Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Where people find the time...
I came across this via reddit.com. It's Clay Shirky talking about where people find the time to create entire encyclopedias on the Internet just for fun. He talks about how media consumption is shifting towards a participation-consumption, and the fact that doing SOMETHING (e.g., playing World of Warcraft) is better than doing NOTHING (watching another episode of Gilligan's Island). I think it's 15 minutes or so, but an interesting talk.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Second Life Scavenger Hunt Photos
I should have taken a snapshot of the class, darn. But I put up an album of the scavenger hunt screenshots you guys sent me.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Twitter saves the day?
As reported on CNN.com:
Buck, a graduate student from the University of California-Berkeley, was in Mahalla, Egypt, covering an anti-government protest when he and his translator, Mohammed Maree, were arrested April 10.And Twitter saves the day ...On his way to the police station, Buck took out his cell phone and sent a message to his friends and contacts using the micro-blogging site Twitter.
The message only had one word. "Arrested."
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Who writes Wikipedia? (Besides you)
Depending on how you do your counting, either a tiny core of people are making most of the edits, or an incredible number of people are making contributions. Aaron Swartz crunches some numbers and suggests that Wikipedia is built by the multitudes and cleaned up by a few. This is probably what we expected, but co-founder Jim Wales has argued otherwise.
A possible caveat: We could be over-counting heads because we don't know who all the anonymous users are, and how many people they represent. Someone might be particularly interested in staying incognito (for whatever reason) and to remain anonymous. Or one person might make multiple edits here and there as they stumble across them over several years but never bother to create an account:
e.g., (power)User: Faithlesswonderboy
A possible caveat: We could be over-counting heads because we don't know who all the anonymous users are, and how many people they represent. Someone might be particularly interested in staying incognito (for whatever reason) and to remain anonymous. Or one person might make multiple edits here and there as they stumble across them over several years but never bother to create an account:
e.g., (power)User: Faithlesswonderboy
"I edited for years under various IPs, never bothering to register an account until July 2007, as I was frustrated at my inability to edit Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Unfortunately, I don't know what my IP addresses were; there were many, as I edited at school, various coffeehouses and I borrowed several different wireless signals at my old apartment."
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Hyper-Coordination Via Mobile Phones
Ling and Yitri examines 3 specific age groups within Norway and their use of the mobile phones. Norway provides the ideal sample population as its citizens have one of the highest adoption rates for cell phone use. Whats most intriguing about this specific article is that Ling and Yitri is not so much concerned with how much much cell phone are used within each specific age group but rather the manner in which it is used and the motivations behind its usage.
In terms of methodology, they gathered subjects of 4 age groups that ranged from teenagers to individuals who were well into adulthood. Interviews were conducted through a series of 10 interviews. The motivations Ling and Yitri identified were concerns for security, a need to coordinate, and hyper coordination.
The idea of safety and motivations to assure safety was most expressed among the older users of mobile phones. An example of this is the possibility of car accidents or natural disasters occurring with one needing an immediate means to communicate or seek help. It is only logical for the older age group to express this type of concern as they most likely have dependents and thus the idea of safety becomes more important to them.
In terms of the potential to coordinate, the middle age groups were most drawn to cell phones as a result of this. An example of this is when someone is stuck in traffic and call to tell the person they are meeting that they are going to be late. This is perhaps the most practical aspect of cellphone usage and appropriate to those in the middle age groups who perhaps use cell phones for work.
Finally, the most interesting feature in this study is the idea of hyper coordination. Hyper coordination does not only describe their use of the device to coordinate events with their peers but also include the idea of self expression through their usage. The teenage years are perhaps the key to establishing a sense of an autonomous self. Teens are in a constant attempt to distance themselves from their parents as they are drawing more likeliness to their peers. Their use of the cell phone is the perfect example of this as they use it as a means to connect with friends and express a sense of social belonging. Furthermore, Yitri and Ling state that the cell phone allows teens to form intimate relationships through a new medium. As a whole, they term this expression of self and use of the cell phone for the sake connectivity as hyper coordination.
Discussion Question.
1. One of the interesting things that the researchers predict is that the younger generation who were most willing to adopt the cell phone will continue to use the technology in dynamic ways in the future. Do you believe that the type of usage is natural with age or do you think that the age in which adoption occurs influences the nature of the usage. In other words, when the current young generation gets old, do you think they'll use the phone for safety purposes like the current adults or do you think they'll use it in more dynamic ways because they adopted the technology earlier?
In terms of methodology, they gathered subjects of 4 age groups that ranged from teenagers to individuals who were well into adulthood. Interviews were conducted through a series of 10 interviews. The motivations Ling and Yitri identified were concerns for security, a need to coordinate, and hyper coordination.
The idea of safety and motivations to assure safety was most expressed among the older users of mobile phones. An example of this is the possibility of car accidents or natural disasters occurring with one needing an immediate means to communicate or seek help. It is only logical for the older age group to express this type of concern as they most likely have dependents and thus the idea of safety becomes more important to them.
In terms of the potential to coordinate, the middle age groups were most drawn to cell phones as a result of this. An example of this is when someone is stuck in traffic and call to tell the person they are meeting that they are going to be late. This is perhaps the most practical aspect of cellphone usage and appropriate to those in the middle age groups who perhaps use cell phones for work.
Finally, the most interesting feature in this study is the idea of hyper coordination. Hyper coordination does not only describe their use of the device to coordinate events with their peers but also include the idea of self expression through their usage. The teenage years are perhaps the key to establishing a sense of an autonomous self. Teens are in a constant attempt to distance themselves from their parents as they are drawing more likeliness to their peers. Their use of the cell phone is the perfect example of this as they use it as a means to connect with friends and express a sense of social belonging. Furthermore, Yitri and Ling state that the cell phone allows teens to form intimate relationships through a new medium. As a whole, they term this expression of self and use of the cell phone for the sake connectivity as hyper coordination.
Discussion Question.
1. One of the interesting things that the researchers predict is that the younger generation who were most willing to adopt the cell phone will continue to use the technology in dynamic ways in the future. Do you believe that the type of usage is natural with age or do you think that the age in which adoption occurs influences the nature of the usage. In other words, when the current young generation gets old, do you think they'll use the phone for safety purposes like the current adults or do you think they'll use it in more dynamic ways because they adopted the technology earlier?
Friday, April 18, 2008
The Everyday Internet
New Media and Society
In this article two researchers examine how non-professional Internet users domesticate the Internet into their daily activities. They conducted their research by going into internet users’ homes, interviewing them, and observing their interior and exterior computer environment. Their discussion takes a look at each person’s unique motivation for computer use. Their discussion is more informative than conclusive.
Questions For Discussion:
Other than simply emailing, academia, or as a way to pass time, do you use the Internet for any similar motivations discussed in the article? Do you know any one that has? How?
My Answer:
For me, my parents have always been really strict and when I was younger (late high school) it was difficult for me to communicate with boys or hang out after school, especially at night. In this regard I turned to the Internet to chat with people- mostly guys- for hours. It was a way to satisfy my teenage urge to associate with the opposite sex. I would also surf the web and read articles that would help me fit in as a normal teenager. Like, reading up on teen vogue and checking out American Eagle Outfitters to see what’s cool since I wasn’t able to go out and find out what’s new in the teen world on my own.
Yeah, I told you guys my parents are wack.
In this article two researchers examine how non-professional Internet users domesticate the Internet into their daily activities. They conducted their research by going into internet users’ homes, interviewing them, and observing their interior and exterior computer environment. Their discussion takes a look at each person’s unique motivation for computer use. Their discussion is more informative than conclusive.
Questions For Discussion:
Other than simply emailing, academia, or as a way to pass time, do you use the Internet for any similar motivations discussed in the article? Do you know any one that has? How?
My Answer:
For me, my parents have always been really strict and when I was younger (late high school) it was difficult for me to communicate with boys or hang out after school, especially at night. In this regard I turned to the Internet to chat with people- mostly guys- for hours. It was a way to satisfy my teenage urge to associate with the opposite sex. I would also surf the web and read articles that would help me fit in as a normal teenager. Like, reading up on teen vogue and checking out American Eagle Outfitters to see what’s cool since I wasn’t able to go out and find out what’s new in the teen world on my own.
Yeah, I told you guys my parents are wack.
The Virtual Commons
Kollock and Smith identify a problem that exists in Usenets- a collection of thousands of discussion groups with over two million users worldwide (discussion boards, threads etc). People are attracted to online communities because of its absence of social status. People are able to cooperate more along with each other, however can behave selfishly. Users have an individual rather than collective rationality. Meaning, that there is a temptation to feed off common grounds and benefits of the virtual world rather then contributing to production.
They refer to a discussion board as a common floor and threads as a public good, and that “the interactional work that is necessary to keep a conversation going is a kind of public good in the sense that it is possible to free-ride on others' efforts, using and abusing the conversation without contributing to its maintenance.”
One dilemma they discuss is bandwidth- the lengthiness and relevancy of threads. They argue that users stringing along too much unnecessary information disrupt the order. In this situation a user takes advantage of the generous bandwidth limit while other users “regulate” their discussion behavior.
Other dilemmas occur when there are users asking questions but never answering, getting off topic, flaming, and lurking- reading discussions but never posting.
They discuss research of groups in general, finding that cooperation exists when group (size) boundaries and rules exist, people’s behavior can be monitored, sanctions are used, and members have access to low-cost conflict resolution mechanisms
They point out that most of these qualities are implausible via CMC. The believe setting group boundaries is most important, so that only those who contribute most into a “good” and receive a greater “return.” A way of reaching this point would be to have newsgroup membership restrictions. They suggest that newsgroups should allow people to view discussions but only admitted users to post and reply threads. They also suggest a democratic newsgroup community where users can modify rules and regulations.
Here are some questions for discussion:
Have you seen any of these dilemmas occur online? Where? How did you feel about it?
Do you think this is a valid concern and that Usernet groups should consider remedying these problems?
What other ways can we contribute to its maintenance, if at all possible?
Personally I think the discussion of how general groups are regulated wasn’t very helpful because almost everything discussed can’t be applied in Usenet.
More importantly, people don’t want to be bothered by rules and regulations online. I even think flaming can be interesting and entertaining. If users are so concerned with people not cooperating, want to limit users, and keep people on topic, then they should just turn to using a blog.
I do recall one time, however, when a discussion board I frequently participated in was getting disrupted. I’m a huge Lord of The Rings fan, and when the Fellowship came out I would monitor and participate in the AOL “LOTR” discussion board. It got annoying when teens started posting, “who’s hotter- Elijah Wood or Orlando Bloom?” It was so off topic. But when can you do, it’s just the little price to pay with an endless plethora of freedom of speech over the Internet.
They refer to a discussion board as a common floor and threads as a public good, and that “the interactional work that is necessary to keep a conversation going is a kind of public good in the sense that it is possible to free-ride on others' efforts, using and abusing the conversation without contributing to its maintenance.”
One dilemma they discuss is bandwidth- the lengthiness and relevancy of threads. They argue that users stringing along too much unnecessary information disrupt the order. In this situation a user takes advantage of the generous bandwidth limit while other users “regulate” their discussion behavior.
Other dilemmas occur when there are users asking questions but never answering, getting off topic, flaming, and lurking- reading discussions but never posting.
They discuss research of groups in general, finding that cooperation exists when group (size) boundaries and rules exist, people’s behavior can be monitored, sanctions are used, and members have access to low-cost conflict resolution mechanisms
They point out that most of these qualities are implausible via CMC. The believe setting group boundaries is most important, so that only those who contribute most into a “good” and receive a greater “return.” A way of reaching this point would be to have newsgroup membership restrictions. They suggest that newsgroups should allow people to view discussions but only admitted users to post and reply threads. They also suggest a democratic newsgroup community where users can modify rules and regulations.
Here are some questions for discussion:
Have you seen any of these dilemmas occur online? Where? How did you feel about it?
Do you think this is a valid concern and that Usernet groups should consider remedying these problems?
What other ways can we contribute to its maintenance, if at all possible?
Personally I think the discussion of how general groups are regulated wasn’t very helpful because almost everything discussed can’t be applied in Usenet.
More importantly, people don’t want to be bothered by rules and regulations online. I even think flaming can be interesting and entertaining. If users are so concerned with people not cooperating, want to limit users, and keep people on topic, then they should just turn to using a blog.
I do recall one time, however, when a discussion board I frequently participated in was getting disrupted. I’m a huge Lord of The Rings fan, and when the Fellowship came out I would monitor and participate in the AOL “LOTR” discussion board. It got annoying when teens started posting, “who’s hotter- Elijah Wood or Orlando Bloom?” It was so off topic. But when can you do, it’s just the little price to pay with an endless plethora of freedom of speech over the Internet.
Design Principles for Online Communities
When Internet Communities are created, the creators never consider ways of making the environment resemble real life more. They claim that it is not important, or it is something no one can do anything about. Kollock disagrees entirely with this statement, and he goes on to argue why he believes these factors should be considered.
Many systems try to give themselves "an impressive look", but they don't focus on "fostering social interaction". Kollock believes that WorldsAway is a great example of a community that has been able to cater to our social needs. He argues that this community has the elements to be successful. He defines these elements as:
Kollock says that cooperation and social dilemmas are important in analyzing design principles. Social dilemmas are "situations where behavior that is reasonable an justifiable for the individual leads to a poorer outcome for all". He discusses two cases of social dillemmas.
First, he discusses the prisoner's dilemma, as a social problem, where people choose to behave selfishly over behaving cooperatively . He concludes that a way of avoiding this is by ensuring the presence of the following three conditions:
1. Individuals must be likely to meet in the future.
2. Individuals must be able to identify each other.
3. Individuals must have information about how the other person has behaved in the past.
A second set of possible solutions analyzed to general social dilemmas is discussed through Ostrom's study. She concludes that the following features are common in successful communities:
1. Group boundaries must be clearly defined. I.e. everyone must be aware of their limitations depending on what group they're in.
2. Collective resources are used - rules are dependent on the needs of the members participating in the community.
He uses these conditions to conclude that online communities should adopt these styles in order to be more succesful. likewise, he come up with additional elements that should be incorporated into a successful online community.
He concludes that in general, online communities should consider the conditions discussed above, in order to create a space where social dilemmas are reduced. People shouldn't take so much energy into developeing online systems that are "instant, seamless, and fully interconnected", and instead decelop a community with more social benefits.
QUESTIONS
Kollock claims that social computing deals with user interface design instead of "actual social interaction between two or more people". He claims that online communities don't concentrate on developing a platform for effective interaction amongst the participants.
1. Consider some of the online communities available today and evaluate whether or not you believe them to cater to our social interactive needs. Do they take into account any of the conditions set forth by Kollock? If so, explain how they are able to cater to our needs. If not, explain how they could take Kollock's advice and become more efficient online communities.
Many systems try to give themselves "an impressive look", but they don't focus on "fostering social interaction". Kollock believes that WorldsAway is a great example of a community that has been able to cater to our social needs. He argues that this community has the elements to be successful. He defines these elements as:
" Identity persistence, a sophisticated set of rituals, an internal economy with a monetary system, property rights, a rich set of documents recording the history of the community, a coherent sense of space, casual interaction caused by the fact that one must "walk" most places, and a moderate level of risk. "
Kollock says that cooperation and social dilemmas are important in analyzing design principles. Social dilemmas are "situations where behavior that is reasonable an justifiable for the individual leads to a poorer outcome for all". He discusses two cases of social dillemmas.
First, he discusses the prisoner's dilemma, as a social problem, where people choose to behave selfishly over behaving cooperatively . He concludes that a way of avoiding this is by ensuring the presence of the following three conditions:
1. Individuals must be likely to meet in the future.
2. Individuals must be able to identify each other.
3. Individuals must have information about how the other person has behaved in the past.
A second set of possible solutions analyzed to general social dilemmas is discussed through Ostrom's study. She concludes that the following features are common in successful communities:
1. Group boundaries must be clearly defined. I.e. everyone must be aware of their limitations depending on what group they're in.
2. Collective resources are used - rules are dependent on the needs of the members participating in the community.
He uses these conditions to conclude that online communities should adopt these styles in order to be more succesful. likewise, he come up with additional elements that should be incorporated into a successful online community.
- -the need for scarcity and risk in the online world. Even though we don't appreciate these characteristics, they still make an "interesting and engaging world".
- be able to change and modify one's environment, as well as having the opportunity to participate in a market of some kind.
He concludes that in general, online communities should consider the conditions discussed above, in order to create a space where social dilemmas are reduced. People shouldn't take so much energy into developeing online systems that are "instant, seamless, and fully interconnected", and instead decelop a community with more social benefits.
QUESTIONS
Kollock claims that social computing deals with user interface design instead of "actual social interaction between two or more people". He claims that online communities don't concentrate on developing a platform for effective interaction amongst the participants.
1. Consider some of the online communities available today and evaluate whether or not you believe them to cater to our social interactive needs. Do they take into account any of the conditions set forth by Kollock? If so, explain how they are able to cater to our needs. If not, explain how they could take Kollock's advice and become more efficient online communities.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
World Without The Internet
Once again South Park makes another episode that relates to our class. The new episode aired this Wednesday is about everyone waking up one day to the internet not working. It's called Over Logging. Haha, it is so funny.
Here's the link:
http://www.southparkzone.com/episodes/1206/Over-Logging.html
Here's the link:
http://www.southparkzone.com/episodes/1206/Over-Logging.html
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Online Games as Third Places
Sarah pretty much covered all of the information regarding the second life article so the majority of this post will pertain to the reading regarding MMOs (massively multi player online) games.
Steinkuehler and Williams argue that online games create a type of "third place" that allows for both informal relationship which exposes users to diverse world views and an avenue to create social capital. This idea of the "third place" stems from the idea of an anonymous existence within a social game. Unlike home or work, MMOS do not place people in familiar circles and are thus a "third place" for social mixing much like a bar or a pub. As outlined by Williams and Steinkuehler, what makes the MMO space unique from that of the bar or pub atmosphere is the anonymous nature of MMOs. Players, for the most part are able to detach their true identity away from that of their characters unless they otherwise choose to represent their characters as themselves. Hence, the authors of this paper refer to MMOs as being a "magic circle" where the offline persona can remain hidden. What remains is a sense of true meritocracy as characters are not judged based on financial status or social stature but almost exclusively on online performance. Furthermore, the vast number of users provide a rich potential for the creation of social capital through online activities.
What ultimately makes this "third place" an effective social mixing place is really the game itself and its demand for communication. As outlined by the authors, their study of four MMOs show that a well developed communications system and a need to communicate allows the user to create social capital. The authors describe the online communication systems of MMOs as a more advanced system of instant messenger. Multiple types of communication apply simultaneously as players message each other privately while also taking part in public chats. Furthermore, the built in features of MMOs such as the ability to bartar and organize in large groups to take on difficult tasks demands a sense communication.
In conclusion, this creation of a "third place" in online space can possibly dispel the classic idea of "bowling alone." Past researchers often expressed a fear towards the possibility that the internet would displace social activity and create an entire general of lonesome social hermits. However, the recent rise of MMOs and the vast popularity of social games has shown that the internet can be the great enabler of social mixing.
1. Discuss some ways in which you believe that MMOs differ from a bar/pub atmosphere and discuss some ways in which your interactions would differ in a bar/pub as opposed to an MMO.
2. Talk about some ways that 2nd life serves as a third space and do you believe that anonymity helps in the creation of a third space?
Steinkuehler and Williams argue that online games create a type of "third place" that allows for both informal relationship which exposes users to diverse world views and an avenue to create social capital. This idea of the "third place" stems from the idea of an anonymous existence within a social game. Unlike home or work, MMOS do not place people in familiar circles and are thus a "third place" for social mixing much like a bar or a pub. As outlined by Williams and Steinkuehler, what makes the MMO space unique from that of the bar or pub atmosphere is the anonymous nature of MMOs. Players, for the most part are able to detach their true identity away from that of their characters unless they otherwise choose to represent their characters as themselves. Hence, the authors of this paper refer to MMOs as being a "magic circle" where the offline persona can remain hidden. What remains is a sense of true meritocracy as characters are not judged based on financial status or social stature but almost exclusively on online performance. Furthermore, the vast number of users provide a rich potential for the creation of social capital through online activities.
What ultimately makes this "third place" an effective social mixing place is really the game itself and its demand for communication. As outlined by the authors, their study of four MMOs show that a well developed communications system and a need to communicate allows the user to create social capital. The authors describe the online communication systems of MMOs as a more advanced system of instant messenger. Multiple types of communication apply simultaneously as players message each other privately while also taking part in public chats. Furthermore, the built in features of MMOs such as the ability to bartar and organize in large groups to take on difficult tasks demands a sense communication.
In conclusion, this creation of a "third place" in online space can possibly dispel the classic idea of "bowling alone." Past researchers often expressed a fear towards the possibility that the internet would displace social activity and create an entire general of lonesome social hermits. However, the recent rise of MMOs and the vast popularity of social games has shown that the internet can be the great enabler of social mixing.
1. Discuss some ways in which you believe that MMOs differ from a bar/pub atmosphere and discuss some ways in which your interactions would differ in a bar/pub as opposed to an MMO.
2. Talk about some ways that 2nd life serves as a third space and do you believe that anonymity helps in the creation of a third space?
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Playing Together - Wired's guide to Second Life
I have Second Life installed, but I have not been able to try it out yet. So I was really glad when I found out that I had signed up to write a post on Wired Travel Guide's guide to Second Life.
Wired's guide gave a well-rounded overview of Second Life, from its history to how to shop for your avatar. The guide was organized into four categories: Facts for the Visitor, Entertainment, Destinations, and Shopping. I particularly found the first category to be the most helpful, as it described the facts involving Second Life, from its history to how it functions. If you're completely unfamiliar to Second Life like I am, I think it's a very good idea to read "Facts for the Visitor." The other categories were helpful as well, as I now know the places I can visit, the games that I can play, and where I can go to shop.
In comparison to other similar online communities such as Habbo Hotel and Unichat, Second Life seems more...dimensional. Second Life has more dimension not o
nly in the visual sense (that it's 3D) but there is more to it than chatting with other users. Like how Wired's guide pointed out, Second Life is also a place where users can earn money, get involved in the many and various forms of entertainment, buy land/create a new location, and more. It is also a place for marketers and entrepreneurs to market to Second Life users.
After reading Wired's guide, I'm kind of eager to try out and explore Second Life. I think I'm going to try going shopping so my avatar will look good for our class meeting!
Discussion Questions
1. Have you tried out Second Life yet? What are your thoughts on it?
2. If you have tried out Second Life, do you feel like there is a strong sense of community?
3. If you haven't tried out Second Life, do you think you will find a strong community? Would you be interested in getting involved?
------------Edit 4/16/08--------------
After trying out Second Life with the Class, I think Second Life is pretty neat. The scavenger hunt was pretty fun, and I got to really experience some of the possiblities that Second Life offers. Here's one of my screenshots:
Riding the monorail
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Google twins and Googlegängers
Sadly, none of the six people I poked on Facebook for sharing my name (including same middle initial) responded or poked back. But this NYTimes article, Names That Match Forge a Bond on the Internet, gives me some hope yet:
------------------------------
follow-up 4/17/08
Someone poked back!
In “Finding Angela Shelton,” a book published this month, a writer named Angela Shelton describes her meetings with 40 other Angela Sheltons. Keri Smith, an illustrator, has posted drawings of six of her Googlegängers on her blog. There are name-tally Web sites like SameNameAsMe, and Facebook coalitions including nearly 200 people named Ritz (their insignia is a cracker box logo) and a group aiming to break a world record by gathering together more than 1,224 Mohammed Hassans.The beginning of the article talks about this happening. The end goes into some of the psychology behind it, which we talked a bit about in class.
------------------------------
follow-up 4/17/08
Someone poked back!
Online Communities
Building on our discussion of online communities, the readings for Wednesday focused specifically on the way in which online and offline communities affect one another. Three basic theories were addressed: that computer mediated communication destroys traditional outlets of community; that CMC enables entirely new and unique communities to form; and that CMC supplements traditional forms of community, adding to it new dynamics that change it all together.
In the TLT reading we established that community can no longer be thought of in terms of location. That instead community is characterized by shared interests, activities, and feelings of sociability, which are now possible independent of geographical location. TLT focused on the idea that “Online groups are woven into the fabric of offline life rather than set in opposition to it.” (TLT, 113)
The Wellman, Quan-Haase, & Boase article explored more closely the ways in which online activity can affect social interaction. The findings of the experiments were very positive, demonstrating that in each case an increase in online social action actually increases social interaction offline as well. In one experiment they studied a new housing development, half of which had been equipped with broadband internet access. The other half of the development did not have broadband access, and houses either used a dial-up connection or had no internet at all. Not only did the people in the ‘wired’ houses have more frequent contact with more local community members than ‘non-wired’ people, but they also “maintained more long-distance contact with friends and relatives than non-wired residents did.” People in the wired houses even organized online to form a protest against new houses being built in the development.
The other experiments followed in similar suit, but one important idea was established: networked individualism. Because of advances in mobile communication technology “connections are [being made] to people and not to places.” For example, instead of being restricted to calling someone’s office or home, cell phones now enable us to contact someone directly and personally, wherever they may be located. The idea is that “this shift facilitates personal communities that supply the essentials of community separately to each individual: support, sociability, information, social identities, and a sense of belonging.” And that this can all occur independently, or in conjunction with a geographically immediate community.
- In what ways has communication technology encouraged or detracted from your social interaction offline?
- Do you believe that our increasing ability to communicate independent of location is changing the way we perceive community?
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
No-laptop Policy
Hey everyone,
I work at the law school so I picked up 'the National Jurist' and saw this interesting article which I thought people might want to read. We talked about it in class, and what we thought about classrooms not allowing laptops. Anyway, this article talks about different professors, their laptop policies and the pros and cons etc.
It's interesting, I promise.
Kassandra
I work at the law school so I picked up 'the National Jurist' and saw this interesting article which I thought people might want to read. We talked about it in class, and what we thought about classrooms not allowing laptops. Anyway, this article talks about different professors, their laptop policies and the pros and cons etc.
It's interesting, I promise.
Kassandra
Monday, April 7, 2008
Is there such thing as privacy online?
Well, I am also sorry for the (very) late post that was supposed to be up last week. I have no good excuse besides the fact that I have a severe case of senioritis... It's funny, now when I write things on this blog, I think twice about what I write because as I found last week in our in-class activity this is one of the sites that pops up when my name is googled... so I better watch what I write because you never know who's reading, right?
My concerns here are similar to the issues that were brought up in the Barnes reading about Teens and online social network sites and privacy issues. The main idea that Barnes focuses on is that social networking sites offer a "paradoxical world of privacy," where:
All in all, I don't there is a single approach to tackle this problem but there should be an increase in education about privacy issues and social networking sites among teens. I think that social network sites are a positive medium for teens to express themselves within, however I also think it can be dangerous that they are not aware of just how public their information really is.
My concerns here are similar to the issues that were brought up in the Barnes reading about Teens and online social network sites and privacy issues. The main idea that Barnes focuses on is that social networking sites offer a "paradoxical world of privacy," where:
- they offer teens a community to share thoughts and ideas, and connect with eachother
- but at the same time, these sites are used by government and businesses to collect information on us
All in all, I don't there is a single approach to tackle this problem but there should be an increase in education about privacy issues and social networking sites among teens. I think that social network sites are a positive medium for teens to express themselves within, however I also think it can be dangerous that they are not aware of just how public their information really is.
- Do you think more needs to be done by the government to enforce privacy online, or is it simply up to the individual to be responsible for the information they put online?
- Should marketers and other organizations be able to collect information on you based off of your profile on online sites?
- Are you personally concerned with third parties collecting information on you based off your social network profile?
Online Community I
Greetings, and sorry for the late post. I hope everybody had a wonderful weekend. I spent mine trying to find a job (you can see how excited I am with the prospect of leaving college in 40 days), and being OCD about about my Capitals and their quest for the playoffs. Anyway, that left me a little behind on the reading, so my apologies.
Our topic for this week is online communities. Our reading was slightly dated, making it a little difficult for me to get through as I continuously asked myself "Is this still relevant?" and "How well do these stats hold up today?" That being said, the reading did still bring up some interesting questions about online communities; particularly, are they communities?
By now we've come to take it for granted that an online community is actually a type of community, one where people of similar mindsets can gather without gathering (how post-modern), and share information and interact with each other.
The reading questions that logic by introducing theories that the homogeneity and the "lack of moral commitment" of online communities do not, in fact, make them communities. Challengers of the notion of online communities site the fact that they are easy to join and leave (just click and you're in!) and that a vast majority of the world's population doesn't have access to the internet, (my opinion... so? Most of the world doesn't have access to my neighborhood does that not make it a community?)
Then there's this argument:
The reading continues to analyze the possibility of online communities by discussing the people involved and their behavioral norms, the relationships that are created through online interaction, the users' identity, etc. The reading does go on to realize that it may be a bit early to tell if online communities are really communities, ambiguously concluding that they are an "Emergent Community."
Now to the good stuff:
Questions for discussion and/or contemplation:
1) Is an online community really a community?
2) Why are some people so fearful of the notion of an online community?
3) What draws people to an online community? Similar interests? Boredom?
Oh, and did anyone catch South Park last week in its parody of the Writer's Strike? There was a great bit about stars from the internet such as Star Wars Kid and Dramatic Look Gopher (which is actually a prairie dog).
Also, the end of the episode tipped on our brief discussion of monetizing a business on the internet. The entire episode can be seen here. The scenes are available here and here.
Our topic for this week is online communities. Our reading was slightly dated, making it a little difficult for me to get through as I continuously asked myself "Is this still relevant?" and "How well do these stats hold up today?" That being said, the reading did still bring up some interesting questions about online communities; particularly, are they communities?
By now we've come to take it for granted that an online community is actually a type of community, one where people of similar mindsets can gather without gathering (how post-modern), and share information and interact with each other.
The reading questions that logic by introducing theories that the homogeneity and the "lack of moral commitment" of online communities do not, in fact, make them communities. Challengers of the notion of online communities site the fact that they are easy to join and leave (just click and you're in!) and that a vast majority of the world's population doesn't have access to the internet, (my opinion... so? Most of the world doesn't have access to my neighborhood does that not make it a community?)
Then there's this argument:
A community is bound by place, which always includes complex social and environmental necessities. It is not something you can easily join. You can't subscribe to a community as you subscribe to a discussion group on the net. It must be lived. It is entwined, contradictory and involves all of our senses.I don't even know where to start with that one, so I won't.
The reading continues to analyze the possibility of online communities by discussing the people involved and their behavioral norms, the relationships that are created through online interaction, the users' identity, etc. The reading does go on to realize that it may be a bit early to tell if online communities are really communities, ambiguously concluding that they are an "Emergent Community."
Now to the good stuff:
Questions for discussion and/or contemplation:
1) Is an online community really a community?
2) Why are some people so fearful of the notion of an online community?
3) What draws people to an online community? Similar interests? Boredom?
Oh, and did anyone catch South Park last week in its parody of the Writer's Strike? There was a great bit about stars from the internet such as Star Wars Kid and Dramatic Look Gopher (which is actually a prairie dog).
Also, the end of the episode tipped on our brief discussion of monetizing a business on the internet. The entire episode can be seen here. The scenes are available here and here.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Internet Dating Can Be Cool
Hey everyone -
I picked up this on campus magazine and read this article that is pretty pertinent to what we've been looking at and talking about on internet dating.
You may want to check it out, it's an easy read on Internet Dating and how it's not such a loser/last resort thing to do anymore.
Check it out
I picked up this on campus magazine and read this article that is pretty pertinent to what we've been looking at and talking about on internet dating.
You may want to check it out, it's an easy read on Internet Dating and how it's not such a loser/last resort thing to do anymore.
Check it out
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)