It's the Same Thing!

They are saying the SAME THINGS over and over and over... literally.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfd5g8Y_Jqo

You Can Vote However You Like...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKQE4vtVrJI

But seriously people, think BEFORE you vote.

JIBJAB.COM GOOD FUN...

http://sendables.jibjab.com/

here's a website were u can create videos just by cutting out the heads of friends from pictures and jibjab does the rest to create videos...here's a presidential video...

memetrollsandgrievers

Last class the question was asked, What makes an successful Web 2.0 website? During the readings, I asked myself what makes a good meme? Why do some things like Charlie goes to Candy mountain or Second Life become such hits and other things just don’t. Is there a magic formula, or just the luck of the draw? I am certainly no expert, and initially thought it was just luck, however I am starting to think there is really something to it. Weather its YouTube or another video site, or Facebook vs. MySpace, there is usually a reason that one is preferred to another, and for me at least it seems to be more about the format than the content.

Also the Nike ordeal was eye-opening and sad at the same time. I like how someone really confronted Nike about their practices, but at the same time most of us are guilty of supporting it. Just about everyone has a pair of Nike shoes, or shorts or something, including the guy who bought a pair even after all the melee.

The whole trolling article was just sad? How are people so heartless as to do that to someone whose kid just committed suicide? They are going through quite enough without people calling them up and harassing them. Would people do that if they actually had to do it face to face, I would like to think not. To go along with this is the grievers who just go around and generally make things miserable for everyone else. What is their motivation for this? People reactions. They are just like the school bully, who one people stop reacting to, has much less fun and eventually moves on to someone who will react. What a sad world this is.

Meme, Internet Meme

Meme in the virutal world to me is the advertising on facebook or your emails. Its a way of getting the message to the mass audience. Its the youtube videos that Justin Biggs tells us all to watch, because he says "Hey, you'll like this". Thus affecting the "audience of Com Tech". The very small gesture turned could easily turn into mass media. We watch the youtube video recommened in class, we than tell all our friends to watch it on their computers. These recommended gestures are what helps make a certain medium the dominant ideology. I would consider TV to be the dominant ideology because tons and tons of ideas,theories, gestures, etc... are passed all around the world popping up in the living rooms of any viewer. This is a great way that memes are expressed.
I am guilty of BWN. At times I feel useless at my job because it is so INCREDIBLY boring, that I dink around on the internet to pass time. This is when I find myself watching the recommened youtube videos; I am then contributing to "contagious media". I feel that if youre not participating in the harmless form of contagious media, you are then greifing. This is the first time Ive heard of griefing. I feel its a waste of time, but is BWN a waste of time too? Am I falling victin to griefing because I am dinking around on the interent at work, not doing producting things, making myself feel useless?

memes, trolls

The readings on these two internet phenomena really interested me in different ways. I found the thought of memes to be really fascinating, and it caused me to think back over the countless bits of internet crap that have been spread across the web in the last decade. From the hamster dance to the dancing baby to the fat guy dancing in front of the webcam to the star wars kid. While most of it is a waste of time and pretty disposable, it is interesting to think how certain viral videos become memes even when they weren't intended to be highly visible on the web. I think that this is where memes and trolling meet. Maybe that pathetic and awkward star wars kid initially posted his sad-ass video on his own personal blog, and the least moral of his circle of readers found it incredibly hilarious and perpetuated its viewing among the entire population of the internet. This to me is a form of trolling in itself. Not that I know the kid, but I doubt he wanted millions of people to watch his video and laugh at him, and if not, the repetitious views of this video were made possible by people laughing at him and wanting others to laugh at him as well. While it's relatively impossible to prosecute trolls for any real crime, I found the rift in their community interesting. One of less eccentric trolls (although he did post on myspace saying that a 13 year old suicide victim had it coming) said that trolls won't go anywhere until people stopped being offended and hurt by the written word. On the other hand, you have trollers on a website saying that being a good person involves a level of empathy. This contradiction leads me to believe that hardcore trolls aren't just "normal people doing insane things on the internet", but unstable people causing instability on the internet.  

Memes and Trolls

Memes and trolls. At first I wasn't really sure exactly what a meme was. The readings explained it to me and now I think I understand it, and it really isn't as complex as I thought. The meme reading from wikipedia explained a meme as an idea or behavior that is passed on from one person to another. A meme in real life is just like the popular kid at school that tries to make a new word cool...like on the movie Mean Girls and the one girl tries to get everyone to use the word fetch instead of cool. Internet memes on the other hand don't seem to be as harmless. The reading about the thirteen year old girl that killed herself because an old friends mom acted like a young boy online and then rejected her, now that is just sick and wrong. I know that some trolling can be harmless like when Justin makes fun of people on the WWE forum. I think those people are pretty thick skinned and can probably handle someone making fun of a wrestler. But a thirteen year old that already has enough drama in her life because she is thirteen and I think everyone that is thirteen has their ups and downs, she probably doesn't have nearly as thick of skin.
I agree with one of the readings that says that the goal is for everyone to have fun. I think that it is totally possible to have fun trolling the internet. But some people just have to know when they have gone to far. Also who gets to make the decision of what makes a good meme and what falls short? I know that youtube is a big place to share and get a meme started but really what makes people find that one amazing video and email it to all of their friends? I guess those people who have lots of time on their hands and enjoy spending it on youtube are the main meme starters...

Trolls and Viral Phenomena

To me the most important aspect of these Internet memes, customs, trolls, viral marketing, etc. is the role that social interaction plays. It is what each of these concepts relies on and is the reason they are spread across the Internet. I think this arises explicitly out of the troll and grieving articles. People are using social, interactive mediums (games, forums, etc.) to manipulate others experiences on whatever media they are using to accomplish a sense of power. It’s pretty similar to bullying in meatspace where bullies torment other people to get a rise out of them and to feel something different about their own nature.

What I keep struggling with is why they actually do this… what do they really get out of it? I think the Schwartz and Gregson articles both question trolls and griefers on why they do what they do. The answer seems to be for many different reasons. These could include boredom, attention and most interestingly, a heightened sense of the media. What I mean by the last point could mean that they are aware that what they are using is a tool… whether it is a game, a forum, or a Youtube comment. They are just having fun and pointing out the absurdities of the medium. I think a lot of trolls are doing it because they feel better than the people they are messing with.

In the Schwartz article one of the trolls explains, “Trolling will end as soon as we all get over it.” If people can just ignore what these people are doing maybe they will subside, but as long as there are people getting defensive about a trolls reaction to them, there will be trolls there to counteract. I think anonymity has a big part of trolling as well. Tina’s post responded to trolling and cyber bullying to the extreme, but I think there could be something else to that. Is there a way to regulate what is being said if it goes beyond certain lines. Would trolls say the same things to a person’s face that they would post online? The Schwartz article touches on free speech on the web… Is it possible for there to be enforcement on the internet to limit what people can say to others to reduce the risk of things like someone killing themselves over a troll? How would you feasibly have the resources to do that over something as expansive as the Internet? I don’t know.

I find Internet memes incredibly interesting in how they become too popular. The main reason contagious media is so viral is because of the social aspect, as the Peretti article says, contagious media, “is the kind of media you immediately want to share with all your friends.” Along the same lines, people tend to remember things that are social rather than informative. I feel like this is the reason many companies are driving toward viral marketing because it is more often remembered than traditional advertisements. It seems to be hard to predict what forms of contagious media will be successful or be forgotten.

I cannot imagine anyone, including the creator of peanut butter jelly time, would think that it would become such a widespread Internet meme. So who decides what will be successful and what won’t? It comes back to the social aspect of memes and viral marketing… the power is no longer in the hands of the advertisers, it is up to the people on social networks, interactive mediums, forward e-mailers, and even basic internet users of what will be spread around the community. The emphasis of media on the Internet is going toward user created and manipulated content. Audiences have been a large part of what we see in media, but more than ever we are deciding what to do with the media and how it should be presented.

Don't Feed the Trolls!!

Internet trolling - what makes it work

http://hari.literaryforums.org/2007/06/07/internet-trolling-what-makes-it-work

Meme

I was trying to decide what makes a meme. How is a good one started? What the common link is? All I can come up with is that I don’t ever remember seeing an ad for any of my favorite web sites. How did I know I would love youtube or facebook or google? Probably because someone told me “hey you will really like this” so I checked it out. I think that marketing has a lot to do with it. The fact that I never saw a tv ad for Facebook makes it less like “the man”. It makes me think it’s made by people like me which increases its appeal. Now those websites are getting more commercial, which is ok because I guess it has sort of grass roots. I also really liked the Weezer video. Weezer is just like us. Wasting their time on the internet, Youtubing. It says something about the future of media as well. Intertextuality to the extreme. On Youtube you can watch a Weezer video full or youtube videos. These internet memes are invading the rest of our everyday lives which is probably a good thing. Not just for pop culture but also for politics and things like the Nike e-mail. It is possible for these things to have lasting effects on the rest of the world, maybe make a difference.

Contagious Media

Personally I like the concept of contagious media. Not necessarily the jokes and mindless forwards that are exchanged between co-workers and friends, but the fact that their still is a means to express beliefs and ideas and have a vehicle to share these with people that express similar points of view. I found it particularly interesting in Peretti’s reading he couldn’t even fathom the people his conversation with Nike reached via the internet. Our government and corporations know all to well how to use mass media in order to sway our beliefs and conceptions of reality, but the fact that we as a mass can still communicate and express our own versions of reality without interjected corporate bias; is somewhat of a small comfort to myself. I was however baffled about the parameters Jonah used to decide what exactly was encompassed in contagious media, and if there were specific restrictions in labeling the content. Let me elaborate briefly, in item number one, he speaks of BWN’s and how they begin the process of spreading contagious media. Then he follows with number 4 saying, “humorous emails, jokes, games, video clips, and political calls to action or forms of this viral propagation.” I don’t agree that political calls to actions and Halo 3 can be lumped together in the same classification simply because as he states in number 5 that the content is unimportant as long as it is pushed through a human powered network. I think that it way to broad of a scope, and restrictions should be not on how many times its sent, but on what the actual content represents; such as personal, intended humor, or just plain “garbage” content.

First of All i'm No Griever...

First things first, when I’m convicted of trolling in class on my WWE Universe account, I do it all out of good fun and go along the guidelines of every WWE fan where you have your favorite and least favorite wrestlers and you state why you feel that way. The WWE was built off conflicts and that’s why it will be celebrating its 800th episode (the most episodes of any show) in a few weeks. I’m not the only one who watches it…

The Wikipedia reading about internet memes allowed for me to put a name with a face. All the videos I send friends and family that I find are funny are considered internet memes. Any parody videos posted on Youtube that gets a “cult” following or reference back to a form of popular culture are consider memes. Something intriguing about this reading had to be the use of the words vanity sites. These are your Myspace, Facebook pages that include personal information and are mainly used for entertainment and communication. Like I said before the reading basically broadened my vocabulary skills for whenever I run into a web critic down the line.

The other reading that hit home was the one about griefing. As a multiplayer gamer at one point in my life, I’ve experienced griefers who either lag (slow) up a game, kill their own teammates, and break any other rules in the game. People’s moods change so quickly these days and some find it acceptable/therapeutic to go online and lash out. There are options in every game where players can boot an individual or report them so their griefing rein will end, but people can always make new accounts. People have to realize that not everyone is happy in the world and even though Second life or WWE Universe may be your home away from home get away place, it’s a playground for someone else who’s going to test your limits. If a person goes to far you can get jail time I guess after reading this article of a couple divorcing in Second life and one hacked the other’s account and may serve 5 years in prison…

http://www.itexaminer.com/divorced-woman-kills-husbands-avatar.aspx

The best part of the reading is where it states, “The key point here is that everyone has the same goal – have fun. Unfortunately, for one group – the griefers – achieving their goal precludes other users from reaching theirs.” Everyone has different ways of having fun and in my mind if you can’t take the heat get out the kitchen. You read about people killing themselves because someone bullied them online and all this stuff; there is a point were enough is enough and people have to realize there is a log off/off switch option available if someone is really bothering you that bad…be the bigger person.

From my online gaming experiences I’ve learned that if you don’t like someone who’s online gaming with you and they’re giving you a hard time, go head to head (1v1) against them and if you win talk trash, if you lose log off the game so you don’t have to hear them talk trash…easy concept I know, but you wouldn’t believe how many people take it to the next level.

PS when you end Facebook official status be prepared for the consequences…

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7676285.stm

Lulz....trolls...and hackers...oh my!

The Schwartz article 'The Trolls Among Us' should be re-named 'The Sad, Sad Souls Among Us.' Every time that my confidence in the human population has been restored somewhat I read an article like this. Seriously. Perhaps what is mystifying to me can be summed up in this quote from the reading, "But while technology reduces the social barriers that keep us from bedeviling strangers, it does not explain the initial trolling impulse." This is a mystery to me. Maybe we need psychiatrists for these people to realize the root problem. But that's another story, so I'll head into more discussion worthy points.

 I have to say, we had it coming to us. Just because we have created this new virtual space that is the Internet, we are going to have the same problems we have in the meat space. People that have no regard for other humans and and have WAY too much time on their hands can now wreak havoc in on the Internet. 

Trolling Exists Everywhere, Not Just on the Internet

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/08/03/trolling-exists-everywhere-not-just-on-the-internet/4583

What is extremely problematic is the lack of consequences.

Of the multiple scenario's written about by Schwartz, most include the end result of death threats and physical harm foreshadowed in the meat space. That we as a society have let the trolls and hackers get this far in the virtual world and then let them come back over into the meat space with no punishment is appalling. I actually took a break from my mountains of work and watched 'Enemy of the State' last night. For those of you that haven't seen it, it stars Will Smith as a lawyer that gets himself caught in a web of survellience, hackers, and the government. His privacy is invaded and they can tell where he is at all times, shut off his bank accounts--basically ruin his life. And, I was watching it on VHS which means that we've certainly come even farther since then. You mean to tell me that we have that capability as a government, yet we can't get ahold of these Trollers that have the potential to ruin people's lives? Watch this movie and then think about how pathetic it is that we can't catch and prosecute these people. The government could if they really wanted to.

But that poses another question...is it really worth the government's time to do so? Even those these sad souls are threatening people in real life they don't really amount to much physical harm. The government is spending their time tracking down people that really might do something....a word that starts with a t and ends in a t...if I write it they might just start surveying our blog! But you know who I mean. I actually would prefer that they spend their time tracking those people that are more of a threat to the population at large...but I wonder if someday there will be a division of security like the 'Troll Patrol' or something clever like that that is devoted to tracking these guys down.

Also, if more people would intake everything on the Internet the way that they should intake the media(double-check the facts, don't believe everything they read at face-value, etc.) then perhaps we wouldn't have such a problem. I love what the guy from the Center for Citizen media said about anonymous comments especially, "They shouldn't start off with a credibility rating of, say, 0. It should be more like -30." 

Really, how are forums and blogs where anyone can say anything any different from the National Enquirer? So, don't read them the same.

This is just a small excerpt that I found on-line about the different methods of trolling so we can all be "in the know."

Trolling Methods:

The Repulsive Troll - this troll will use words or images to attempt to shock and anger users; if  shock or anger is expressed then he wins.

The Argumentive Troll - this troll is looking for an argument, and can usually win it. Any disagreement can turn into a major victory for this troll, the only way you can win is to agree with him.

The Personal Attack Troll - This troll has the mind of an elephant and never forgets; he or she files away any info you have posted about yourself to possibly use against you later often with embarrassing results. The more personal information you reveal about yourself the worse this troll will abuse you with it later.

The Disinformation Troll - This troll loves to disinform people; he might go edit wikipedia or post fake articles on message boards sites to see how many people take the bait.

The Joke Troll - If you bite into this trolls bait the joke is probably going to be on you.

The Character Troll - Plays upon stereotypes etc. such as pretending to be a member of the opposite race, or the opposite sex to make their point.

The Long Troll - This is a longer drawn out troll over an extended period of time; long trolls can range from a few days to months. Most long trolls require gaining the trust of other members before baiting them. Our forum member Oldlurp recently faked his death resulting in a couple of users calling an ambulance for him. It took about a week for Oldlurp to be reborn and come back to the boards.   
Here’s a couple great examples of funny trolling supplied by a couple members of our board…

And, I would like to add that when we talk about trolling all I can think about is those little plastic dolls from my youth with the stringy, magenta hair on my computer screen in place of the pointer...just fyi!!!

memeology

I felt the example of the request for Nike shoes customized with the word 'sweatshop' was a good illustration of the topic of memes and contagious media. The idea of memeology is to create an idea that is simple and can all be explained in one sentence, that is easily accessible by everyone. As we see in the effects of Jonah's simple idea, the growth of it merely depends on the audience. In Media Literacy a few semesters back, we discussed how artists can lie about their intentions of their creation. Therefore, the contagious artist does not define the artwork, but its definition, again, succeeds at the expense of audience participation.
To help support the idea of contagious media and contagious ideas, its as if you start out with an idea that "inspires conversation, provokes debate, or moves us to tell a friend" as the seed that is planted underground. When you begin to water that seed with social investment through the use of communication technologies and multiple recipient consumption, the idea seems to "spread on its own, like a self-replicating virus." With the example of the 'sweatshop' shoes, the artist wanted to construct an idea that would speak to Nike on how he felt about sweatshop labor. He even used the company's own resources to simply relay his views, which is really genious. When Nike refused his request for the 'sweatshop' shoes, it then turned into the seed of the contagious creation that it became through blogs, message boards, and email forwarding.

Memes, Trolls, Etc.

The article that I found most interesting this week was Kimberly Gregson’s about griefing, more specifically griefing in different online games. While reading the last part that listed ways to combat griefers, I just kept thinking that while these may work some times, nothing is ever going to stop griefing or trolling completely. The griefers will always find a way to annoy people or have their own kind of fun in games, and they will never go away, just like computer hackers or things like that. I think that griefers are just something that people are going to have to accept and learn to deal with rather than constantly try to think of ways to stop them completely.
The Jonah Peretti article about Nike was interesting mostly because it was ridiculous how the George Walden guy freaked out over what had happened to Peretti. The guy seems like he just assumes that Peretti had some big agenda to attack the Nike Corporation and bring them all this negative media attention, but it was just something interesting that Peretti passed along to a couple friends, who then passed it on to their friends, and so on. I suppose, though, that anything that gets as big as that did is bound to have people criticize it, no matter what it is, though.
The second Peretti article about contagious or viral media made me think about all the different ways that companies use contagious media to promote their products, like how they create websites to promote their latest video game. It starts with a few people discovering it, then it spreads, and eventually you have people dedicated days and weeks to figuring out what exactly is being promoted or anything else like that, going through the site or whatever information they are given over and over for the smallest details. It seems like that is always an almost sure-fire way to gain interest for your product, and I’m surprised that it isn’t employed more than it actually is.

Absolutely horrified!

I think my headline pretty much says it all, but I don't think Epley will approve that as this weeks post.. When I started reading the articles and the pretty innocent start of trolling where people just wanted to make fun of other people I thought about how Justin sometimes does that and how fun it could be to write something crazy in one of the cake forums, but then I came to the story about the 13-year old how killed herself after being rejected by her online flirt how showed up to be one of her old friends mum. There is several disturbing things about the story. What kind of a mother would do stuff like that?!? And NO it is not a valid reason that she just wanted to find out if the girl was gossiping about her daughter. But at the same time I can't help thinking that there must be something else wrong with her life since she felt that suicide was the only solution. On the other hand I remember being 13 with all the ups and downs, lots of breaking up and making up and every time I was sure that I just lost the love of my life and I couldn't live without him.. Fortunately I had good friends and a mum how told me that I would survive so maybe this girl could have been safe if adults around her had just been a bit more aware of what she was doing.
What I wanted to say with all this is that I think trolling is okay as long as noboby gets hurt...

If the Weezer videos weren't enough...

Here is a timeline that provides famous internet memes:

Wiki-Wiki Wah!

I love Wikipedia, I use it daily. As a matter of fact I used it just last night when I was studying for my Human Relations class, the vocabulary is pretty tough. This is the main reason why I utilize Wikipedia, to look up definitions of ridiculous words that I am expected to know. I love it, it's free, it’s easy, and anyone can use it. What I also like about Wikipedia is that anyone can contribute; you do not have to have a corner office with all your certificates of qualification hanging on the wall. Because anyone can post, it gives diversity. It’s the world's encyclopedia. Its user created and edited which I find to be an extremely important attraction to the cite. But what I disagree with is how people automatically imply it's not credible. There is room for unprofessionalism, but if so, like proven in class, any false information corrected with in a specific amount of time. (By the way, I did check the pentagon definition, and it no longer says that it has sixteen sides.) But teachers, especially those I interacted with in high school, strongly opposed to the idea of Wikipedia as a credible source for a research paper. But even though it could not be cited, that didn't mean that students such as myself, weren't scrolling through trying to find what the hell the teachers want us to learn about from the assigned topics, or what they were even talking about. (I get confused easily) Wikipedia is the first website I log into. Am I being informed of the whole truth about these topics? Um, well I feel that I am at least getting a good grasp and understanding. Authority seems to be opposed to the use of Wikipedia because they feel it’s not credible, why not do something about it then. If they have reason to believe that a topic on Wikipedia is misinforming people, then, they should edit the lies about it. Are the teacher’s views about the misinformation about Wikipedia due to hear say, or have they really come across students situations where a student was falsely informed of a specific topic? I’d like to know. I never argued why my teachers in high school wouldn’t let us use Wikipedia, I guess it was hegemony, I just didn't ask questions. Maybe I should call up my high school English teacher and ask her what her background and reasoning’s for being against Wikipedia stemmed from. “Should we block sites such like Wikipedia because students may be exposed to the misinformation, or should we encourage sites such as Wikipedia as on outlet for students to investigate and determine the truth of the information”? (http://ask.slashdot.org/article)

Information Made in a Video...

This is why your relationship status IS important! Watch out!

Don't click that button without thinking twice, or else it may be your last Facebook update...

http://www.lemondrop.com/2008/10/20/facebook-update-triggers-tragedy/?icid=100214839x1211903558x1200719448

In Wiki We Trust

What makes Wikipedia so attractive to its users? Is it merely the deep regard for reliable truth or immediate "truth?" As a frequent user, my Wiki searches typically stem from curiosity, which falls into the immediacy of what I want to know.  Generally, I do not devote my understanding of life's topics or even my soul to user-created-scripture and regard it as reliable.  In other words, it seems that user-created content which applies to information found in Wikipedia, Social Networks, blogs, has become our reality and plays a big part of the religious-like devotion people have adopted when needing quick answers.  But, where is the conviction of need for discernment and wisdom of such information being presented through the monitor?  

Such user-playgrounds such as Wikipedia, SNSs, and blogs eludes to the topic of Web 2.0, which is the extension of new applications and awareness of new trends in people's use of the internet.  In the Britannica article, Web three-minus-one means "moving some of the thinking CLIENT SIDE so making it more immediate." But, who has that power to make it immediate? We the people! Colbert made an interesting statement that stuck out to me; he says, "Open source software is like free trade and the invisible hand of the market has the mouse now." He also argued that when money determines Wikipedia entries reality becomes commodity.   Although we have not really reached the point of expensive reality, what is dangerous about free reality is that it is free.  With the internet, which is full of low absolutes and an outlet for false declarations, reality becomes whatever anyone believes, and constitutes what is. But how do we draft power and truth into Web 2.0? Is it such that the elite has to require a fee for people to contribute to truth on any topic, which turns reality into commodity? Who has the privilege to have that power, people who just want a platform to create there own scripture or those with the experience that is relevant to topics and ideas?  

To sum this whole argument of Web 2.0 and its content in the hands of user-creators, we need to be careful what we say, do, and accept in a world of false testimony and utter bull-shit.  The internet can be a world of playtime and resource of lies. Be cautious of what you trust.

So what’s up with Wikipedia? Is it a great source of information on everything, or is it a horrible source of information about nothing valuable? Unfortunately, Wikipedia has gained a widespread label of ‘untrustworthy’, generally spread by those in authority positions. Why is that? The answer is impossible to know for certain but there are certain inferences we can make. Authority, especially authority being paid to provide information, is threatened by information being given away for free. If a new store opened and decided to start giving away all their merchandise (because the merchandise was given to them for free) Target would probably be a bit scared for their future. The same applies to academia. Although the information might not be quite as good sometimes, it has the huge benefit of being free and requiring the user to sit through no long and drawn out lectures. If you could get a nice, well-rounded, new car for $25,000 or a slightly used and dinged one that runs like a champion for free, which would you choose?

The only people who favor the status quo are those who benefit from the status quo. That is to say that those in power don’t want the power structure to change. Let’s flip the scene and pretend that the givers of information today (academia) are the government. They are the man. All of a sudden it doesn’t seem as wise to want all the information to come from them, huh? All of a sudden it seems wise that someone, even someone small, should provide a resource that can give out a second opinion and a different voice. Wikipedia provides that second voice even though academia is still screaming at the top of its lungs that it is the only way to (valid) knowledge.

Web 2.0… is the most convoluted mess I’ve ever heard of. Trying to understand it is more difficult than sorting through Miss USA Competition’s South Carolina answer. (Don’t know what I’m referring to? See this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww ) The term Web 2.0 is so used and abused that it doesn’t even know what it is anymore, much less should we attempt to understand it. Toss it out and come up with a term that means something already!

Whats cool about Wikipedia

Free info. Thats whats cool. I like the idea that someone really smart could get online, post what they know, and 2 seconds later I could read it and learn and be smart. I also like that perhaps I know a lot about a subject, like lube (yes lube I just did a presentation on lube) and I could post what I know and others could learn about it quickly and easily. Isn't that what the internet is? Learning from each other? Free sharing of ideas? Sure maybe it isn't 100% accurate all the time but if you know it isn't accurate do something about it. Click the button. People correcting each other and learning from each other to improve the worlds knowledge? Public sphere. I also like that it isn't the man. Information produced by the people for the people. Not produced by the government or the industry.

wikiweb2.0

Weather Wikipedia should be used as a scholarly source is debated especially among college professors. Regardless of your feelings on this, it should not and cannot just be discredited as a means of information. Are there errors in it? Yes. There are “scholarly” articles that have errors in them too. In any case, if you have something such as a research paper to do, you are going to have to do more than just look it up on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a great learning tool though. I use it to look up information all the time. I don’t have a set of encyclopedias and don’t know of anyone my age that does, however even if I did, I would not take the time to go look something up every time I have a question. An encyclopedia may and may not have the answer anyway, but it is just easier to do it on Wikipedia. Most of the time I am looking up something that is recent, or about maybe something in entertainment, sports, music, or something of that nature which would not be in an encyclopedia, and is not worth going to the library and spending a lot of time searching for. Also if I am reading an article and come across another term that I am not familiar with, I can just click on that link instead of looking it up too.

There is also the issue of if someone submits something to Wikipedia should they be held accountable for it. In a way I would say yes, but if it is over a controversial subject it could make someone who disagrees mad, and cause issues.

Web 2.0 is kind of confusing , considering that “ An exact definition of Web 2.0 continues to prove rather elusive, in part because the concept encompasses different goals and expectations for the future of the Internet and of electronic publishing in general. A leading critic of the Web 2.0 concept is Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee, who points out that ‘Web 1.0 was all about connecting people. It was an interactive space, and I think Web 2.0 is of course a piece of jargon, nobody even knows what it means. If Web 2.0 for you is blogs and wikis, then that is people to people. But that was what the Web was supposed to be all along.’” What I gather is that web 2.0 is really not anything entirely different from web 1.0, its just that people have begun to explore some of the endless opportunities and things that can be done online.

in case you have 48 minutes to spare...

This video features a lot of the people we've been reading about and brings up a lot of issues and arguments about wikipedia and web 2.0 that is featured in the readings.

It's called "The Truth According to Wikipedia"

Wiki wiki wiki

I know that it's not an excuse, but I have been talking a lot about Wikipedia in my Human and Computer class so I'm a bit tired of the subject.. But I agree with some of the things that Ryleah mentioned like "It's the place to start your search when you want to find out about something new". But still I would never use it as a primary source for a paper. In the hum com class we had to contribute to Wiki either by creating a new page or by bringing something to an existing page. I choose to write something about the town that I was born in and actually corrected something on the page that was incorrect which I think is one of the good things about Wiki, but if nobody does that, then it doesn't matter. I think that until Wiki hire more people to check the things that people write there Wiki is still to unsafe to rely a 100 % on, but it's still a good place to find quick answars. Like the other day, when my roommate and I needed to know what first, second and third base included, we just looked it up on wiki.. And got a good description.. ;o)
Anyway I kind of like the idea behind Wiki, which means that everybody can contribute to a subject without having to be a journalist or an author although it means that trolls also find their way to it.. But as long as you check the informations you get on Wiki with other more relyable sources you don't have to worry about using it..

Anonymity on Wikipedia

Considering the role of WikiScanner and the fact that one cannot write a Wikipedia article without being registered, it may seem that more accountability has come to the site. However, Wikipedia still maintains a degree of anonymity that I believe remains a cause for concern. Sure, one reason behind anonymity on Wikipedia is for the protection of its users in that they can post their view on a topic without being persecuted and/or endangered by their viewpoints. Another reason is the democratic ideal in that anyone can contribute no matter what background he or she may be coming from.

I can respect these views of Wikipedia, but at the same time I feel that authority and accountability are and still should be a part of academics. Although it is stressed time and time again that it should not be used as a primary source, it is fact that, "Wikipedia has grown rapidly into one of the largest reference Web sites, attracting at least 684 million visitors yearly by 2008."

Furthermore, the name 'Wikipedia' suggests that it is a type of encyclopedia, a word that possesses "a powerful connotation of reliability" (McHenry, 2005).

With this considered, I believe that Wikipedia should institute more authority and accountability within the site for the overall good of peoples' knowledge and perceptions of the world. Wikipedia itself claims that "users need not worry about accidentally damaging Wikipedia when adding or improving information, as other editors are always around to advise or correct obvious errors."

Is Wikipedia promoting carelessness in research and accuracy of an article? Shouldn't we be held accountable for the information that we are relaying? It is true that most inaccurate information on Wikipedia will be revised at one point, but what about the time between the original post and revision? Although a disclaimer may appear at the top of the page, how much do we treat that article different than an article with no disclaimer, if at all? There are so many Wikipedia pages that have disclaimers that I feel many become desensitized to them and don't really consider what they are saying.

As for the need for both accountability and authority on Wikipedia, consider the story of Essjay. This 24-year-old college dropout claimed some authority on topics pertaining to Catholicism as he deceived the community into thinking he had both doctorates in philosophy in theology and canon law. Although he claimed that his false identity was used to protect his true identity, it is clear that he used it as leverage to gain authority on topics such as 'the status of Mary in the Roman Catholic Church,' in which he was asked to give "expert testimony." Essjay was even revered as much to gain membership on the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee.

Especially in the Church that is known for its submission to authority figures who many feel have earned their dues and religious opinions(Pope, Cardinals, Doctors of the Church, Bishops, Priests, etc.), Essjay's words were probably taken very seriously by many who read his contributions. I feel people could be getting better information about the Catholic Church from one of real credentials that supports his or her background with proof than one who claims a false identity while stating that "[Catholicism for Dummies] is a text [he] often require for [his] students, and would hang [his] own Ph.D."

I believe that authority and accountability should be necessary on Wikipedia for the good of all because it is such a widely-used source. It will not only enhance the quality of one's knowledge, but I feel it will also help deter people from becoming careless in their research and writing.

Wikipedia and Web 2.0

It is hard for me to understand why wikipedia is such a horrible site and that academics are so against it. Wikipedia is very useful to get a general idea of what a topic is. The reading says that you shouldn't use Wikipedia as a primary source for serious research. I thought everyone knew that though. Wikipedia can't be used for every fact you want to find at simply because anyone can go in and change the facts if they want to. The thing about that is, and Epley said this in class, that how come academics that see something wrong on Wikipedia don't fix it? It isn't hard to do just click edit and correct it. But the fact that they don't fix something and then say that Wikipedia is not a good source because everything on it isn't correct isn't helping anything. Another thing about Wikipedia that makes me think it is fairly reasonable is because every time you google search something Wikipedia is in the top five of your search. I think that Wikipedia will definitely be used more in the younger generations. This is because with so many people using the internet at some point professors are going to stop saying have five book sources and instead have five internet sources that you can track and make sure they are factual. On Wikipedia you can find out where the information that is posted comes from. If you really had to find out you would just have to go to the bottom of the page and follow the links to the real source. I see nothing wrong with Wikipedia and using it to find out more information about certain things. I think that professors banning it as a source really doesn't matter because students are going to use it anyway. Why? Because it is convenient and easy to use.

Danah Boyd and Wiki...

I know that the use of Wiki is a big issue in Academia, but do professors really talk about it? I think in my graduate coursework it has only been brought up a time or two and at Coe it was never really talked about--you just knew not to do it.

I keep finding myself reitterating it to my Oral Comm. class and wonder if it is mainly entry level courses that it is more of an issue--do your professors always mention it when assigning a paper? Or is it just supposed to be understood?

http://many.corante.com/archives/2005/01/04/academia_and_wikipedia.php
January 4, 2005
Academia and Wikipedia
Posted by danah boyd

[In direct response to various points in Clay’s K5 Article on Wikipedia Anti-elitism which responds to Larry Sanger’s Why Wikipedia Must Jettison Its Anti-Elitism]

First, let me acknowledge that i have excessive privilege in this lifetime. That said, i’m not convinced that academia operates solely on an aggressive exertion of privilege nor am i convinced that any institution in the United States can be discussed without an assertion of privilege. But that’s another story.

I would argue that many librarians, teachers and academics fear Wikipedia (not dislike it) because it is not properly understood, not simply because it challenges their privilege, just as most new systems and media are feared by traditionalists of all sorts. Have we not had enough conversations about blog fear amongst journalists?

As a contributor to and user of Wikipedia, there is no doubt that i have a deep appreciation for it. All the same, i roll my eyes whenever students submit papers with Wikipedia as a citation. This is probably a source of much Wikipedia dislike amongst academics.

Wikipedia appears to be a legitimate authority on a vast array of topics for which only one individual has contributed material. This is not the utopian collection of mass intelligence that Clay values. For many non-controversial topics, there are only a limited authors and we have no idea what their level of expertise is. Hell, i submitted a bazillion anthropology entries while taking Anthro 1 based on my textbook and most of them remain untouched. My early attempts to distill anthropology should definitely not appear as legitimate authorities on the topics, yet many students take them as such.

On topics for which i feel as though i do have some authority, i’m often embarrassed by what appears at Wikipedia. Take the entry for social network: “A social network is when people help and protect each other in a close community. It is never larger than about 150 people.” You have got to be kidding me. Aside from being a patently wrong and naive misinterpretation of research, this definition reveals what happens when pop cultural understandings of concepts become authorities.

I have extreme respect for those who seek to define concepts such as those who craft the dictionary and encyclopedias. It is extremely challenging to define a term because you are trying very hard to capture and convey excessive amounts of information in an abbreviated fashion that cannot be misinterpreted. This takes talent, practice, precision and a great deal of research. Consider, for example, the difference between a good science writer and a bad one. Not everyone can convey large bodies of research in an easily accessible manner.

This does not mean that i dislike Wikipedia, just that i do not consider it to be equivalent to an encyclopedia. I believe that it lacks the necessary research and precision. The lack of talent and practice mostly comes from the fact that most entries have limited contributers. Wikipedia is often my first source, but never my last, particularly in contexts where i need to be certain of my facts. Wikipedia is exceptionally valuable to read about multiple sides to a story, particularly in historical contexts, but i don’t trust alternative histories any more than i trust privileged ones.
My concern - and that of many of my colleagues - is that students are often not media-savvy enough to recognize when to trust Wikipedia and when this is a dreadful idea. They quote from it as though it cannot be inaccurate. I certainly distrust many classic sources, but i don’t think that an “anti-elitist” (a.k.a. lacking traditional authority and expertise) alternative is automatically better. Such a move stinks of glorifying otherness simply out of disdain for hegemonic practices, a tactic that never gets us anywhere.

I don’t believe that the goal should be ‘acceptance’ so much as recognition of what Wikipedia is and what it is not. It will never be an encyclopedia, but it will contain extensive knowledge that is quite valuable for different purposes. If the fuss dies down, i’d be exceptionally worried because it would mean that we’ve lost the ability to discuss the quality of information.
Alternatively, i too would love to see a vetted version of Wikipedia, one that would provide a knowledge resource that is more accountable and authoritative.

"Wik-it" is becoming as popular as "Google-it."

...at least that's the word on the street...the street in the virtual world that is. And, the buzz around sources for Oral Comm. right here at UNI.

We had a discussion about this in our TA meeting for Oral Communication--and the consensus was that absolutley no Wikipedia. I have said it over and over, yet what do many of my students use--Wiki! It has become so engrained in their "routine" of research that they practically can't look anything up without using it.

I would like to pose the argument that the responsibility of discernment falls with the viewer of the information. In my class discussions of late, we have been dialoguing about the critical lens we need to use with the media. And, I propose that we do the same with Wiki. With our news once we check a few places and they are all in agreement, we tend to believe something as truth. Thus, I see Wiki as a good starting point in the same way. Wiki is a place to get a new thought or idea in your head and then go search it out...to see if other sources match up--what a good researcher would do anyway!

Andrew Keen on the Britannica.com site says,"As Gorman explains, the intellectual life of our society is at stake. This is a critically serious debate that will determine the credibility and the very viability of our information economy. If we want our kids to be ignorant, then accept the fashionable inanities of Web 2.0. If not, join the cause. And fight against the flattening of our culture into a wasteland of collectivist nonsense."

I wholeheartedly agree with him and that is why we need to focus on the discernment and critical lens. At Coe, I took a media course and we discussed the need of an actual course teaching young people to do this. Sad or not they don't know how to "critically un-mask" what the news media and Web 2.0 sites are feeding them. They live on these sites. They probably interact more with them than their teachers or parents, yet I bet most parents would see a course of that nature as being a waste of time. But what's going to be a waste is the brain rot and ignorance that is going to emerge if the young people become the future leaders and have grown up accepting these outlets as truth. But, hey, we're all about CHANGE right now so maybe one can hope:)

The last paragraph of this article sums it up well...let's be critical thinkers people!

The Wikipedia problem
KEN HUNT
Oct. 16, 2007 10:11 AM EDT
Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales last year told a Pennsylvania audience he gets about 10 e-mails a week from students who end up in trouble because they cited the online encyclopedia in a paper and the information turned out to be wrong. He doesn't have much sympathy for their plight, though. "For God sake," he said, "you're in college; don't cite the encyclopedia."

There is no doubting the influence of Mr. Wales's online collaborative encyclopedia. It now ranks in the top 10 websites on the Internet in terms of traffic and just about any Google search will turn up a Wikipedia article as one of the first few hits.

Started in 2001, the online encyclopedia now logs more than two million articles, with approximately 60,000 new articles being added each month.

Some of the articles are excellent. Others are very poor. The difficult part, many say, is telling the difference. The beauty of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it. The problem is that anyone does. Yet, despite the warnings that come from Mr. Wales and a number of others about citing Wikipedia as a source, many professors find students relying on the site more and more. Dr. Daniel O'Donnell, an associate professor and chair of the Department of English at the University of Lethbridge, says that it is rare these days to see an undergraduate paper that doesn't rely on Wikipedia.

This is not surprising. After all, throughout the culture, Wikipedia has become as common a source to cite as any traditional media source.

"I've used Wikipedia a ton of times," says Walter Zimmerman, electronic services librarian at the University of Western Ontario. "You just have to realize what it is and how it works." Mr. Zimmerman has been helping students with research for more than 30 years, but these days he finds that one of the basic roles he performs is to teach students some basic information literacy. "You should consider Wikipedia as a survey of the collective wisdom on a topic," he says.
"Wikipedia can be a great starting point," Mr. Zimmerman points out, "because it covers topics that don't traditionally get room in an encyclopedia.

"The most important thing to consider, though, is the potential bias in a Wikipedia article and where it might come from. That's something that we teach students: to consider the biases inherent in any source, not just Wikipedia. All media need to be viewed through a critical lens."

Wikipedia/Web 2.0

Wikipedia is a source that I’m sure just about every college student has used at one time or another, regardless of whether or not a professor has told him or her to stay away from the controversial site. People argue that Wikipedia is an unreliable source because anyone can edit it, and that you’ll end up with false information. I’ve always thought that for the most part, it would be pretty difficult to actually get completely false information from the site because the bad information is usually pretty easy to pick out of whatever article it is that you are reading, and after reading about the effort that goes into policing Wikipedia articles, I feel that this is even more true. While reading one of the articles from the syllabus, I was browsing from page to page that were linked together, and I ended up at a page listing the obituaries from Wikipedians, and some of those people were experts in their respective fields who spend quite a bit of time making sure that the correct information was on Wikipedia.

Also, I think that as time goes on, more and more people will continue to look to Wikipedia, as well as Web 2.0 related sites, for getting any information they might need, especially when it comes to younger students, because I’m sure that Wikipedia and various Web 2.0 projects are almost all that they know. Sure, they may have teachers that require them to gather information from many different sources, but Wikipedia is going to continually be the first place that they go to for their research needs.

When it comes to Web 2.0, I think that things are only going to continue to grow, especially considering that it is being used as a way to gain attention from younger people everywhere. As the article about Web 2.0 on Wikipedia stated, even universities are beginning to take advantage of Web 2.0 related sites to get students to their own websites and maybe to their schools. I could eventually see different businesses taking advantage of Web 2.0 in order to get the attention of young people in much the same way.

Wiki Wiki Web 2.0

It seems like Web 2.0 and wikis are becoming academics worst nightmare. Not only do they have to compete with easy access to information through Wikipedia, but they have to adapt once again to new forms of interaction online. To be honest, I find Wikipedia to be useful in looking up information quick and to get the general idea. If I am thoroughly researching something for a paper, documentary, or other academic purpose... I am going to look for a greater range of sources. I think the things people are able to assemble on Wikipedia such as the Star Wars wiki, is incredibly impressive given the amount of effort and time that has been put into them. Sure, these articles might not have relevance to furthering your academic knowledge, but they are interesting to read. This is something I find is usually the case with so-called Web 2.0 sites like Wikipedia, Youtube, blogs and Facebook, which is that they are more about entertainment than gaining fundamental knowledge. It is a way to spend your time online that I think the critics think is wasteful when they could be looking through some official federal release material or scholarly articles on subjects.

I think Web 2.0 and Wikipedia would be accepted by some media critics like who feel that people are using Youtube and Wikipedia to create new media or put something out there on the internet that hasn't been done before. I honestly don't think that as time goes on that people will only rely on the internet, in particular Wikipedia and Web 2.0 sites to gather their information. These sites will be more of an outlet from "hard news and information" sites to look at in terms of entertainment.

Wikipedia Wars...

First of all no college student owns an Encyclopedia collection of books and if you do then you probably are in Second Life and doing that whole thing, either way Wikipedia is amazing bases off the concepts that it’s free, easy to use, and has “almost” everything in it; AND IT’S A .ORG WEBSITE…THAT’S GOTTA MEAN IT’S LEGET!

Reading about what Wikipedia is not made me laugh/think at the same time because you know there has to be someone out there doing a paper and using Wikipedia as a reference and you know there’s some court case happening as an effect to it so Wikipedia has to place what it is not on its website (but should I believe what they say on this…it is Wikipedia). It states, “Wikipedia acknowledges that it should not be used as a primary source for serious research,” key word here is primary source. Use the website to broaden your knowledge of a subject or to get some outside input on an event, but don’t souly base your research on Wikipedia.

The criticism page on Wikipedia showed quite the wrap sheet and I love how you could edit this page. One thing I find interesting about Wikipedia is that at the bottom there are links to the references people used to conclude what they posted, so if one really wanted to get the “truth” on a matter they could extensively go track it down.

Wikipedia is in hundreds of different languages and practically every Google search you do the first link is from Wikipedia…plus Word’s spell check acknowledges that it’s a word! The site is going nowhere for a long time and I’m going to continue looking at what people think about lets say Postmodernism…because in all honesty it’s one of those things NOT ONE PERSON CAN GROW THE BALLS OR OVERIES (throwing that in there so my sexiest portrayal of me in class can be gone) AND DEFINE IT.

I loved the Star Wars Dates page Epley…I now know that in 50,000 BBY The Yevethan species gain sentience on the planet N'Zoth. No one touches Luke’s mom…




don’t tell me you Youtube name is KingKizerKun Epley…

I couldn't resist after our cake discussion in class!

This was staring at me as I went to check my msn...Epley...it says cream cheese frosting for Red Velvet...just FYI:)

http://www.delish.com/recipes/cooking-recipes/birthday-cupcake-kids-recipes?GT1=32003

Wikiality

Out of all of the "new" tools at our disposal thanks to Web 2.0, I think Wikipedia is by far the most useful, legitimate, and socially significant. Youtube is great for entertainment, self-promotion, or a good laugh. Blogs are great for sharing opinions and thoughts with others. Facebook is great for some reason or another, I suppose, but Wikipedia is a site that I believe will be around long before the all the others fizzle out, if they do. Reading the articles about what Wikipedia is and is not shed a very interesting light on the online encyclopedia. Upon reading these articles, it dawned on me that Wikipedia is the cherry on top of the shit-sundae that is Web 2.0. The people who run the site do so in a professional and almost anal manner, and to me it seems as though they truly care about the content of their site, unlike myspace, facebook, and others. The fact that they are a non-profit company reiterates the idea that they are running this site because they care about it, not to sit back and count giant stacks of money made off stupid ads that no one looks at anyway. When I first started using Wikipedia, I used it for reasons similar to when I first used myspace. When I encountered a new band I wanted to find out more about, I would listen to their free content on myspace, and look up their bio on Wikipedia. While thats where my relationship with myspace ends, I have continued to use Wikipedia for other inquiries. For example, last year I was taking a sociology class, and in lieu of wading through the textbook for hours to find definitions of terms and theories for the midterm, I Wikipedia'ed each one, and got a very good grade on the exam. I'm not saying Wikipedia should replace textbooks (Wikipedia says this themselves), I do think Wikipedia is a good source for finding widely known information. I truly think everyone would be better off if they spent the amount of time they do creeping around on facebook looking up information on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia

I don't understand what the fuss is all about? Wikipedia is a useful tool when the operator is aware of what sources may be true and what may be false. But the current system, which allows users to edit facts and add citations, is what separates wikipedia from that any other informational website such as Britannica Online. Aaron Shwartz quoted Jimbo Wales saying, I expected to find something like an 80-20 rule: 80% of the work being done by 20% of the users, just because that seems to come up a lot. But it's actually much, much tighter than that: it turns out over 50% of all the edits are done by just .7% of the users.” So it seems to me that even though there are average users making edits, they are probably just editing small spelling grammatical errors, and this small demographic rarely influences the “truthiness” of the article. In case someone wasn’t aware whenever you’re going to try to write a research paper or you’re attempting to obtain factual knowledge, an open based web forum probably isn’t your best bet. It was interesting however, to see that Wikipedia actually has a pretty extensive laundry list explaining all of the things that are contradictory to the intended use of the site. Colbert had some pretty hilarious comments about the site, but he make a very relevant point, wikipedia has allowed us to create a reality that we can all agree on, whether it is true or not.

"Living" On The Internet

If we die, will we always be living on the internet? Once something is on the internet, there is no taking it off. Does this thought help screen the information we submit or upload about ourselves or our friends? You would think so, but so many forms and levels of our identity are posted daily and they are not always in the most respective manners. But this can also be argued. Thanks to the internet, we have Youtube, where an average joe can upload his "art" where millions of viewers and watch and critique his work. The way the internet is utilized all depends on the person and their intentions, obviously. As far as teenagers or kids even as young as 10, 11, years old abusing the internet, I feel this situation depends on parental supervision. Internet usage in moderation at a child's young age I'm all for. Introduce the positive aspects and untilizations rather than completely depriving them from it, otherwise years down the child will be on overload with all the capabilities and usages of "THE INTERNET". Their perception of the Internet shouldn't be altered because of a terribly over protective parent, but the parent needs to be aware and strict with their children while they are online. This makes me think of the youtube video about the little boy and his myspace account, none of us want our children ending up like him. But this leads me into the SNS article. Socializing on the Interent offers kids the ability to communicate with their friends in the comfort of their homes as opposed to running a muck in the streets at 11:00 on a school night.
But while signing on to these SNS's, we must remember that our identity online can be shaped through our search engines, blogs, profiles, etc... I utilize the internet for school purposes and the occasional "stalkering" on facebook... I feel the image I have portrayed online about myself is positive and tasteful, and ten years from now, I dont think I would be ashamed if my children randomly googled my name.
Would you be ok with your children googling your name? Something to think about!!

SNS

Social networking sites. I don't know if I really think that they are used for networking or not. When I think of networking I think of people trying to connect with future employers or people that will help them connect with future employers. As far as Myspace goes I think that this is a good way for bands to get recognized. Besides that though there really isn't anything to great about Myspace. As we have all talked about in class Myspace seems like a place for younger children. Myspace also seems like a place where more child preditors hang out. How many stories on the news are there about the safety issues with myspace? Far to many if you ask me. I have yet to hear a story about how dangerous Facebook is. I don't know if this is because older more mature (and possibly smarter) young adults use Facebook as opposed to Myspace where it is mostly younger kids. All the readings proved that both of these sites are contriversal and I don't think that anyone has the right answer as to how these sites can be used "properly". I do like how Epley says that your Facebook profile should be like a resume for you. I would really agree with that. You shouldn't put things on the internet that you wouldn't want your future boss to see or for that matter your children. If someone chooses to put something on their profile that is going to affect them in the future then that is because of their own stupidity. It should be common sense that you don't put pictures of you doing illegal things on the internet unless you want to get caught. Police do check social networking sites such as Myspace and Facebook to find out about underaged parties so they can bust them. I know this because it has happened to me.
Our conversation in class the other day about living on the internet forever really made me think of what "foot print" I want to leave on the internet. I feel that as long as someone is smart about the things they put out there then they should be fine. It is the fifteen year old kids that don't think any further into the future then the upcoming weekend that are going to have the problems with their internet "foot print." Maybe kids need to be taught in junior high how to use social networking sites properly so that they can prevent embarassment in the future. Maybe that isn't the answer. And I don't know what a good answer would be, but when I have kids I am sure I will figure out what to do to keep them safe and keep their internet "foot print" in check.

Seeking Broader Reach for Social Web Sites

Seeking Broader Reach for Social Web Sites

new_york_times:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/07/technology/internet/07social.html

By BRIAN STELTER
Published: October 7, 2008
As the Web becomes a more social place, media companies are trying to make it easier to share links with friends, add comments to articles and extend users’ online identities.
This week, CNN will begin connecting “The Forum,” a site for political expression, to Facebook, the country’s second-largest social network, enabling users to talk about the presidential debates and see what their friends are writing.

“It allows us to reach our audience in the places where they’re aggregating their friends together and sharing their thoughts,” KC Estenson, the general manager of CNN.com, said.
Last week Radio One, one of the nation’s largest radio broadcasting companies, started tying its news and lifestyle Web sites to BlackPlanet, the largest social networking site for African-Americans. The BlackPlanet name and photo of users now appear next to their comments on the news blog NewsOne and the female-oriented site HelloBeautiful and other sites.
“Although nobody has figured out the secret sauce,” said Tom Newman, the president of Interactive One, a new digital subsidiary of Radio One, “enabling members to interact with each other and interact with professionally generated content is the future.”

Combining content with a social network is a strategy pioneered by MySpace, the most popular social network in the United States, which has moved aggressively to add videos, news, games and other features. Last week, it added a “branded entertainment hub” from the celebrity-watching site TMZ.

Facebook has taken a different tack, seeking to aggregate a user’s online actions and encouraging users to share links. Both networks are making profiles portable, meaning that users can carry their social network identity to third-party sites, said Adam Ostrow, the editor of the social networking blog Mashable. The sites are “allowing users to bring their friends from the social networks they already use” he said.

While technical and legal hurdles remain, some forward-thinking media executives hope that the ability to connect actions on news sites to social networks will keep visitors on their sites longer and make them more appealing to advertisers. CNN executives emphasize that its experiment is in its early stages.

Other media companies are also making their Web sites more social. Last month, for example, The Wall Street Journal added discussion features as part of a site revamp, and The New York Times introduced a way to recommend articles to other users.

Google Puts Tunes from YouTube a Click Away

Google Puts Tunes From YouTube a Click Away


new_york_times:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/08/technology/internet/08youtube.html

By MIGUEL HELFT
Published: October 7, 2008
SAN FRANCISCO — In its continuing effort to find a way to make money from its YouTube unit, Google introduced on Tuesday a type of e-commerce ad that YouTube users can click to buy digital goods from Apple’s iTunes or Amazon.com.

Eric Schmidt, Google’s chief, said he was satisfied with the company’s progress. “We are where we should be,” he said.

Under the new program, viewers of a video with a music track, for example, would be able to click on an icon to download that song from one of the two music stores.
“If you like the song, you don’t need to leave Google or leave the site to buy it,” said Bakari Brock, business affairs counsel at YouTube.

The new ad format is the latest that YouTube has introduced in recent months as it tries to turn the site’s large audience into substantial revenue. So far, that effort has met with limited success, according to many analysts.

Google, which paid $1.65 billion for YouTube nearly two years ago, is counting on the video site to help it expand into new forms of advertising at a time when the growth of its core business — small text ads that appear next to search results — is slowing.

Mr. Brock said the new ads were YouTube’s first step toward building a viable e-commerce platform. For now, the program is limited to buying songs from EMI or the Universal Music Group on iTunes and Amazon. The recently released video game Spore is also available, Mr. Brock said. Over time, YouTube plans to expand the program to include other stores and other merchandise, like concert tickets, he said.

Music labels could choose to place the e-commerce links next to their own videos or on videos uploaded by users, whose images or soundtrack they identified using YouTube’s Content ID system, which allows content owners to find unauthorized material on the site.

Google executives have sent mixed messages about their ability to make money from YouTube. Earlier this year, Eric E. Schmidt, Google’s chief executive, said it had taken longer than he expected to find the right advertising models for YouTube. Last month, he said that he was satisfied with YouTube’s progress.

“You Tube is a huge end-user success and we are awaiting the monetization that goes with that, and we believe it will come,” Mr. Schmidt said. “We are where we should be.”
On Tuesday, YouTube also introduced a larger viewer that it said was suitable for the growing number of long-format videos available on the site.

A Movie Coming Out That Is About What We Talk About...

The Website I Was Talking About

http://www.caringbridge.org/

You ave to register for it...



This is hilarious and once again I can't be the only one to see this...watch it...

That Medical Website I

SNS etc.

Through all of these readings, only one point was made apparent to me, and that is that Social Network Sites are controversial. Today, there seems to be a conflict between various people on whether these sites are entertaining or evil, useful or a waste of time, or just an unstoppable phenomenon. The Boyd article did a great job of going over some of these differing standpoints about the uses and misuses of SNS's. Regarding myspace, the author commented on musicians and fans making connections that inevitably led to the sites emergence as one of the top social networking sites. I remember before facebook even came to UNI, using myspace to look up bands to hear the free tracks they provided on their profiles. Although I was not and still am not a member of myspace, I used its services, as I'm sure lots of others have. 

I thought another interesting part of the reading was the stuff on friendster. I didn't really have any idea what friendster was, but from the article, it sounded like they pretty much shot themselves in the foot, because of the way they restricted their users who were mainly looking for freedom of expression, which eventually led them to myspace. 

I have to say that out of all of the readings, I gained the most insight from the Marks article "Keep Out of Myspace". This article brought to my attention some interesting and somewhat frightening facts. The whole idea of making all of the data on these sites universally compatible and obtainable frightens the shit out of me, and although I wouldn't be very affected if such a thing was to happen, its still a strange thought to know that scary dudes in dark rooms somewhere are scouring countless peoples personal information to use for their own devices. However, Marks also points out that its up to mypsace's 80 million plus users to use discretion in what they put out there, and I agree with the thought that this is really the best privacy practice for using social network sites. One other interesting point from these readings comes from the study about kids safety on SNS being "overblown". The study referred to in the article suggests that tiny percentages of kids 9-17 have been contacted by a strange adult online or been cyberbullied. Cool. But, the study was put on by the people that want to keep your kids plugged into the SNS pipeline. Microsoft, News Corp. (the owner of myspace), and Verizon. I found it somewhat curious that these media giants would publish an article challenging the potential harm of these sites.

SNS's and stuff

When I read about the SNS’s and the concerns about young peoples safety, I thought that it was pretty legit. But after I saw the numbers from the studies, I was a bit surprised. There were far fewer cases than I would have expected, while maybe percentages seem small, the actual numbers might change my mind though. Now,I personally am only familiar with Facebook and MySpace, and based on what I see this would probably be more of a problem of MySpace than Facebook due to mainly the layout, and also being able to see everyone, which is why I am not a fan of MySpace.

The generation gap was intriguing. I don’t think that it is near as big as they make it sound. I mean my mom has facebook, and I know several other people who’s parents have facebook as well. I don’t look at it as a generation gap as much as a technological gap. Now this is only based on my experiences and some of the “generation ahead of me” that I talk to. To me it seems that people who are “technologically savvy” have it and those who struggle in that area don’t.

Do people share too much information? I can see it both ways. I mean my first reaction is yes, and the first day of class is a good example. However most of this information that is put on SNS’s are probably out there anywhere, and also in my opinion if someone thinks it too much they won’t put it out there. It kind of depends on your perspective I would say.

From a goodie two shoes(AKA a Facebook user!)

First, I will address the Boyd article about class divisions and Facebook/MySpace. I admire Boyd for unveiling this issue and it is an interesting one to contemplate. She says that Facebook has been framed as the cool things for college kids to do and that those teens that exclusively use Facebook have a negative opinion about MySpace.

Personally, I am an exclusive Facebook user, but I actually have no negative opinion about MySpace--actually I wish I could be as creative as MySpace users. Facebook to me is simple and I just have to add in my information. MySpace to me seems like too much work. I have been on the site once and it is intimidating to me because it feels like you have to be "artsy" to make a profile. Does anyone else feel the same way?

2)I was somewhat shocked to hear that Facebook users know of MySpace, yet Myspace users have not heard of Facebook--are they living under a rock? I would say many older adults, even grandparents know what Facebook is even if they've never been on it. That assertion I don't believe!!

3) Response to: When Information becomes TMI. I felt I should comment on this because I was in the minority in my feelings about the NewsFeed when it came out--I thought it would be cool! I would not write anything on Facebook that I didn't care if anyone saw anyway.

St. John says, "...users' comfort with revealing intimate details about themselves comes in part from a perception that in the din of life online, there is a kind of privacy through anonymity."

Facebook is not anonymous--so why wouldn't someone know that if you write something that little picture with your name is going to be posted right next to it?! One of the women quoted said that, "Translucent is good--not transparent." But by its nature anything you say on Facebook is transparent--at anytime anyone that you have friended can click on your profile catch up on all your goings-on--good or bad. In sum, I think it quite foolish of users to think that they really have any privacy--if you don't want it read--don't post it. Besides, how many times have you posted on a friend of a friend in hopes that they guy you have a crush on will read it and know where you're going to be this friday night in hopes that he will stop by?!

4)Question to pose--in the Why Youth Heart MySpace they say that Myspace has more pageviews per day than any site on the web--more than Google--why do you think that is? Is it because of all the band/famous peoples' pages that people click on to view the latest info even if they aren't a user themselves? I have never done this, so I don't feel that I have a great perception--I was just wondering.

5)I would also like to address how, "the dynamics of identity production play out visibly on MySpace." I know we touched on this a bit in class--but is it really true? I have never heard of anyone of Facebook putting their most attractive friends as their Top friends.

Boyd also addresses the issue of friending. She says it is important to be connected to friends, as well as friends and idols--even if you don't really know them. But can it ever be too much? I might look at someone that has 1,000 friends and think to myself that wow, they must be really connected, but if they have 3,000 it might actually be a negative interpretation because they must just friend everyone and it can't really mean much. Thoughts?

Some related articles:)

Facebook vs. MySpace: The battle for global social network dominance
http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/04/16/facebook-vs-myspace-battle-global-social-network-dominance

The Future of Facebook
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1644040,00.html

Why Facebook Is the Future.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1655722,00.html

This is FUNNY!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TajGfGXwsnw&feature=related

Tom Anderson -- Founder of Myspace
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yWpnto-hqQ&feature=related

Something Good About Facebook is The Parodies...

Relax

The reading that I liked a lot this week was the one about the fears about kids safety online being overblown. This is something that I have always agreed with. The article said that only three percent of kids had had someone attempt to communicate with them who was unwelcome, and only .08 percent of those kids had actually gone through with a meeting with these people. Yet fifty-two percent of the school administrators believed that kids sharing information online was a big problem. Clearly the schools are overreacting. I think that they are almost taking the kids for idiots. Even if the kids do end up putting personal information on whatever social networking site they choose to frequent, I’m sure that they’ll be smart enough to notice when someone is trying to take advantage of them or make unwanted conversation with them, and then they will ignore those people. This whole overreacting about what kids are doing ties in well with things like the Columbine school shootings and how because the shooters played a couple video games with guns in them, then any kid who plays any sort of game like that is going to become some sort of murderous psychopath. Just like the parents need to relax a bit and not worry that Grand Theft Auto will turn their Jimmy into a gun-toting criminal, the schools and others need to calm down and give the kids a little respect instead of assuming that every one of them is going to meet up with some pedophile for hanging out on Myspace.

Facebook is Hot

Social networking sites are increasingly becoming the go-to place on the Internet for youth and young adults. They have integrated themselves into modern youth culture so thoroughly that to disentangle them from our collective understanding of the world around us and the Internet itself would be nearly impossible. These sites have become an online Mecca for communication and interaction. Boyd talks about this concept in relation to it as a replacement to the real world. She makes a strong point that these sites are not being used as a direct replacement to face to face communiqué, but rather are being utilized because there is no option for real world interaction. Especially in youth culture, there is a general inability to connect with one another directly, and SNS take on the role of a place to hang out and chill.

In the mystic and strange world before MySpace and Facebook kids interacted primarily with other children that lived close to them. Why? Well, simply put, it was because they didn’t have options. Much of the time I would say that those friendships of convenience weren’t the best matches; truly there were other children that would make better, more preferable, friends. Back then there weren’t really other options so you hung out with who you could because the alternative was hanging out with Mom and Dad. Today, children do have other options and they are utilizing them more and more. Their best friend can live 10 miles away but they can be talked to and interacted with via SNS. Rather than interacting only during school, friendships like that can be fostered in online communities.

Nussbaum’s article is another interesting piece to think about. What part of you is on the Internet and do you really want it to be there? The Internet is an amazing place, voluminous and huge. Sometimes it feels like the Internet is so expansive that the odds of anyone seeing anything you put there at the very least unlikely. However, once something goes to the Internet, it’s there forever. Maybe someone sees that naked picture from freshman year and saves it, only to be posted again elsewhere. Or perhaps it just stays where it is. Even if the page it was posted on gets deleted, it’s still probably available? Don’t think so? Go to www.archive.org and try out the WayBack Machine.

Overall, I think the Internet is used much the same as so many things in real life. Rather than being spaced out geographically, the Internet simply brings many of the things we do and use to one convenient location: our home. Rather than libraries who haven’t had new books since the 20th century, we have the Internet. Rather than needing a car to listen to your favorite radio station, we have the Internet. (I guess a portable radio would work too,… but does anyone even have one of those anymore?) Many people, and especially the younger generation, are searching for the same things they were searching for before: knowledge, communication, gratification, acceptance; they are just finding it in a different place.

SNSsssssss

Is Myspace and Social Networks really aiding to a generation that doesn't think twice about privacy? I think the articles tend to say that this is in fact what is happening. I would disagree that they are devoid of the notion of privacy, but they just seem to be more open about their privacy then past generations. I think the reason is because the generation we live in has grown up on computers and the internet, so unlike past generations, it doesn't seem alien to put ourselves out there. More than that, I think that its a matter of the internet allows people an easier way to get attention. Doing something like showing yourself in public seems like a much different thing in practice, but in reality you're doing the same thing. This goes back to the popular notion that the internet is somehow private, where these people are creating little groups of friends online through these sites. The big difference is that if it isn't set up to be private, everyone can see what is going on in these groups.

I just signed up for Facebook during this class, but it wasn't like I was unaware of SNS. I think that is something that is impossible to escape from, like the articles suggest that it is becoming apart of your resume. You are putting yourself out there, so what you put out there should be thought about. To come back to an issue the class has been struggling over, does your personal profile online truly represent the person you are in meatspace? Are those things you list under your interests really something you like or do you list them to create a preconceived notion of yourself? I think above all, do people need to put everything about themselves online? I remember using instant messenger, and there would be friends on my list that would never actually talk on there, instead they would just have away messages that told other people what they were doing, even though they were probably just sitting at their computer. It seems strangely similar to SNS where people seem to think people want to know every little thing they are doing. Maybe people do, maybe it has become so much fun to be an internet voyeur and lurk people's profiles for fun. People who make SNS profiles may want to be surveyed by other people and have a sense of attention online that they may not get in real life. This sort of thing just seems like a waste of time to me and frankly, a little creepy.