postsecret!

i know our blogging assignment is over, but i had to post this for anyone that hasn't already seen it especially the people who were doing virtual cultures as it is a great example of the way WEB 2.0 breaks down barriers

Postsecret has made me laugh, has made me cry but most of all made me astounded at how people have opened their lives and minds to strangers. have prodused postcards images and shared their secrets online. how people have commented on them and the community that has formed around them. i have been following postsecret for a few years now and it only just hit me how relevant this was to our assignments

anyone that hasnt seen it should go and check it out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6rTkp1dek4

sorry, this game of cluedo ain't over

This week KCB201 discussed Citizen Journalism and particularly, how it is a form of produsage.

To be honest, I did not seek this article out, I more stumbled upon it but I found myself presented with Andrew Keen's blog "The Great Seduction". It hurt my soul a little bit, especially when i read the post about his debate at the UNESCO World Press Freedom Day Debate and the side he took when debating the question "Has new media killed journalism?".



In Keen's article in The Guardian Unlimited he outlines the main points he made in the debate, one being that

"Instead of journalism by experts, we now prefer self-expression and the democratised interactivity of blogs and wikis"

Perhaps this is true, but it is fair to say that New media is the culprit behind the death of journalism (if it's even fair to say it is dying).

While the general public, especially the people who utilise the hybrid of online content, do enjoy self expression such as blogs and wiki's it is entirely unfounded to say that this is the death of journalism. In fact, if looked at through a less pessimistic lens it could be said that New Media is helping feed the world of journalism. Keen states "When printing presses were scarce resources, a few select reporters - usually the smartest and the bravest - were paid to follow public events and then hand down their knowledge to a mass audience", however instead of filling the reader (ie me!) with a feeling of nostalgia and regret for times past it makes me think of one word "propaganda". One or two people? That gives the public one (maybe two) opinions.

As discussed in the podcast this week Web 2.0 (the culprit in Andrew Keen's eyes) dismisses the need for gatekeeping the news. Instead it replaces it with 'gatewatching'. Rather than keeping the content enclosed and hierachical it is open to input in the form of comments and continuation of a subject.

The term "murder" also implies that new media has gotten rid of journalism. Then what are the newspapers online counterparts, such as where Andrew Keen has written this article The Guardian Limited or something like The Age's website? Or what about the journalist's who uses citizen journalism to report on things that don't have room to report, or don't want to?

Sites such as Indymedia, and Slashdot as referred to in the lecture provide insight into something that may not be found in a tangible newspaper. No one would want to go and buy a physical newspaper that has the amount of content that you could find on an online citizen journalism counterpart. To say that the information on Blog's and wiki's isn't news worthy is slanderous and as someone who write's about this ON HIS BLOG it is also hypocritical to say that new media has killed journalism.

The last week of KCb201 has been discussing Citizen Journalism. Without new media there would be no forum for Citizen Journalism and therefore there would be no expansion of the mainstream, no one challenging opinions. Without New Media such as the internet "real" journalists as Keen terms may not even have a forum to report on. Keen points out that in America tangible newspaper sales have declined, but that hardly means that journalism is on the brink of extinction. New Media has enabled a forum for more people's voices to be heard, with more journalism reaching people's ears. Of course there is some junk to sift through but there is in "old" media also, although perhaps Keen doesn't mind perusing the personals.

In this game of cluedo, I think you will find that it wasn't New Media, in the conservatorium with the candlestick.

Hopefully Open Source Software will get the chance to tour the world with twenty lady friends in each city.

"You say you want a revolution, well you know...we all want to change the world"

The Beatles.

As i read through some of Eric Raymonds work concerning open source software these words from the Beatles came to mind. Open source software is an excellent example of how the direction and innovation that can come out of "produsage".

For myself, a very un technical, and un software wise person, i was not looking forward to this weeks content. However, i was suprised at how simple the idea of Open Source software was. It is simply a matter of sharing.

As Raymonds points out in nearly all his work, physicians and engineers have been sharing their developments like tennage girls share lipgloss. However, in the world of software it is a completely different game. As Adam pointed out in his lecture that "commercialisation of software production transforms software (code) into a commodity that must be guarded". However, technologies, and of course WEB 2.0 have made this is the case no longer. In the true spirit of produsage there has been a massive influx of people wishing to contribute, to the best of their abilities, to the software codes. Beta versions, become just plain better as "users" take on the role of producers. The very name "open source" software just connotes something better, something much more free, but it also gives me the idea that it is never finished as it is completely open. Which is true, yet another characteristic of produsage that Axel has discussed. As a software pleb (having only discovered Firefox in KCB202 New Media Technologies last year) this thought is daunting to me.
However to those who are not open source software retarded it is a true Utopia. Contribute if you can and want, add to a valuable community, create a name in software for yourself, and own a timeshare with your friends (meaning, there is a shared ownership between those who contribute).

The world of software has been revolutionanised.

With every person who wishes, doing their bit for the project.

Once again, as Raymond points out there is this phenomenon of people just needing to scratch an itch.

I cant help but think of open source software of that cool kooky kid that stuck it to the man at school and was different, and didnt take anything from any form of authority. The kid that was in a struggling band. The kid that wore the gritty t-shirts with pictures of bands that were so underground they were practically mole people.

You always hear the stories about how that kid ended up getting the gig of a lifetime and getting signed to a major record label and now tours the world with twenty lady friends in each city.

Without some major funds, that kid might of ended up working a dead end job trying to make his music before eventually crashing and burning.

Hopefully Open Source Software will get the chance to tour the world with twenty lady friends in each city.