Benkler introduces to us "the networked information economy", where decentralized individual activity is playing a big role in the industrial information economy. What this means is that there is an increasing amount of individuals or groups who cooperate and coordinate action through new and developing technologies in order to create change to various already established systems. As Benkler mentions, there is an ongoing power struggle between the individual and the institution.
A prime example of this struggle exists in the technological gadgets we use. For instance, the Apple iPhone's dynamic operating system allows flexibility and continuous application development. Even with its vast library of applications to download and develop, Apple still limits users on what they can do with their phone. As a response, developers created software that could hack, or "jailbreak" the iPhone. Once an iPhone is jailbroken, the user has access to another application called Cydia which is much like Apple's App Store.
Cydia is different from the App Store because all its applications are open source. In addition, Cydia includes applications that bring iPhone customizability to a whole new level. With Cydia applications, users can essentially do anything they want with their phone; they can completely change the appearance and add extra widgets to the phone.
Apple has tried time and time again to prevent jailbreaking software from hacking the phone by constantly upgrading operating systems etc. What this seems to do is have the opposite effect; developers are not discouraged. Infact, they are more eager than ever to try and crack the code. As a result, there is this tug-o-war happening between the two sides.
For this week's practicum I jailbroke my iPod touch. The touch works in the same way as the iPhone except that it cannot make phone calls. Being a person with very little software background, I find jailbreaking my iPod a somewhat pointless task. Besides, downloading themes and extra little application, I don't use the jailbroken mode to its fullest capacity. It's an interesting thought, however. When one receives so much power to do whatever they want to something, they don't know where or how to start.
Here are the images of my jailbroken iPod Touch:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/42666484@N06/4057974804/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/42666484@N06/4057236561/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/42666484@N06/4057236035/
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Friday, October 23, 2009
Peer Co-Creation
Shirky's theory of promise, tool, and bargain in functioning groups is one that is very evident in many social networks that we participate in today. The promise is what interests potential users to become actual users, and the tools are what can be used to meet the promise. Being "the most complex aspect of a […] group", the bargain is the expectations that members of the group have for one another" (270). An important point that Shirky mentions is that "a successful bargain […] must be a good fit for both the promise and the tools used" (261).
For many online platforms, this promise, tool, and bargain system seems obvious. Wikipedia is a prime example where the systems works smoothly and allows harmony between users. For platforms such as Twitter, the waters are somewhat murky. On the main page of the website, Twitter promises that users can "share and discover what's happening right now, anywhere in the world". That seems simple enough but at the same time, aren't there other platforms that promise the same thing? So what separates Twitter from the others?
The answer may be in the tool. Twitter only allows users to make 140-character status updates; this means that everything is short, sweet, and quick. Users are able to update quickly and scan through content quickly. Without the character limit, Twitter would resemble a blogging tool where users can write as much as they want. With this system, they are limited, so they have to get right to the point. Another good thing about Twitter is that if you are interested in a particular topic and you want to know what others are saying about it, you can search it. The search will scan through all the recent tweets and pull out the ones with the keywords you typed in. The platform also incorporates a new type of tagging where you can mention other tweeple in your tweets and they will be notified. In short, Twitter is a very simple way to connect with other people and be heard.
Even with such a simple promise and tool, the bargain between users seems a bit unclear. Afterall, what really is the purpose of tweeting about every move you make? Does anyone really care that you are getting a coffee or shopping for a new dress? One thing that did make Twitter so popular is because celebrities use it. So what factors does that add to the picture? I think when people use Twitter, it is partially because they wish to gain attention. Maybe users have the expectation that if they read other people's tweets that their tweets will be read as well.
For many online platforms, this promise, tool, and bargain system seems obvious. Wikipedia is a prime example where the systems works smoothly and allows harmony between users. For platforms such as Twitter, the waters are somewhat murky. On the main page of the website, Twitter promises that users can "share and discover what's happening right now, anywhere in the world". That seems simple enough but at the same time, aren't there other platforms that promise the same thing? So what separates Twitter from the others?
The answer may be in the tool. Twitter only allows users to make 140-character status updates; this means that everything is short, sweet, and quick. Users are able to update quickly and scan through content quickly. Without the character limit, Twitter would resemble a blogging tool where users can write as much as they want. With this system, they are limited, so they have to get right to the point. Another good thing about Twitter is that if you are interested in a particular topic and you want to know what others are saying about it, you can search it. The search will scan through all the recent tweets and pull out the ones with the keywords you typed in. The platform also incorporates a new type of tagging where you can mention other tweeple in your tweets and they will be notified. In short, Twitter is a very simple way to connect with other people and be heard.
Even with such a simple promise and tool, the bargain between users seems a bit unclear. Afterall, what really is the purpose of tweeting about every move you make? Does anyone really care that you are getting a coffee or shopping for a new dress? One thing that did make Twitter so popular is because celebrities use it. So what factors does that add to the picture? I think when people use Twitter, it is partially because they wish to gain attention. Maybe users have the expectation that if they read other people's tweets that their tweets will be read as well.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
The Social Implications of New Technology + Audio Podcasting
The rise of "user-generated content" has given strength to the idea of "publish then filter" that Shirky writes about. Social outlets like blogs, Flickr, and Youtube serve as re-creative tools that spread user-generated content. With the help of these tools, anyone can share anything and this creates an endless amount of "public" content.
The term public in Web 2.0 is a rather complicated idea. Once something is posted on the internet, there is the assumption that it is for everyone to see and is addressing everyone. What Shirky argues is that much of user-generated content is, in fact, not speaking to a general audience. User-generated content can be seen as not being content at all in this case, and "those of us who grew up with a strong separation between communication and broadcast media" may find the idea of public content being not so public hard to accept. Prior to user-generated content, everything that was made public was filtered before being published. Therefore, if something was published, it was meant for the world to see. With the the advent of new social technologies such as blogs, something that is published is not always relevant to everyone.
Every blog starts off small but has the potential to grow. What motivates people to blog is not just the relationships they form with fellow bloggers but also the desire to perhaps gain a bigger audience. Of course, there are people who merely blog for leisure, but something as simple as a blog can go a long way. In the discipline of design, starting a blog can be a helpful way to promote the designer and his/her work. The audience will start small but with time and commitment, more and more readers will join the audience.
The term public in Web 2.0 is a rather complicated idea. Once something is posted on the internet, there is the assumption that it is for everyone to see and is addressing everyone. What Shirky argues is that much of user-generated content is, in fact, not speaking to a general audience. User-generated content can be seen as not being content at all in this case, and "those of us who grew up with a strong separation between communication and broadcast media" may find the idea of public content being not so public hard to accept. Prior to user-generated content, everything that was made public was filtered before being published. Therefore, if something was published, it was meant for the world to see. With the the advent of new social technologies such as blogs, something that is published is not always relevant to everyone.
Every blog starts off small but has the potential to grow. What motivates people to blog is not just the relationships they form with fellow bloggers but also the desire to perhaps gain a bigger audience. Of course, there are people who merely blog for leisure, but something as simple as a blog can go a long way. In the discipline of design, starting a blog can be a helpful way to promote the designer and his/her work. The audience will start small but with time and commitment, more and more readers will join the audience.
KirbyCast!
I made my first podcast for SOCS300. It's pretty horrible but I had fun singing with my brother!! Oh how I love the cracks in his voice. Hahaha.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Peer Production + Wikis and Wikipedia
The existence and maintenance of Wikipedia can been seen as a true web2.0 phenomenon. First seen as an idea that would never work, it is now integrated into the lives of everyday Internet users. If one wanted to learn more about a certain topic, it is very likely that he/she would search it up on Wikipedia. As a matter of fact, Wikipedia pages are usually one of the top 5 links that will appear on search engine results.
One reason why Wikipedia managed to work so well was the "spontaneous division of labour" that Shirky mentions (118). An article only needs to be started and contributions will be made by numerous individuals who are or feel they are knowledgeable in the subject.
The type of motivation that influences contribution is not of monetary value; it is the existence of inadequate material that motivates individuals to feel the need to change the articles. Shirky argues that people are more likely to make improvements on something that is done poorly rather than make something great from scratch. In addition, the feeling of being able to offer your own knowledge without being restricted is a strong one. The freedom that Wikipedia gives to its users creates a form of radical trust. Being able to freely operate within a given space creates some structure to the site without placing too much control over users and content.
The constant editing and adding of information makes an article "a process, not a product" (119). The main reason why Wikipedia is going to stick around for awhile is that it never gets finished. It is its imperfect quality that will maintain its survival. Perhaps it utilizes well our weakness: constant dissatisfaction. Human being's innate desire for perfection may just be the very reason why people continue to read, re-read, edit, and re-edit Wikipedia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
