The site that i have chosen to analyse is the Google homepage website. (http://www.google.co.uk/) It has been said that 'Google is not just an Internet search engine, but has become something of a phenomenon.' (http://www.infotoday.com/searcher/jun04/piper.shtml) And indeed i believe it has.
When you first enter the site the structure is pretty basic. It states the name of the site and has a text box for you to enter the subject you want to know more about - the search engine. However, there are more choices for you to make you can enter the subject you want to know more about either in the web search engine, image search engine, map search engine... the list goes on and on. Anything you want to know more about, Google will most definitely have a link about that certain topic.
In a way you could say that the user is in control for the fact that they type in the subject in which they want to know more about, however Google decides as to what links they want to show to you. Due to the fact that this generation of web users are subject to web 2.0 or arguably the beginning of web 3.0, these users are subject to what Lister would describe as a 'multi linear experience'. And indeed it can be argued that Google enhances this experience. This is because not only does the search engine provide you with links, but those links then also provide you with other links, again which Lister would describe as being 'Hypertext'. 'We may define a hypertext as a work which is made up from discrete units of material in which each one carries a number of pathways to other units' (Lister pg 24)
One positive aspect for the user is the fact that the site is only there to help you, there are no advertisements, no pop ups, nothing there that the user doesn't want to know, this the re-enforces the fact that the user is in control of what they wish to see.
On a cultural level, the site functions as a search engine which allows many different users to search what they want to search. However it could be argued that the company itself has a 'finger in every pie'. With that, i mean that it has something to do with everything. If you take a look at this website http://www.google.co.uk/intl/en/options/ you will see how many different options there are for google. Therefore on a cultural level you could argue that the name Google has created itself a 'cultural niche' (http://www.infotoday.com/searcher/jun04/piper.shtml). However, expanding on what Turkle's said about computers - 'computers are not just changing our lives but changing our selves.' You could apply that to the fact that the company Google is not only changing our life's, providing quick and easy access to information, but also changing ourselves because maybe we relay upon these types of search engines too much. Could there a debate in the fact that we, as humans, are becoming lazy? And if so, does it matter?
However, for me, as a user this site enables me to access information quick and easy something which as a student i appreciate. And, as i said above with the use of 'hypertext', i can sometimes find myself accessing a completely different site, about something completely different. Although with this it allows me to access even more knowledge. In addition, taking what Turkle said about 'freedom', Google allows me to have the 'freedom' to search what i want to search, consequently being who i want to be.
Friday, 27 February 2009
Topic 6.4
It is arguable to say that the forum in which we use and the blogging system that we have could be a cofp. The forum and the blogging allows the each member of the group to interact with the others - 'Members of a community are informally bound by what they do together.'
The 'joint enterprise' is that we all understand that we have to blog about the certain topics each week, that we are aware that we are to comment on each other and to use the forum to discuss any problems and alert members that we have blogged - in order to pass the course. In addition, the 'mutual agreement' is that each members understand what the joint enterprise is and that we are all online to read each others blogs and discuss our knowledge and understandings. This then allows us over time to have a 'shared repertoire'. We have learnt the different knowledge for each weeks topics and through the help of other members of the community we have all worked together in discussing them. In addition, we all have the same goal - to pass the course by all means necessary.
When deciding who fits into which role, although i do think there is a slight hierarchy there aren't any particular roles within my certain group. However, many members of the group seemed to help if found any particular topic difficult, or if i hadn't quite understood it and mentioned it within my blog they would comment and shed some light and discuss their knowledge. Claire continuously did that throughout the weeks.In addition, Alison, even though she didn't always comment on every blog she still would discuss her knowledge of the certain topics which i would find useful. However, the tutors in the course do have some kind of power because they do decide what topics are to be discussed each week, and will asses the blogs.
The only thing that i don't believe that this online cofp allows us to do, is to feel the sense of 'togetherness,' due to the fact that we are online and it is not necessary that we meet up during seminar time face to face 'togetherness' for me is not there. But does it need to be?
Although, all in all, I believe that this topic has helped us to enable a cofp within the member of our groups and that probably will not end. We will continue it through to the end of year 3 due to the fact that we will all share our knowledge of the units coming up that we will all have to face.
The 'joint enterprise' is that we all understand that we have to blog about the certain topics each week, that we are aware that we are to comment on each other and to use the forum to discuss any problems and alert members that we have blogged - in order to pass the course. In addition, the 'mutual agreement' is that each members understand what the joint enterprise is and that we are all online to read each others blogs and discuss our knowledge and understandings. This then allows us over time to have a 'shared repertoire'. We have learnt the different knowledge for each weeks topics and through the help of other members of the community we have all worked together in discussing them. In addition, we all have the same goal - to pass the course by all means necessary.
When deciding who fits into which role, although i do think there is a slight hierarchy there aren't any particular roles within my certain group. However, many members of the group seemed to help if found any particular topic difficult, or if i hadn't quite understood it and mentioned it within my blog they would comment and shed some light and discuss their knowledge. Claire continuously did that throughout the weeks.In addition, Alison, even though she didn't always comment on every blog she still would discuss her knowledge of the certain topics which i would find useful. However, the tutors in the course do have some kind of power because they do decide what topics are to be discussed each week, and will asses the blogs.
The only thing that i don't believe that this online cofp allows us to do, is to feel the sense of 'togetherness,' due to the fact that we are online and it is not necessary that we meet up during seminar time face to face 'togetherness' for me is not there. But does it need to be?
Although, all in all, I believe that this topic has helped us to enable a cofp within the member of our groups and that probably will not end. We will continue it through to the end of year 3 due to the fact that we will all share our knowledge of the units coming up that we will all have to face.
Topic 6.3 Organizational units
'We frequently say that people are an organization's most important resource.' And indeed when Wenger mentions an 'organizational unit' i believe he means a large business or chain of business's where there is a huge hierarchy, and even though there might be a goal that everybody needs to meet, instead of the feeling of 'togetherness', instead this goal tends to be to hit the business's targets. Not a goal that they all have in mind. However, with this there seems to be no 'mutual engagement'.
Wenger states that 'communities of practice are mostly informal and distinct from organizational units' however, at the beginning of Wenger's reading (Communities of Practice: Learning as a Social System) he describes two different stories of two different people with different job roles. The first one is the one that i want to discuss. Wenger describes an engineer who what i seem to believe is working within a large organizational unit, however it descries how if he struggles and face's a problem 'that stretches your knowledge' he turns to his teammates. Wenger states that they 'all go back many years. They understand the issues you face and will explore new ideas' with him. It seems to me that within this large organizational unit, there does seem to be some type of cofp within a group of them. To me, this seems to be what Wenger means as 'togetherness' and that they have a 'mutual agreement' even when it comes to helping each other, they have mutual respect. In addition, because they have all worked together over time they may have created a 'shared repertoire'.
What do you think, do you believe that an 'infromal and distinct' cofp can be developed within a large organizational unit?
Wenger states that 'communities of practice are mostly informal and distinct from organizational units' however, at the beginning of Wenger's reading (Communities of Practice: Learning as a Social System) he describes two different stories of two different people with different job roles. The first one is the one that i want to discuss. Wenger describes an engineer who what i seem to believe is working within a large organizational unit, however it descries how if he struggles and face's a problem 'that stretches your knowledge' he turns to his teammates. Wenger states that they 'all go back many years. They understand the issues you face and will explore new ideas' with him. It seems to me that within this large organizational unit, there does seem to be some type of cofp within a group of them. To me, this seems to be what Wenger means as 'togetherness' and that they have a 'mutual agreement' even when it comes to helping each other, they have mutual respect. In addition, because they have all worked together over time they may have created a 'shared repertoire'.
What do you think, do you believe that an 'infromal and distinct' cofp can be developed within a large organizational unit?
Thursday, 26 February 2009
Topic 6.2 Joint Enterprise
As stated in the question for this blog 'It is easy to belong to a community on the web' which if you are a regular web user you will understand and probably be part of a community yourself. However to be part of a community of practise a joint enterprise needs to exist within the members of each community.
As stated in the previous blog a joint enterprise is something that is 'understood and continually renegotiated by its members' (http://hannahbellv.blogspot.com/2009/02/communities-of-practice.html) therefore, the members of the community need to have not only a similar interest, but also a goal in mind, they should all want to have something that they all want to achieve.
Take Facebook and this site itself Blogspot, do you think that this is a community of practice? After all we do have similar interest - to provide the members of this community with our information that we want to put on our blogs. However, do we all have a goal that we all want to reach?
You have fan websites that the members of the community all have the same interest in the fact that are a fan of the individual/individuals although again is there a certain goal that they all want to reach? If not, how could they change to allow their community to become a community of practice?
Wenger's model describes that 'A community of practice is something more than a club of friends or a network of connections between people. It has an identity defined by a shared domain of interest.' Can you think of an online community of practice? In addition, when i discussed in my previous blog about my community of practice, do you think that there can be such a thing of a community if practice when you don't meet face to face?
One example that i can think of is online dating communities. I believe that that is a community of practice because there is a joint enterprise, each member has a similar interest - to find someone to love. (up to negotiation) In addition, there is a mutual engagement because they all engage in talking to each other about their hobbies and their life outside this community and they all discuss this online. Also,the shared repertoire could be that over time the members of the community learn how to communicate on the site and how to interact with the members. Adiitionally, they all have the same goal in mind - to find their loved one. Do you agree?
As stated in the previous blog a joint enterprise is something that is 'understood and continually renegotiated by its members' (http://hannahbellv.blogspot.com/2009/02/communities-of-practice.html) therefore, the members of the community need to have not only a similar interest, but also a goal in mind, they should all want to have something that they all want to achieve.
Take Facebook and this site itself Blogspot, do you think that this is a community of practice? After all we do have similar interest - to provide the members of this community with our information that we want to put on our blogs. However, do we all have a goal that we all want to reach?
You have fan websites that the members of the community all have the same interest in the fact that are a fan of the individual/individuals although again is there a certain goal that they all want to reach? If not, how could they change to allow their community to become a community of practice?
Wenger's model describes that 'A community of practice is something more than a club of friends or a network of connections between people. It has an identity defined by a shared domain of interest.' Can you think of an online community of practice? In addition, when i discussed in my previous blog about my community of practice, do you think that there can be such a thing of a community if practice when you don't meet face to face?
One example that i can think of is online dating communities. I believe that that is a community of practice because there is a joint enterprise, each member has a similar interest - to find someone to love. (up to negotiation) In addition, there is a mutual engagement because they all engage in talking to each other about their hobbies and their life outside this community and they all discuss this online. Also,the shared repertoire could be that over time the members of the community learn how to communicate on the site and how to interact with the members. Adiitionally, they all have the same goal in mind - to find their loved one. Do you agree?
Communities Of Practice
I was unable to attend this weeks lecture, so instead i have read the required readings and i am putting my knowledge of what i have learnt from these readings into what i believe what a community of practice is.
'The basic argument made by Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger is that communities of practice are everywhere and that we are generally involved in a number of them' and it didn't take me a long time to realise how many communities of practice i actually belong to. One community of practice i have been part of was when i was 17. I was part of a the town's council Soul Band. I was a singer, and the other members played various instruments. As Wenger states - 'Members of a community are informally bound by what they do together' and that was exactly what we did. We met up and created music together.
Wenger believes that a community of practice is about a 'joint enterprise' that is 'understood and continually renegotiated by its members'. Initially to be part of the soul band you have to have a talent with your instrument. For me, it was singing. Everybody in the band attended the classes to create music with a soul sound and to enjoy this experience. Wenger also states that is functions by 'the relationships of mutual engagement that binds members together into a social entity'. The mutual engagement is not only that it is mutual that all of the members are meeting to create music but they are engaging with each because they have to engage together to create the right sound. Wenger also stated that for a capability to be produced there must be a 'shared repertoire of communal resources that members have developed over time'. When every band member initially started we all had knowledge of how to use our instruments, however over time we all learnt together how to play and perform songs, also, we all learnt how to interact with each other to create these sounds. In addition, we also learnt each others strengths and weaknesses and we all communicated with each other so we could find the best practise to resolve them.
Wenger states that a 'Community of practice develop around things that matter to people.' The soul band practices that i attend fits into that category because we attended the practices because soul and music mattered to us. Which 'as a result, these practices reflected the members' own understanding of what is important'. (Wenger pg 2) Althouh there isn't a hierarchy set out within this community of practice because everybody gets together and we all create the music ourselves, however in some cases there are some members of the group that have a better knowledge in some fields than others so there is a small sense of power athough it isn't a big issue. With this, it then allows all members to have a mutual respect for each other and we all end up being educated as well as educating others when we attend.
'The basic argument made by Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger is that communities of practice are everywhere and that we are generally involved in a number of them' and it didn't take me a long time to realise how many communities of practice i actually belong to. One community of practice i have been part of was when i was 17. I was part of a the town's council Soul Band. I was a singer, and the other members played various instruments. As Wenger states - 'Members of a community are informally bound by what they do together' and that was exactly what we did. We met up and created music together.
Wenger believes that a community of practice is about a 'joint enterprise' that is 'understood and continually renegotiated by its members'. Initially to be part of the soul band you have to have a talent with your instrument. For me, it was singing. Everybody in the band attended the classes to create music with a soul sound and to enjoy this experience. Wenger also states that is functions by 'the relationships of mutual engagement that binds members together into a social entity'. The mutual engagement is not only that it is mutual that all of the members are meeting to create music but they are engaging with each because they have to engage together to create the right sound. Wenger also stated that for a capability to be produced there must be a 'shared repertoire of communal resources that members have developed over time'. When every band member initially started we all had knowledge of how to use our instruments, however over time we all learnt together how to play and perform songs, also, we all learnt how to interact with each other to create these sounds. In addition, we also learnt each others strengths and weaknesses and we all communicated with each other so we could find the best practise to resolve them.
Wenger states that a 'Community of practice develop around things that matter to people.' The soul band practices that i attend fits into that category because we attended the practices because soul and music mattered to us. Which 'as a result, these practices reflected the members' own understanding of what is important'. (Wenger pg 2) Althouh there isn't a hierarchy set out within this community of practice because everybody gets together and we all create the music ourselves, however in some cases there are some members of the group that have a better knowledge in some fields than others so there is a small sense of power athough it isn't a big issue. With this, it then allows all members to have a mutual respect for each other and we all end up being educated as well as educating others when we attend.
Friday, 20 February 2009
Topic 1 - d) Open News
I think that when you are looking at news on the inet you have to see where it is actually coming from, in addition when asking - is news on the inet quality news? then i think that every one's opinion will be different. Some people might not be interested about the downfall of the economy however they might be interested in what a produser of the web has to say about a village in Africa. What i am trying to get at is that open news allows produsers of the web to publish what they think is important to them, hopefully then someone with the same interests will be educated by it.
However, open publishing - 'the process of creating news is transparent to the readers. They can contribute a story and see it instantly appear in the pool of stories publicly available.' this is what creates the issue. Take wikipedia for example, even though it is seen as a source of education, people are weary of quoting it because users of the inet are allowed to change and contribute to the information given. This then creates the question how do you know if the information is true? I think that this is the same issue with open publishing. However, this then makes me think why do i trust inet websites such as The Times with the information that they provide, even though they are a large company why do i trust them, in comparison to open published news?
However, open publishing - 'the process of creating news is transparent to the readers. They can contribute a story and see it instantly appear in the pool of stories publicly available.' this is what creates the issue. Take wikipedia for example, even though it is seen as a source of education, people are weary of quoting it because users of the inet are allowed to change and contribute to the information given. This then creates the question how do you know if the information is true? I think that this is the same issue with open publishing. However, this then makes me think why do i trust inet websites such as The Times with the information that they provide, even though they are a large company why do i trust them, in comparison to open published news?
Topic 1 - DIY news online
In my personal opinion i do not believe that DIY culture is part of an alternative culture, instead i believe that things like that are becoming more popular as technology progresses. Even though it was not as obvious to me at first, i feel that social networking sites acts as DIY culture. The example that i am going to give though is Myspace, for i believe this social networking site plays a major part in DIY culture. Myspace is not only open to users making themselves a profile to communicate with their friends, but also to create music, and other creative profiles. Myspace, creates 'a blank generation' in which they can create 'their own self-definitions and to create their own media networks to do it.' In addition, Myspace provides a blank canvas to allow produsers whether it is through music, poems, film scripts, anything, they are able to create their own DIY culture. This again, also shows Turkle's idea of freedom, this site allows the produsers to create any culture they wish alternatively it allows the produser the freedom to create any news they wish.
Additionally, to me news isn't just the major events that are happening around the world, news can be anything. The mchome weekly forum acts as 'news' to alert the rest of your group what new blogs you have put on, or what problems you have come across. Can it therefore be said that we are part of 'those who want to make DIY news online'? Are we then part of an alternative culture?
In my personal opinion i believe the answer is no. Instead i feel it has created 'a shift in the production of news, as well as in its reception'.
Additionally, to me news isn't just the major events that are happening around the world, news can be anything. The mchome weekly forum acts as 'news' to alert the rest of your group what new blogs you have put on, or what problems you have come across. Can it therefore be said that we are part of 'those who want to make DIY news online'? Are we then part of an alternative culture?
In my personal opinion i believe the answer is no. Instead i feel it has created 'a shift in the production of news, as well as in its reception'.
Topic 1 - Meikle a) + b)
Robert Burnett and P. David Marshall argues that news has become “a subset of a wider search for information by Web users” (206) This argument makes me think about how i try to find news that i want to find out on the inet. As we have learnt in previous blogs Web 2.0 is hyperlinked everywhere, a user will go onto one website and can find itself being on a completely different website due to hyperlinks. Hyperlinks enables us to search wide across the inet to allow us to find the news that we want.
However, i feel that it can be argued that news such as CNN and the telegraph might require 'original journalists,' i believe that the inet doesn't. In relation to question b) i do believe that the inet uses ‘new kinds of journalist'. With this i do not mean that they need to be educated in this field, instead what i believe is that all web users whether they realise it or not can be a produser of news. As Burnett and Marshall state - even newsgroups and Weblogs are considered as additional sources for information retrieval, rather than as new avenues for new kinds of journalists to develop and publish new kinds of news. Therefore, does that mean we can be one of the 'new kinds of journalists'?
Tuesday, 17 February 2009
Week 5, Lecture 5
This lecture revolved around the idea of freedom vs control. It dealt with the issue of copyright throughout the inet. Dave described copyright as being the notion that it protects creative peoples work.
To be honest the issue of copyright has never been an issue for me on the inet for i feel that i do not have any intention to copyright anybodies creative work. However, i am aware that this is an everyday issue that i believe needs to be resolved.
Laurence Lessig, a politician, promotes open source software and open publishing. He claims that the two should be freely available for people to download and manipulate as long as this is then uploaded for free download, again for people to manipulate further etc. This therefore is republication relay - passing on your products so that they can then pass it on also. (copyleft) Although i think Lessig does have a point, it can be argued that it will never work.
In addition, i was fascinated by a girl called Brittany from the site p2p. I think that this site is fantastic. She described that she is in college and that the Big 4's RIAA wants $8,100 of her because she has downloaded music. The Big 4 are Vivendi Universal (France), Sony BMG (Japan and Germany), EMI (Britain), and Warner Music (US, but run by a Canadian). This site was describing how she downloaded one or two songs and is now being branded a criminal for it. If you want to read the rest of this story http://www.p2pnet.net/story/18413. It really was interesting to know that a girl practically the same age as us, is under threat by these big companies. Once you have read the story, who do you agree with the most? The RIAA, or Brittany?
To be honest the issue of copyright has never been an issue for me on the inet for i feel that i do not have any intention to copyright anybodies creative work. However, i am aware that this is an everyday issue that i believe needs to be resolved.
Laurence Lessig, a politician, promotes open source software and open publishing. He claims that the two should be freely available for people to download and manipulate as long as this is then uploaded for free download, again for people to manipulate further etc. This therefore is republication relay - passing on your products so that they can then pass it on also. (copyleft) Although i think Lessig does have a point, it can be argued that it will never work.
In addition, i was fascinated by a girl called Brittany from the site p2p. I think that this site is fantastic. She described that she is in college and that the Big 4's RIAA wants $8,100 of her because she has downloaded music. The Big 4 are Vivendi Universal (France), Sony BMG (Japan and Germany), EMI (Britain), and Warner Music (US, but run by a Canadian). This site was describing how she downloaded one or two songs and is now being branded a criminal for it. If you want to read the rest of this story http://www.p2pnet.net/story/18413. It really was interesting to know that a girl practically the same age as us, is under threat by these big companies. Once you have read the story, who do you agree with the most? The RIAA, or Brittany?
Friday, 13 February 2009
The Web
This is actually a random post of which i wanted to hear your opinion on:
In the lecture i remember Dave discussing about Web 1.0 and that websites were not usually connected to other - hypertext wasnt present etc. and that we are now at the 'height' of Web 2.0/ entering Web 3.0.
I just want to think what people think Web 3.0 will bring to the inet and its users?
In the lecture i remember Dave discussing about Web 1.0 and that websites were not usually connected to other - hypertext wasnt present etc. and that we are now at the 'height' of Web 2.0/ entering Web 3.0.
I just want to think what people think Web 3.0 will bring to the inet and its users?
Topic 2 - Social Networking Sites
I have been a member to many of the popular social networking sites. Facebook, Bebo, Myspace etc. However even though i tend to you use Facebook most of the time, Myspace is the social networking site that strikes me the most as being adaptable to almost anything and anyone, and it could be argued that many communities have been created via this inet webstie.
Myspace allows members to interact whether it is sending them a private message or posting a message on the wall - it seems to have the virtual structure of what Jones seems to believe that a community would not exist without one. In addition, people from all over the world can see your profile and if they want to become your friend they send a friend request. Myspace not only allows you to see your favorite artists, see what they have been up to and listen to their latest songs - Tulloch and Alvarado 'fan culture'. But it also allows users to create their own culture by uploading music or videos you have created, something in which Turkle would see as the inet allowing you to have this freedom.
Although, leading on from Turkle's idea of freedom, one negative aspect that can from social networking sites like Myspace is the sense of false identity. I have already expressed my views as to deal with this. It can be argued that as long as you use the inet safely and don't accept friend requests of people that you don't know then the things that seem 'dangerous' should not happen.
All in all Myspace is a world wide site that can positively create communities and already existing friendships closer together. You just have to be aware of the people that do mistreat the freedom of these sites.
Myspace allows members to interact whether it is sending them a private message or posting a message on the wall - it seems to have the virtual structure of what Jones seems to believe that a community would not exist without one. In addition, people from all over the world can see your profile and if they want to become your friend they send a friend request. Myspace not only allows you to see your favorite artists, see what they have been up to and listen to their latest songs - Tulloch and Alvarado 'fan culture'. But it also allows users to create their own culture by uploading music or videos you have created, something in which Turkle would see as the inet allowing you to have this freedom.
Although, leading on from Turkle's idea of freedom, one negative aspect that can from social networking sites like Myspace is the sense of false identity. I have already expressed my views as to deal with this. It can be argued that as long as you use the inet safely and don't accept friend requests of people that you don't know then the things that seem 'dangerous' should not happen.
All in all Myspace is a world wide site that can positively create communities and already existing friendships closer together. You just have to be aware of the people that do mistreat the freedom of these sites.
Wednesday, 11 February 2009
Topic 3 - Music sharing online
Filesharing, online downloading and the 'networking of new material has changed the way in which music is consumed for the better. It enables the user to obtain their music easier and cheaper. Filesharing can easily be done either via email, or even by the means of msn, however i think the biggest improvement of technology for the user to listen to music is by the means of 'networking'. Sites like Youtube and Myspace allow the user to listen music that either produser's or even the artists themselves have loaded onto the inet. Songs that aren't even available to purchase are loaded on these websites for the fan/fans to listen to.
When music is shared via the inet and does not have the copyright holders consent, this is seen as illegal. Sites such as Limewire and Napster are 'filesharing' sites that allow the user to share files via the inet however even though music files are being shared on these sites why isn't anything been done about these sites? Again this can relate to Turkles idea of the inet and how it allows the user freedom. What do you think about sites such as Limewire and Napstar?
In addition, if even artists are now uploading their songs onto the inet do you think there will be a market for fans to purchase CD's anymore? I believe that sooner or later artists music will be free to download on sites such as Itunes and Myspace - what do you think?
Topic 1 - b) Blanchard and virtual settlements
Jones argues 'that we should first consider the virtual settlement within which virtual communities exist,' he defines a virtual settlement as 'a minimal number of public interactions with a variety of communicators in which there is a minimal level of sustained membership over a period of time.' Although Jones argue a strong point, for me it seems that Blanchard and Markus (2003) focus on the better understanding of a virtual community. They focus on the feelings - 'the sense of the community' and state that that is what is necessary.
I agree, with their argument for doesn't a virtual community start when users have the same interests? Once this is established, then the virtual settlement takes place. In addition, do the users have to interact with each other to be part of the virtual community? If so, and the 'postings, structure and content' don't exist, then is it not a community?
I agree, with their argument for doesn't a virtual community start when users have the same interests? Once this is established, then the virtual settlement takes place. In addition, do the users have to interact with each other to be part of the virtual community? If so, and the 'postings, structure and content' don't exist, then is it not a community?
Topic 1 - a) Blanchard and communities
Blanchard stresses quite a few things as to why virtual communities are important.
However, the one issue that i agree with the most is that 'calling any online group a virtual community represents yet another example of the overuse of the term “community” to the point that concept has lost any real meaning '. I think that as you can see above, there are so many reasons as to why they are called virtual communities in which case it seems that the word 'community' is now so broad.
'Jones (1997) argues that researchers need to differentiate between the technology on which the virtual group exists and the actual virtual community. ' However, i personally believe that all CMC groups should be given the status of a community. In personal opinion, i see a community as sharing an enviroment. No matter where/what that enviroment may be. In addition, i don't just think that blogs should be seen as communities but most websites too. I'm a member of the website asos.com which is a clothes website. I receive weekly news letters and i can enter the site and view all of the clothes at any time. Although i don't interact with other member, when i visit the webstie i feel a postive emotion, a sense of belonging. As said above, i do think that the term is so broad that it can be argued that now almost anything can be described as a community.
- help replace the relationships lost as people became more isolated from their neighbors (Rhinegold & Schuler)
- allow people to connect with others from around the world who share similar interests (Wellman & Guilia)
- virtual communities can increase involvement within people’s face-to-face communities by increasing democratic participation and other community activism
- participation in virtual communities can increase participation in face-to-face communities (Blanchard)
However, the one issue that i agree with the most is that 'calling any online group a virtual community represents yet another example of the overuse of the term “community” to the point that concept has lost any real meaning '. I think that as you can see above, there are so many reasons as to why they are called virtual communities in which case it seems that the word 'community' is now so broad.
'Jones (1997) argues that researchers need to differentiate between the technology on which the virtual group exists and the actual virtual community. ' However, i personally believe that all CMC groups should be given the status of a community. In personal opinion, i see a community as sharing an enviroment. No matter where/what that enviroment may be. In addition, i don't just think that blogs should be seen as communities but most websites too. I'm a member of the website asos.com which is a clothes website. I receive weekly news letters and i can enter the site and view all of the clothes at any time. Although i don't interact with other member, when i visit the webstie i feel a postive emotion, a sense of belonging. As said above, i do think that the term is so broad that it can be argued that now almost anything can be described as a community.
Tuesday, 10 February 2009
Week 4 lecture 4
As discovered from the lecture Dave said that a community is a network of relationships, and when you have people with the same interests in either forums, websites, or social networking sites, these shared characteristics create virtual communities. Although, i do think there are lots of different types of communities online that are different to offline communities.
Online you can expect there will be a forum which would share your own interests, take for example 'the worlds largest birding and wildlife community' from http://www.birdforum.net/, on this site you can discuss anything about birds with people around the world.
However, if you take the offline 'original' communities (i say original because this is what i believe it to be) where you would have the vicar there and the elderly and members of the community discussing and sharing their views and opinions. You do have forums online for people that are part of Manchester and other big cities like that where people can voice their thoughts about their community, although i believe that this then leaves quite a majority of the people that care about their communities - the elderly.
My grandad has just realised how to turn a computer, never mind entering a forum and voicing his opinion, in addition my gran probably doesn't even know what a computer is. In the not so distant future, yes i believe that off line communities will probably take place in online forums because not only will they understand how to use the inet, but also because people just don't have time to arrange meetings that everyone will be able to come to. People are too busy, and that is when i think online communities will be very successful.
Online you can expect there will be a forum which would share your own interests, take for example 'the worlds largest birding and wildlife community' from http://www.birdforum.net/, on this site you can discuss anything about birds with people around the world.
However, if you take the offline 'original' communities (i say original because this is what i believe it to be) where you would have the vicar there and the elderly and members of the community discussing and sharing their views and opinions. You do have forums online for people that are part of Manchester and other big cities like that where people can voice their thoughts about their community, although i believe that this then leaves quite a majority of the people that care about their communities - the elderly.
My grandad has just realised how to turn a computer, never mind entering a forum and voicing his opinion, in addition my gran probably doesn't even know what a computer is. In the not so distant future, yes i believe that off line communities will probably take place in online forums because not only will they understand how to use the inet, but also because people just don't have time to arrange meetings that everyone will be able to come to. People are too busy, and that is when i think online communities will be very successful.
Topic 1 - d) Culture pg 184-5
I don't 100% surely know if i understand this question, so if anybody agrees or disagrees with what i am saying, please would you comment me and say what you think?
However, Lister's book mentions that in 2000 when Channel 4's BB started there became a 'demand for access to the chat rooms to talk to the recently evicted member of the household.' The book describes that these chat rooms were overfilled with fans wanting to discuss their opinion and ask their questions to the newly evicted housemate. Although, Barker, Jenkins, Tulloch and Alvarado believe that t his is to do with 'fan culture' and wanting to be 'part of it'. However, to me i don't feel that that is an 'ordinary user' being producers of culture. I think that since 2000 Channel 4's BB started there has become a huge rise in 'ordinary users' becoming producers of culture through the means of MySpace, Youtube, Facebook, Blogspot etc. Take MySpace for example allows even just an 'ordinary user' to create a profile. Now whether it is about how much you love bunnies, or if you are a singer songwriter this is a way of yourself creating culture. Many singers have become successful from being 'spotted' on MySpace. Also, with MySpace you can add friends, the more friends you have then the more people you will have viewing your culture. Like for example the Artic Monkeys, they became popular through MySpace and created a huge fan base for themselves. This site then allows other users to respond to this culture. In addition, you can pay a small fee to create your own website and feature anything you want on there. This then allows other inet users to view the site and if their is a forum can then respond to that culture.
However, Lister's book mentions that in 2000 when Channel 4's BB started there became a 'demand for access to the chat rooms to talk to the recently evicted member of the household.' The book describes that these chat rooms were overfilled with fans wanting to discuss their opinion and ask their questions to the newly evicted housemate. Although, Barker, Jenkins, Tulloch and Alvarado believe that t his is to do with 'fan culture' and wanting to be 'part of it'. However, to me i don't feel that that is an 'ordinary user' being producers of culture. I think that since 2000 Channel 4's BB started there has become a huge rise in 'ordinary users' becoming producers of culture through the means of MySpace, Youtube, Facebook, Blogspot etc. Take MySpace for example allows even just an 'ordinary user' to create a profile. Now whether it is about how much you love bunnies, or if you are a singer songwriter this is a way of yourself creating culture. Many singers have become successful from being 'spotted' on MySpace. Also, with MySpace you can add friends, the more friends you have then the more people you will have viewing your culture. Like for example the Artic Monkeys, they became popular through MySpace and created a huge fan base for themselves. This site then allows other users to respond to this culture. In addition, you can pay a small fee to create your own website and feature anything you want on there. This then allows other inet users to view the site and if their is a forum can then respond to that culture.
Monday, 9 February 2009
Topic 1 - c) 'dangerous materials' pg181
'The internet is often seen by consumers as a potentially open channel for frightening materials to enter the home.' To me i feel that the keyword in the previous statement is potentially, for the reason that it can be argued that as long as you know how to use the internet properly, then their should be no reason that these frightening materials to enter the home. Kramarae in 1998 discusses the fact that 'women have to add computers as a new way of receiving threats' however when Kramarae wrote this in 1998, yes i believe that that could have been the case. although now due to the fact that inet users and produsers are/should be aware of these 'frightening materials' that we should know how to prevent them. Things like if you receive an email from someone you do not know, you would not open the files that they have sent.
Things that happen on in the inet are made aware on other medium's such like the television, and the radio, and especially since IT is taught as a subject during school children are now being educated about the pro's and con's of the inet.
You have to use the inet like every other medium, for example if you were to pick up a porn magazine in a shop you would see porn images, as yo0u would if you entered a porn magazine. If you rang up a hotline where you could speak to 'singles near you' you are bound to get some weirdo on their, as you would if you went onto a website where you can interact with again 'singles near you'.
As long as you are well educated about the inet, then i believe there is no reason to believe that 'frightening materials' will enter the home.
Or do you think children/teenagers aren't educated enough about it?
Things that happen on in the inet are made aware on other medium's such like the television, and the radio, and especially since IT is taught as a subject during school children are now being educated about the pro's and con's of the inet.
You have to use the inet like every other medium, for example if you were to pick up a porn magazine in a shop you would see porn images, as yo0u would if you entered a porn magazine. If you rang up a hotline where you could speak to 'singles near you' you are bound to get some weirdo on their, as you would if you went onto a website where you can interact with again 'singles near you'.
As long as you are well educated about the inet, then i believe there is no reason to believe that 'frightening materials' will enter the home.
Or do you think children/teenagers aren't educated enough about it?
Thursday, 5 February 2009
Topic 3 - Second Life, literally
The website second life literally does what it says. You can actually create a second life. Once having downloaded the software, you were asked to choose a starting look for your avatar, with this you had a choice of male and female in business suits or normal clothes, even strange outfits too. You were required to create a 'fake' first name for yourself, i choice hippy ( do not ask why) the website then gave me a variety of last names that i could have. I choose a weird one, because it felt weird. I received an email to activate my account - Hippy Hepzipig i became. I was told in the email that i could do anything that i wanted to.
The first few steps were quite weird but it reminded me a lot like the game TheSims because you were picking a character, giving it a name and then living their life.
Second Life allows cybertopians to achieve things that you might no be able to achieve in 'real life'. You can buy land, build your own house/business you can do anything you want to do. Which i suppose this is what is appealing about this 'virtual world'.
This 'world' also allows you to attend 'dozens of events where you can party at nightclubs, attend fashion shows and art openings or just play games.' This can be done by yourself or with the 'friends' that you meet. I think that a site like this would appeal to people that are quite lonely, that don't do that much in the 'real world' and would enjoy experiencing something like this. Additionally, this might appeal to people that don't have the confidence to attend a night club by them self or have the confidence to go up to a stranger and start talking.
In comparison to Turkles theories based around MUD's in 1993, i believe that these people taking part in this 'virtual world' could be called netizens in the fact that to me this site is not well known. These early adopters of this site may be accused of being 'fake' however i believe this is the nature of the site, the site allows you to be who ever you want to be, and it starts when you have to make up a 'fake' name. The only issue i would have if i was to regularly partake in the site is that i would not want to get in touch with anyone outside of the 'world' for i believe people would not be who they say they are.
The first few steps were quite weird but it reminded me a lot like the game TheSims because you were picking a character, giving it a name and then living their life.
Second Life allows cybertopians to achieve things that you might no be able to achieve in 'real life'. You can buy land, build your own house/business you can do anything you want to do. Which i suppose this is what is appealing about this 'virtual world'.
This 'world' also allows you to attend 'dozens of events where you can party at nightclubs, attend fashion shows and art openings or just play games.' This can be done by yourself or with the 'friends' that you meet. I think that a site like this would appeal to people that are quite lonely, that don't do that much in the 'real world' and would enjoy experiencing something like this. Additionally, this might appeal to people that don't have the confidence to attend a night club by them self or have the confidence to go up to a stranger and start talking.
In comparison to Turkles theories based around MUD's in 1993, i believe that these people taking part in this 'virtual world' could be called netizens in the fact that to me this site is not well known. These early adopters of this site may be accused of being 'fake' however i believe this is the nature of the site, the site allows you to be who ever you want to be, and it starts when you have to make up a 'fake' name. The only issue i would have if i was to regularly partake in the site is that i would not want to get in touch with anyone outside of the 'world' for i believe people would not be who they say they are.
Topic 2 - Identities
When asking if withholding your identity is ethically wrong, you first have to ask your self what is your definition of ethical? I think everybody's definition of ethical is different. If we say that ethical is to be conforming to social standards, this then means that this answer can be different throughout the world because everybody has different social standards. so i feel that this question is too broad. However, for me not that i believe that withholding your identity is wrong, although if someone was to add me as a contact either on facebook or msn, and i didn't know who they were then i wouldn't accept them. This meaning that it wouldn't matter whether they have withheld their identity. Likewise if someone rings me from a private number i refuse to answer it because their must be a reason as to why they have withheld it.
Although, to me personally i feel that is someone is withholding their identity they must be trying to hide something, they must have a secret. Something which can be argued happens a lot.
Although, i think there is a difference between withholding your identity and giving whole identity away. In this day and age, there are so many clever people that can access or hack peoples information resulting in identity fraud and then people can then access your bank accounts and steal your money. I am quite reluctant to sign up for things on websites that i do not know a lot about because they want to know your address your telephone numbers etc. Which to me is something that i do not want to give out regularly. However i think it is sad that it has to be like that, but you have to keep your information safe.
Although, to me personally i feel that is someone is withholding their identity they must be trying to hide something, they must have a secret. Something which can be argued happens a lot.
Although, i think there is a difference between withholding your identity and giving whole identity away. In this day and age, there are so many clever people that can access or hack peoples information resulting in identity fraud and then people can then access your bank accounts and steal your money. I am quite reluctant to sign up for things on websites that i do not know a lot about because they want to know your address your telephone numbers etc. Which to me is something that i do not want to give out regularly. However i think it is sad that it has to be like that, but you have to keep your information safe.
Topic 1 - d) cyber identities
Do cyberidentities constitute an alternative to ‘normal social reality’?
For me, my cyberidentity does not act as an alternative to 'normal social reality.' This is because, when i am speaking to someone whether it be sending an email, speaking to someone on msn/facebook, or even as my profile on here i am always known as Hannah. It is always me who is emailing them or interacting with them, whether i am a little bit more confident on the internet or not is another point, however i do not come on the inet as an alternative to who i am actually am.
However, i do believe that some people do come on the inet to escape from the 'real world' and create a cyberidentity that isn't their 'real' identity. Lister quotes Stone's case about the online cyberidentity 'Julie Graham' (pg168-9) This is a perfectly good example of showing how cyberidentities are not real and in fact has been made as a 'pleasurable experiment.' This also is the case for when males/females pretend to be older/younger or even the opposite sex for their own pleasure. For this wouldn't be acceptable in 'normal social reality' however the inet allows it users to be who they want to be, and experiment with their identities.
Wednesday, 4 February 2009
Topic 1 - b) Online Persona's
Lister see's identity, through CMC, 'as anything but essential or fixed' and that 'identity is constructed through discourse'. Something which i think is right. You can be who you want to be on the inet, however it can be argued that depending on what site you are on, can depend on your identity. Your identity can be determined not only through you screen name, handle or avatar , but also by your picture. If a lady is in a chatroom with the name 'love machine' and her cleavage being her screen picture, are you trying to tell me that she is just wanting a friendly conversation? No, she is there to flirt and to be flirted with. I remember playing poker on facebook once, and i had a picture of me and my friend messing around on a lamppost swinging ourselves around it. Now, i had no intention to flirt or be flirted with, however this picture brought me attention that i did not want and having realised it i changed my profile picture.
However, back to Lister. He proposes this question 'Who are we when we are online?' i even asked myself this, to see who i was when i was online. I'd like to think i am just myself, however i feel I'm a more confident self, if i found something difficult to say something i would say it on the inet. What self do you think you are online?
However, back to Lister. He proposes this question 'Who are we when we are online?' i even asked myself this, to see who i was when i was online. I'd like to think i am just myself, however i feel I'm a more confident self, if i found something difficult to say something i would say it on the inet. What self do you think you are online?
Lecture 3 - selves and other online
'computers are not just changing our lives but changing our selves.'(taken from the reading on Turkle) The computer gives us chance to take part in sexuality experimentation, with this not 1 but several identities can be created. People can be who the want to be, or even maybe what they think they should be. The internet provides a space for you to try different identities, however if you didn't like one of them, or if other users started to trouble you you could delete one identity and start another.
Like Dave said, your never alone on the internet. You will always find someone with the same interest or same feelings as you. With this, a sense of belonging comes with it. If you have felt lonely in the 'real world' you can feel content on the internet. Take for example World of Warcraft, the most played game in the world. When i saw my flat mate play it i thought what a stupid game. However, people create their character, plan when they are going to meet with their group and fight these evil and weird things. This game allows people with the same interest to come and interact online, however they are not playing as themselves they are playing with their new identity. In addition, if you do something good or bad on the game, you either get congratulated or put down.
However, no matter what you are doing on the internet you can create a new self or selves without even knowing it.
Like Dave said, your never alone on the internet. You will always find someone with the same interest or same feelings as you. With this, a sense of belonging comes with it. If you have felt lonely in the 'real world' you can feel content on the internet. Take for example World of Warcraft, the most played game in the world. When i saw my flat mate play it i thought what a stupid game. However, people create their character, plan when they are going to meet with their group and fight these evil and weird things. This game allows people with the same interest to come and interact online, however they are not playing as themselves they are playing with their new identity. In addition, if you do something good or bad on the game, you either get congratulated or put down.
However, no matter what you are doing on the internet you can create a new self or selves without even knowing it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
