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.

Produsage? Fo cereal!

The evolution of Web 2.0 has proved for significant changes. Especially in the relationship between the producer and the user. There is no longer a clear line between the producer and the user as there once traditionally was. Something as simple as Youtube can be viewed as a user-led content production forum. Axel Bruns called the Internet a "hybrid of production and usage" (2008) There is no longer a clear line between a producer and a user, we have entered the age of produsage.

Where can you go when you need to know what the term "fo cereal" means, and fast? Whenever i would ask my mother what a word means she would tell me to look it up in the dictionary. Today, so many different subcultures and communities are connected that is is difficult to keep all the differing linguistics straight. Here's what you should tell the kids now "Go look it up at urbandictionary.com ". Actually scrap that, there is no need to add the .com. They will no what you mean.

Urbandictionary is just one example of a commons based peer production site. Instead of their being a hierarchical structure with one person having absolute power there are networks and communities of collaboration. Everyone and anyone can add an entry or edit an existing entry. The user has taken on the role of a producer. Urban dictionary doesn't discriminate, with there being slang from every culture, subculture, community (online or offline) that so chooses to add something. Once again, this is something that is phenomenal about Web 2.0 and the interactivity that takes place in it. There is little geographical boundaries. And as Axel pointed out, there is a "fluid Heterachy" (Bruns, 2007) meaning that the produsers participate to whatever degree they wish or are capable of. A 17 year old boy from New York could edit the entry on Kmart the retail store but may not be able to add that Kmart can also me used to describe Kuz Mexicans Ar Rich Too! (K Mart Sucks Ass,One time I took a shit in the urinal in the bathroom there and the janitor just sat and watched!). However, these posts always remain unfinished as new people come to edit them and even as the slang changes within the communities that evolve. I found it interesting that Urban Dictionary have released a hard copy book since this online forum is constantly evolving. Who decides on what is the correct use of the term, and what term goes into the book. How can it be successful when it would be seriously out of date before the person even receives from amazon.com? Where do the profits of the book go to, and to whom? This commercialization of the collaborative effort goes against the fundamental principle of produsage being that there is no hierarchy, that is is common property. Since so many people contributed to it, how can there be one owner?

Bruns A 2007 Produsage The Key Principles http://produsage.org/node/11,
Bruns A 2008 Produsage Podcast http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab=courses&url=/bin/common/course.pl?course_id=_29175_1

NB Reference for last blog
Bruns A 2008 DIYMedia and Collaboration http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab=courses&url=/bin/common/course.pl?course_id=_29175_1

content out the wazoo!

It is often said that the internet created a whole new world. That Web 2.0 redefined media. However, as Terry Flew points out that the "technological developments would...be limited in their significance if they had not also been accompianed by changes in how people use these technologies, and how they transform modes of social interaction" (2002, p 61). While the internet has changed vastly from the days of waiting patiently as you listened to the dial up tone while staring at your DOS screen today's media users and consumers have changed significantly as well.
Henry Jenkins refers to a interactive audience, a 'participatory culture' on where audiences are no longer passive and are become more interactive and taking part in their media. However it is important to note that there has always been some form of participartory culture. As Barry Saunder's pointed out in the Week 7 lecture, DIY media and collaboration has a long history which didnt start when the internet exploded into mainstream media. Barry talked about the way community radio was a form of DIY media and collaboration. One of the first FM stations in Brisbane was 4ZZZ, a youth community radio station, where someone from any walk of life could volunteer and put on a show, voicing their opinions, their music and on their terms. In a virtual world we can see personalities voicing their opinions on YouTube, Blogger, LiveJournal and even something as small as Twitter. People's yearning to make their voice heard has not changed, it is the platform on which they can make their voice heard that has made it easier, quicker and much less painless to do so. There is now a blurry line between a media producer, consumer and user which is getting blurrier every time Smosh posts another mashup. In my mind, to make it easier to understand it can be understood as a community. Where there isnt a hierarchial structure with the Producer of the media being placed on a pedastool above the consumers and users. Instead there is a network of people who take part in whatever they feel they want to or feel they can contribute. This goes back to the fundamental idea of DIKW which was discussed in Week One. Virtual Cultures and communities do not stop a the flow of information and knowledge, that is, it is not feed from top to bottom rather it is a continous loop. As Axel explained 'there is a fluid movement of participants between roles as leaders, participants and users of content' (Bruns, 2008).
Citizen Journalism, Political Campaigning, Blogs coming out the wazoo! It seems that the amount of content that is fueled by the virtual community is endless and astounding. However it is not just a cultural phenomena. Economically people are sitting up and taking a look at how this participatory culture and virtual communities can be utilised in cost cutting or simply being ahead of the pack. Even Facebook, the social networking sites to end all social networking sites, has a place to sell real estate. I can't help but be pessimisstic about the beauty of business's using ( i am tempted to use the word exploiting) the virtual communities contributions. Is it ethical? Virtual communities have redefined the way people voice their opinions and make themselves heard, the way they show their loyalty, the way their express themselves. Should they redefine copyright laws?





Flew, T 2002 New Media: An Introduction. Oxford University Press: Victoria

Bruns, A 2008 Week 7 Podcast.


NB: Blackboard was done when i wrote this, so i will post the full reference and link to the podcast in the next blog.

Online, Offline? The point is, it's a community.

In the Lecture in Week 6, online and virtual communities were discussed. I really enjoyed the fact that communities, in both an online and offline world attract people for similar reasons. That is, for a feeling of membership, for the feeling that you are influencing people, that you are interacting with people who share emotional connections, similar interests, values and have similar goals you want to achieve. In the lecture Rachel Cobcroft talked about why people join online communities. She spoke about feelings of affiliation, belonging or the purpose of information sharing and goal achievement. It is interesting to note that this is no different to why people have offline communities. When i was 7 i joined the brownies, or as they are known now, The Girl Guides. I joined because i wanted to say to people, "I am a brownie". I was proud (as most 7 year old are) that i got to wear this uniform and go to meetings every week and learn new skills and display my own (information sharing), and to apply those skills to gain a badge or to sell the most biscuits to raise money for new equipment (goal achievement). How does this differ to online communities?
The only reason i ask this question is because for a long time, and it still exists albeit to a much smaller extent, there has been a major prejudice towards online communities. Think about how the people who play multiple player online games are stereotyped. Why is their community thought as to be less important than say, my grandmothers crocheting club? They are people with a common interest, coming together to share information, whether it be how to defeat the newest villian (please excuse my lack of knowledge on these games) or simply the newest hook stitch.
Is it simply because they are 'online' communities or is it something else. In my eye it is to do with the internet, that being, the way they are connected rather than why they are connected. I attempted to find some other articles about what I'm talking about but I haven't found anything (perhaps I haven't looked hard enough). In terms of the difference between online and offline communities I personally don't see the difference other than in the forum, platform, in which people choose to form a community. And as Eben Mogren said "Everybody is connected to everybody else, all data than can be shared will be share. Get used to it".

First Blog

My first blog came a little late, but it's here!
Many more museings about all things virtual cultures to come!!