The concept of citizen journalism is not new, its history stretches as far back as the printing press itself. Back then printers not only published newspapers, but also published materials for paying clients who "engaged in little newsgathering and instead were predominantly vehicles for opinion". (Papandrea, 2007)
The idea of today's citizen journalist is the same as the concept of 'produsage'. Where produsage saw the producer simultaneously consuming content (and vice versa), citizen journalism sees the reader becoming the reporter.
Citizen journalists are gaining greater power thanks largely to Web 2.0 technologies, particularly open source software. Citizen journalists are no longer restricted by finances - anyone, anywhere can distribute globally, and usually for minimal or no cost.
While exploring the topic of citizen journalism, I stumbled up the concept of 'gatewatching'. I was already familiar with the media's involvement in gatekeeping - controlling the flow of information through a filtering or editing process. But the concept of gatewatching is very interesting, particularly its implications for citizen journalism.
Axel Bruns describes gatewatching as "the observation of the output gates of news publication and other sources, in order to identify important material as it becomes available". (Bruns 2005, 17)
The role of citizen journalists as gatewatchers, mainly through blogs or open access websites such as Wikis, is to circumvent the gatekeepers’ control over the availability of information and to challenge and verify the information they are given.
I think Jeff Jarvis has the best description of the role of the online community as gatewatchers. He says "no, we bloggers don’t have all the tools and access that the pros have. But we have the ability to ask questions and keep pressure on ... We shouldn't want to be gatekeepers. We shouldn't want to get in the way of connecting people to what they want to know. We should do just the opposite and enable more people to find out more information". (Jarvis, 2006)
Proponents of citizen journalism say citizen journalism is a way for the poor, the disenfranchised and minorities to be heard. (Witt, 2007) The argument goes that citizen journalism is independent, reliable and honest in its redressing of the perceived bias of professional journalists.
But citizen journalism is falling short of achieving the lofty goals it has set for itself.
The use of the word 'journalism' is largely responsible for these shortcomings. The Australian Journalists Association (AJA) describes the role of a journalist as the following:
"Journalists describe society to itself. They convey information, ideas and opinions. They search, disclose, record, question, entertain, suggest and remember. They inform citizens and animate democracy. They give a practical form to freedom of expression."
The AJA's Code of Ethics (yes, journalists do have ethics) calls for reporting to be honest, accurate and fair and without the effects of suppression of facts; distortion; unnecessary emphasis placed on personal characteristics; personal interest or beliefs; payment; conflict of interest and commercial considerations. (AJA)
Undoubtedly citizen journalists are 'journalists' in the sense that they mostly undertake the above. But the core task of the journalist is to pick the most newsworthy stories from the day's events, cementing journalists as gatekeepers - the very model citizen 'journalists' are so intent on overthrowing.
But as Singer (in Axel Bruns) states, this plan is fatally flawed because "the value of the gatekeeper is not diminished by the fact that readers now can get all the junk that used to wind up on the metal spike; on the contrary, it is bolstered by the reader’s realization of just how much junk is out there". (Bruns 2005, 13)
Citizen journalists pride themselves on providing the "junk", seeing this as their way of freeing themselves from the bias that plagues traditional journalists.
But to be completely free from bias is simply not possible - bias exists inherently, both consciously and unconsciously. Even though news can be judged as distorted (or biased) in relation to an ideal standard of nondistortion, "the standards themselves cannot be absolute or objective because they are inevitably based on a number of reality and value judgments" (Gans 1980, 305).
So what can we do? Gatekeeping as used by traditional journalists cannot be discarded - it meets a consumer demand for filtered, expert and packaged content. But neither can the gatewatching model be ignored, its role in shedding light on content that otherwise would not be seen cannot be overlooked. We only have to look at the aftermath of the Boxing Day tsunami and the images and stories that those caught in the disaster were distributing to news organisations, who would otherwise have no access to the area, to see the value of citizen journalism.
Personally I'd like to see a peaceful co-existence of professional and citizen journalists and gatekeepers and gatewatchers. It is certainly possible, but whether or not this is what the future holds remains to be seen.
References
Australian Journalists Association (n.d.) AJA Code of Ethics
Retrieved 6 May, 2008, from http://www.australian-news.com.au/codethics.htm
Bruns, A (2005) Gatekeeping: collaborative on-line news production. New York: P.Lang
Gans, H. J. (1980) Deciding What's News : A Study of CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, Newsweek and TIME. New York: Vintage Books
Jarvis, J (2006, March 12) Gatekeeper v. Amateurs
Retrieved 4 May, 2008, fromhttp://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/03/12/gatekeeper-v-amateurs/
Papandrea, M Citizen Journalism and the Reporter's Privilege. Boston College Law School, Minnesota Law Review, Vol. 91.
Retrieved 4 May, 2008, from http://lsr.nellco.org/bc/bclsfp/papers/167/
Witt, L (2007) Citizen Journalists: They don't need to be regulated.
Retrieved 6 May, 2008, from http://www.computational-journalism.com/class2008/2008/01/15/should-citizen-journalism-be-regulated/
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Produsers Are The Future
In recent years there has been an undeniable change in the way we interact with the World Wide Web. This shift has been described as Web 2.0, but how do we describe the people who are doing the interacting?
Produsers of course!
The traditional model of production went something like this: producer produces content, producer distributes content, consumer consumes content, and the whole process was repeated maybe with some changes made to the content by the producer. Control over every aspect of content in the traditional model rested solely with the producer - "they decide on the very nature of the content itself" (Bruns, 2008a).
But then we began to network, we began to coordinate and collaborate and 'production' was no longer an accurate way to describe the "creative, collaborative and ad hoc engagement" we had with user-led content (Bruns 2008b, 1).
Production and consumption are no longer separate, they are happening simultaneously. As Axel Bruns defines, "the role of ‘consumer’ and even that of ‘end user’ have long disappeared, and the distinctions between producers and users of content have faded into comparative insignificance" (Bruns 2008b, 2).
We are both producers and consumers - we are 'produsers' and we are involved in a process called produsage. Bruns (2008a) describes produsage as having four key characteristics:
If you have access to the Internet, chances are you are a produser. If you were to read this blog then write an entry on your own blog or comment on this one, you would be a produser because you are consuming the content I have written and then using that to produce something of your own.
Wikipedia is an obvious example of produsage - regardless of language, geography or even qualifications people are collaborating and creating; producing new entries while consuming and developing existing ones.
Whereas the production of content was previously solely for academics, the fact is you and I now have the means, the skills and the confidence to do it too.
When Time magazine named You their Person of the Year in 2006, Editor Lev Grossman (2006) says it was "for seizing the reins of the global media, for founding and framing the new digital democracy, for working for nothing and beating the pros at their own game". By simply contributing anything, even if it was read only by your friends, you have helped shift the power away from a select few and towards the mass of produsers out there.
The produser is certainly a driver in the present and no doubt the future will be produser-driven too. But part of being a produser is not just wresting power away from a few and sharing with the masses, it is what we so with it. It is embracing "an opportunity to build a new kind of international understanding ... citizen to citizen, person to person" (Grossman, 2006).
So next time you consume content, think of what you can produce to give back and continue the produsage cycle. Produsage is about breaking down barriers and building a collaborative global community that has never been able to be done before. So jump in and give it a shot - every contribution is contributing something.
References
Bruns, A (2008a) The Future is User-Led: The Path Towards Widespread Produsage. Fibreculture Journal, 11.
Retrieved 26 April, 2008 from, http://journal.fibreculture.org/issue11/issue11_bruns.html
Brun, A (2008b) Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage. New York: Peter Lang
Grossman, L (2006) Time's Person of the Year: You.
Retrieved 26 April, 2008 from, http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html
Produsers of course!
The traditional model of production went something like this: producer produces content, producer distributes content, consumer consumes content, and the whole process was repeated maybe with some changes made to the content by the producer. Control over every aspect of content in the traditional model rested solely with the producer - "they decide on the very nature of the content itself" (Bruns, 2008a).
But then we began to network, we began to coordinate and collaborate and 'production' was no longer an accurate way to describe the "creative, collaborative and ad hoc engagement" we had with user-led content (Bruns 2008b, 1).
Production and consumption are no longer separate, they are happening simultaneously. As Axel Bruns defines, "the role of ‘consumer’ and even that of ‘end user’ have long disappeared, and the distinctions between producers and users of content have faded into comparative insignificance" (Bruns 2008b, 2).
We are both producers and consumers - we are 'produsers' and we are involved in a process called produsage. Bruns (2008a) describes produsage as having four key characteristics:
- A broader-based, distributed generation of content by a wide community of participants.
- Fluid movement of produsers between roles as leaders, participants, and users of content – such produsers may have backgrounds ranging from professional to amateur.
- Artefacts generated are always unfinished, and continually under development.
- Produsage is based on permissive regimes of engagement which are based on merit more than ownership: they frequently employ copyright systems which acknowledge authorship and prohibit unauthorised commercial use, yet enable continuing collaboration on further content improvement.
If you have access to the Internet, chances are you are a produser. If you were to read this blog then write an entry on your own blog or comment on this one, you would be a produser because you are consuming the content I have written and then using that to produce something of your own.
Wikipedia is an obvious example of produsage - regardless of language, geography or even qualifications people are collaborating and creating; producing new entries while consuming and developing existing ones.
Whereas the production of content was previously solely for academics, the fact is you and I now have the means, the skills and the confidence to do it too.
When Time magazine named You their Person of the Year in 2006, Editor Lev Grossman (2006) says it was "for seizing the reins of the global media, for founding and framing the new digital democracy, for working for nothing and beating the pros at their own game". By simply contributing anything, even if it was read only by your friends, you have helped shift the power away from a select few and towards the mass of produsers out there.
The produser is certainly a driver in the present and no doubt the future will be produser-driven too. But part of being a produser is not just wresting power away from a few and sharing with the masses, it is what we so with it. It is embracing "an opportunity to build a new kind of international understanding ... citizen to citizen, person to person" (Grossman, 2006).
So next time you consume content, think of what you can produce to give back and continue the produsage cycle. Produsage is about breaking down barriers and building a collaborative global community that has never been able to be done before. So jump in and give it a shot - every contribution is contributing something.
References
Bruns, A (2008a) The Future is User-Led: The Path Towards Widespread Produsage. Fibreculture Journal, 11.
Retrieved 26 April, 2008 from, http://journal.fibreculture.org/issue11/issue11_bruns.html
Brun, A (2008b) Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage. New York: Peter Lang
Grossman, L (2006) Time's Person of the Year: You.
Retrieved 26 April, 2008 from, http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Open Source Software - Brazil takes on Mighty Microsoft
What drives us to take elements out, develop them and put them back in and thus drive open source software? As we examine this week, there are several possible reasons:
- Necessary fixing or improvement of code - if something is not quite right, it needs to be fixed. For example, Firefox was developed as an alternative to Internet Explorer and all its 'bugs'.
- Developing and showcasing skills - sometimes we just want people to praise our competence and skills.
- Contributing to the greater good of the community - software is refined and improved for the benefit not just to the individual, but for the whole community
- Scratching an itch - entertainment, learning and interest are primary motivators in encouraging development of open source software.
I think the last point about scratching an itch is particularly relevant. The idea was originally explored by Eric S. Raymond in his essay The Cathedral and The Bazaar, in which he says "every good work of software starts by scratching a developer's personal itch". But does open source actually work and is it a threat to closed source software programs?
The concept of open source development is "the rapid creation of solutions within an open, collaborative environment" (Sourceforge, 2008). So even if open source development begins with a single developer wanting to scratch their itch, as more people participate and collaborate, more people scratch their own itches as well as others' itches.
Although the theory of developing open source software may seem like a nightmare - tens, hundreds or even thousands of individuals changing and re-entering code whenever and wherever - it has been proven to work so long as there is someone in charge. If we look at the computer operating system Linux we see that although many developers worked on the software, Linus Torvalds oversaw the entire project and co-ordinated the various different aspects.
That is what makes open source so interesting - it really should not run so smoothly but it does. And not only does it run smoothly, in many ways open source software is actually better than 'closed' source software.
Open source can constantly be changed, developed, fixed and improved far faster than closed source, while the collaboration "promotes a higher standard of quality, and helps to ensure the long-term viability of both data and applications." (Sourceforge, 2008) And it's often free.
Or as stated in Linus' Law of Software Engineering "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow" (Raymond, 1999), meaning with enough people collaborating on a project all potential bugs and glitches will be identified and fixed before the product is distributed.
And it is not just software developers, those 'in the know' or even home computer users who are taking advantage of open source software - federal agencies in France, Germany, China and the United States now use Linux for servers, considering Linux "more stable and less susceptible to viruses and hacker attacks" (Wired, 2003).
While other countries are also adopting alternate open source operating systems, Brazil is leading the way in South America, adopting the Linux software system in their government departments as a cost-cutting measure.
In 2005, the Brazilian government was paying Microsoft fees of around 1200 Brazilian reas (US$500) for every computer and estimated it could save $120 million dollars a year simply by switching to open source software (Kingstone, 2005).
Considering Microsoft earned "between 6 percent and 10 percent of its $318 million in revenues from the government" (Wired, 2003) in the fiscal year ending in June 2003, the switch to open source software will definitely sting.
So what is Microsoft doing to try to put a stop to the Linux switch?
So far they have released several statements questioning the reliability of open source software operating systems (particularly Linux) while at the same time saying every government had the right to choose which operating system they preferred to use.
In 2005 Microsoft also launched a stripped-down cheaper version of Windows XP in Brazil (Kingstone, 2005) aimed at attracting (or re-attracting) customers, but in a country where roughly 20% of the 191 million population own a computer this is unlikely to make a huge impact.
Besides, Microsoft has to compete with a Brazilian government intent on not having to pay licensing fees to Microsoft and spreading the message. At the Telecentro free computer centres, where Brazilians who cannot afford to buy a computer can come and learn to surf the Web, are learning using free, open source software such as Linux (Wired, 2003). This is coupled with the Brazilian government's scheme to sell heavily discounted computers to low-income Brazilians buying their first computer (Benson, 2005). What makes it possible? Free, open source software.
In the light of the support the movement towards open source software is receiving from everyday Brazilians as well as the government, Microsoft's market stranglehold may be beginning to loosen. In Brazil at least.
References
Benson, T (2005, March 29) Brazil: Free Software's Biggest and Best Friend. The New York Times. Retrieved 13 April, 2008 from http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/29/technology/29computer.html
Kingstone, S. (2005, June 2) Brazil Adopts Open-Source Software. BBC News. Retrieved 12 April, 2008 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4602325.stm
Raymond, E.S (1999) The Cathedral and the Bazaar. Retrieved 11 April, 2008 from http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue3_3/raymond/
Sourceforge (2008) What is Sourceforge.net? Retrieved 13 April, 2008 from http://alexandria.wiki.sourceforge.net/What+is+SourceForge.net?
Wired (2003) Brazil Gives Nod to Open Source . Retrieved 13 April, 2008 from http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/news/2003/11/61257
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Web 1.0 vs Web 2.0
I'd like to begin with a confession - before researching this topic I thought that Web 2.0 was a software upgrade. Yes, I believed I could download Web 2.0 when I got sick of using Web 1.0.
But what does it mean when I say Web 1.0 and Web 2.0?
Web 1.0 is used to describe a type of website, and even web experience, that is one-way and static. Web 1.0 meant there was small number of publishers for a large number of readers and user-led content creation was minimal.
Web 2.0 describes the move towards networking, information sharing and collaboration using Internet technologies.
Although these definitions are broad and certainly brief, I think they demonstrate an important point to remember when discussing Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. That is - there was no dramatic change in technology to create a separate and defined Web 2.0, it was more a societal and cultural change in which the user became more actively involved in the Internet experience.
The term 'Web 2.0' was actually first used by Tim O'Reilly when thinking of a name for a conference he was holding back in 2004. He and conference co-founder Dale Dougherty formulated their sense of Web 2.0 by examples, some of them I feel are a little too technical so here are their brainstormed ideas.
By 2005, Tim O'Reilly had further clarified his defintion of Web 2.0:
"Web 2.0 is the network as platform, spanning all connected devices; Web 2.0 applications & [are] delivering software as a continually–updated service that gets better the more people use it, consuming and remixing data from multiple sources, including individual users, while providing their own data and services in a form that allows remixing by others, creating network effects through an ‘architecture of participation,’ and & deliver rich user experiences" (Scholz, 2008).
But then in July 2006 in an IBM developerWorks podcast, the creator of the WorldWideWeb Tim Berners-Lee said the term 'Web 2.0' was nothing but "jargon" and that "nobody even knows what it means". Berners-Lee says Web 1.0 was always intended to connect people, and indeed the point of the Web all along was to be "a collaborative space where people could interact" (IBM, 2006).
But in fact, both Tim O'Reilly and Tim Berners-Lee agree that there was a large shift in the way people interacted with technologies. The only difference is Tim O'Reilly decided to give it a name and Tim Berners-Lee did not.
To be honest this topic really had me lost. It is all just too technical and I felt I was trying to find something that was not necessarily there.
Then I read Dana Gardner's blog Scrap Web 2.0, yes, but embrace Knowledge 2.0 surely and I had a light bulb moment. This is so much bigger than whether we should apply the terms 'Web 1.0' and 'Web 2.0' (in my opinion we should, simply so everyone is on the same page), this is not just changing the way we connect - this is changing the very fundamentals of what it means to be human.
The fact that we can debate Web 1.0 vs Web 2.0; the fact that I or anyone else can blog about the topic; the fact I can access trascripts, defintions and opinions to make an informed decision; the fact that when I want to know something I immediately Google it; the fact that I can use the word 'google' and be understood.
Ten years ago the above would have been unfathomable, but I did each of those just to write this post.
Instead, "what we are up to here is actually Knowledge 2.0, and it is at least a millennial trend, and it shows every indication of having anthropologic impact. That is, Knowledge 2.0 is changing the definition of what it is to be a modern human, individually and collectively" (Gardner, 2006).
As the Web keeps changing and developing and we near the next great shift in the way we interact with technologies, the greatest change that will occur will occur within us. The people who change the technologies are the same people who will be changed by the technologies.
References
Gardner, D (2006, August 31) Scrap Web 2.0, yes, but embrace Knowledge 2.0 surely.
Retrieved 5 April, 2008 from http://blogs.zdnet.com/Gardner/?p=2340
Scholz, T (2008) Market Ideology and the Myths of Web 2.0. First Monday, 13.
Retrieved 5 April, 2008 from, http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2138/1945
Transcript of IBM interview with Tim Berners-Lee (2006, July 27) Originator of the Web and director of the World Wide Web Consortium talks about where we've come, and about thechallenges and opportunities ahead.
Retrieved 6 April, 2008 from,
http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/podcast/dwi/cm-int082206.txt
But what does it mean when I say Web 1.0 and Web 2.0?
Web 1.0 is used to describe a type of website, and even web experience, that is one-way and static. Web 1.0 meant there was small number of publishers for a large number of readers and user-led content creation was minimal.
Web 2.0 describes the move towards networking, information sharing and collaboration using Internet technologies.
Although these definitions are broad and certainly brief, I think they demonstrate an important point to remember when discussing Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. That is - there was no dramatic change in technology to create a separate and defined Web 2.0, it was more a societal and cultural change in which the user became more actively involved in the Internet experience.
The term 'Web 2.0' was actually first used by Tim O'Reilly when thinking of a name for a conference he was holding back in 2004. He and conference co-founder Dale Dougherty formulated their sense of Web 2.0 by examples, some of them I feel are a little too technical so here are their brainstormed ideas.
By 2005, Tim O'Reilly had further clarified his defintion of Web 2.0:
"Web 2.0 is the network as platform, spanning all connected devices; Web 2.0 applications & [are] delivering software as a continually–updated service that gets better the more people use it, consuming and remixing data from multiple sources, including individual users, while providing their own data and services in a form that allows remixing by others, creating network effects through an ‘architecture of participation,’ and & deliver rich user experiences" (Scholz, 2008).
But then in July 2006 in an IBM developerWorks podcast, the creator of the WorldWideWeb Tim Berners-Lee said the term 'Web 2.0' was nothing but "jargon" and that "nobody even knows what it means". Berners-Lee says Web 1.0 was always intended to connect people, and indeed the point of the Web all along was to be "a collaborative space where people could interact" (IBM, 2006).
Confused? Me too.
On one hand we have Tim O'Reilly and Dale Dougherty, along with countless bloggers, researchers, academics and others in the technology business saying Web 2.0 is different from Web 1.0 and can be defined. On the other hand we have Tim Berners-Lee saying there is no Web 2.0, indeed there was never a Web 1.0 - there is just Web.But in fact, both Tim O'Reilly and Tim Berners-Lee agree that there was a large shift in the way people interacted with technologies. The only difference is Tim O'Reilly decided to give it a name and Tim Berners-Lee did not.
To be honest this topic really had me lost. It is all just too technical and I felt I was trying to find something that was not necessarily there.
Then I read Dana Gardner's blog Scrap Web 2.0, yes, but embrace Knowledge 2.0 surely and I had a light bulb moment. This is so much bigger than whether we should apply the terms 'Web 1.0' and 'Web 2.0' (in my opinion we should, simply so everyone is on the same page), this is not just changing the way we connect - this is changing the very fundamentals of what it means to be human.
The fact that we can debate Web 1.0 vs Web 2.0; the fact that I or anyone else can blog about the topic; the fact I can access trascripts, defintions and opinions to make an informed decision; the fact that when I want to know something I immediately Google it; the fact that I can use the word 'google' and be understood.
Ten years ago the above would have been unfathomable, but I did each of those just to write this post.
Instead, "what we are up to here is actually Knowledge 2.0, and it is at least a millennial trend, and it shows every indication of having anthropologic impact. That is, Knowledge 2.0 is changing the definition of what it is to be a modern human, individually and collectively" (Gardner, 2006).
As the Web keeps changing and developing and we near the next great shift in the way we interact with technologies, the greatest change that will occur will occur within us. The people who change the technologies are the same people who will be changed by the technologies.
References
Gardner, D (2006, August 31) Scrap Web 2.0, yes, but embrace Knowledge 2.0 surely.
Retrieved 5 April, 2008 from http://blogs.zdnet.com/Gardner/?p=2340
Scholz, T (2008) Market Ideology and the Myths of Web 2.0. First Monday, 13.
Retrieved 5 April, 2008 from, http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2138/1945
Transcript of IBM interview with Tim Berners-Lee (2006, July 27) Originator of the Web and director of the World Wide Web Consortium talks about where we've come, and about thechallenges and opportunities ahead.
Retrieved 6 April, 2008 from,
http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/podcast/dwi/cm-int082206.txt
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Online Communities
I'd like to begin by defining the term online (or virtual) community, and I particularly liked the Howard Rheingold definition from the lecture:
He defines online communities as "social aggregations that emerge from the Net when enough people carry on public discussion long enough, with sufficient human feeling, to form webs of personal relationships in cyberspace" (Fernback and Thompson, 1995).
I liked this definition because it implies that communities are not just a collection of like-minded people discussing shared interests, but instead are groups of people discussing their interests with feeling and forming relationships - which may be just as 'real' as relationships formed in an offline world - and otherwise connecting with people on a potentially very deep level.
An important question raised when reading about online communities is: how do online communities organise themselves? We can first examine offline communities, where we see organisational capabilities limited largely by physical and geographical boundaries. In an online community these barriers are non-existent and we see a different form of organisation based on democratic participation, and a sense of shared social norms and values that are potentially drawn from the 'real' world and applied to the 'virtual' world.
Another topic explored this week was the reasons for joining an online community. Apart from somewhat obvious reasons such as connecting with people with similar interests, online communities provide a means to achieve a common goal - as seen in A Swarm of Angels, an open source project aiming to fund, create and distribute a film via the Internet.
But online communities can also facilitate interaction and the forming of relationships with people of a different background (race, ethnicity, economic, geographic, cultural), with whom you may not have otherwise conversed.
Or, as Terry Flew describes, the desire for strong communities "as an antidote to the sense of alienation and disenfanchisement seen as characteristic of modern, industrial, capitalist societies" (2004, 64). In other words, we look to the online world to fill a void that may exist in our offline lives.
Terry Flew also looks at online identities, seeing virtual communities as "a site of play and performativity through the creation of online identities more broadly indicative of the transition from modernity to postmodernity (2004, 65).
Terry's use of identities (plural) is important, as James Slevin notes (in Flew 2004 68): the tendency of most Internet users is not to commit themselves to a single community, but to participate in and move in and out of many different communities.
I personally prefer Sherry Turkle's theory (in Flew, 2004, p. 65) because it also explores the idea that the online world and the offline world are no longer separate but are instead permanently inter-connected. Turkle explains that the offline or 'real' world is merely one window through which someone can develop and express their personality. In other words, although the 'Phoebe' I am in an online world may be completely different from the offline world 'Phoebe', neither is a true and complete representation of myself but are instead fragments of my personality that when pieced together are the real Phoebe.
References
Fernback, J & B. Thompson (1995) Virtual Communities: Abort, Retry, Failure?
Retrieved 3 April, 2008 from http://www.rheingold.com/texts/techpolitix/VCcivil.html
Flew, T. (2004) New Media: An Introduction, Melbourne: OUP
He defines online communities as "social aggregations that emerge from the Net when enough people carry on public discussion long enough, with sufficient human feeling, to form webs of personal relationships in cyberspace" (Fernback and Thompson, 1995).
I liked this definition because it implies that communities are not just a collection of like-minded people discussing shared interests, but instead are groups of people discussing their interests with feeling and forming relationships - which may be just as 'real' as relationships formed in an offline world - and otherwise connecting with people on a potentially very deep level.
An important question raised when reading about online communities is: how do online communities organise themselves? We can first examine offline communities, where we see organisational capabilities limited largely by physical and geographical boundaries. In an online community these barriers are non-existent and we see a different form of organisation based on democratic participation, and a sense of shared social norms and values that are potentially drawn from the 'real' world and applied to the 'virtual' world.
Another topic explored this week was the reasons for joining an online community. Apart from somewhat obvious reasons such as connecting with people with similar interests, online communities provide a means to achieve a common goal - as seen in A Swarm of Angels, an open source project aiming to fund, create and distribute a film via the Internet.
But online communities can also facilitate interaction and the forming of relationships with people of a different background (race, ethnicity, economic, geographic, cultural), with whom you may not have otherwise conversed.
Or, as Terry Flew describes, the desire for strong communities "as an antidote to the sense of alienation and disenfanchisement seen as characteristic of modern, industrial, capitalist societies" (2004, 64). In other words, we look to the online world to fill a void that may exist in our offline lives.
Terry Flew also looks at online identities, seeing virtual communities as "a site of play and performativity through the creation of online identities more broadly indicative of the transition from modernity to postmodernity (2004, 65).
Terry's use of identities (plural) is important, as James Slevin notes (in Flew 2004 68): the tendency of most Internet users is not to commit themselves to a single community, but to participate in and move in and out of many different communities.
I personally prefer Sherry Turkle's theory (in Flew, 2004, p. 65) because it also explores the idea that the online world and the offline world are no longer separate but are instead permanently inter-connected. Turkle explains that the offline or 'real' world is merely one window through which someone can develop and express their personality. In other words, although the 'Phoebe' I am in an online world may be completely different from the offline world 'Phoebe', neither is a true and complete representation of myself but are instead fragments of my personality that when pieced together are the real Phoebe.
References
Fernback, J & B. Thompson (1995) Virtual Communities: Abort, Retry, Failure?
Retrieved 3 April, 2008 from http://www.rheingold.com/texts/techpolitix/VCcivil.html
Flew, T. (2004) New Media: An Introduction, Melbourne: OUP
Monday, April 14, 2008
An Introduction
Hello!
My name is Phoebe and this is my blog for KCB201 Virtual Cultures. This is my first foray into the wonderful world of blogging, so we'll see how things go!
This is designed to be a way of discussing and delving deeper into what we cover in Virtual Cultures. I'm finding it interesting and I hope you do too.
Keep reading!
Phoebe
My name is Phoebe and this is my blog for KCB201 Virtual Cultures. This is my first foray into the wonderful world of blogging, so we'll see how things go!
This is designed to be a way of discussing and delving deeper into what we cover in Virtual Cultures. I'm finding it interesting and I hope you do too.
Keep reading!
Phoebe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
