The website I have chosen is the Lincoln University Page, www.lincoln.ac.uk. The reason I have chosen this website is because it is something that I end up using and exploring many times a week.
When the page appears, it displays a picture of the university, with information and several Hyperlinks to other parts of the site and other websites themselves. Hypertext described in Lister as ‘made up from discrete units of material in which each one carries a number of pathways to other units’ (pg22) is one of the main functions of the website I would say. This is obvious from the first page as the Hyperlinks down the side are what dominates the display and are key to accessing the part of the site which you want. For example the staff and students section of Lincoln would be accessed by going on www.lincoln.ac.uk and clicking to hyperlink to this specific section. This section itself then holds further hyperlinks until you have found your desired destination. For me this would normally be the library, or blackboard.
Hypertext is criticised by theorists for being ‘Non Linear’ (Lister pg27) and unstructured. However i question to whether the Hyper linking on the Lincoln home page is actually ‘Non Linear’, as when I access the page I access it with the intention to follow the hyperlinks with structure to where I wish to be. I am actually accessing the website with purpose and a structure of following a set of Hyperlinks to reach the part of the site which I want. This is done by the Hyperlinks holding obvious names/topics such as ‘staff and students’, so if you were a staff or student you would click this section and not take a ‘non linear’ distracted approach.
In some sense this website is an ‘online community’. Rheingold holds that for an online community there needs to be ‘active participation’ and ‘two way’ communication (Lister page 174), which the Lincoln home page isn’t. However under Durkheim’s theory that ‘group identity is identified through shared values and norms’ and that it is these ‘shared values’ which ‘being to define community’ (page 174) then the site could be considered as a community because all the people which access it have Lincoln University in common and share the value to access it for information on the Uni or the Uni’s resources. Furthermore you need specific Lincoln Uni passwords to access parts of the site so it might be argued that this makes it a community as only people associated with Lincoln Uni can access certain parts.
You might question like Rheingold that a community needs communication and the Hyperlinks to the other sources do hold this. For example students from the same subjects ‘values’ access their topic on blackboard, enrol in community’s and participate in this. In addition the site provides a link to the SU website (http://www.lincolnsu.com) in which games and forums can be accessed in which everyone will share the community of Lincoln, as you need the Lincoln username and password to access some of the things. This leads onto something coined by Bruns as Produsage (Towards Produsage:Axel Bruns, pg2) whereby the website itself doesn’t hold any, however the link it provided to the SU site contains a lot (games, polls, forums).
The culture of the website is that everyone accessing it will be after the same thing; something to do with Lincoln University. Obviously maybe not for the same reason and intentions but it is a culture of the University Of Lincoln. I do not feel there are any privacy issues as the website is a very informative one, and like I have said passwords and usernames specific to the Uni are needed. I do trust the website, and think most people would as the information is posted by people at the Uni, and established environment considered in society to be trusted. However as always with data online some people will always question its authenticity, there is though contact details to ring the University and perhaps question something if wanted to.
Wednesday, 25 February 2009
Wednesday, 18 February 2009
Week 5, Bruns C, Sustainability
I think that even though Produsage is being commercially exploited, it could still last a bit longer. This is because as mentioned by Bruns the exploitation of the work could just lead to others wanting to create other means of Produsage. It could encourage participants to develop different Produsage areas in which it is operated by a community not commercially. However, then the sustainability of this can be questioned as well. This is because although it might be seem to be at less of a threat to be exploited as it is a community the cost to run and keep it going might just be too much and could put many people off, as Burns says ‘such projects must still be financed somehow, and entirely volunteer-based Produsage models may not be able to be sustained’.
One of the most interesting points of sustainability i think that Bruns raised is that if communities are forming then ‘how can they be guided to gather the critical mass and momentum needed to sustain development’. This then makes me wonder if Produsage will ever last, if it is struggling to with stain exploitation, community costs, and the fact that the ‘new communities’ are defeating the point of Produsage; ‘critical mass’. However I don’t think people are ready to give up yet. I feel we are in a stage where technology and online is developing fast, not decreasing, there as the area of Produsage may not last forever, but I think it will still stand for a bit as people will find other ways to get past the issues.
One of the most interesting points of sustainability i think that Bruns raised is that if communities are forming then ‘how can they be guided to gather the critical mass and momentum needed to sustain development’. This then makes me wonder if Produsage will ever last, if it is struggling to with stain exploitation, community costs, and the fact that the ‘new communities’ are defeating the point of Produsage; ‘critical mass’. However I don’t think people are ready to give up yet. I feel we are in a stage where technology and online is developing fast, not decreasing, there as the area of Produsage may not last forever, but I think it will still stand for a bit as people will find other ways to get past the issues.
Week 5, Bruns A, 'Produser'
I see a 'produser' as someone who uses material online and also produces as well. The example in the reading which helped me to understand this the most is the game SIMS. In SIMS after you have consumed the game, you build and 'produce' your own world. However the consumer will not have produced the whole thing buy themselves (as the product was made first) therefore they would not be just a producer. Therefore if something (such as SIMS) is both used and produced by the same person then they are 'produser'. Bruns describes the term to be 'users as well as producers of information and knowledge' and this is where I saw there needs to be a connection between user and producers they are not two separate things/people. The produser is the person which takes part in the using and producing however what they are involved in is ‘Produsage’.
To start with the term ‘produser’ meant little to me and I almost saw it as a ‘made up thing’ however after reading Axel Bruns I have more understanding and do think it is useful in understanding ‘collaborative content’ online. I do feel it takes time to get your head around first though, and wonder if it the terms just confuse something which could be explained simply otherwise?
Or is it necessary that we have them to be able to understand the online world?
To start with the term ‘produser’ meant little to me and I almost saw it as a ‘made up thing’ however after reading Axel Bruns I have more understanding and do think it is useful in understanding ‘collaborative content’ online. I do feel it takes time to get your head around first though, and wonder if it the terms just confuse something which could be explained simply otherwise?
Or is it necessary that we have them to be able to understand the online world?
Tuesday, 17 February 2009
Week 5, Meikle D, Open News
When i was doing the reading, in the back of mind my i was always thinking if 'anyone' is allowed to post news onto the Web then is it really any good? Cynically i was thinking how can you believe what is written in terms of the news on the Web when you are unsure to who has posted it. I know you could say the same for the TV however for some reason i do believe what i am told, i always have. I suppose i just do, you can see who is presenting it and trust the 'well spoken person in suit with the serious tone'. Furthermore the TV news is still running showing how people do trust it (for whatever reason) and Open News according to Meikles research has actually been removed from the front ages of some websites. Meikle suggested that one of the main reasons for this was that 'well researched or significant stories would be replaced quickly on the front page'. So if the other stories weren't thought of as well researched or significant then are they really of any quality or standing?
Week 5, Meikle A, News on the Web
News on the Web can be thought of as 'informational news' and perhaps a higher involvement of the news. On the Web there is the ability to have every kind of news story in the world on there to read by looking through various websites, which can hold huge amounts of information. This differs to the television news whereby you can only know 'what you have been told'. Therefore proposing the Web to have higher involvement of the news and furthermore in Meikles analysis the audience have 'transformed into researchers'. I agree with this to an extent because whilst watching the news you only hear what 'they want to tell you' and i don't think you can be classified as a researcher. However online you have to 'search' for the news and can pick topics or storylines which grab your attention in particular. Therefore I would suggest that what constitutes news on the web is huge amount of data available whereby a form of research is taken place and the audience picks their desired 'topic' headline of news.
Friday, 13 February 2009
Topic 3, Week 4, Music Filesharing
I think file sharing and especially downloading has changed the way in which music in consumed. There are various programmes now by which you can download music illegally, very easily. This accessibility of this has resulted in many people resorting to online to download their music for free, quickly and directly to their computer/ itunes. Although this is illegal i know enough friends etc who participate in doing this instead of going to the shop to buy CD.
Another thing which has changed are the networking sites in which bands have links to listen to their music and find out all about them. An example of this would be Myspace. Kate Nash the now 'famous, successful' female artist started her career by posting her songs on Myspace to see how they would go down, and because of the huge amount of interest she got herself a manager. This would be thought of by some a lot easier way of becoming famous then other methods.
Therefore with music now being bought online and bands being able to make it 'famous' through networking sights are media companies still needed? It could just be a phase, or it could go from strength to strength and decrease the need for media companies help when producing and downloading music can be down individually online.
Another thing which has changed are the networking sites in which bands have links to listen to their music and find out all about them. An example of this would be Myspace. Kate Nash the now 'famous, successful' female artist started her career by posting her songs on Myspace to see how they would go down, and because of the huge amount of interest she got herself a manager. This would be thought of by some a lot easier way of becoming famous then other methods.
Therefore with music now being bought online and bands being able to make it 'famous' through networking sights are media companies still needed? It could just be a phase, or it could go from strength to strength and decrease the need for media companies help when producing and downloading music can be down individually online.
Topic 2, Week 4, Facebook
For this I have chosen a site which I am myself part of, this being the social networking site of Facebook. I think it could well be seen as a online community as you put yourself in a network (based on where you live, or uni) and communicate with people in these networks and others in the world who you know. It remains a community for myself as ‘most’ peoples friends on the site are people they know offline as well and use the community to converse further and exchange photo’s and play games etc.
Before I became part of facebook I was set against it. I was scared to have a profile of myself on the internet in which everyone could see. However when I joined I realised that it can be made as private as you want and only joined it because I didn’t want to be ‘left out’ when I first joined Uni. I personally have mine set to the max limit of privacy, people can not even add me, and they can message me asking to; giving me the control. I have found since I have done this I haven’t had friend requests off anyone I didn’t know as ‘strangers’ have been put off the fact they would have to send a message first, which I think is great. This has made the site like a little ‘community’ for me, as only my friends can view and are part of it. It also had encouraged me to keep in touch with friends I might have lost contact with otherwise, friends abroad who it would be ‘effort’ and too expensive to ring. Facebook has made the communication more accessible and easier.
The down side I do find is though I often question if some of my offline communication has decreased because of this online communication. For example you can read each others ‘walls’ and on my news feed I have seen information which I would normally ring the person to ask, however because I have seen the details said to someone else I haven’t got in touch because I already know.
Before I became part of facebook I was set against it. I was scared to have a profile of myself on the internet in which everyone could see. However when I joined I realised that it can be made as private as you want and only joined it because I didn’t want to be ‘left out’ when I first joined Uni. I personally have mine set to the max limit of privacy, people can not even add me, and they can message me asking to; giving me the control. I have found since I have done this I haven’t had friend requests off anyone I didn’t know as ‘strangers’ have been put off the fact they would have to send a message first, which I think is great. This has made the site like a little ‘community’ for me, as only my friends can view and are part of it. It also had encouraged me to keep in touch with friends I might have lost contact with otherwise, friends abroad who it would be ‘effort’ and too expensive to ring. Facebook has made the communication more accessible and easier.
The down side I do find is though I often question if some of my offline communication has decreased because of this online communication. For example you can read each others ‘walls’ and on my news feed I have seen information which I would normally ring the person to ask, however because I have seen the details said to someone else I haven’t got in touch because I already know.
Topic 1, Week 4, Lister:C, Dangerous Materials
To answer whether ‘dangerous materials’ are prominent on the internet or not it needs le be assessed to what dangerous materials actually are. For example chat rooms, described in Lister, as holding ‘obscene conversations’ do have the potential to hold dangerous material, even if not directly thought so. It could be argued that because you can not see the emotion of the other users you can not see whether the material being presented is ‘dangerous’ for the other person or not. There are also a lot of chat rooms which are not moderated and therefore are open to abuse and paedophiles can ‘lurk’ without anyone knowing.
To whether it is prominent is hard to come to a conclusion on. As the materials are not put up right in front of you as soon as you open a window however when a computer has been ‘hacked’ pop ups displaying images can appear whenever they like without any primary control. Furthermore there is the issue of junk, in which I have experienced myself, receiving messages referring websites and people to add. I suppose you could say this is only dangerous if the person themselves chooses to take the next step. There are also the pornographic websites which do not require any ‘password’ or anything to access. It could be said that they are not prominent as you would have to search to see this ‘dangerous material’ however I think the fact that it can be accessed that easily does make it prominent In addition as said there are pop ups and junk which its not uncommon and all to receive.
To whether it is prominent is hard to come to a conclusion on. As the materials are not put up right in front of you as soon as you open a window however when a computer has been ‘hacked’ pop ups displaying images can appear whenever they like without any primary control. Furthermore there is the issue of junk, in which I have experienced myself, receiving messages referring websites and people to add. I suppose you could say this is only dangerous if the person themselves chooses to take the next step. There are also the pornographic websites which do not require any ‘password’ or anything to access. It could be said that they are not prominent as you would have to search to see this ‘dangerous material’ however I think the fact that it can be accessed that easily does make it prominent In addition as said there are pop ups and junk which its not uncommon and all to receive.
Topic 1, week 4, Lister:A
The notion that online community can be empowering/disempowering is an interesting one.
Firstly, before reading Lister and the arguments in it I wouldn’t have thought of discussions and communications online to be ‘empowering’ as how can you be empowered by something which potentially could not be real. However when Jay Allisons case was referred to my views became different. He wrote about his daughters illness and surgery online and as he said ‘found fellowship and comfort in this unlikely medium’ (in Rheingold 1995:62) therefore controlling the forum and gaining support, maybe empowerment which he wouldn’t have received without online as he perhaps couldn’t express his views in the real world. However you might question to whether you can gain ‘real’ empowerment from this as you don’t know who the person is responding, who you are ‘really’ telling your stories to, but does it matter? In this situation was any response (‘real’ or not) good enough to satisfy his needs of not feeling alone?
Jones describes online communication as to ‘namely connect us rather then atomize us, put us in the controls of the ‘vehicle’ and yet detach us from the rest of the world’ (1994:10). If this statement is ‘true’ and we are put in control of the vehicle then is this not empowering as well? To be on control of what you are saying, getting your views straight across being able to say what you like, with no interruption. Furthermore it suggests that through this we are also not detaching ourselves form the rest of the world, also empowering. However it might be questioned that by gaining empowerment and spending time online, are you not sacrificing some real life communication for this? It all depends on the individual and how they use online communications.
If the internet is seen as empowering can it also be disempowering? I believe so. When you join a ‘community’ and express your views and sayings then you are opening yourself up to any response. As you are not there in person to stop anything ‘nasty’ being said or change the situation, you actually have to wait and see what the other users have written. So you could say that negative response and ‘abuse’ online could be disempowering, as you have ‘put yourself out there’ and not gained anything positive. However, is this not the same for real life?
Firstly, before reading Lister and the arguments in it I wouldn’t have thought of discussions and communications online to be ‘empowering’ as how can you be empowered by something which potentially could not be real. However when Jay Allisons case was referred to my views became different. He wrote about his daughters illness and surgery online and as he said ‘found fellowship and comfort in this unlikely medium’ (in Rheingold 1995:62) therefore controlling the forum and gaining support, maybe empowerment which he wouldn’t have received without online as he perhaps couldn’t express his views in the real world. However you might question to whether you can gain ‘real’ empowerment from this as you don’t know who the person is responding, who you are ‘really’ telling your stories to, but does it matter? In this situation was any response (‘real’ or not) good enough to satisfy his needs of not feeling alone?
Jones describes online communication as to ‘namely connect us rather then atomize us, put us in the controls of the ‘vehicle’ and yet detach us from the rest of the world’ (1994:10). If this statement is ‘true’ and we are put in control of the vehicle then is this not empowering as well? To be on control of what you are saying, getting your views straight across being able to say what you like, with no interruption. Furthermore it suggests that through this we are also not detaching ourselves form the rest of the world, also empowering. However it might be questioned that by gaining empowerment and spending time online, are you not sacrificing some real life communication for this? It all depends on the individual and how they use online communications.
If the internet is seen as empowering can it also be disempowering? I believe so. When you join a ‘community’ and express your views and sayings then you are opening yourself up to any response. As you are not there in person to stop anything ‘nasty’ being said or change the situation, you actually have to wait and see what the other users have written. So you could say that negative response and ‘abuse’ online could be disempowering, as you have ‘put yourself out there’ and not gained anything positive. However, is this not the same for real life?
Saturday, 7 February 2009
Toics 2, week 3, Identity
To withhold ones identity can be ethically wrong depending on the circumstances and actions wishing to be taken. For example having a different name in a game or a forum can just be part of that online interaction and if it is between friends there often there is no real problem. However deliberately withholding identity for purposes that could hurt someone is wrong.
To whether we should always use our full name is one I am not sure of. I am very cautious of the Internet and for some reason don't like to give my full name unless I have to, when paying for something. I am not sure why I don't like giving it as you could say that by not giving my full name I am withholding my identity, but i don't think it is as extreme as this. It is just so easy for people/companies to get hold of information on the Internet I feel the little I give is better. When participating in online social interaction I believe that subconsciously you could change your identity and expression to perhaps fit in with the group you are relating with. Maybe not to 'be one of them' but sometimes sharing the same views and expressing an interest can bring some closer together and not insult anyone. For example if I was to write in a forum with my family i might not start swearing and may talk about something i would think my Aunty would be interested in (which I may not be) just to please and have a good interaction. However these mannerisms and the way i would express myself may be more colloquial and different when conversing with friends.
To whether we should always use our full name is one I am not sure of. I am very cautious of the Internet and for some reason don't like to give my full name unless I have to, when paying for something. I am not sure why I don't like giving it as you could say that by not giving my full name I am withholding my identity, but i don't think it is as extreme as this. It is just so easy for people/companies to get hold of information on the Internet I feel the little I give is better. When participating in online social interaction I believe that subconsciously you could change your identity and expression to perhaps fit in with the group you are relating with. Maybe not to 'be one of them' but sometimes sharing the same views and expressing an interest can bring some closer together and not insult anyone. For example if I was to write in a forum with my family i might not start swearing and may talk about something i would think my Aunty would be interested in (which I may not be) just to please and have a good interaction. However these mannerisms and the way i would express myself may be more colloquial and different when conversing with friends.
Friday, 6 February 2009
Week 3, Topic 1e, Online Relationships
I don't think that online relationships can ever be the same. I know this a quite a pessimistic view and a statement which is made without any ‘proof’, but it is just how I feel.
In online relations there are ways of expressing emotion (through the ‘smiley faces’ etc) and you can sometimes sense how someone is feeling, however even though the emotion can be expressed, is it real? Relationships can be formed, and have done, but I don’t know if they can ever be the same as offline because if they were it would have to involve both the online users being completely truthful and ‘themselves’, which I doubt all are. The online realms have so much opportunity to easily not be completely yourself, perhaps over exaggerate, lie (all of which is harder face to face) that I wonder if anyone will ever be able to resist the temptation.
I just find it hard to see how a friend/partner online can have relationships without ever having seen, spoken and shared real emotion with. Relationships sharing offline and online communications may be different, but only ever experiencing online relations with somebody I do not think can be ‘real’ or compared to the offline ones.
In online relations there are ways of expressing emotion (through the ‘smiley faces’ etc) and you can sometimes sense how someone is feeling, however even though the emotion can be expressed, is it real? Relationships can be formed, and have done, but I don’t know if they can ever be the same as offline because if they were it would have to involve both the online users being completely truthful and ‘themselves’, which I doubt all are. The online realms have so much opportunity to easily not be completely yourself, perhaps over exaggerate, lie (all of which is harder face to face) that I wonder if anyone will ever be able to resist the temptation.
I just find it hard to see how a friend/partner online can have relationships without ever having seen, spoken and shared real emotion with. Relationships sharing offline and online communications may be different, but only ever experiencing online relations with somebody I do not think can be ‘real’ or compared to the offline ones.
Week 3, Topic 1a, Open Architecture
I think the Net can be thought of as 'open architecture' in the sense that architecture involves planning and building, which always goes on in the internet. For example new programmes are always being built, for so many different things and there are always new versions of the existing programmes. Furthermore the personal profiles which most of us have involve 'building' in the sense that we often add things (photos) to them and there is the option to add applications.
The net wasn't just suggested as architecture though, but as open as well. The term in its original sense means 'having no means of closing or barring' (dictionary) and applying this to the internet suggests that the internet will never close; programmes will keep being updated and new things to try and enjoy will be on offer.
Facebook is 'open' on the internet in the sense that all the information (depending on personal settings) can be accessed and you can write on each others walls. It has been running for five years now and is still in its peak, which new applications and advertising being added to it all the time; being built. Therefore obviously I can not say what will actually happen in the future but I can’t see the internet ever ‘closing’ and it will to an extent be described as open because many sites can be accessed by just browsing and architecture as I believe more programmes and sites will continue to be built.
The net wasn't just suggested as architecture though, but as open as well. The term in its original sense means 'having no means of closing or barring' (dictionary) and applying this to the internet suggests that the internet will never close; programmes will keep being updated and new things to try and enjoy will be on offer.
Facebook is 'open' on the internet in the sense that all the information (depending on personal settings) can be accessed and you can write on each others walls. It has been running for five years now and is still in its peak, which new applications and advertising being added to it all the time; being built. Therefore obviously I can not say what will actually happen in the future but I can’t see the internet ever ‘closing’ and it will to an extent be described as open because many sites can be accessed by just browsing and architecture as I believe more programmes and sites will continue to be built.
Tuesday, 3 February 2009
Lecture 3 - Selves and Others Online
I find it quite a hard 'topic' to try and analyse as it can be suggested that online people have all these different persona's but to try and explain why is not easy. This is because you can say that they are trying to be something else, something better, but for what reason? You could ask someone why, but I am not sure you will ever get the real answer. For example, in the lecture David asked if anyone ever tries to be someone a little different to themselves on a website (Myspace, Facebook) and no-one put their hand up, however, i don't think even this is true. Even i who strongly believe in 'being who you are' and loving someone for that not something fake, have changed my profile picture on Facebook depending on how I’m feeling; perhaps what persona i am undertaking that week? I have changed it to really mad ones when i maybe want to try and make out like I’m fun! Then have ones of me and all my friends... is this showing that i also care about my friends a lot? We have all had those 'bad' photo's tagged (myself very recently!) and have either untagged them so people do not think we're silly/ugly etc (changing persona) or have kept them up to appear like we're really laid back and don't mind ... but are we really laid back and don’t care? Or are we cringing but wanting the laid back persona? Will we ever know? We can guess, we can ask, but will we ever get the real answers?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)