I had thought this was in for last week, but I’ll leave that one posted and do a more thorough one here. This is about http://www.last.fm/.
How is your chosen site structured?
Below is a screenshot of last.fm’s homepage:
(ok...I can't make this work! Have a look; http://www.last.fm)
Last.fm's structure is non linear and, in my opinion, quite complex. There is no obvious place to ‘begin’ and no clear direction to browse in. There is a variety of different material from bands profiles, to information about these bands, user’s profiles, website statistics and more.
Hypertext features strongly in the non-linear structure of the website. Tags allow you to choose other similar artists, go to user’s profiles who like the artist chosen, and externally to the artist’s website, more information about them and even news articles etc etc. This makes it very easy to ‘jump’ from place to place on the site and to external sites and in my opinion makes it very easy to 'get lost'.
What is it about on a cultural level?
Arguably last.fm and similar sites are a remediation of old media; the radio. This suggests an element of socio-determinism; such sites may just be a result of people’s desire to listen to music which happens to have moved to an online domain. However, interactivity on last.fm plays a much larger role than in any previous ways of listening to music and this suggests that technology has resulted in such sites creation and they would otherwise not be present, nor would anything similar.
Such interactivity suggests a way in which music listeners may have gained some control in the music they consume. This has wider implications in terms of the music industry (see blogs week 4).
There is also arguably some sort of community; users can add ‘friends’ be it friends IRL or people who share tastes, and chat and comment on these users playlists and favourite artists. There is however no wider place such as a forum or chat room for members to come together so i would say that any sort of community is fairly weak/limited.
There are elements of produserism in that any music the user chooses to rate or listen to frequently becomes a part of their own personal radio station which others can listen to. The site does, however have limitations in terms of this as a result of not wishing to infringe copyright. The user cannot choose directly what they wish to listen to rather just suggest what is favoured. This is a slightly limiting aspect of the website but is an essential part of allowing users to listen to so much music in a legal way. Some sort of Literacy (Livingstone) is required; I certainly found navigating the site and understanding the concept of creating my own playlist/station fairly confusing to begin with and I would call myself an experienced user of the internet.
What is the appeal for you as a user?
The main appeal of a site like last.fm to me is the ability to customise the experience of music listening. The music player on last.fm is almost a sort of open source software (Bruns) created with the user’s interaction in mind, allowing even the less experienced web user to create their own radio station for others to listen to. However, limitations in how far the user can choose what music is played (because of copyright issues) mean that the user does not have direct control and can only suggest what he/she would like to listen to, which is one aspect of last.fm i often find frustrating. However, this can also work as an advantage as it allows new artists to be discovered instead of listening to the same ones repeatedly.
Livinstone, S (2003) “The changing nature and uses of media literacy”. http://www.mediaculture-online.de/fileadmin/bibliothek/livingstone_changing_nature/livingstone_changing_nature.pdf [accessed 25/02/09]
Bruns, A “Towards Produsage” http://snurb.info/files/12132812018_towards_produsage_0.pdf [accessed 20/02/09]
Saturday, 28 February 2009
Friday, 27 February 2009
WEEK 6. 6.3. Organizational units vs CofP
6.3) Wenger states "These 'communities of practice' are mostly informal and distinct from organizational units" What do you think Wenger means by an "organizational unit"?
I think Wenger means a structured unit which has a traditional hierarchy of authority when talking about ‘organizational units’. Whereas in a traditional organizational unit's drive often comes from the hierarchy of authority, a CofP is a group with no specific authorities where all members of the group are more or less equal and driven by joint desire for progress and achieving goals.
I also second Emma’s idea that a CofP is distinct from organizational units because of their flexibility: http://ezpaz.blogspot.com/2009/02/week-six-task-three.html#comments . Many of the CofP’s which I can think of are flexible in this way and the joint goals shared by members span more than one ‘organizational unit’ or officially organised group.
I think Wenger means a structured unit which has a traditional hierarchy of authority when talking about ‘organizational units’. Whereas in a traditional organizational unit's drive often comes from the hierarchy of authority, a CofP is a group with no specific authorities where all members of the group are more or less equal and driven by joint desire for progress and achieving goals.
I also second Emma’s idea that a CofP is distinct from organizational units because of their flexibility: http://ezpaz.blogspot.com/2009/02/week-six-task-three.html#comments . Many of the CofP’s which I can think of are flexible in this way and the joint goals shared by members span more than one ‘organizational unit’ or officially organised group.
WEEK 6. 6.2. Joint enterprise.
6.2) Sometimes it is difficult to think about community in different ways. For this task, I want you to think carefully about "joint enterprise". It is easy to belong to a community on the web, but for us to consider the community a community of practice there needs to be a joint enterprise - something that members are actively engaged in with progression and a goal in mind. Usually this means that the members have a vested interest in getting better at something together.
I think a good eg of “joint enterprise” in online communities of practise can be seen looking at online support forums such as mental health forums.
Such forums are used for personal problem solving. All members have been drawn to use the forum as a result of their own problems and questions, and use their knowledge of the topic to build on others posts with their own experiences and knowledge. There is an overall feeling of desire to recover and to help others recover and solve their own problems. Mutual understanding and this shared goal (joint enterprise) provides a SOC and the actions taken within the forum to reach the goal render such communities as a CofP.
The forum can be seen as a collective effort for all members to recover and help others to recover and this is the driving force behind membership and posting.
WEEK 6. 6.1. A CofP I belong to
6.1) Think of a CofP to which you belong (or have belonged) explain in your seminar forum how your example fits into Wenger's model:
I’ve posted a brief eg of a CofP in the group A forum. The example I gave was of a study group. The second eg which I’ll post here in a bit more detail is of my part time job in a café/shop. While it could be argued that most businesses create communities or sort, I will try and explain why I think the business I work for is a CofP.
Although there is an official hierarchy of authority, with all workers below the owner and café boss, this is rarely implemented in any obvious way. All workers are equally free to make decisions about what food is served, what stock is ordered for the shop and who is employed and can sometimes override the owner or bosses decision. This gives everyone an equal sense of responsibility in the joint enterprise of the business succeeding financially. It is certainly true that I take interest and enjoyment in a good profit probably as much as the boss of the cafe does. I would say that I often put extra effort in to my work to ensure this goal is met-it is not part of my job description to sell extra items to customers but I find myself doing so to enjoy the satisfaction of knowing the business will profit although I do not personally gain; a shared endeavour of all workers.
Communal resources are clear, even as far as made up words and in-jokes that noone outside of the organisation would understand. A lot of the routine goes unsaid or tasks are referred to with nicknames that allow everyone to know what needs to be done. Although noone is designated a specific task to undertake, everyone knows what is to be done and all tasks are completed with the mutual understanding that certain jobs must be done to allow everyone to go home on time-another joint enterprise that is part of the over all enterprise of a smooth running business and ultimately the business profiting.
I may also go as far to include the suppliers of produce, or regular customers who sometimes talk about supporting local business and mention that they would never buy bread as Tesco, lunch at Greggs or coffee at Starbucks. I would argue that this is where the café’s CofP branches out to a wider CofP with the aim/joint enterprise of supporting independent suppliers and local businesses.
Wednesday, 18 February 2009
WEEK 5. Bruns C.
As a trend, do you think produsage will last? Do you think commercial forces will find ways of exploiting it, or perhaps the ways people are involved will end up being short-term? Conflicts in the communities? Flagging energy/interest? Successful sites get bought out? Just a trend? Or the future of the Net? – What does your crystal ball say? (we must bear in mind this is speculation!)
As certain produser led sites become increasingly popular (Wikipedia, youtube etc) increasing work is required in their upkeep. While Youtube has been sold to Google and is funded through advertising, Wikipedia does not use advertising for profit, but instead relies on donations. I have used Wikipedia hundreds of times and have never considered paying for the information i am receiving; to me, one of the benefits of the internet is the freedom (£wise) of information. Ultimately I imagine people’s greed and desire for freebies overrides their gratitude for the information being given and donation is rare. Mine certainly does; I would rather go without than pay for such information....would you? How much do you use free sites for information? And do you consider those who work on them? In such cases the biggest produser sites may struggle for profit or even money to keep up and running and be forced to sell to companies like Google. Ultimately this may mean a return to Chomskys view of traditional media, erasing the positives of ‘free speech’ in new media.
I disagree with Bruns’ point that ‘As produsers become aware of attempts
to exploit their work without reward, their attitudes towards the produsage environmentwill rapidly deteriorate’ (Bruns p5). He talks about this in terms of games like The Sims where users create the world which they play in, but I would argue that much of the reward is in the enjoyment of the game itself. In terms of gaming the options are; to spend money on a pre-made game, or to spend money on a produser based game like The Sims, neither with any reward other than enjoyment of playing. From experience, much of the enjoyment of games like The Sims etc IS the active role of the player. I have only played a few times but enjoyed the empowerment of the control/interactivity....is this why everyone enjoys such games?
WEEK 5. Bruns B.
When collaborative sites have moderation functions to prevent a ‘free for all’, does this defeat the purpose?
I think there is plenty of evidence that the basics of human nature, without some sort of structure or leadership, are likely to create some sort of anarchy. As Bruns calls it in terms of collaborative websites, ‘a leaderless anarchy’ (Bruns, p4). Although there is some logical contradiction in the idea of a collaborative website where everyone has an say such as Wiki’s or collaborative news and moderation, many examples spring to mind of times when lack of moderation has caused such anarchy. Wikipedia frequently sources celebrity death rumours which often turn out to be hoaxes but have been believed until moderation is enforced. Such deliberately damaging input to such sites may be for many reasons but I think it can be quite simply put down to the individuals at blame enjoying the power of supplying such information and witnessing the anarchy which ensues. Moderation is certainly needed if these sites are to have any credibility authority in the information they provide. Failing this moderation they would be rendered useless, in my opinion.
I think there is plenty of evidence that the basics of human nature, without some sort of structure or leadership, are likely to create some sort of anarchy. As Bruns calls it in terms of collaborative websites, ‘a leaderless anarchy’ (Bruns, p4). Although there is some logical contradiction in the idea of a collaborative website where everyone has an say such as Wiki’s or collaborative news and moderation, many examples spring to mind of times when lack of moderation has caused such anarchy. Wikipedia frequently sources celebrity death rumours which often turn out to be hoaxes but have been believed until moderation is enforced. Such deliberately damaging input to such sites may be for many reasons but I think it can be quite simply put down to the individuals at blame enjoying the power of supplying such information and witnessing the anarchy which ensues. Moderation is certainly needed if these sites are to have any credibility authority in the information they provide. Failing this moderation they would be rendered useless, in my opinion.
WEEK 5. Meikle A.
What do you think constitutes ‘news’ on the Web?
I would agree with Burnett and Marshall’s suggestion that there has been a transformation of news in that the web allows greater involvement of users-produserism of news and a remediation of more traditional news (both written, audio and visual). While this has its benefits in allowing a greater variety of stories to be covered, it must also be noted that it may be less reliable. With this in mind, I think ‘news’ can be defined as the factual reporting of recent events. I would personally only class true ‘news’ on the web as that published by a reliable source (The Times/The Guardian online/even The Sun if I must..., or the BBC, Google or Yahoo news. While I may look at user generated news for vague information, I would never rely on this to any extent further than speculation with the likelihood that it may be inaccurate.
Could I go onto one of these websites and post about the crazy woman I just sat next to on the train? Would that be classed as news? It happened (really...she was mad...), but I would certainly not classify it as newsworthy, or ‘news’ at all. This is another problem of user generated news; what may be news for one person is irrelevant and uninteresting for another. With the www being so vast and often so niche, news should appeal to the audiences reading it but in reality very little news applies globally and is only really 'news' for very few.
I would agree with Burnett and Marshall’s suggestion that there has been a transformation of news in that the web allows greater involvement of users-produserism of news and a remediation of more traditional news (both written, audio and visual). While this has its benefits in allowing a greater variety of stories to be covered, it must also be noted that it may be less reliable. With this in mind, I think ‘news’ can be defined as the factual reporting of recent events. I would personally only class true ‘news’ on the web as that published by a reliable source (The Times/The Guardian online/even The Sun if I must..., or the BBC, Google or Yahoo news. While I may look at user generated news for vague information, I would never rely on this to any extent further than speculation with the likelihood that it may be inaccurate.
Could I go onto one of these websites and post about the crazy woman I just sat next to on the train? Would that be classed as news? It happened (really...she was mad...), but I would certainly not classify it as newsworthy, or ‘news’ at all. This is another problem of user generated news; what may be news for one person is irrelevant and uninteresting for another. With the www being so vast and often so niche, news should appeal to the audiences reading it but in reality very little news applies globally and is only really 'news' for very few.
WEEK 5. General points/Lecture
Just a few things I wanted to ask/mention...
-Do you think that in some sense users of the content on websites where the content is user generated but who contribute nothing themselves should be allowed to freely roam such sites? This kind of relates back to the lurkers question in online community last week but I think it’s more relevant here...with the freedom of software etc, should these people benefit? I’ve watched thousands of videos on youtube, but have never posted anything. Am I a YouTube lurker?! Should all user generated websites have some sort of point system like Yahoo! Answers does (where you cannot ask endless questions, you must contribute to gain points to ask questions with)? Or would this negatively impact the quality of the content of such websites?
Secondly, I particularly like Chomsky’s notion that traditional media is monopolised by its’ capitalist ownership. That media is structured in such a way that it works to support these capital owners and dismiss any opposing views. Any ‘others’ begin with a disadvantage in such structure having to explain the very basics of their point.
I think it’s particularly important to consider how we may assume the interactivity online counters this, but also the possibility of the internet transforming into something which actually echoes chomsky’s view of trad media (I refer to this a bit more in my ‘Bruns C’ post)
I really have nothing critical to add to this at the moment as it’s a point I strongly agree with, but I thought it was a point worth re-mentioning.
-Do you think that in some sense users of the content on websites where the content is user generated but who contribute nothing themselves should be allowed to freely roam such sites? This kind of relates back to the lurkers question in online community last week but I think it’s more relevant here...with the freedom of software etc, should these people benefit? I’ve watched thousands of videos on youtube, but have never posted anything. Am I a YouTube lurker?! Should all user generated websites have some sort of point system like Yahoo! Answers does (where you cannot ask endless questions, you must contribute to gain points to ask questions with)? Or would this negatively impact the quality of the content of such websites?
Secondly, I particularly like Chomsky’s notion that traditional media is monopolised by its’ capitalist ownership. That media is structured in such a way that it works to support these capital owners and dismiss any opposing views. Any ‘others’ begin with a disadvantage in such structure having to explain the very basics of their point.
I think it’s particularly important to consider how we may assume the interactivity online counters this, but also the possibility of the internet transforming into something which actually echoes chomsky’s view of trad media (I refer to this a bit more in my ‘Bruns C’ post)
I really have nothing critical to add to this at the moment as it’s a point I strongly agree with, but I thought it was a point worth re-mentioning.
WEEK 5. WEBSITE ANALYSIS A/B
a) How is your chosen site structured.
Youtube is generated primarily from user constructed content. Anyone with recording facilities (as basic as a web camera, or basic software like Windows movie maker that allows images to be pasted together in a movie sequence), can put content on YouTube. The content of videos posted ranges from Officially posted music videos, vlogs, home videos, amateur films and many more; an exhaustative list would be impossible.
The site is strongly hypertextual; links in comments are made to certain points of the video, links to the posters’ other videos, to users’ profiles, their videos, their favourite videos, related videos, external websites etc etc. You can seemingly click forever and keep finding information and videos never seen before. I certainly find myself doing this for hours without meaning to.
Users can create profiles where they can personalise this space; fill in a small personal profile, link to their own videos, to favourite videos, subscribe to favourites and ‘friends’ and change the background and colour of their page. Users can also publicly comment on videos, rate them out of 5, rate comments made and send private messages to other users. Compared to other websites of similar popularity, I would say these functions are fairly simple/basic; there is little complexity in the structure of the site.
b) What is it about on a cultural level?
Culturally, youTube is centered around produserism and about publishing a variety of cultural products. The vastness of the material on youtube means that not only items of popular culture can be found but many more obscure and alternative music, films and opinions can be found. Culturally also should be noted that users often take popular culture music/films etc and edit these to create their own meaning. It also provides an area for global communication in the form of commenting on videos, or even making video responses.
Youtube is generated primarily from user constructed content. Anyone with recording facilities (as basic as a web camera, or basic software like Windows movie maker that allows images to be pasted together in a movie sequence), can put content on YouTube. The content of videos posted ranges from Officially posted music videos, vlogs, home videos, amateur films and many more; an exhaustative list would be impossible.
The site is strongly hypertextual; links in comments are made to certain points of the video, links to the posters’ other videos, to users’ profiles, their videos, their favourite videos, related videos, external websites etc etc. You can seemingly click forever and keep finding information and videos never seen before. I certainly find myself doing this for hours without meaning to.
Users can create profiles where they can personalise this space; fill in a small personal profile, link to their own videos, to favourite videos, subscribe to favourites and ‘friends’ and change the background and colour of their page. Users can also publicly comment on videos, rate them out of 5, rate comments made and send private messages to other users. Compared to other websites of similar popularity, I would say these functions are fairly simple/basic; there is little complexity in the structure of the site.
b) What is it about on a cultural level?
Culturally, youTube is centered around produserism and about publishing a variety of cultural products. The vastness of the material on youtube means that not only items of popular culture can be found but many more obscure and alternative music, films and opinions can be found. Culturally also should be noted that users often take popular culture music/films etc and edit these to create their own meaning. It also provides an area for global communication in the form of commenting on videos, or even making video responses.
WEEK 5. WEBSITE ANALYSIS C
What is the appeal for you as a user?
Having watched 7,000+ videos, there is no doubt that I like YouTube a lot! I will try and analyse some of the appeal that I find in the website. Although I’ve never contributed, I think there is certainly appeal in the poduser aspect of the site. Knowing that I could be a part of it immediately makes me feel some sense of involvement. I do often comment on or rate videos I watch and am keen to see peoples’ replies to me; I suppose there is some sort of sense of community here. However the vastness of YouTube means you rarely ‘bump into’ the same people twice by chance and this detracts from the SOC. However, having your say IS an appeal for me.
It is certainly not just a remediation of something which has gone before like much other content of the internet. Youtube offers something new; previously there was no place similar and it has really reformed the way people can communicate via short videos and given a site to find information in video form quickly. Like I mentioned before one reason I use Youtube so much is the hypertext within the site. You click on one thing which leads to another which leads to another which leads to....30videos in a day (oh dear....)
I also enjoy that the site has lead to a lot of creativity amongst users. Not only posting unoriginal material, the ease of sharing your own videos leads to users creating their own material from things which have gone before; spoofs, video responses, mixes of videos etc etc. This re-hashing of information points to. Youtube is well moderated and I have never come across any inappropriate material as I have with other websites. Even this moderation can be interactive with the ability of users to flag videos and comments. Then hierarchal moderation
Sunday, 15 February 2009
WEEK 4. Music sharing A
a) How do filesharing, online downloading and the ‘networking’ of new material change the way music is consumed?
Prior to the internet being used as a source to download and listen to music, music was traditionally bought in hard/physical forms-vinyl, cassette, CD etc. The ability to listen to and download music online has meant, for me, that there is a lot more experimentation, and dipping in and out of various music. To buy a CD requires a greater level of commitment that to listen online and then to download if desired. I initially listen online (myspace, youtube), downloading is the next stage and if i really like something will i either pay for the music on Itunes or actually buy the CD. It could either be argued that this reduces the chance of music being bought or increases the chance as more music is available online.
For me, this hasn't effected the amount of music I actually pay for. It simply allows me to listen to more music and decide what I like. Instead of simply having to hear music on TV or read reviews etc, it is a way that allows me to sample a much greated variety of music. As I go on to talk about, this means that not only music which is powered by big labels who have the finances to nationally/globably advertise, but also that smaller labels/artists can compete.
See 3b for more.
WEEK 4. Music Sharing B
b) How and why could any band ‘make it’ through social networking/content sharing sites?
In the last decade, the music industry has become increasingly dominated by merging companies, buying smaller companies and becoming bigger and bigger. They typically sign artists to short contracts who have no longevity in search of immediate profit; often novelty (in a loose sense) artists. The increasing financial power of such labels has meant smaller labels and artists cannot compete financially in terms of promotion or distribution. Social networking and content sharing sites combat these problems; Independent or smaller label artists are able to have their music heard offering them a chance to be heard by the masses without a major labels financial support to promote and distribute their music.This has been proven to work, with bands such as The Arctic Monkeys and Lilly Allen finding fame through myspace, bands playing online 'gigs' streamed to anyone who will watch, or creating a popular youtube channel. Whether these artists then use this to remain independent and continue to distribute music themselves online, or to get recognised by record labels are two ways such media can then further them.
WEEK 4. Music Sharing C/D
c) Has/will this change popular music?
d) Will we still need media companies in future if people can produce and distribute cultural products directly?
I think both questions are really a case of supply and demand. Although the websites talked about in previous posts potentially give anyone the chance to create music that is heard by the masses and to then succesfuly advertise and distribute this online, what the masses actually want to hear must be considered. Considring the biggest sellers in the music industry at the moment (artists such as Girls Aloud, Beyonce etc...), it is likely that such artists do need the support of larger labels. Such commercial acts are unlikely to support themselves online and while people continue to buy this music then larger companies will continue to create such music and grow financially and in power. The same goes for other cultural products-indipendant film, television, radio etc ARE now able to be produced by the individual. However, unless demand for this exceeds demand for mainstream and currently more popular film (/tv/radio), there will continue to be demand/need for large companies.
d) Will we still need media companies in future if people can produce and distribute cultural products directly?
I think both questions are really a case of supply and demand. Although the websites talked about in previous posts potentially give anyone the chance to create music that is heard by the masses and to then succesfuly advertise and distribute this online, what the masses actually want to hear must be considered. Considring the biggest sellers in the music industry at the moment (artists such as Girls Aloud, Beyonce etc...), it is likely that such artists do need the support of larger labels. Such commercial acts are unlikely to support themselves online and while people continue to buy this music then larger companies will continue to create such music and grow financially and in power. The same goes for other cultural products-indipendant film, television, radio etc ARE now able to be produced by the individual. However, unless demand for this exceeds demand for mainstream and currently more popular film (/tv/radio), there will continue to be demand/need for large companies.
WEEK 4. Blanchard- Lurkers.
'Lurkers’ – who needs them? Should they be booted out or should we embrace people’s differences (some people are readers more than producer/writers?). Can’t there be different roles for the members of a community?
As in real life, I think there can definitely be different roles for different members of a community. Some users may just be using forums for support, educational or entertainment purposes and may genuinely have nothing to say. However, people IRL who have less to say are still visible while the danger online is that members of the community cannot see who these ‘Lurkers’ are and don’t know who is reading the information posted. This could result in members being less willing to contribute and witholding information they would otherwise post.
Various online communities have posting systems to try and combat such behaviour-Yahoo! Answers uses a points system to ensure participation, post counts are often displayed on message boards, and ratings such as ‘newbie’ are given to members who post infrequently. As discussed in Qc (http://kayrodge.blogspot.com/2009/02/week-4-blanchard-sence-of-community.html), these infrequent posters are then less frequently replied to and often face hostility from regular members, ensuring there are consequences for their parasitic behaviour.
As in real life, I think there can definitely be different roles for different members of a community. Some users may just be using forums for support, educational or entertainment purposes and may genuinely have nothing to say. However, people IRL who have less to say are still visible while the danger online is that members of the community cannot see who these ‘Lurkers’ are and don’t know who is reading the information posted. This could result in members being less willing to contribute and witholding information they would otherwise post.
Various online communities have posting systems to try and combat such behaviour-Yahoo! Answers uses a points system to ensure participation, post counts are often displayed on message boards, and ratings such as ‘newbie’ are given to members who post infrequently. As discussed in Qc (http://kayrodge.blogspot.com/2009/02/week-4-blanchard-sence-of-community.html), these infrequent posters are then less frequently replied to and often face hostility from regular members, ensuring there are consequences for their parasitic behaviour.
WEEK 4. Blanchard- Sence of community.
Would you say you have ever felt a ‘sense of community’ through online interactions? What do you make of the notion? Are the models of ‘sense of community’ derived from f2f community researchers valid standards for judging online community.
I would say I have felt a sense of community online. However, this has only been when I have previously known some members of the online community in person. I suppose this kind of introduction to an online community could be substituted by a more lengthy process online of getting to know and gaining the trust of members, although this is not something I have experienced directly.
Some online communities I have visited have certainly had feelings of hostility towards new members or those who haven’t posted frequently and I’ve observed that such members are less frequently or less thoroughly replied to. As with our blogging, a lack or replies is a bit demoralising and in terms of forums etc means people are less likely to post again or re-visit. In the community I feel a sense of belonging to, a group decisison was taken to privatise the forum and only allow new members to join who were good friends of well respected and long standing members. This decision was taken to ensure the overall SOC remained, something i belive is certainly important in ensuring members feel a sence belonging and continue to contribute to the community.
I would say I have felt a sense of community online. However, this has only been when I have previously known some members of the online community in person. I suppose this kind of introduction to an online community could be substituted by a more lengthy process online of getting to know and gaining the trust of members, although this is not something I have experienced directly.
Some online communities I have visited have certainly had feelings of hostility towards new members or those who haven’t posted frequently and I’ve observed that such members are less frequently or less thoroughly replied to. As with our blogging, a lack or replies is a bit demoralising and in terms of forums etc means people are less likely to post again or re-visit. In the community I feel a sense of belonging to, a group decisison was taken to privatise the forum and only allow new members to join who were good friends of well respected and long standing members. This decision was taken to ensure the overall SOC remained, something i belive is certainly important in ensuring members feel a sence belonging and continue to contribute to the community.
Saturday, 7 February 2009
WEEK 3. Topic 2 general points.
I think an important point to consider is just how different the identities online we are considering are to those IRL. It’s true that the mask of the internet does allow for some extreme cases; obviously cases of paedophiles posing as youngsters etc etc. However, in my research, and reading other’s blogs, it seems that the majority of the internet isn’t used like this. The message boards we have looked at, mostly, haven’t been about forming strong identity, rather discussing shared interests-music, particularly. Here it may be true that people are guilty of playing up to some extent; but how far is this from what happens in real life? Wearing clothes, saying things, and liking/doing things all to fit in and look good.
Because of the extreme cases mentioned above, it seems any kind of online Identity play is frowned upon and regarded as unethical, but I think that in most cases, there is nothing unreasonable or unethical about online identity experimentation and many cases show it to be a positive thing. The quote and explanation in the lecture notes by Nicholas Negroponte:
‘True personalization is upon us’, summarises this. Suggesting that we may be moving online but the advancing technology simply allows us to do what we do IRL somewhere else; nothing fundamental has changed.
‘True personalization is upon us’, summarises this. Suggesting that we may be moving online but the advancing technology simply allows us to do what we do IRL somewhere else; nothing fundamental has changed.
WEEK 3. 3.2 Forum Analysis.
3.2) Choose a web forum and undertake a brief analysis of its dynamics as a communication form.
Interestingly, this forum is a forum dedicated to discussing people’s secrets IRL and problems they wouldn’t feel free to discuss IRL. This demonstrates how people present themselves differently online; sharing info they have withheld IRL as a result of the anonymity online. Interestingly, however, people in this community seem close and to ‘know’ each other, often referring to things which have previously happened to other users discussed before, and referring to them by name (be it real name or their screen name, or a nickname based on this). This suggests not total anonymity in terms of secret sharing, rather new identities created online through which communities are built and ‘friends’ are made. It seems almost a contradiction that people use the mask of being online to hide their identity but in fact end up seeming quite close to other members and getting to know them well, or as well as you can online!
http://www.postsecretcommunity.com/chat/
In addition, a lot of the questions from this week link in with this and it's a good example to examin them through, particularly;
-Do you think that assuming an online persona (via screen name/handle/avatar etc) encourages people to play with the identity they present online and take risks in the ways the express themselves?
-Far from adopting a ‘mask’, isn’t one appeal of the Net that you can express your true self among like minds?
Interestingly, this forum is a forum dedicated to discussing people’s secrets IRL and problems they wouldn’t feel free to discuss IRL. This demonstrates how people present themselves differently online; sharing info they have withheld IRL as a result of the anonymity online. Interestingly, however, people in this community seem close and to ‘know’ each other, often referring to things which have previously happened to other users discussed before, and referring to them by name (be it real name or their screen name, or a nickname based on this). This suggests not total anonymity in terms of secret sharing, rather new identities created online through which communities are built and ‘friends’ are made. It seems almost a contradiction that people use the mask of being online to hide their identity but in fact end up seeming quite close to other members and getting to know them well, or as well as you can online!
http://www.postsecretcommunity.com/chat/
In addition, a lot of the questions from this week link in with this and it's a good example to examin them through, particularly;
-Do you think that assuming an online persona (via screen name/handle/avatar etc) encourages people to play with the identity they present online and take risks in the ways the express themselves?
-Far from adopting a ‘mask’, isn’t one appeal of the Net that you can express your true self among like minds?
WEEK 3. Topic 1. Part c.
p. 167 What do you think of postmodern views which stress the fluidity of online selves and their apparent disembodied status, which has been argued frees people from being represented through signs of their race, gender, class etc?
The lecture and readings have touched on the idea that virtual communities provide support for groups often feeling ‘othered’. Some positives and negatives of this have already been mentioned, I was interested in the implications of such online communities in real life. Groups marginalised IRL by disability, race, sexuality etc may enjoy the comfort of community online that their small numbers don’t allow them to find IRL.
However, as these groups move online, they become increasingly invisible IRL and understanding and acceptance may decrease as a result of this. This could be a hugely negative effect of online communities; while positive in the short term for the individual using online communities, this could be extremely detrimental for these groups in the long term and I think this is a particularly important point to consider.
The lecture and readings have touched on the idea that virtual communities provide support for groups often feeling ‘othered’. Some positives and negatives of this have already been mentioned, I was interested in the implications of such online communities in real life. Groups marginalised IRL by disability, race, sexuality etc may enjoy the comfort of community online that their small numbers don’t allow them to find IRL.
However, as these groups move online, they become increasingly invisible IRL and understanding and acceptance may decrease as a result of this. This could be a hugely negative effect of online communities; while positive in the short term for the individual using online communities, this could be extremely detrimental for these groups in the long term and I think this is a particularly important point to consider.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
