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.

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.

Produsage is Now Essential

If we are all still a bit unsure of what produsage entails, here is a re-brief on what it means according to Axel Bruns. Produsage goes beyond production, we are now seeing a "user-led form of production."We all know the traditional model for produsage: (producer->distributor->consumer) which is also typical of Web 1.0 (fixed and divided, where consumers are not productive). Before Web 2.0 (active participation in the community) there was a "customer and producer" connection that dated back 50 years, which enabled user-feedback and market research to take place, and even the advice of customers that led to content innovation and improvisation upon existent products. This model of production has become a part of the virtual world. Here are some benefits that Axel Bruns has listed in his lecture:

- The contribution of the "editor" is immediately improved, and even changed.
- (Open source software) addresses the needs of diverse groups, whereas software developed by a small group of programmers may only be tenable to the "subset" of that particular community.
- With shared development, there is a "collective ownership" of content, so a software organisation cannot commercialise the product for their own financial gain.

And some disadvantages:

- The change in information content may be worse
- We cannot distinguish between negative and positive contributions
- The knowledge of the community is limited ("group think")..you need to increase the diversity within the community.
- "Disagreements" within communities eg. Irag and abortion issues
- "Revert War:" opposing views "erase" the opinion of the other side without end.

I don't believe that the disadvantages outweigh the benefits that "produsers" can bring to the table, because diversity is a key part of developing an efficient knowledge system in our world. A few programmers can't possibly know everything, and if the consumer is having problems with "closed software" like Windows, it is unlikely you'll ever get a response. If a patch is released, it's only a way to value-add to their product at your expense. These days, there are far too many other financial burdens we all face, so free services you can recieve (open-source, user-generated) is a relief. Why buy a book when you can read about it on Wikipedia? You have a mortgage, you can't afford the real thing. Parents don't have the time to drive little Johnny around to Michael's place, so Myspace or Online Gaming Networks are a stable alternative. When Aline Van Duyn (2006) explains that "high level media and advertising executives are now engaging with the surging popularity of social networking websites," i am positive that this will act in strengthening their popularity.

If it ain't broke don't fix it is the old adage that is relevant here. We are all produsers in our virtual worlds, we contribute and acquire new knowledge, we help ourselves and others, and this can only be a good thing.

'Old' Web 1.0 and 'New' Web 2.0

What are some differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0? Boulos & Wheeler (2007) explain that Web. 2.0 are about "wikis, blogs and podcasts" while the older Web 1.0 form is far less engaging to the user. Here are some comparisons that i gathered from Darren Barefoot's blog:

- Web 1.0 was about home pages, Web 2.0 is about blogs
- Web 1.0 was about client-server, Web 2.0 is about peer-to-peer (P2P)
- Web 1.0 was about companies, Web 2.0 is about communities,

And some more through his comment list -

- Web 1.0 was top-down (Google Maps) Web 2.0 is bottom-up (geo-tagging, personal photos)
- Web 1.0 was text, Web 2.0 is video (Youtube)
- Web 1.0 was IE, Web 2.0 is Firefox (customisable) and lastly,
- Web 1.0 was a tool, Web 2.0 is a lifestyle. Web 3.0 is an addiction.





Boulos and Wheeler note that Web 2.0 is known as a more 'socialised environment, not content that can be generated and manipulated whenever and by whoever' (2007: 2). In the list above, there are some clear distinctions made between the 'old' and 'new' internet of today. Nearly everything on the Web is user-built and/or customised to meet a persons needs; the only exception may be the CIA's top-secret databases, which are not exactly safe either from computer whizzes and professional hackers. Every one of us has useful knowledge, or a lead to relevant information that can be potentially useful to someone else, whether that be an individual or a large organisation. Web 2.0 opens up doors for everyone to contribute through an unimaginable supply of online forums and blog-sites, as well as to the unfathomable mass of forum-posts and personal blogs out there. Web 1.0 was about the web-developer and their team knowing everything, by supplying information they would completely satisfy the user. The powers of liberty and democratic freedom as ideals that are upheld by most societies in the world meant one thing for the Internet: evolution of the sytem. The Web will never die as well all know, it gives us the chance to do great things if we felt motivated to do so, as well as to communicate with people whenever we want. In this sense, Web 2.0 has another dimension to its use. Web 2.0 is about connectivity on the "Internet," which is one of many outlets for communication today.

As defined by Eric Schmidt, Web 3.0 will the piecing together of applications, with characteristics being a "smaller application, access to data clouds, and the apps can run on any device," as well as being customisable, very fast and their distribution will be "viral" that is, through email and social networks (Macmanus 2007: 1). Jemima Kiliss in Catone (2008)states that if "web 2.0 can be summarised as interaction, then web 3.0 must be about recommendation and personalisation" (1). She explains that Facebook and Last.fm are prime examples of how information is "recommended" and passed on within the network. O'Brien in Catone describes Web 3.0 as a 'decentralised, asynchronous me.' Essentially, Web 3.0 is about you, and what you want, what you're doing. For a fleeting moment, your comment matters more than the last person's contribution, that is until the next user puts forth his opinion. Web 2.0 was about personalising your opinion to another (MSN) but Web 3.0 is about distributing your ideas to the rest of the world.

Networked People/Networked Communities

Everywhere we look in our daily lives, we contribute to a network of people, either in our workplace, among friends or in social club activites we enjoy. Ok so what about in the Information Age, what networked communities are at work? They are numerous on the Internet: some mentioned by Judy O'Connell are Flickr, Facebook, Limewire, Skyrider, Mypace, Amazon, KaZaa, Itunes Webstore and also blinkX TV..I admit to using a few of these, some i use no longer but personally, the addictiveness of the virtual network community is quite extensive, and it took me a long time to escape Myspace for instance..Each one engages the user by enabling them to participate in sharing their knowledge, skills and resources through email, blogging, posting comments etc. These social and information-sharing networks are now an essential part of the lives of many of us now, in particular younger generations: that is, Gen. Y, X..and Z.

New media analyst Terry Flew gives insight into the broad spectrum of fields it covers, some including the "political economy, communications and sociology as well as psychology, the visual arts and history" (Flew 2005: 20). Take the example of the University Database System that holds valuable resources like journals, periodicals and up-to-date info. on everything you need. Many of these databases are only accessible to the university student, however they are not necessarily more useful than open-end databases like Blackwell-Synergy which I believe are far more "information sensitive" than say, Proquest or Infotrack. The open-end sources give the rest of the community access to valuable, reliable academic material, so different networks on the Internet can take this information (Wikipedia, Amazon, anything really..) and use it for their own understanding. This point illustrates that information is open to everyone now, as it well should be and can carry across different networked communities.




I picked up an interesting example from Graham Attwell's slides on "Knowledge Maturing and Learning" on the psychology of a networked community. So basically, Graham might stumble upon an open or closed-forum website and begin to "lurk" around, basically to grasp if the information people are sharing is useful for his own devices. After a few months, he may "post" a comment on someones opinion on a matter, and a few months later he will start to post regularly and by this stage he has signed up with the forum, and is an active user. Vigotski defines this example of behaviour as "legitimate peripheral participation," which simply means a user comes from the outside into the center of communal knowledge system as their own knowledge is identified and diffused into the present knowledge system. I did this same thing before i signed into 'Boostcruising' a car forum, by checking out people's cars, who bought them, setting up inspections, or ogle=ing..that was me for a while. I went through the exact same process as Graham Attwell. This point illustrates that networks involve alot of psychology, and I may add the psychology of the user can even change based on how other think in that community.

How 'Bert' reflects Convergence Culture

How do you define convergence culture? According to the New York University (NYU) Press, it is viewed as 'a new territory where old and new media collide and where "grassroots and corporate media intersect, which causes an unpredictable outcome between the media producer and consumer' (NYU Press Website 2008). Axel Bruns contextualised this definition in the "Convergence Culture Lecture" in week 3, by offering an example of how American culture is imprinted within media forms that are visited globally through technology devices. You have an image of Bert attached to a placard that is carried down the streets of Bangladesh, which is televised to the world via CNN and makes alot of left and right wing extremists very angry on Google and Youtube.

How does this even occur? It seems quite absurd that an icon of American culture can be displayed in the middle of an anti-Western rally. One of the notions that makes an event such as this a reality is found within the definition of convergence culture, and this is known as participatory culture. What is it? If you could put it into some context like an Anti-Western rally? According to Bruns (2008) we as consumers are driving convergence through pre-exisitng technology, by spreading it across different forms of media (Lecture 3 "Covnergence Culture"). The image of Bert "laughing" next to the focal image of Osama Bin Laden was manipulated with image software, uploaded to the Web and then printed, which then enabled CNN and other television networks to pick it up through "journalistic coverage". Every media outlet that contributed to this event had a significant impact on the final product, and their participation has most definately altered the perceptions of some groups towards America and the Middle East. I agree with Jenkin's view that the individual is driving convergence through old and new technology (the Internet and print media especially) with strikingly effective results. If a relatively insignificant economic and political force like Bangladesh can drive the perceptions of wealtheir nations on issues of terrorism and political agendas, the culture of convergence has reached a new zenith in the early stages of the Information Age.

Collective Intelligence is about "sharing information" to others, and to the world at large. A couple of examples of collective intelligence are found in online information sharing communities like Google and Wikipedia. Naish tells us that these media forms are "ways for individuals to share their knowledge and skills," (2007: 10) as well as I believe, to update them. When you share information on the Internet you are acting as an independent thinker and not as Naish has put it "one of the crowd," (2007:10) and at the very least you can empower others to utilise this information and guide it across other key media platforms.

Referring back to the example of Bert and OBL, there is an innate 'collective intelligence' at work here to make the image transform into a powerful iconic signifier. The result: plentiful amounts of controversy and more anti-American sentiment felt by the Middle-East, the terrorists and their vehement supporters. Brown and Lauder (in Avis) define collective intelligence as, "empowering users through information to attain goals and solve problems" (Avis 2002: 320). The placard in Bangladesh went through a systemic corroboration of media forms and a 'collective intelligence' in the online environment to achieve an outcome, therefore illustrating that this notion is a significant component of achieving a convergence culture. Jenkin's hones in on the agents that share information, which cross between "media consumers and media texts (print media) and media producers (CNN/television networks)" (Online MIT Publication Henry Jenkins: Date Unknown: 1). Each media entity is at work in the Bert example, and they all ahere to the basic principles of convergence covered here. I believe this example offers a fantastic insight into the tenets of convergence culture, which is driven by technology, knowledge systems, and networked society.