Friday, May 9, 2008
Quote of the Day
"God ... invented the giraffe, the elephant, the cat ... He has no real style. He just goes on trying things."
Pablo Picasso
Keep going until you find your mojo.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Saviour of the balance
There is a school of thought gradually teaching students that user generated content is the saviour of balance, equality and objectivity in the pit of modern consumerism and bias. The lesson being taught goes something like this:
As 200 million people log onto their blogs and write their opinion pieces, 200 million voices add themselves to the choir of global understanding.
Each album uploaded to Flickr is like a flourish in the fresco on the ceiling of the Cathedral of Life, painting a picture of the world as it really is.
Every user who logs on to Wikipedia to contribute pours forth a stream of enlightenment, filling the cup of knowledge from which the world loves to drink.
And finally, as we, the consumers of this content, log on to Blogger, Flickr, MySpace, Wikipedia and Current TV and are exposed to this myriad of alternative thoughts, ideas and opinions, a new dawn of understanding breaks and the sun rises on a world that is informed and has a balanced, reasonable and fair consideration of the issues at hand.
Does that sound like the world you woke up in this morning, or should I just roll over and go back to sleep?
I acknowledge that the picture I paint is perhaps somewhat sarcastic and very narrow minded in its position, but there does seem to be an aura of reverence surrounding user generated content and it’s ability to re-educate the world one blog reader at a time. But I have two key problems with our newfound saviour of the balance.
1. The voices being added to ‘the choir of global understanding’ are the voices of those privileged enough to be living in a free society with access to an Internet connection. Developing nations in Africa and throughout Asia cannot provide this avenue of expression to their population to allow their voices to be heard. A simple Google search reveals the furor of discussion surrounding the access and freedom of speech granted to those living in China. And although America may be considered to be the home of free speech, it appears that it is not that simple for those serving in their armed forces . We may be getting masses of opinions, but we are not getting the opinions of the masses.
2. Consumers do not actively seek or retain information or opinions that are contrary to their own. We have a tendency to engage with content that either supports or reinforces the views we hold, or further extends the understanding we have of our opinions. The theory of selective retention holds that
There is a limit to people’s openness to change. Creating behavioural and attitudinal shifts is not as simple as posting an entry on Blogger. If it was, advertisers, marketers, market researchers and public relations professionals would be out of a job.
So while user generated content definitely makes positive steps towards a more enlightened society, and undoubtedly provides a broader range of opinions and ideas than was previously accessible, there remains within me an element of doubt as to the potential for ‘restoring of the balance’ through the current model of user generated content.
As 200 million people log onto their blogs and write their opinion pieces, 200 million voices add themselves to the choir of global understanding.
Each album uploaded to Flickr is like a flourish in the fresco on the ceiling of the Cathedral of Life, painting a picture of the world as it really is.
Every user who logs on to Wikipedia to contribute pours forth a stream of enlightenment, filling the cup of knowledge from which the world loves to drink.
And finally, as we, the consumers of this content, log on to Blogger, Flickr, MySpace, Wikipedia and Current TV and are exposed to this myriad of alternative thoughts, ideas and opinions, a new dawn of understanding breaks and the sun rises on a world that is informed and has a balanced, reasonable and fair consideration of the issues at hand.
Does that sound like the world you woke up in this morning, or should I just roll over and go back to sleep?
I acknowledge that the picture I paint is perhaps somewhat sarcastic and very narrow minded in its position, but there does seem to be an aura of reverence surrounding user generated content and it’s ability to re-educate the world one blog reader at a time. But I have two key problems with our newfound saviour of the balance.
1. The voices being added to ‘the choir of global understanding’ are the voices of those privileged enough to be living in a free society with access to an Internet connection. Developing nations in Africa and throughout Asia cannot provide this avenue of expression to their population to allow their voices to be heard. A simple Google search reveals the furor of discussion surrounding the access and freedom of speech granted to those living in China. And although America may be considered to be the home of free speech, it appears that it is not that simple for those serving in their armed forces . We may be getting masses of opinions, but we are not getting the opinions of the masses.
2. Consumers do not actively seek or retain information or opinions that are contrary to their own. We have a tendency to engage with content that either supports or reinforces the views we hold, or further extends the understanding we have of our opinions. The theory of selective retention holds that
... people remember more accurately messages that are closer to their interests, views and beliefs than those that are in contrast with their values and beliefs. We are selecting what to keep in the memory, narrowing the informational flow once again.
There is a limit to people’s openness to change. Creating behavioural and attitudinal shifts is not as simple as posting an entry on Blogger. If it was, advertisers, marketers, market researchers and public relations professionals would be out of a job.
So while user generated content definitely makes positive steps towards a more enlightened society, and undoubtedly provides a broader range of opinions and ideas than was previously accessible, there remains within me an element of doubt as to the potential for ‘restoring of the balance’ through the current model of user generated content.
How much is too much?
According to Anne Helman, a New Media Lecturer at the University of Amsterdam as of February this year there were over 112 million blogs sitting in the blogosphere, excluding the 72 million blogs that are fast springing from China. Aggregated, this represents close to 200 million opinions on an infinite number of topics.
As at 8 May 2008 there are 2 363 745 articles hosted on Wikipedia. Articles researched, written, edited and maintained by users. By the time you next log on to Wikipedia, my data will be out of date.
In 2007 there were over 124 million people accessing the content posted on You Tube. As of June 2007 You Tube represented 11.4% of Internet user’s online experience. The population of You Tube is larger than that of most countries in the world.
According to Axel Bruns, leading new media theorist, welcome to the world of produsage. Enabled by the so called Web 2.0 revolution and seen by some as the second Internet goldrush in full swing, the world of the produser is a world where consumer and producers are no longer discrete entities and traditional industrial and commercial frameworks for content production and distribution no longer apply.
Blogs, Wikipedia and You Tube only represent a portion of the produsage iceberg. Lying in wait under the murky surface of commercialism is a whole body of user-produced content. But is this iceberg the unseen foe that will result in the sinking of traditional media outlets?
Don’t count out the Titanic just yet, there are a few hot issues which threaten to melt the potency of the produsage iceberg.
1. Quality
The very nature of produsage allows that all individuals, regardless of their position within and access to commercial entities and resources, are equally able and entitled to produce and distribute content. This content could range from written content such as blogs and pieces of citizen journalism to video footage, films, photographs, cartoons, commercials – the list goes on.
However, the removal of the production and distribution mechanism from the traditional commercial context also removes the necessity for two basic elements of commercial content; training and gatekeeping.
This feature acts as a double-edged sword. For many, this is the pure, idealistic attraction of user created content. It is not censored, restricted, manipulated or influenced in any way by the values and agendas of commercial production. And often, it also isn’t spell checked or produced within copyright, defamation or vilification guidelines either. Participants are also not required to have the ‘expert’ factor, any training or experience in their chosen field of production. This leads to questions as to the accuracy and reliability of information and content produced through produsage.
For interest, discussion of this very problem in relation to Wikipedia was raised in an article by Andrew Orlowski for The Register.
2. Quantity
No longer restricted by the capacity of industry, the sheer volume of content available through produsage has increased exponentially, as demonstrated by the figures in the opening paragraphs. However, arguably, content only holds real value when there is an audience to view it. Traditional production has defined and loyal audiences, established through years of consistent delivery and quality of content.
And while there are various mechanisms, sites and software packages such as rating systems, sites such as digg.com and del.icio.us which aim to sift through the vast quantity of information and present that which is pertinent to particular audiences, I personally have doubts as to how effective they are in evaluating and presenting the sheer volume of content now available on the web.
3. Sustainability
In a traditional relationship, content was produced and distributed in exchange for financial compensation. For example, journalists working for a paper were paid wages or a set fee for each story, and in turn, readers paid for access to the stories these journalists produced.
Produsers are generating content outside of this commercial environment, and generally are not paid for their efforts. The time taken to produce this content is, arguably, time that the produser could be paid for within the workforce. For those producers who are generating large quantities of content, there may eventually reach a point that this approach is no longer financially viable. Commercial entities also, are losing profits from their content as consumers select the free, user generated alternatives.
An example of this on going battle between ideals and financial considerations is clearly seen in the open source software sphere.
So is there a threat of the 'causal collapse' of our traditional media outlets? Is the Titanic sinking? For my money, the iceberg needs to be a little sharper to sink this ship. But watch this space.
As at 8 May 2008 there are 2 363 745 articles hosted on Wikipedia. Articles researched, written, edited and maintained by users. By the time you next log on to Wikipedia, my data will be out of date.
In 2007 there were over 124 million people accessing the content posted on You Tube. As of June 2007 You Tube represented 11.4% of Internet user’s online experience. The population of You Tube is larger than that of most countries in the world.
According to Axel Bruns, leading new media theorist, welcome to the world of produsage. Enabled by the so called Web 2.0 revolution and seen by some as the second Internet goldrush in full swing, the world of the produser is a world where consumer and producers are no longer discrete entities and traditional industrial and commercial frameworks for content production and distribution no longer apply.
Blogs, Wikipedia and You Tube only represent a portion of the produsage iceberg. Lying in wait under the murky surface of commercialism is a whole body of user-produced content. But is this iceberg the unseen foe that will result in the sinking of traditional media outlets?
Don’t count out the Titanic just yet, there are a few hot issues which threaten to melt the potency of the produsage iceberg.
1. Quality
The very nature of produsage allows that all individuals, regardless of their position within and access to commercial entities and resources, are equally able and entitled to produce and distribute content. This content could range from written content such as blogs and pieces of citizen journalism to video footage, films, photographs, cartoons, commercials – the list goes on.
However, the removal of the production and distribution mechanism from the traditional commercial context also removes the necessity for two basic elements of commercial content; training and gatekeeping.
This feature acts as a double-edged sword. For many, this is the pure, idealistic attraction of user created content. It is not censored, restricted, manipulated or influenced in any way by the values and agendas of commercial production. And often, it also isn’t spell checked or produced within copyright, defamation or vilification guidelines either. Participants are also not required to have the ‘expert’ factor, any training or experience in their chosen field of production. This leads to questions as to the accuracy and reliability of information and content produced through produsage.
For interest, discussion of this very problem in relation to Wikipedia was raised in an article by Andrew Orlowski for The Register.
2. Quantity
No longer restricted by the capacity of industry, the sheer volume of content available through produsage has increased exponentially, as demonstrated by the figures in the opening paragraphs. However, arguably, content only holds real value when there is an audience to view it. Traditional production has defined and loyal audiences, established through years of consistent delivery and quality of content.
And while there are various mechanisms, sites and software packages such as rating systems, sites such as digg.com and del.icio.us which aim to sift through the vast quantity of information and present that which is pertinent to particular audiences, I personally have doubts as to how effective they are in evaluating and presenting the sheer volume of content now available on the web.
3. Sustainability
In a traditional relationship, content was produced and distributed in exchange for financial compensation. For example, journalists working for a paper were paid wages or a set fee for each story, and in turn, readers paid for access to the stories these journalists produced.
Produsers are generating content outside of this commercial environment, and generally are not paid for their efforts. The time taken to produce this content is, arguably, time that the produser could be paid for within the workforce. For those producers who are generating large quantities of content, there may eventually reach a point that this approach is no longer financially viable. Commercial entities also, are losing profits from their content as consumers select the free, user generated alternatives.
An example of this on going battle between ideals and financial considerations is clearly seen in the open source software sphere.
So is there a threat of the 'causal collapse' of our traditional media outlets? Is the Titanic sinking? For my money, the iceberg needs to be a little sharper to sink this ship. But watch this space.
Friday, May 2, 2008
How green is cyberspace? PART TWO
I was recently reading an article by Al Gore. The opening paragraph of the article for me highlighted a profound point; the one common basis between cyberspace and the real world is time. We both function under the same restrictions of time and time changes both worlds. In the physical world, Gore highlights how the ongoing march of time is presenting the world with disastrous consequences:
But further on in the piece, Gore explores the fascinating relationship between the actions in an online space and positive reactions for our environment.
This insight inspired me to consider how we, as foot soldiers in this environmental war, take steps to harness the weaponry of the Internet.
So here are ten ways you and the Internet can save the planet:
1. Pay your bills online – many bills and statements can be viewed and paid online to reduce the amount of paper used to print and the transport used to deliver
2. Work from home – this reduces greenhouse emissions from your cars, bikes as you commute to work and the number of disposable coffee cups you through in the bin each morning.
3. Video conference – with all the fabulous technology available, the need to travel overseas for business conferences is reducing. Save jet fuel and set up a video link up
4. Turn off the lights - backlighting in computer screens eliminates the need for turning on the lights in the house as you work
5. Get another job - 24 hour access means an opportunity to literally work around the clock. Find an employer in another country and work for them by night. The extra money you are earning can be used to support environmental causes close to your heart
6. Sign up to World of Warcraft - become so absorbed in the virtual world that you don’t shower for three days
7. Download where possible – reduce packaging and transport costs and download software, music, books and movies (legally, of course)
8. Shop online – don’t drive your car to the sops, surf the web instead. When ordering goods take the option of having them delivered all together to minimise impact of separate transport costs
9. Recycle – use eBAy to get rid of all that old stuff that you have lying around the house, and make a bit of money in the process!
10. Network – get involved in online communities that environmentally active and aware. Find new ideas and get involved with community projects.
But always remember – save power, turn off your computer (not just put it on standby) when you are not using it.
If this all looks too hard, you might like to try this approach:
In cyberspace and elsewhere, 24 hours is a day. But in the global environment -- where change is always pressing its foot on the accelerator -- those 1,440 precious minutes can be a lifetime. In the time it takes to complete this first 24 Hours in Cyberspace, 31,507 acres of rain forest will be destroyed, 74 species will vanish, 16 million tons of carbon will be pumped into the air, and people will generate more than 700,000 tons of garbage.
But further on in the piece, Gore explores the fascinating relationship between the actions in an online space and positive reactions for our environment.
This insight inspired me to consider how we, as foot soldiers in this environmental war, take steps to harness the weaponry of the Internet.
So here are ten ways you and the Internet can save the planet:
1. Pay your bills online – many bills and statements can be viewed and paid online to reduce the amount of paper used to print and the transport used to deliver
2. Work from home – this reduces greenhouse emissions from your cars, bikes as you commute to work and the number of disposable coffee cups you through in the bin each morning.
3. Video conference – with all the fabulous technology available, the need to travel overseas for business conferences is reducing. Save jet fuel and set up a video link up
4. Turn off the lights - backlighting in computer screens eliminates the need for turning on the lights in the house as you work
5. Get another job - 24 hour access means an opportunity to literally work around the clock. Find an employer in another country and work for them by night. The extra money you are earning can be used to support environmental causes close to your heart
6. Sign up to World of Warcraft - become so absorbed in the virtual world that you don’t shower for three days
7. Download where possible – reduce packaging and transport costs and download software, music, books and movies (legally, of course)
8. Shop online – don’t drive your car to the sops, surf the web instead. When ordering goods take the option of having them delivered all together to minimise impact of separate transport costs
9. Recycle – use eBAy to get rid of all that old stuff that you have lying around the house, and make a bit of money in the process!
10. Network – get involved in online communities that environmentally active and aware. Find new ideas and get involved with community projects.
But always remember – save power, turn off your computer (not just put it on standby) when you are not using it.
If this all looks too hard, you might like to try this approach:
How green is cyberspace?
There is a war being waged. A war for our time, our money, our compassion, our thought, our sympathy, our participation and our commitment. As per the laws of natural selection, it is the strongest and the fittest that prevail in this battle; those with the strongest financial, social and political resources and those fittest in designing, distributing, promoting and pricing their message. And so it goes that in this ongoing war, there is a tendency for particular corporations and causes to seize and maintain a stranglehold on public attention. Specifically, in the area of ‘causes’ we see fluctuations and trends in the level of prominence and importance given to each in the media, in social dialogue and consequently in the lives of individuals. We have seen feminism, gender equality, political correctness, indigenous rights, poverty and, arguably the cause of the moment, the environment.
The catch cry of going green can be seen everywhere. It seems that everyone from supermarkets, governments, banks, pop stars, schools, clubs and cartoon characters are all taking up the call and going green. The green movement is not a new one (think only of our hippie friends in the 70’s) but to my mind it is truly fascinating to watch how a cause so firmly planted in the physical world has sprouted such an extensive online presence (excuse the puns). I believe this is largely due to the weaponry provided in the online environment that enables the environmentalists to fight their war.
Weapons in the greenies online war:
So as the war continues to rage, it is interesting to see the part these weapons play. Some have been exploited to near their full potential, and others still have much room for creativity in their application. The question in my mind is now how will these tools change the environmental war?
We have already seen instances in the physical world were corporations are exploiting environmental sympathies to financial advantage, for example, encouraging patronage at events that are billed as carbon neutral. So will we begin to see websites that are also carbon neutral in an attempt to increase traffic? Gimmicks to the effect that for every hour logged on the site, the organisation will plant 1 tree to offset the carbon emissions caused by the electricity required to power computers and modems? We watch and wait in anticipation.
The catch cry of going green can be seen everywhere. It seems that everyone from supermarkets, governments, banks, pop stars, schools, clubs and cartoon characters are all taking up the call and going green. The green movement is not a new one (think only of our hippie friends in the 70’s) but to my mind it is truly fascinating to watch how a cause so firmly planted in the physical world has sprouted such an extensive online presence (excuse the puns). I believe this is largely due to the weaponry provided in the online environment that enables the environmentalists to fight their war.
Weapons in the greenies online war:
- Digital data storage – Digital storage of information has a two fold advantage; it reduces the need to retain ‘paper’ copies of documents and information (whereby saving our trees) and also facilitates the efficient, paperless, widespread sharing of this information through such avenues as websites, email, Google documents and online databases and research centres
- Knowledge – The sharing of knowledge, research and ideas between experts and non -experts is building and increasing the understanding of environmental issues, developments and solutions through a process described by Levy as collective intelligence.
- Access – The positioning of information in online environments increases individuals’ ability to access a diverse range of information on a diverse range of topics from a diverse range of sources. There is also increased access to more environmentally sustainable products and services, which were once limited in their distribution due to geographical restrictions. Now, through sites such as World of Good, these products are universally accessible and available.
- Awareness – with the increase of access and the wider sharing of knowledge, comes increased awareness as a broader range of people are exposed to a broader range of issues. The potential for information to be spread rapidly through the use of viral Internet campaigns also has the power to swiftly spread a message and raise awareness of an issue
- Collective action – the ability to coordinate large scale projects and recruit diverse groups of people to achieve a common goal has been simplified in an online environment. The use of online forums to coordinate events (both on and offline) and the advantages of access and awareness in an online environment enable most efficient mobilisation of the troops to fight the war
- Transparency – corporations, governments and individuals are under increasing global scrutiny, as access to information increases, so does our expectation that it is available.
So as the war continues to rage, it is interesting to see the part these weapons play. Some have been exploited to near their full potential, and others still have much room for creativity in their application. The question in my mind is now how will these tools change the environmental war?
We have already seen instances in the physical world were corporations are exploiting environmental sympathies to financial advantage, for example, encouraging patronage at events that are billed as carbon neutral. So will we begin to see websites that are also carbon neutral in an attempt to increase traffic? Gimmicks to the effect that for every hour logged on the site, the organisation will plant 1 tree to offset the carbon emissions caused by the electricity required to power computers and modems? We watch and wait in anticipation.
Is it worth it? UPDATE
For those of you who are indeed struggling with the idea of what to do with your old media, try a couple of these sites:
Simples ways to get rid of your old iPods and mobile phones, regardless of their condition!
Buy My Tronics
Second Rotation
Students take note
Important health warning for all students currently working on assignments. Please read the following"
Sleep Deprivation is NOT a Badge of Honour
Sleep Deprivation is NOT a Badge of Honour
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
