Risk of Loss: A Series of Folly
Friday, January 23, 2009
writing an encyclopedia
Britannica is allowing users to edit and post entries to its online encyclopedia to combat wikipedia, but with a twist of the old-school integrated: user content must be reviewed by Britannica before it will be placed beside entries and posts can only be submitted by approved authors who register their real names and addresses.
Wikipedia is a controversial concept with complaints ranging from false information to cultural decline. But despite the criticism it is still in the top 10 sites used globally.
Perhaps it is also controversy that fuels the site—not controversy over whether the information is accurate or if anonymous authors are credible, but the inclusion of controversial information. James Loewen‘s book Lies My Teacher Told Me points to the whitewashing of (high-school) history as one of the key ingredients to making it boring. Pretending that everything was one-sided and heroes were only ever perfect ignores the drama of life. One of the brilliant sides to wikipedia is the ability to allow different cultures, viewpoints, and opinions to be expressed in the writing of history. As Danah Boyd mentioned in her speech at the 2008 Handheld Learning conference, teachers could choose to use wikipedia as a learning tool by accessing the history of entries and teaching students to evaluate the credibility of authors.
Britannica’s emulation of the wikipedia format is a big step, even with the restrictions. In fact, the restrictions directly address the major complaints heard about the wikipedia format, and by creating an alternative that emphasizes the expert while allowing for restricted user interaction Britannica may be bringing the idea of interactive technology to a new set of users.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Distraction and Information Overload
Stoooopid .... why the Google generation isn’t as smart as it thinks is another look at how media technology and social networking can sliver our thoughts. What most writers fail to note when lamenting the use of the Internet is that choices are involved. Brushing off Google, Microsoft, IMB, and Intel as “the companies most active in denying us our craving for depth, the great distracters” is an easy way to blame others for what one chooses to do with the access.
While skimming many things on the Internet is an option, it is also possible to become immersed in a good book or long article using the same medium. Check out the Top 100 Books being downloaded at Project Gutenberg, or read the close to 2,000-word article I’m discussing here.
In addition, it’s necessary to distinguish between multitasking and interruption. I would argue they are not the same thing. Advertisements, train announcements, the neighbor’s blaring radio ... these are not a part of multitasking. Our attention is not being intentionally split between this and another project, it is being distracted by uninvited or unexpected information. Multitasking could mean copying the information being researched into an email for a friend, while creating a post about it and keeping the database searches running for more information. There is a huge difference in the level of concentration being given to the deep thoughts about a project when it is being interpreted for various outlets versus pulling out of those deep thoughts to address something else.
Monday, July 14, 2008
dissertation progress
I finally have my pre-proposal written. Over the past year I have changed my emphasis from DIY media and attitude changes regarding mass media, to community and efficacy in media production groups, to social cohesion in online relational communities. They all have something in common, despite the different terminology. Namely they all deal with groups of people making things who are connected not by place, but by interest. In addition, they do not meet in person but choose to connect through mediated networks (at least initially ... some research has shown that relationships that form online and become strong lead to in person relationships--see McKenna et al, 2002, below).
My interest in all of these topics, including the one I’ll finally move forward with, ties into the “Risk of Loss: A Series of Folly” tag in this journal. Increasingly individuals are interacting with people and activities through media-enabled access rather than within their local communities, bringing up questions about whether the differing forms of community engagement are comparable. There is a lot of fear surrounding the transition from face-to-face communities to networked individualism.
Will neighborhoods decline if people interact online instead of locally? I’d guess no, since the level of neighborhood interaction has steadily declined with urbanization and is not the result solely of increasing participatory communities connected through media. In addition, some studies showed that interacting with people in your neighborhood through the Internet increased local activity as well--see Wellman, 2001, below for more details.
Will people lose touch with family and friends because they are addicted to the Internet? In answer to the first part: The Internet is used more to connect people with existing relationships than to create new ones. Family and friends that are already moving about the world are able to keep in touch, so it’s quite the opposite. In response to Internet addiction, I’ll have to refer you to Stuart Fischoff‘s blog. He recently covered Internet addiction rather thoroughly and well.
Is democracy at risk ... or is it in a position to flourish? There are opinions on both sides of this question. Internet as liberator and equalizer versus internet as a diversion and division that keeps people from interacting with civic events. If I had to guess, I’d stick to the middle ground. The internet is after all a tool, and how people use it depends upon their goals, personalities, existing influences ... I can’t believe that the internet alone would either make or break a government system. But then there are those Twittering politicians, who knows what waves they will cause!
But in my research, I’m not suggesting that online communities are a replacement for geographic communities. Instead I see them as an important available option for locating and interacting with like-minded groups. Group members incorporate the elements of identity formed in online groups with their offline self-concept, and this can be especially important when comparable interest groups are not available in the local community. Teams that form around massive multiplayer online role-playing games, interest groups connecting through email lists and forums, or participants in online independent media centers are examples of communities created by mediated connections rather than geography. The social nature of these groups, similar interests and values among members, and drive to meet project goals suggest that members will experience similar connections within these groups as those formed in physical spaces.
Psychological benefits of community have been shown to play a positive role in the lives of individuals, if social cohesion is present in online communities it could be theorized that similar feelings of collective efficacy, individual efficacy, and being a part of the community experience also would be present. This could specifically benefit individuals who live in neighborhoods that lack the elements of social cohesion. If online communities can provide an equivalent link to a community based on values and goals, people in communities with low social capital may be able to overcome some of the challenges presented by their neighborhoods with social support from an online community.
McKenna, Katelyn Y. A., Green, Amie S., & Gleason, Marci E. J. (2002). Relationship formation on the Internet: What’s the big attraction?
Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 9-31. Retrieved July 8, 2008, from Wiley Interscience.
Wellman, Barry. (2001). Physical place and cyberplace: The rise of personalized networking. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 25(2), 227-252.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Risk of Loss: A Series of Folly
“Cycling was so popular that in 1896 The New York Journal of Commerce estimated bicycling was costing theaters, restaurants and other businesses over 100 million dollars per year.”—Mental Floss How the Bicycle Emancipated Women
This line made me laugh. The Journal of Commerce’s logic summarizes so beautifully the way dominant businesses would treat emerging entertainment and information technology in the next century and beyond. If it’s not loss of profits, it’s cultural collapse. In fact, this fear of loss and publicity about how new ideas are killing the old ways was a popular method of dealing with inventions such as the Gutenberg press back in the mid-1400s as well.
Since this entertains me so much, I am going to begin collecting quotes, statistics, and opinions from other industries that cried out to the public that the new toys were destroying the old and post them here in this Risk of Loss series.
Monday, May 05, 2008
Information overload & cultural collapse: old fears
Reading The Cult of the Amateur has made me mad. I guess that’s one thing to be said in favor of the author: his writing can incite emotion. There are so many flaws in his logic that I am going to break down this post with subtitles to keep myself from rambling on and on and writing my own 205-page diatribe.
The overwhelming feeling I get from this book is fear. Fear of too much information to sift through. Fear that the professional is losing control. Fear that the masses are uneducated and unable or unwilling to embrace quality media.
Information Overload
All of these fears have arisen with other societal changes and are not new to the web. Technology and change seem to have this effect. The press and mass production of books incited similar grandiloquences about information overload: How will the people (and the experts, as a separate entity of course) ever wade through the innumerable tomes?
Information overload is not a new concept. And perhaps not surprisingly, it seems to affect those who were raised in the old system of information more than those born into the newer, differently structured, information network. It has been shown that kids have the ability to mutli-task better than adults. While adults may feel they are multi-tasking, they are actually less adept at each of their tasks as they attempt to juggle them. Kids’ brains are able to nimbly handle all those things they’re doing: chat on IM, search the web, listen to music, text on the phone, and type up a homework assignment—without the struggle their elders face.
Blaming New Technology for Failures
One of Keen’s main criticisms falls on Wikipedia. However, this is a case where his flawed factual backup is such a stretch that I can only use his own words against him: “The 232-year-old Britannica went through a series of painful layoffs in 2001 and 2002, cutting its 300-person staff in the United States almost by half; with the advent of Wikipedia, no doubt more layoffs are to come.” Wikipedia started in 2004. The old system was failing before the new arose. Although other arguments he poses against Wikipedia hold some value, this leaping accusation deteriorates the value of all other statements near it.
Assumptions About Mainstream Media
Keen also supports the mainstream media and states that it has “reinforced American values and made our culture the envy of the world” for 200 years.
Sure, the AP wire started in the 1840s, and in 1800 the Sedition Act forbidding criticism of the government by the media expired. However, it wasn’t until 1920 that our modern interpretation of journalism arose. Four journalism schools were formed in 1920 (Columbia, Northwestern, Missouri, and Indiana) because of the lack of faith the general population had in a media system run for profit, before this professionalization of journalism the media was based on sensationalism and yellow journalism. Prior to this, it was not even acceptable for a journalist to take notes. This change in journalism did separate the United States media from other countries, but it certainly wasn’t 200 years ago. It also was not the glorious and value-ridden idealistic media that Keen seems to imply.
Media has always been questioned in the United States. Training journalists and following ethical codes was an attempt to create unbiased media in the face of a profit-driven industry, but the credibility of media continued to be questioned. By 1996 the media was “seen as part of a strongly disliked governing elite” according to a U.S. News and World Report survey. Where is the motivation to save an institution that has been taken over by corporations despite the efforts to professionalize it, one that is seen not as the reinforcer of values but instead as one big advertisement?
Cultural Collapse
If generations of information jugglers are able to find all of the information they want, then why would they depend on a talking head to tell them what to think? This is where the next fear arises. If no one listens to the professional, is there still such a thing?
Keen’s argument supports being told by someone else what to think, or at least what to think about. His assumption is that mainstream media provide this service. Keen fears that without mainstream media as the middle man, we will not be able to recognize, or find in the marsh of information, true genius.
This concept reminds me of a presentation at the New Communications Forum by Tim Westergren’s, of Pandora.com, and Milton Olin, Jr., Altschul & Olin, LLP, on the fall of the hierarchy in the music industry. Musicians no longer need to know who is the head of a major record label and bow to the lackeys below to struggle to the top. When that was the case, 1% of musicians actually made it to a label. Even fewer made it to the public. They may have been signed but if their music sales weren’t projected to cover the expenses of recording and marketing, they were shelved and no one was able to hear them. Even the ones who made it big handed over most of their profits to that label to cover expenses.
You tell me, which is better:
Old men in suits deciding what good music is and allowing the masses to hear a small percentage of what is out there, while hoarding the profits even at the expense of the musician?
Or
Everyone being able to find music they like no matter what other people think of it, at the expense of taking the time and energy to find it?
There may still be a need for people to find quality information and entertainment, but rather than controlling it they will be sharing it.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
reading: Cult of the Amateur
I’m not sure how much more I can read, and I’m just starting. If it doesn’t flesh out into something more than the desperate ranting of a man frightened of losing his imagined cultural control, I may not make it to the last half of the book.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Nielsen fails to support web strengths
I was shocked and angered to see Jakob Nielsen’s response (below) to a student highlighted in his April 21, 2008, Alertbox email:
I WON’T DO YOUR HOMEWORK
Last week I got this email:
“My name is Donald Duck, and I am currently a junior psychology major at Duckburg College. For my senior thesis, I would like to conduct some usability studies in the process of redesigning my old high school’s website. In making this my senior thesis, part of what I have to do is find out what research is currently being done in the field, in order to build upon it. I do not know much about usability or interface design from a research perspective. I am wondering if you might be able to point me in the right direction for where I can get started learning about this field.”
Sorry - I am not going to do your homework for you. Even today, there is such a thing as the library. Or search engines that rapidly will turn up articles such as “Usability 101” to serve as a starting point for online research if you can’t be bothered to crack open a book or research journal: > http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20030825.html
What good is a usable site if you refuse to connect with the readers? The ability to contact people otherwise remote is at the center of the internet’s democratization of networking. Unless more than the name, “Donald Duck” is surely not the sender, was edited by Nielsen, it appears that the student was asking for resource suggestions to start researching not a 250-word essay to plagiarize.
On top of that, although I am an avid fan of libraries—why discount the student for contacting the most notable primary resource on the topic rather than relying on secondhand information watered down by publishing houses and buried in the stacks? Yet another thing that a usable internet gives us is access to the source.
Nielsen was flat out rude and inconsistent with usability—on top of which, he downplays his own site by referring to it only as a source to use as a last, lazy, resort. Poor form.
Pandora’s support for middle-class musicians
Just got out of the SNCR forum presentation by the creator of Pandora, Tim Westergren. I remember loving Pandora back in 2000-2001 when I worked in Tallahassee. Then it disappeared. Then it reappeared. I’m glad it’s back, even though it’s nowhere near as awesome in its new formation (can’t click through more than a certain number per hour, ads) ... at least they are able to keep it up and running.
The parallels between news media and music were touched on, and that got me thinking. The internet has definitely made a more (genuinely) democratic means of networking available, moving away from leaders and toward multiple centers rather than following one big talking head. That scares the shit out of the people who like working in the crumbling network structure based on figureheads and fraternities. But it excites the hell out of me. Why let one corporation take 90% of the insane profits of the 1% of musicians who make it, all the while keeping down 99% of the people with music (or art or news or whatever) in their souls when that insane profit can be split up amongst all of the people who want to work at making and sharing music—giving them all enough to live even if no one gets filthy rich? Fuck the man. Here’s to the many.
But, conversation kept meandering away from music and opportunities for independent musicians toward business models. It seems like a lot of the people at this conference are here to be told how to make money with XY&Z—even at the expense of attending a later presentation on Net Neutrality, which could make or break their ability to even use social networking.
I’m going to enjoy going to the smaller presentations on the two tracks that everyone else is missing. (I’m also thinking no one will show up to mine tomorrow, because not only am I not going to tell them how to make money but it’s the last session and it’s beautiful here, who wants to be inside?)
Saturday, June 02, 2007
More corporate changes
MySpace is deleting sex offender accounts too, 7000 so far, but even when MySpace makes an error it isn’t admitting it. Interestingly, there does not seem to be a backlash. One of the banned users is actually so desperate to have a MySpace account that he’s tried lying about who he is to create a new one and settled on borrowing his girlfriend’s account to access the site.
There are so many other options out there. My first assumption is that his dependency on the service must be due to lack of exploration/understanding of the web. Sure MySpace is a place to find music, people, etc but you can find MySpace pages through search engines in the same way you could find a Virb.com page (which not only also has music, videos, photos, and blogs but also LOOKS NICE and FUNCTIONS), facebook (which I hear looks nicer than MySpace and functions better), or even a personal web site that is not dependent upon conglomerate media dictating whether you are allowed access.
My MySpace response [update: account closed]—which includes the quote below:
In 1976, Pastor Martin Niemöller wrote:
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
Friday, June 01, 2007
brief list of current corporate screw ups re online communities
It seems online communities bought out by companies are messing up severely these days. I would chalk it up to the companies operating them not really understanding the existing community and having different sensibilities. That doesn’t mean they can’t learn, on the contrary they seem willing to learn albeit only after mistakes.
Corporate screw ups are probably to be expected, though still disheartening. Community action against it is not only a positive side, but perhaps needed to iron out the way corporations interact with the communities that grew up around social networking tools before the tools were purchased.
Page 1 of 2 pages
1 2 >
| © Jenny Whittemore Fremlin. All rights reserved.
