
Week Three. Topic One.
Cyberidenities without even thinking about it in any great detail can not constitute to a "normal social reality", as communities, opinons and so on-are based on so much more than text (or pictures) on a screen.Lister et al believe that these identies are simply an extension of out society, and not a seperate one. I believe they fed into eachother. Emotions one may feel online will effect "real" life and vice versa. And this is the same as online relationships.
People can not switch of feelings and emotions between their online and offline selves if they take both seriously. There is evidence to suggest that online relationships do work in the real world, when the people finally (if ever) meet. Meeting people online is not something I would personally do, as I never have had any need to use that method of meeting a mate. I do think it could work for some people though.
People act as "nomads" online, wondering through various networks, forums and so on-meeting people from all over the world-so in some ways, one may see this a better than normal relationships as there is people from all over the world, with various interests just there for someone to meet. However, I believe some feelings can only be developed through face-to-face communication. So I think that the meeting of people online is an interesting and novel and in some ways practical way of meeting a partner or friends, but this should be contiuned in real life.
Cyberidenities without even thinking about it in any great detail can not constitute to a "normal social reality", as communities, opinons and so on-are based on so much more than text (or pictures) on a screen.Lister et al believe that these identies are simply an extension of out society, and not a seperate one. I believe they fed into eachother. Emotions one may feel online will effect "real" life and vice versa. And this is the same as online relationships.
People can not switch of feelings and emotions between their online and offline selves if they take both seriously. There is evidence to suggest that online relationships do work in the real world, when the people finally (if ever) meet. Meeting people online is not something I would personally do, as I never have had any need to use that method of meeting a mate. I do think it could work for some people though.
People act as "nomads" online, wondering through various networks, forums and so on-meeting people from all over the world-so in some ways, one may see this a better than normal relationships as there is people from all over the world, with various interests just there for someone to meet. However, I believe some feelings can only be developed through face-to-face communication. So I think that the meeting of people online is an interesting and novel and in some ways practical way of meeting a partner or friends, but this should be contiuned in real life.
Wednesday, 4 February 2009
Online Personas
Week Three. Topic One.
Assuming on online persona is something I do not know alot about, mainly because I do not have alot of contact with forums and chatrooms and so on. When I was younger, I sometimes used forums and message boards, but I never thought of changing my persona, I think this was possibly to do with my age, and the internet being fairly new. One can change their identity from changing their age, to their job, to even if they are male or female. I think ones dentity being completley hidden could encourage people to change things, one can even be more open about their real selves (I believe usually in the case of sexaulity).
Bolter and Grusin (Lister et al:2007)believe that chatrooms and so on do nothing but serve the "cultural remedation of the self". Turkles (Wired 4:01. Who Am We?1996) agrees with this, writing that computers not only change our real life (ie.helping with school work), but are changing us as people, either by us changing outselves online, or changing our selves by what we experience online.
The choice of a picture (or avator) to represent us online means that we can choose anything from a picture of us to a picture of a cat, we have the choice to hide. Most forums and even social networking sites promote the use of nicknames for screen-names, these can persuade people to change or hide their real life selves. For example, I, Ellie McCullough, can be "washingmachine64" or even "Mike Smith".
Online personas can have some good points though, as one does not judge others on appearance or race or gender if its not disclosed. One is judged on their peronality (assuming thats not made up as well). Stone (Lister et al:2007) sums this topic up well by stating that the "physical facicity of human bodies is changing", we are now becoming anything and anyone we desire online, something that is not yet possible in the real world.
Assuming on online persona is something I do not know alot about, mainly because I do not have alot of contact with forums and chatrooms and so on. When I was younger, I sometimes used forums and message boards, but I never thought of changing my persona, I think this was possibly to do with my age, and the internet being fairly new. One can change their identity from changing their age, to their job, to even if they are male or female. I think ones dentity being completley hidden could encourage people to change things, one can even be more open about their real selves (I believe usually in the case of sexaulity).
Bolter and Grusin (Lister et al:2007)believe that chatrooms and so on do nothing but serve the "cultural remedation of the self". Turkles (Wired 4:01. Who Am We?1996) agrees with this, writing that computers not only change our real life (ie.helping with school work), but are changing us as people, either by us changing outselves online, or changing our selves by what we experience online.
The choice of a picture (or avator) to represent us online means that we can choose anything from a picture of us to a picture of a cat, we have the choice to hide. Most forums and even social networking sites promote the use of nicknames for screen-names, these can persuade people to change or hide their real life selves. For example, I, Ellie McCullough, can be "washingmachine64" or even "Mike Smith".
Online personas can have some good points though, as one does not judge others on appearance or race or gender if its not disclosed. One is judged on their peronality (assuming thats not made up as well). Stone (Lister et al:2007) sums this topic up well by stating that the "physical facicity of human bodies is changing", we are now becoming anything and anyone we desire online, something that is not yet possible in the real world.
"Open-Architecture"
Week Three. Topic One.
The internet can be described as "open-architecture" for one main reason. The "open-architecture" concept ws thought up by Licklider in 1962, and is primarily to do with the flow of information. The theory of "open-archietecture" is that data flows freely from everywhere in the world-there and back. Previous "old media" simply send messages one way: from the insitution through the tv or radio (and so on) to the audience. The internet provides more of a circulation of data-we provide data, send messages and so on, and the internet provides us with what we need back.
The internet can be described as "open-architecture" for one main reason. The "open-architecture" concept ws thought up by Licklider in 1962, and is primarily to do with the flow of information. The theory of "open-archietecture" is that data flows freely from everywhere in the world-there and back. Previous "old media" simply send messages one way: from the insitution through the tv or radio (and so on) to the audience. The internet provides more of a circulation of data-we provide data, send messages and so on, and the internet provides us with what we need back.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
