Archive for February, 2008

Response to We The Media Ch.1-3 by Dan Gillmor

{ February 28, 2008 @ 8:00 pm } · { Citizen Journalism }
{ Tags: , , , , , , , , } · { Leave a Comment }

Internet and Open Source Taking Journalism by Storm…Well Duh.

    Oh, how obvious it seems that this weeks post/ blog assignment brings to mind yet another crazy analogy. That of talking parrots. Let me back-up first to set the stage for the birds. We The Media by Dan Gillmor, mimics yet again the transformation of mass media, in particular journalism, in today’s society. The transformation expressed as tied to internet usage and the open source movement (Okay, stage is set, the curtain is being drawn). Gillmor justifies that culture is moving away from purely subscription to sources of journalism and adopting themselves as inscribers public democratizers of truth seeking. He presents in mild detail the evolution and changing image and identity that journalism has carried with it throughout history. He asserts, in common with many of the other pieces that I have commented on, September 11, 2001 as the tipping point for citizen media activism (2006,p.18). Think now of the talking parrots, historically these birds were thought of as possessing incredible intelligence. As science and inquiry revealed, these birds don’t necessarily fully understand the breadth of what they are “saying”.  Like society for some time, people credited the news as being intelligent and wise. People repeated and valued the news at is was communicated to them;

        ”Parrots are taught to speak without understanding the words. The method is to place a mirror between the parrot and the trainer. The trainer, hidden by the mirror, utters the words, and the parrot, seeing his own reflection in the mirror, fancies another parrot is speaking, and imitates all that is said by the trainer behind the mirror.” (http://askville.amazon.com/parrots-speak-mimic/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=7222240)

Do we se the similarities between the historical argument of the viewer of TV news here? Parrots actually talk by blowing air across the changing shape and size of their tracheas, attempting to sound like their trainers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parrot#Sound_imitation_and_speech). Okay,okay I am not inferring here that people are as unintelligent as parrots. We are currently demonstrating that we are so far the opposite. Gillmor portrays the power of “Internet “Broadcasting”" as solidifying the pinnacle of consumer intelligence and productivity. Among numerous examples he provides various technologies such as weblogs, Wikis, short message services, RSS, and more, as simplifying the doability of consuming and producing journalism. He confirms that Big Media is being horizontalized to merge with the gift economy (2006, p.29) by societies quest to find truth in the media. Finally, we are the media and we are questioning more and more everything and everyone.

Response to The Wealth of Networks by Yochai Benkler: Ch.1-3

{ February 21, 2008 @ 5:20 pm } · { We Are the Web }
{ Tags: , , , , , , , , , } · { Leave a Comment }

Response to Benkler: Five Prominent Points of Discussion How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom

 

            Yochai Benkler presents arguments that echo those of the late implications of newer media theory. At the pinnacle of his argument is the diversification of the locust of power within the transactions among users of communication technology and it’s resulting economy. The changes in the distribution of power have transitioned from predominantly market and proprietary advantages to production by individuals and large group efforts among them. The transfer of power from “one” to “many”, motivates individuals to become more involved with the exchange of information. The particulars of the exchanges are theorized to produce, as Benkler and many feel to be, “a more critical and self-reflective culture” (2006,p.2). Social production and the increase of nonmarket production is said to be highly associated with the Internet. This is because of the influx of networks and production that are sustained by cheap processors linked together and capable of high computation (Benkler, 2006, p.3).

            Benkler expressed that there are three observations emerging on behalf of the new democratized information production system. He mentions the (a.) influx of nonproprietary strategies being very important to productivity. This increases the likelihood for the fusion of traditionally less prioritized components of capitalistic economy as permeating the evolving market value system. He stresses education, arts, sciences, political debate and theological disputation among the ideologies that have become more illusive within the transactions of information exchange. (b.)The coordinating effects of networked users stresses the availability of access and usage to copious amounts of people, verses controlled access present in the past. The diffusion of the exchanges has resulted in a wide span of  (c.) cooperative work and peer production of information; Thus, the broadening of knowledge and enrichment of culture. 

            Internet usage is the epitome of user driven innovations. In chapter 3 of Benkler’s The Wealth of Networks, the author hones in on examples of peer production and sharing. At the heart of each example is the notion of asymmetrical allotment of power; Democratized usage, resulting in users of network systems allowed to be creators or abolitionists of content and exchangeable information. Benkler stresses the importance of open-source software and the sharing of production power to enrich the capacity of culture to share their knowledge freely with one another. He weighs to issues of the eager yet cautious transition from economy prided on capitalism to one that incorporates tweaks to accommodate open contribution and consumption (2006, p. 2-5). He talks about Amazon, Wikipedia, Second Life, Open Directory Project and Slashdot as just a few, but popular examples of the successes of many users being allowed power to interact with the information technology environment.

            Benkler feels that the impact of the information exchange economy influences the culture in two very obvious ways. He explains that culture becomes more transparent and malleable. I interpreted this upon his usage of a folk culture analogous to the pre industrial era as a transgression towards a more uninhibited culture, one that thrives on interaction and broadening of views and values. The openness resulting in what Benkler mentions as “more self-reflective and critical”, of the cultures that people are within (2006, p.10).

            As International interactions among cultural norms and practices increases, the observation of cultures external to one’s own equates to the contemplation of a variety of ways of doing things. The exposure to diversified cultural practices optimizes a weighing of morals and the status quo. Benkler does not support technological determinism as much as he feels that the value that human agency places on the organizations, communities and external structures to the human itself is “for better or worse” carried out by humanity. Benkler’s argument screams that today’s human agency allots power to the user because of the braided usage style. “User”-no longer meaning strictly consumer of goods, but producer as well and more importantly sustainer and official as well (2006, p. 13-14). 

Unscrambling This Week’s Articles

{ February 14, 2008 @ 9:40 pm } · { We Are the Web }
{ Tags: , , , , , , , , , , } · { Leave a Comment }

Upon reading the two articles We Are the Web by Kevin Kelly and Open Source Paradigm Shift by Tim O’Reilly, I have somewhat of an understanding of the hype that is being associated with the public participation that is breeding web growth. The more elementary of the two articles was the one by Kevin Kelly. Perhaps, elementary is not the right terminology; the article is not as technical as O’Reilly’s.  Overall, I felt that Wikipedia provided as an example encompassed exactly what both articles were really getting at.  At first, commentary about the evolution of OS technology and IPOs, made the articles appear to be written in a foreign language. Ironically, with the help of Wikipedia, I was able to search the terms that were unfamiliar and click the linked terms that required further understanding. The pinnacle of ideas presented in Kelly’s article was that of “…the most powerful invention of the decade.” (2005) – The link. Supported in O’Reilly’s article was the power of open source as spear heading a paradigm shift; Open source referred to as, “part of a communications revolution designed to maximize the free sharing of ideas expressed in code” (2004). Wikipedia is an archive that is obviously both extremely intertwined by links and saturated by participatory input of information and data. Both authors collaborate arguments resulting in an argument on behalf of an observable paradigm shift. This shift being perpetuated by the efforts to breed a web built, strengthened and sustained by the public input.

I felt as though I was really handicapped in understanding what exactly the Articles were expressing. O’Reilly went into detail about his theory that open source is an “expression of three deep, long-term trends” (2004): commoditization of software, network-enabled collaboration and software customizability. In my rudimentary vocabulary I understood this as the following:

a.)   Commoditization as the interchangeable part of the web building world. The Internet hinges on shared protocols. Web servers are swappable because them implement HTTP protocol and HTML data format. The public drives the standardization in defense of the threat of monopoly that is codependent on big corporations that must keep up with public input into rewriting, adding and altering code. O’Reilly concludes software itself as no longer the centerfold of value in the computer industry. He illustrates that the commodization of software as being the driver of the value of services bustled by the software.

b.)   Collaboration: HTML opened civic participation to anyone having access to the web. Software developers were not the only key to the explosion of the web, public usage and input was. O’Reilly pointed to Ebay, Amazon, Google and Mapquest as the prime examples of participatory media and the massive network effects.

c.)   Customizability: Fusion and the meshing of boundaries between various communication technology and consumer devices relies on software that is not rooted in one spot. It is so obvious that in the new era of participatory media and the web is demonstrating an evolution of value. O’Reilly says, “…things that were once kept for private advantage are now shared freely, and things that were once thought incidental become the locus of enormous value” (2004). Open source advocates view sharing of code with all as a strengthener of the communications technology industry and obviously beneficial to all.

 The paradigm expressed in each article as similar and more and more like that of a science. A science of Internet usage, that is evolutionary in history and birthing new creations and abilities daily. That which the Internet has developed into, is reason for both authors to note the pitfalls on not learning from the history of Internet to its contemporary evolution. Kelly features so many ideas in his article that capture the essence of the lessons here; bottom-up, participant media, the audience, open source software movement and linking. All referencing to the power invested in the Internet nourished by the user or the participant. Kelly concludes his article with a reflection on what the future of the Internet may hold. He calls Internet users “prosumers”, people who produce and use information or products synonymously. He feels that the Web is the prime candidate of reaching artificial intelligence and is gaining the faculties from human input that will allow it to become an Anticipation Machine.

“Google Gets Big”ger

{ February 8, 2008 @ 11:24 pm } · { Google }
{ Tags: , , , , , , , , } · { Leave a Comment }

Google Gets Big[ger]

 

            I personally don’t recall the first time someone told me to “Google it”. Prior to studying communications I was always a later adopter of new media technology. I still consider myself as lagging behind my peers in the thorough understanding of cutting edge technology and trends in the communications/media market. Lately, I can’t make it through the day without Googling something. In fact, moments ago, I Googled “number of Google searches 2007”. Unfortunately to no avail, I was not successful in finding a specific number. In Battelle’s book, published in 2006, he discusses the discrepancy among what the company reports and what actually is fact. In the Playboy featured interview of Brin and Page (Google’s founders) released in August 2003, there were reports that the Google site was a host to 65 million visitors daily (later that was corrected by the interviewees as being 65 million monthly) (Battelle, 2006, p.224). I had difficulty grasping the number so I tried visualizing what 65 million people would look like. The population of Illinois in 2005 was 12,763,371 (Factmonster.com). Then again, what does a million people look like? A standard school bus seats 66 kids (3 kids per seat). Many of us can relate to jamming into a school bus seat 3 across and 22 benches deep in grade school. Even at around 4’ give or take a few inches tall, we felt crowded. There you were among 65 kids traveling to your school, visualize that for a second. Multiply that by about 15,151 and that is how many busses it would take to facilitate one million kids. Google boasts 65 million, that’s roughly 984,848 school busses loaded to the maximum with passengers. Humor me one more time on this; Soldier Field holds a max capacity of 61,500. If each visit to Google represented one seat, it would take nearly 1057 soldier fields to house all of those site visits. 

            The big deal about 65 million Google site visits is that all of those people are curious about something or perhaps multiple things. Therefore, the inquiries accrue from site taps to a number far greater. In 2001, what once was this specialized and unpopular search tool became the curiosity cure for Americans in a time of catastrophe. As Battelle explains it, the servers for television news websites simply could not facilitate the swarms of people inquiring about September 11.  And thus, people more than ever before Googled. People tailored their search to result in personalized news (2006, p.143). The search results that were returned to the user were controlled by the algorithmic style that catapulted Google to contemporary notoriety. The basis of citation rank underlying it and described as, “…given [a] paper’s [web page’s (including any form or content)] importance can be ascertained by noting how many other papers [web pages] link through to that paper [web page] through citation” (Battelle, 2006, p. 71). Seven years ago, Google was bolstered to superiority and today it is going further with its capacity to bring people customized news.

As today’s Topix weblog “Welcome to the Neighborhood, Google” appropriately acknowledges, Google is embarking on Zip code level targeted news. As Google has proven a capacity to capitalize on and be the ringleader of the internet market, Topix should undoubtedly feel threatened. The affiliate and writer of the blog (tolles) of the company, asserts that Topix is ignoring the buzz about a potential bully. Topix claims that to date, citizen media strengthens its capacities. Loyal visitors to the site lend themselves to the larger scale services provided by Topix with the option, and self-administered responsibility of adding to the news. Topix provides the latest news information from mainstream press, government sources, weather sources, industry sources and blogs. Two years ago, in response to a mass overflow of information administered to Topix via feedback forms, Topix forums were created. These forums are the holding pen for citizen posts, the essence of citizen media and local news. These forums now comprise 60% of the articles deemed as original news sources. Uniquely associated with various news articles, is the ongoing commentary that Topix facilitates for its site users.  People openly express their ideas and thoughts on the stories featured on the site. Tolles, on behalf of Topix, closes the blog with confidence in saying, “ And hey Google- if you ever decide that you’d like to add more content around localities (since we feel your pain around the lack of news in small towns), we have a couple of ideas for you…” (http://blog.topix.com/archives/000193.html).