This micro-assignment should be the last of the seven that you do for this class. Most, if not all, members of the class have already constructed social networks on one on the popular sites (Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, etc.). Thus, I would like you to address your experience making such a network On your blog, please answer the following questions:
1. Which of the various tools for communication/collaboration do you find the most useful? Why?
I think for me Facebook is the most useful. It is the network I use most often and it is the network in my opinion that is most easy to interact with. Also, I think Facebook is the network that is most easily recognized by my generation and when I think of how my generation will be describe in the future I think Facebook and its social interactions will be one thing that helps define us.
It is also the most useful become it is the most inclusive. All of my friends are on Facebook whereas with a network like Myspace only some of my friends belong to.
2. Which of the various tools for communication/collaboration do you find the least useful? Why?
I think twitter is the least useful. It doesn't really make sense for someone like me, because Facebook already has a status function...also it seems very narcissistic to me. Does anyone really care about my day, thoughts, whereabouts, etc.? Do people really care to be informed about my actions? I know I don't care about most people's status updates.
I think Twitter is more of a marketing tool...I could see it being useful for businesses and image making, but I really don't need to create an image which I'm selling.
3. Have your electronic interactions with your classmates enhanced your learning in this class? Why or why not?
Yes. I think just reading other people's blogs and learning more about the way different people in the class interact with social networks has allowed me to think more critically of the role technology plays in my life.
4. Have your social networks been useful? Are they just one distraction in the constant barrage of modern life?
Both. For a long time, I didn't have Facebook and not having it gave me a sense of individualism, and freed me from the constant voyeuristic need to check other peoples' live and monitor my own. Sometimes I would sit on Facebook and look through peoples' pictures for hours...then I would stop and think, "What am I doing? This is so pointless." It totally distracted me from more interesting and fulfilling endeavours.
However, I started to feel out of the loop, like people were in a special club I didn't belong to. In an attempt to feel like I was more fulfilled not having Facebook made me feel like I was missing out on and no longer connected to my generation. So, in that aspect Facebook is useful.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Ain't no party like a virtual party.
Assignment 6: Attending a virtual event.
I would like you to attend and report on one virtual event.
1. Which event did you attend? How did you go about attending this event?
I attended a Unisfair job information event. I learned about this event during one of our class discussions. It sounded interesting to me so I went to the website and filled out a quick registration form and there I was!
2. What happened? Did anything unexpected happen?
Not much. When I signed on there was only one 'booth' or representative online...so there wasn't a whole lot going on.
3. Was this experience any good? Would recommend it to others? Why or why not?
The experience was interesting but unsuccessful. I would not recommend this to other people. The concept is extremely cool and could potentially be a great resource (especially for someone like me who is soon to graduate college), however I don't think the idea was carried out in a sophisticated way. The graphics of the website were very good, but the interface and layout were very confusing. Also, this website seemed like more of a marketing tool for companies as opposed to a tool for users to find employment. It seemed to me that most of the companies at the job fair were pushing their agendas and social networking...not hiring.
I would like you to attend and report on one virtual event.
1. Which event did you attend? How did you go about attending this event?
I attended a Unisfair job information event. I learned about this event during one of our class discussions. It sounded interesting to me so I went to the website and filled out a quick registration form and there I was!
2. What happened? Did anything unexpected happen?
Not much. When I signed on there was only one 'booth' or representative online...so there wasn't a whole lot going on.
3. Was this experience any good? Would recommend it to others? Why or why not?
The experience was interesting but unsuccessful. I would not recommend this to other people. The concept is extremely cool and could potentially be a great resource (especially for someone like me who is soon to graduate college), however I don't think the idea was carried out in a sophisticated way. The graphics of the website were very good, but the interface and layout were very confusing. Also, this website seemed like more of a marketing tool for companies as opposed to a tool for users to find employment. It seemed to me that most of the companies at the job fair were pushing their agendas and social networking...not hiring.
feed me.
I would just like to let everyone know you can feed the fish in my pond by clicking your cursor on it. It provides hours of mindless entertainment and is an awsome distraction when trying to study for finals.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Virtual Construction Worker
Assignment 5: Building "Something"
This exercise and exercise were both originally conceived of as activities that would take place in Second Life. Second Life has not turned out to be as inspirational as I had hoped. So please find some on-line world or application that allows for unique creations. They could be anything from Second Life outfits to Flickr slide shows to sculptures in A Tale in the Desert. (Note: it would be preferable if your product was not inside a world that the rest of us had to pay to enter.) At some point in the future, I will make a small in-class show of the most interesting objects. If you life the ideas of 3D worlds you may want to look at Active Worlds (see http://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Active_Worlds for details.) Otherwise, I am open to suggestions. If in doubt, ask.
In this case, I'd like you to answer the following questions:
1. Which application did you use to create something?
I used an application called Jib Jab Elf Yourself. It sort of like an ecard, but is animated. You can put pictures of yourself and your friends into a funny video of dancing elfs hip hop.
How could other members of the class go about accessing your stuff?
http://elfyourself.jibjab.com/view/IBOKuIJ0F1La0OiC?cmpid=ey_fb_friend this is the video of my friends and myself.
If you wanted to make your own just click here!
http://elfyourself.jibjab.com/?cmpid=om_ey_hp
2. How much time/effort was required in building your creation?
It was extremely easy. The layout of the website was very easy to follow and had concise instructions. All you have to do upload pictures of your friends.
3. Do you like what you have made?
YESSSSSSSSSS!! It is so funny and cute. I posted it on all my friends facebook walls and it made their day.
This exercise and exercise were both originally conceived of as activities that would take place in Second Life. Second Life has not turned out to be as inspirational as I had hoped. So please find some on-line world or application that allows for unique creations. They could be anything from Second Life outfits to Flickr slide shows to sculptures in A Tale in the Desert. (Note: it would be preferable if your product was not inside a world that the rest of us had to pay to enter.) At some point in the future, I will make a small in-class show of the most interesting objects. If you life the ideas of 3D worlds you may want to look at Active Worlds (see http://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Active_Worlds for details.) Otherwise, I am open to suggestions. If in doubt, ask.
In this case, I'd like you to answer the following questions:
1. Which application did you use to create something?
I used an application called Jib Jab Elf Yourself. It sort of like an ecard, but is animated. You can put pictures of yourself and your friends into a funny video of dancing elfs hip hop.
How could other members of the class go about accessing your stuff?
http://elfyourself.jibjab.com/view/IBOKuIJ0F1La0OiC?cmpid=ey_fb_friend this is the video of my friends and myself.
If you wanted to make your own just click here!
http://elfyourself.jibjab.com/?cmpid=om_ey_hp
2. How much time/effort was required in building your creation?
It was extremely easy. The layout of the website was very easy to follow and had concise instructions. All you have to do upload pictures of your friends.
3. Do you like what you have made?
YESSSSSSSSSS!! It is so funny and cute. I posted it on all my friends facebook walls and it made their day.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Better late then never...I give you Assignment 4
1. How many of your comments turned out to be the only comments
attached to a particular post?
From my observations I saw that most of the time, my comments were the only comments on a particular post. However, it was interesting to see which posts sparked people's interest. For example, I posted a link to a New York Times article and it generated a lot of feedback.
2. How many di®erent blogs did you comment only? (Remember: 3 is a
minimum number, you are not limited to only three people)
I only commented on 3 people's blogs, however I plan to comment on many more. I feel that if these were blogs in real cyberspace I would have no qualms about voicing my opinion and posting away. However, because these are academically geared and because these are my peers who know me I take my time and try to respond to people's ideas meaningfully and with respect. Because, of this it takes me some time to write insightful posts.
3. Did you tend to respond to people you already from outside the class?
Yes.
4. Do you think this is a useful way to communicate in a class setting.
No, particularly. Most of these blogs seem static. In that I mean that they are neutral towards topics, this cause most of the post to be neutral and the more interesting blog conversations occur when there is discussion and differing opinions. I just don't think that can happen here. Plus, the most memorable communications I've had in any of my class have taken place during class, usually during discussions. There is something about personal interaction in conversation that can't be mimicked in a blog.
5. What are the advantages/disadvantages of this method of communica-
tion?
I think one of the greatest advantages to blogging is that you can communicate in your own time at your own pace. I can't even count the number of times prior to class that I think of something really intelligent that could have added to the discussion, BUT the class is over and the conversation has passed. I think this method of communication would allow for more conscientious participation by letting people mull over subjects then communicate their opinions.
I've listed most of the disadvantages above so I will quickly reiterate them. In this setting the contributions are not anonymous, which I think causes people to be bland in there opinions. I'm not sure whether anonymity would be an advantage or disadvantage of blogs. On the one hand, there is no fear of persecution so people are free to say what they want....On the other hand people are free to say what they want, and it isn't always nice or particularly helpful. The other major disadvantage is that it doesn't equate with face to face interaction.
attached to a particular post?
From my observations I saw that most of the time, my comments were the only comments on a particular post. However, it was interesting to see which posts sparked people's interest. For example, I posted a link to a New York Times article and it generated a lot of feedback.
2. How many di®erent blogs did you comment only? (Remember: 3 is a
minimum number, you are not limited to only three people)
I only commented on 3 people's blogs, however I plan to comment on many more. I feel that if these were blogs in real cyberspace I would have no qualms about voicing my opinion and posting away. However, because these are academically geared and because these are my peers who know me I take my time and try to respond to people's ideas meaningfully and with respect. Because, of this it takes me some time to write insightful posts.
3. Did you tend to respond to people you already from outside the class?
Yes.
4. Do you think this is a useful way to communicate in a class setting.
No, particularly. Most of these blogs seem static. In that I mean that they are neutral towards topics, this cause most of the post to be neutral and the more interesting blog conversations occur when there is discussion and differing opinions. I just don't think that can happen here. Plus, the most memorable communications I've had in any of my class have taken place during class, usually during discussions. There is something about personal interaction in conversation that can't be mimicked in a blog.
5. What are the advantages/disadvantages of this method of communica-
tion?
I think one of the greatest advantages to blogging is that you can communicate in your own time at your own pace. I can't even count the number of times prior to class that I think of something really intelligent that could have added to the discussion, BUT the class is over and the conversation has passed. I think this method of communication would allow for more conscientious participation by letting people mull over subjects then communicate their opinions.
I've listed most of the disadvantages above so I will quickly reiterate them. In this setting the contributions are not anonymous, which I think causes people to be bland in there opinions. I'm not sure whether anonymity would be an advantage or disadvantage of blogs. On the one hand, there is no fear of persecution so people are free to say what they want....On the other hand people are free to say what they want, and it isn't always nice or particularly helpful. The other major disadvantage is that it doesn't equate with face to face interaction.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
HELP! My first assignment...
Ally-Marie Corliss
COM 170 October 15, 2009
Macro Assignment #1
Wisdom of the Crowd versus Collective Stupidity:
The Issue of Morality on Web 2.0
Most of our readings have discussed the vast and innovative ways to monetize Web 2.0 applications. However, looking beyond a purely economic understanding of the World Wide Web one has to question were does pure human morality belong on our modern information super highway? Is morality on Web 2.0 safely defined by ‘wisdom of the crowds’? As explained by Wikinomics, ‘wisdom of the crowds’ describes the rules and regulations of each and every online forum. Very different online community has their own rules of acceptability. Concurrently, ‘collective stupidity’ is used in the same exact capacity, but describes the effect of a collective ‘dumb-ing down’ of rationality. ‘collective stupidity’ arises because most web users are average people not rocket scientists or saints or sinners. Therefore, is ‘collective stupidity’ leading to the moral corruption of Web 2.0? Furthermore, does morality even have a place on Web 2.0; does Web 2.0 provide a space outside of societal conventions to provide individuals with the keys to form their own visions of morality?
As mentioned above much of Web 2.0’s constructions of normalcy is defined by the users in a particular network. Conventions on one social networking site take a completely different context on another social networking site. For example friend-ing an individual on Facebook would have a completely different meaning then friend-ing an individual on a social networking cite like Match.com. However, how face can ‘wisdom of crowds’ be trusted to regulate social meanings on online communities. In an online community of pedophiles lewd images are passed back and forth without judgment. A grotesque example that points out the errors of the free market political philosophy supported by Wikinomics, that assumes users always make sound collective judgments. Wikinomics seems to supports utopian idealization of the internet that while may represent humanity at its upmost idealization neglects the fringes of society that seek to extort the system. In this example of crowds being the guide of morality it’s clear that a break from conventional wisdom equates to exploitations. In the example of this community an image of an underage girl in a compromising position is not frowned upon, but it is glorified.
Obvious to the greater society is the fact that the image is a crime, however within the context of a this specific community such sharing is perfectly within the code of morality created by the community. Morality on Web 2.0 leads to the sense that each online community exists in a vacuum of cyberspace, however the reality is that virtual worlds are an extension of real people who should be held to the lass of the real world. The example is very specific and most Web 2.0 users would find this community morally objectable.
Concurrently, there is a huge online community of music listeners who trade, download, and share music files illegally. The collective wisdom of music peering and sharing on the internet deems this form of sharing morally acceptable. One form of peer to peer sharing is deemed acceptable by wisdom of the crowds. The web morality defined by users dictates that sharing lewd photos is wrong, however sharing illegally downloaded songs is not only fair but shrouded with a sense of entitlement- the crowd’s wisdom creates the notion that people deserve free music.
Within, the morality created on social networking site this is not viewed as a crime but as an extension of individuality and represents a the changing ethics of social interaction on the Web 2.0; “The Web us no longer about idly surfing and passively reading, listening, or watching. It’s about peering: sharing, socializing, collaborating, and most of all, creating within loosely connected communities.” (45) The ‘new ethics of openness’ on cyberspace dictate that this form of sharing is morally correct. Interestingly, both sharing music and sharing lewd images are illegal, however the crowd dictates that one form of sharing is acceptable while the other is not. In addition, N-Geners are greatly concerned with ‘sincerity’, as explained by Wikinomics, “Only the smartest and most sincere companies stand a chance of becoming meaningful participants in the networks theses N-Geners are forging”(50). To my generation there is a clear dichotomy between the two different types of sharing. Sharing lewd images is clearly an issue of exploiting individuals, however sharing music becomes about exploiting the big-business machine. Free Culture highlights this point stating, “This is not a protectionism to protect artists. It is instead protectionism to protect certain forms of business. Corporations threatened by the potential of the Internet to change the way both commercial and noncommercial culture are made and shared have united to induce lawmakers to use the law to protect them”( 9).
It seems to me that the problem of collective stupidity doesn’t require a solution, because for the most part Web 2.0 is a self correcting entity. For example, the same community of online predators spurs the emergence of other online communities that act as watchdogs; a form of vigilant web justice. In addition, there are now organizations that have found a way profit from web immorality. This can be seen in the host of new industries that have been created to offer customers web protection in the form of virus protection, identity theft protection, and software that allows people to censor web searches. The problem it seems is that unlike actual law, Internet software has no capacity to punish. It doesn’t affect people who aren’t online (and only a tiny minority of the world population is). And if you don’t like the Internet’s system, you can always flip off the modem. The Internet has unleashed an extraordinary possibility for many to participate in the process of building and cultivating a culture that reaches far beyond local boundaries. That power has changed the marketplace for making and cultivating culture generally, and that change in turn threatens established content industries
COM 170 October 15, 2009
Macro Assignment #1
Wisdom of the Crowd versus Collective Stupidity:
The Issue of Morality on Web 2.0
Most of our readings have discussed the vast and innovative ways to monetize Web 2.0 applications. However, looking beyond a purely economic understanding of the World Wide Web one has to question were does pure human morality belong on our modern information super highway? Is morality on Web 2.0 safely defined by ‘wisdom of the crowds’? As explained by Wikinomics, ‘wisdom of the crowds’ describes the rules and regulations of each and every online forum. Very different online community has their own rules of acceptability. Concurrently, ‘collective stupidity’ is used in the same exact capacity, but describes the effect of a collective ‘dumb-ing down’ of rationality. ‘collective stupidity’ arises because most web users are average people not rocket scientists or saints or sinners. Therefore, is ‘collective stupidity’ leading to the moral corruption of Web 2.0? Furthermore, does morality even have a place on Web 2.0; does Web 2.0 provide a space outside of societal conventions to provide individuals with the keys to form their own visions of morality?
As mentioned above much of Web 2.0’s constructions of normalcy is defined by the users in a particular network. Conventions on one social networking site take a completely different context on another social networking site. For example friend-ing an individual on Facebook would have a completely different meaning then friend-ing an individual on a social networking cite like Match.com. However, how face can ‘wisdom of crowds’ be trusted to regulate social meanings on online communities. In an online community of pedophiles lewd images are passed back and forth without judgment. A grotesque example that points out the errors of the free market political philosophy supported by Wikinomics, that assumes users always make sound collective judgments. Wikinomics seems to supports utopian idealization of the internet that while may represent humanity at its upmost idealization neglects the fringes of society that seek to extort the system. In this example of crowds being the guide of morality it’s clear that a break from conventional wisdom equates to exploitations. In the example of this community an image of an underage girl in a compromising position is not frowned upon, but it is glorified.
Obvious to the greater society is the fact that the image is a crime, however within the context of a this specific community such sharing is perfectly within the code of morality created by the community. Morality on Web 2.0 leads to the sense that each online community exists in a vacuum of cyberspace, however the reality is that virtual worlds are an extension of real people who should be held to the lass of the real world. The example is very specific and most Web 2.0 users would find this community morally objectable.
Concurrently, there is a huge online community of music listeners who trade, download, and share music files illegally. The collective wisdom of music peering and sharing on the internet deems this form of sharing morally acceptable. One form of peer to peer sharing is deemed acceptable by wisdom of the crowds. The web morality defined by users dictates that sharing lewd photos is wrong, however sharing illegally downloaded songs is not only fair but shrouded with a sense of entitlement- the crowd’s wisdom creates the notion that people deserve free music.
Within, the morality created on social networking site this is not viewed as a crime but as an extension of individuality and represents a the changing ethics of social interaction on the Web 2.0; “The Web us no longer about idly surfing and passively reading, listening, or watching. It’s about peering: sharing, socializing, collaborating, and most of all, creating within loosely connected communities.” (45) The ‘new ethics of openness’ on cyberspace dictate that this form of sharing is morally correct. Interestingly, both sharing music and sharing lewd images are illegal, however the crowd dictates that one form of sharing is acceptable while the other is not. In addition, N-Geners are greatly concerned with ‘sincerity’, as explained by Wikinomics, “Only the smartest and most sincere companies stand a chance of becoming meaningful participants in the networks theses N-Geners are forging”(50). To my generation there is a clear dichotomy between the two different types of sharing. Sharing lewd images is clearly an issue of exploiting individuals, however sharing music becomes about exploiting the big-business machine. Free Culture highlights this point stating, “This is not a protectionism to protect artists. It is instead protectionism to protect certain forms of business. Corporations threatened by the potential of the Internet to change the way both commercial and noncommercial culture are made and shared have united to induce lawmakers to use the law to protect them”( 9).
It seems to me that the problem of collective stupidity doesn’t require a solution, because for the most part Web 2.0 is a self correcting entity. For example, the same community of online predators spurs the emergence of other online communities that act as watchdogs; a form of vigilant web justice. In addition, there are now organizations that have found a way profit from web immorality. This can be seen in the host of new industries that have been created to offer customers web protection in the form of virus protection, identity theft protection, and software that allows people to censor web searches. The problem it seems is that unlike actual law, Internet software has no capacity to punish. It doesn’t affect people who aren’t online (and only a tiny minority of the world population is). And if you don’t like the Internet’s system, you can always flip off the modem. The Internet has unleashed an extraordinary possibility for many to participate in the process of building and cultivating a culture that reaches far beyond local boundaries. That power has changed the marketplace for making and cultivating culture generally, and that change in turn threatens established content industries
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
