What is the difference between an online and offline community? How is each term defined? An online community is one that is non-physical and involves conversation one-on-one or between one or more people in an online forum. An offline community may be a social group you belong to. This article gave me some insight into what an online network has (or doesn't have) in comparison with the real 'offline' world. The first example stated that there are no physical cues online, like when IM'ing you cannot read signs (body language, facial expressions etc) so you know if the reader is interested in you or not. In addition, there is an 'asynchronous' interaction occuring in the virtual world, so for example, an email you send that doesn't receive an instant reply may result in misunderstanding. This would not happen in a real world interaction, because the person is right there. Nancy White tells us that conversations can be anonymous online, which can lead to the breakdown of 'norms of typical behaviour' so the user may end up displaying an 'attitude' that is atypical of their normal self.
From this perspective, the offline world is not necessarily a 'better' or more 'wholistic' means for communication. I disagree with Phoebe when she says 'who i am in the online world may be completely different from who i am in the offline world...neither is a true and complete representation of myself.' Well, i can see how you act in the 'physical world' may be in some ways concurrent with how you have acted on a blog site or on MSN, but why should the physical world not be a true representation of yourself? If this is the case, the world has gone completely mad.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
In response to: Courtney's Blog
I found this article very concise, and the question Courtney posed at the end of the article was a pertinent one: "whether or not social networking consumers will lose their habit once they age." As Jade points out, even though online networks can become addictive, they still offer a great means of dialogue between people in long distance relationships. I think another question people may ask is 'whether the dialogue itself leads to communication problems for future generations down the track?' As we know, the language used in chat-rooms and IM's of all kinds, as well as in Myspace and Facebook, are simplified, abbreviated and 'accessorised' with various icons that are convenient to the author and reader alike. I believe that this may translate into some potentially dangerous trends including how we come across in our place of work, by sending emails to colleagues with language structure that is not appropriate, leading some people to get the wrong message. It may cause people to become 'lazy' with their writing as well, by not checking mistakes or the way their writing sounds to a discerning reader, which may also lead to misunderstanding and the wrong interpretation.
Leading back to whether social networks are causing people to avoid physical contact with another person, i think this is quite a scary thought, and there are obviously many people that live their lives this way. But i also believe that if people develop enough social interaction in a virtual space, their natural social instincts will lead them to want to meet that person. Even better than this, by meeting people on Facebook, you may find yourself 'bumping into' some of your contacts around the place, particularly if you live in a small community. However, other cities with a much higher concentration of people like in parts of Asia, would find this way of social connection much more effective. As i consider it now, i am inclined to believe that social networking on virtual spaces is a greater idea than previously thought.
Leading back to whether social networks are causing people to avoid physical contact with another person, i think this is quite a scary thought, and there are obviously many people that live their lives this way. But i also believe that if people develop enough social interaction in a virtual space, their natural social instincts will lead them to want to meet that person. Even better than this, by meeting people on Facebook, you may find yourself 'bumping into' some of your contacts around the place, particularly if you live in a small community. However, other cities with a much higher concentration of people like in parts of Asia, would find this way of social connection much more effective. As i consider it now, i am inclined to believe that social networking on virtual spaces is a greater idea than previously thought.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
iTouch iWonder..
Well this is very annoying, because i have just recently purchased a $480 audio device that is now crackling when turned up to about 90% volume. It is a few weeks old! I agree with a friend of mine when i say that i do not endorse Apple technology..buyers beware i say! How is this relevant to virtual cultures? forget about how quick your broadband is, make sure the computer that runs it is working properly!
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
In response to: Daniel Koppenol
Article title: How has the Internet transformed media and the Communications industries?
I really liked this article, and i was particularly drawn to a quote Daniel used from Pierre Levy that "people harness their individual expertise toward shared goals....no one knows everything, everyone knows something, all knowledge resides in humanity." (cited in Daniel Koppenol, cited in Jenkins 2004, 35). I agree with this point because in information sharing communities such as Wikipedia, nearly anyone can change an article's content, aside from certain topics that are locked out of discussion.
My attention was peaked in the lecture today when our guest speaker mentioned that even though "knowledgeable sources" 'raised the debates' on particular topics in online forums, it was the views held by the general public that received the most feedback from the network community (Lecture 10, Citizen Journalism). Daniel, i think it is partly true that because of the 'decentralised nature' of the Internet, the enforcement of legislation that relates to acts of defamation is proving a difficult task, with acts of vilification and copyright infringement of personal and corporate property being a reality on the Internet. As an unknown user, i agree that it would be very hard to track a person's identity and charge them accordingly. If however, you were a member of a respected online forum, in which you have provided information about yourself, it may be easier for the moderator or corporate entity themselves to find out who you are. The speaker also explained the the website youdecide2007.com, a forum in which you can sign up and express your opinions on political matters. Say hypothetically, a member of the public gave out private information that a "wealthy media mogul" was providing extra funding to the labor government's campaign for a "slice of the political pie" without the consent of this person, the offender could be prosecuted for defamation under copyright law. An example of online journalistic defamation can be found in this article over here. Daniel concludes with the point that 'broadcast mediums within the communication industry are going to be constantly reformed and restructured.' (Daniel Koppenol's Blog) I also believe that one aspect of the reforming and restructuring process would be how online forums are going to 'root out' offenders, while establishing contact with 'online policing' services that deal with these matters, so the community's output potential can eventually be realised more fully.
I really liked this article, and i was particularly drawn to a quote Daniel used from Pierre Levy that "people harness their individual expertise toward shared goals....no one knows everything, everyone knows something, all knowledge resides in humanity." (cited in Daniel Koppenol, cited in Jenkins 2004, 35). I agree with this point because in information sharing communities such as Wikipedia, nearly anyone can change an article's content, aside from certain topics that are locked out of discussion.
My attention was peaked in the lecture today when our guest speaker mentioned that even though "knowledgeable sources" 'raised the debates' on particular topics in online forums, it was the views held by the general public that received the most feedback from the network community (Lecture 10, Citizen Journalism). Daniel, i think it is partly true that because of the 'decentralised nature' of the Internet, the enforcement of legislation that relates to acts of defamation is proving a difficult task, with acts of vilification and copyright infringement of personal and corporate property being a reality on the Internet. As an unknown user, i agree that it would be very hard to track a person's identity and charge them accordingly. If however, you were a member of a respected online forum, in which you have provided information about yourself, it may be easier for the moderator or corporate entity themselves to find out who you are. The speaker also explained the the website youdecide2007.com, a forum in which you can sign up and express your opinions on political matters. Say hypothetically, a member of the public gave out private information that a "wealthy media mogul" was providing extra funding to the labor government's campaign for a "slice of the political pie" without the consent of this person, the offender could be prosecuted for defamation under copyright law. An example of online journalistic defamation can be found in this article over here. Daniel concludes with the point that 'broadcast mediums within the communication industry are going to be constantly reformed and restructured.' (Daniel Koppenol's Blog) I also believe that one aspect of the reforming and restructuring process would be how online forums are going to 'root out' offenders, while establishing contact with 'online policing' services that deal with these matters, so the community's output potential can eventually be realised more fully.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Cultural Diversity on the Internet and in Schools
One thing i have realised about the Internet is that it is non-discriminatory to people's view's, their color or what they believe in. In an article from JS Online, Erin Richards explains the situation in the American state of Wisconsin: "If the students are African-American, they've been raised in all-black neighborhoods. If they're white, they've grown up in all white neighborhoods. They get there, (university) and we expect them to all learn together" ('Cultural diversity courses take root in schools, Feb. 18, 2008). The same may also be said for Australian white kids learning with kids from Indigenous communities. To foster 'cultural diversity in the online envrionment,' we have look at few points:
- Avoid racial identification except when it is essential to communication
- Avoid language that has questionable racial or ethnic connotations
- Be aware of rules regarding the distance between speakers during conversation.
- Be aware that objects, characters and symbols may reflect different beliefs or values for different groups.
This information can be viewed here
I think in online environments (forums, discussion groups) it is alot easier to support those who have been racially villified by a contributor. This is a great advantage as it allows people to be supportive of one another. Being supportive while collaborating or sharing information is a key part of networks.
- Avoid racial identification except when it is essential to communication
- Avoid language that has questionable racial or ethnic connotations
- Be aware of rules regarding the distance between speakers during conversation.
- Be aware that objects, characters and symbols may reflect different beliefs or values for different groups.
This information can be viewed here
I think in online environments (forums, discussion groups) it is alot easier to support those who have been racially villified by a contributor. This is a great advantage as it allows people to be supportive of one another. Being supportive while collaborating or sharing information is a key part of networks.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
The Digital Divide will not be Inevitable
What is the 'Digital Divide' exactly? Wikipedia defines it as the "gap between those people wtih effective acess to digital and information technology and those without access to it." In an article entitled 'Is a Computer worth a Thousand Books? Internet Access and the Changing Role of Public Libraries' Chaudhuri and Flamm give a statistic on Internet access in Australia, with "household penetration having now surpassed 70%" (2006:249-266). The internet speed divide is set to be quashed through the implementation of high-speed internet access, (taken from Daniel Koppenol's Blog). So, for our country at least, the 'digital divide' is presently non-existent with the increasing requirements of small businesses and the domestic to engage with the rest of the world and their competition in online networks.
The Digital Divide is not applicable to South Korea either, a lesser-developed nation than Australia. They have the highest rate of Internet usage in the world at the moment, which I found interesting. I found no statistics for North Korea, so yes, the 'digital divide' probably does still stick with them. As Alexandra Sidorenko and Christopher Finlay point out, "(the digital divide) relates to the inequality held between developing and industrialised nations, and the inaccessiblity of communications and information technolgies to nations that are not industrialised" ('The Digital Divide in East Asia' Sidorenko & Finlay: 1).
One argument 'for' the closing gap in the digital divide is the culture of convergence, or the 'Communications Revolution' which basically gives nations that were once without, a chance to get on board and communicate on the Internet. Communications technologies have 'shrunk the globe' according to Kacowicz, who labels this as a tenet of globalisation. As I discussed in the 'Bert and Osama' example in my first blog, the 'intensification of economic, political, social and cultural relationships' are leading to global changes in perspectives of other countries, and how we view their state affairs and where they stand on the international stage, through the actions of particpipants which are passed through different forms of media. We may see the 'digital divide' on a case-by-case basis, where some nations still have no access to the Internet. But inevitably, it is going to happen. If you are skeptical of this, that the digital divide will eventually be diminshed to nothing, then you are not in line with the in-built trait of progress that is part of every human being. But it is never an easy road, as Martin Luther King Jr. surmises:
"Human progress is neither automatic nor inevitable...Every step toward the goal of justice requires sacrfice, suffering and struggle, the tireless exertions and passionate concern of dedicated individuals.." Taken from here.
An interersting article entitled 'The Digital Divide: the special case of gender' illustrates how women are under-represented as users of computers and the Internet. Cooper draws research from countries across the world that all say that females know much less about information technology than males, and at an early age seem 'anxious' when it comes to using a computer. I think that gender stereotypes are a non-event in the 21st century. From my own experience working in uni labs and other computer facilities, there seems to be more females than males accessing computers and the Internet. When i was part of the social networking tool Myspace, the number of female profiles vastly outweighed the number of male profiles. It is a fact that females have a more advanced conversation system than us fellas, and i'd be inclined to think that females would be better adapted to 'virtual communication' than males too because of this 'genetic trait.' So i think if the divide is put into the context of gender, there is no obvious form of segregation in day-to-day use of computers.
The Digital Divide is not applicable to South Korea either, a lesser-developed nation than Australia. They have the highest rate of Internet usage in the world at the moment, which I found interesting. I found no statistics for North Korea, so yes, the 'digital divide' probably does still stick with them. As Alexandra Sidorenko and Christopher Finlay point out, "(the digital divide) relates to the inequality held between developing and industrialised nations, and the inaccessiblity of communications and information technolgies to nations that are not industrialised" ('The Digital Divide in East Asia' Sidorenko & Finlay: 1).
One argument 'for' the closing gap in the digital divide is the culture of convergence, or the 'Communications Revolution' which basically gives nations that were once without, a chance to get on board and communicate on the Internet. Communications technologies have 'shrunk the globe' according to Kacowicz, who labels this as a tenet of globalisation. As I discussed in the 'Bert and Osama' example in my first blog, the 'intensification of economic, political, social and cultural relationships' are leading to global changes in perspectives of other countries, and how we view their state affairs and where they stand on the international stage, through the actions of particpipants which are passed through different forms of media. We may see the 'digital divide' on a case-by-case basis, where some nations still have no access to the Internet. But inevitably, it is going to happen. If you are skeptical of this, that the digital divide will eventually be diminshed to nothing, then you are not in line with the in-built trait of progress that is part of every human being. But it is never an easy road, as Martin Luther King Jr. surmises:
"Human progress is neither automatic nor inevitable...Every step toward the goal of justice requires sacrfice, suffering and struggle, the tireless exertions and passionate concern of dedicated individuals.." Taken from here.
An interersting article entitled 'The Digital Divide: the special case of gender' illustrates how women are under-represented as users of computers and the Internet. Cooper draws research from countries across the world that all say that females know much less about information technology than males, and at an early age seem 'anxious' when it comes to using a computer. I think that gender stereotypes are a non-event in the 21st century. From my own experience working in uni labs and other computer facilities, there seems to be more females than males accessing computers and the Internet. When i was part of the social networking tool Myspace, the number of female profiles vastly outweighed the number of male profiles. It is a fact that females have a more advanced conversation system than us fellas, and i'd be inclined to think that females would be better adapted to 'virtual communication' than males too because of this 'genetic trait.' So i think if the divide is put into the context of gender, there is no obvious form of segregation in day-to-day use of computers.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Be a Good Journalist!
This is one of the biggest growth sectors online at present: online journalism. As an online journalist, you have a wide range of positions to choose from if you are skilled in this field, some include: web editor, web producer, multimedia assignment editor, presentation editor, internet content editor etc. Where does online journalism take place? Here are a few examples to get us started:
-Discussion Groups (Boostcruising is one i like;)) forums, team spaces, Wiki's, IM, fileshares, sharepoint, blogs, mailing lists etc. A few more examples can be found here.
Beckett & Mansell (2008) seperate two dualistic terms: networked journalism and citizen journalism, where the "former retains essential functions of traditional journalism, that is to report, analyse, comment, edit and disseminate" (2008 'Crossing Boundaries: New Media and Networked Journalism' p.92-104). Networked Journalism focuses on the digital media platform to "gather, process and disseminate" information (Beckett & Mansell 2008 p.92-104). One example of online journalism practises are through "newspapers, e-zines and current information sites" that can be viewed online (Riley, Keough, Christiansen, Meilich and Pierson 'Community or Colony: the case of online newspapers and the Web' 1998). In this article, they use a quote from Neuman (cited in Fulton, 1996) that "networked computers in the workplace and the home will compete on an equal footing with existing news media as a news source for over 50% of the public" (2008). This will have a marked impact on political issues such as elections and significant current affairs issues that the public can then respond to. In addition, this could potentially see the downfall of newspapers in their "physical form" in the next few decades. What about the quality of information between online newspaper channels? Once, a person would stick with one newspaper because it reflected their views and ideals. In the virtual world, we can "cross over" between different news sources that deliver varying interpretations of the truth. I believe this is a bad thing, particularly when the community becomes involved, and the truth gets even more distorted, it can be hard to decipher truth from fiction.
Ridell points out that journalism is really all about 'confusing the medium and the message' and is a 'collective activity carried out by individualists' (Peter Riddell'The rise of the ranters: saving political journalism 2007: pp.70-71). The author goes on to explain that this seperates this from 'blogging' which is 'individual, unconstrained and immediate' (Riddell 2005: 71). I believe that news journalism is "immediate" in its messages and can also be unconstrained, because as Riddell points out, the author is often delivering "in-your-face" language that is not necessarily 'politically correct' and is all about bringing the attention of the reader. According to Berenger, we have to develop a "skeptical as well as discerning eye" when it comes to information ('Introduction: War in Cyberspace' 2005, pp. 176-188). I too believe that we must be careful of the information that is thrust upon us, and refuse to accept the truth from one point of view. I think that if we, as consumers of knowledge, are to give back to the online community through 'network journalism', we must not see our view as the only provider of wisdom, because this dogmatism may cause unneeded conflict in the online community.
-Discussion Groups (Boostcruising is one i like;)) forums, team spaces, Wiki's, IM, fileshares, sharepoint, blogs, mailing lists etc. A few more examples can be found here.
Beckett & Mansell (2008) seperate two dualistic terms: networked journalism and citizen journalism, where the "former retains essential functions of traditional journalism, that is to report, analyse, comment, edit and disseminate" (2008 'Crossing Boundaries: New Media and Networked Journalism' p.92-104). Networked Journalism focuses on the digital media platform to "gather, process and disseminate" information (Beckett & Mansell 2008 p.92-104). One example of online journalism practises are through "newspapers, e-zines and current information sites" that can be viewed online (Riley, Keough, Christiansen, Meilich and Pierson 'Community or Colony: the case of online newspapers and the Web' 1998). In this article, they use a quote from Neuman (cited in Fulton, 1996) that "networked computers in the workplace and the home will compete on an equal footing with existing news media as a news source for over 50% of the public" (2008). This will have a marked impact on political issues such as elections and significant current affairs issues that the public can then respond to. In addition, this could potentially see the downfall of newspapers in their "physical form" in the next few decades. What about the quality of information between online newspaper channels? Once, a person would stick with one newspaper because it reflected their views and ideals. In the virtual world, we can "cross over" between different news sources that deliver varying interpretations of the truth. I believe this is a bad thing, particularly when the community becomes involved, and the truth gets even more distorted, it can be hard to decipher truth from fiction.
Ridell points out that journalism is really all about 'confusing the medium and the message' and is a 'collective activity carried out by individualists' (Peter Riddell'The rise of the ranters: saving political journalism 2007: pp.70-71). The author goes on to explain that this seperates this from 'blogging' which is 'individual, unconstrained and immediate' (Riddell 2005: 71). I believe that news journalism is "immediate" in its messages and can also be unconstrained, because as Riddell points out, the author is often delivering "in-your-face" language that is not necessarily 'politically correct' and is all about bringing the attention of the reader. According to Berenger, we have to develop a "skeptical as well as discerning eye" when it comes to information ('Introduction: War in Cyberspace' 2005, pp. 176-188). I too believe that we must be careful of the information that is thrust upon us, and refuse to accept the truth from one point of view. I think that if we, as consumers of knowledge, are to give back to the online community through 'network journalism', we must not see our view as the only provider of wisdom, because this dogmatism may cause unneeded conflict in the online community.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
