According to Shayne Bowman and Chris Willis (2003), citizen journalism refers to “the act of a citizen, or group of citizens, playing an active role in the process of collecting, reporting, analyzing and disseminating news and information.”
In recent years, citizen journalism has certainly blossomed. There are now hundreds of participatory news sites such as Indymedia, OhmyNews, Slashdot and Kuro5hin that receive considerable traffic. Though there is concern that citizen journalism produces inferior and inaccurate content, Bowman and Willis (2003) argue that “the intent of this participation is to provide independent, reliable, accurate, wide-ranging and relevant information that a democracy requires.”
One of the most positive elements of citizen journalism, as Axel Bruns mentioned in his Week 10 podcast, is the encouragement of public discussion. Comments, corrections, opinions and additional information are emphatically welcomed in the citizen journalism arena. As a participatory media platform, it gives all citizens a voice and strongly supports collaboration.
In this sense, I believe citizen journalism is an important force in combating bias in the traditional news media. It is no secret that bias exists in many of our trusted news sources, sometimes it borders on shameless. A study conducted by UCLA political scientists revealed that “almost all major [US] media outlets tilt to the left.” (Sullivan, 2005) Citizen journalism allows us to question the content of these media outlets and contribute to public discussion about important issues. If we happen to swing to the right, we are able to publish content that reflects this, and present the world with a different view.
It is this collaboration from citizens with all varieties of social and political opinions that help to create a balanced news environment which is, as Bowman and Willis say, essential for democracy.
Another reason I believe citizen journalism is so important is that it combats the culture of apathy threatening to conquer many of us. By encouraging us to speak our minds, contribute to something worthwhile and share our insights, citizen journalism encourages us to care. We are empowered to publish content that is not bound by rules and regulations and the possibilities we are presented with are limitless so...why wouldn’t we? Citizen journalism works on the assumption that everybody’s contribution is important and worthwhile, whether this is true or not, we are motivated to reflect not only on our own viewpoints and those of traditional media sources, but the lesser considered perspectives of our peers. We are given new insight into issues and therefore encouraged to keep questioning them.
This is perhaps the MOST important element that citizen journalism brings to the table. It pushes us to keep thinking, keep questioning, keep sharing and stops us from becoming complacent and indifferent. Through citizen journalism we are empowered to make a difference whether small or large and this is certainly a gift that should be put to good use.
---
Sullivan, M. 2005. Media Bias is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx?RelNum=6664 (accessed May 13, 2008)
Bowman, S. and C. Willis. 2003. We Media – How Audiences are Shaping the Future of News and Information http://www.hypergene.net/wemedia/download/we_media.pdf (accessed May 13, 2008)
Monday, May 12, 2008
Friday, May 9, 2008
open source software: so i say thankyou for the music
The Open Source Initiative (2007) defines open source software to be “a development method for software that harnesses the power of distributed peer review and transparency of process. The promise of open source is better quality, higher reliability, more flexibility, lower cost, and an end to predatory vendor lock-in.” Though this is a valid explanation, open source is not all rainbows and puppies, there are certainly downsides. Let’s consider the recorded music industry…
Incredibly popular programs such as Kazaa and Limewire allow users to illegally download copyrighted music completely free of charge. Despite being considered a criminal offence, illegal download is still, by far, the most common form of music acquisition. According to a recent report by Music Industry Piracy Investigations, “tens of billions of illegal files were swapped in 2007”. They also report that “the ratio of unlicensed tracks downloaded to legal tracks sold is about 20 to 1”. (MIPI, 2008)
As we are all aware (and are reminded by these statistics), piracy is a colossal thorn in the side of the modern music industry. Open source software allows users to create and share programs such as these that cheat others out of rightfully earned revenue. Technically this is stealing. Most of us understand and respect the fact that stealing is wrong and against the law yet millions indulge in the act of music piracy.
Why?
I believe several factors contribute to the ‘who cares’ mentality. The lack of accountability for one – there are very few consequences for people who download illegally: in most cases the worst that occurs is a virus or two.
Secondly, I believe that the more common this practice becomes, the less ethically opposed people are to it. Music piracy has simply become the norm.
Finally, the fact that it is very hard to imagine who we could possibly be hurting when we engage in this behaviour. When ‘the music industry’ brings to mind cocky rappers drinking champagne out of diamond studded flutes and rolling around in Egyptian silk and wads of cash… it is easy to turn a blind eye to the fact that music piracy is stealing and stealing is wrong.
Despite best efforts by companies such as Apple to provide legal alternatives to music piracy, use of open source software such as Limewire and Kazaa is continuing to increase. There is no doubt that a culture exists that supports the notion that music piracy is acceptable, commonplace and harmless. Until people face punishment for the crime, I honestly do not think anything will change.
---
Music Industry Piracy Investigation. 2008. IFPI Digital Music Report http://www.mipi.com.au/reports/musicreport.htm (accessed May 8, 2008)
Open Source Software Initiative. 2007. Open Source Software http://www.opensource.org/(accessed May 8, 2008)
Incredibly popular programs such as Kazaa and Limewire allow users to illegally download copyrighted music completely free of charge. Despite being considered a criminal offence, illegal download is still, by far, the most common form of music acquisition. According to a recent report by Music Industry Piracy Investigations, “tens of billions of illegal files were swapped in 2007”. They also report that “the ratio of unlicensed tracks downloaded to legal tracks sold is about 20 to 1”. (MIPI, 2008)
As we are all aware (and are reminded by these statistics), piracy is a colossal thorn in the side of the modern music industry. Open source software allows users to create and share programs such as these that cheat others out of rightfully earned revenue. Technically this is stealing. Most of us understand and respect the fact that stealing is wrong and against the law yet millions indulge in the act of music piracy.
Why?
I believe several factors contribute to the ‘who cares’ mentality. The lack of accountability for one – there are very few consequences for people who download illegally: in most cases the worst that occurs is a virus or two.
Secondly, I believe that the more common this practice becomes, the less ethically opposed people are to it. Music piracy has simply become the norm.
Finally, the fact that it is very hard to imagine who we could possibly be hurting when we engage in this behaviour. When ‘the music industry’ brings to mind cocky rappers drinking champagne out of diamond studded flutes and rolling around in Egyptian silk and wads of cash… it is easy to turn a blind eye to the fact that music piracy is stealing and stealing is wrong.
Despite best efforts by companies such as Apple to provide legal alternatives to music piracy, use of open source software such as Limewire and Kazaa is continuing to increase. There is no doubt that a culture exists that supports the notion that music piracy is acceptable, commonplace and harmless. Until people face punishment for the crime, I honestly do not think anything will change.
---
Music Industry Piracy Investigation. 2008. IFPI Digital Music Report http://www.mipi.com.au/reports/musicreport.htm (accessed May 8, 2008)
Open Source Software Initiative. 2007. Open Source Software http://www.opensource.org/(accessed May 8, 2008)
Friday, May 2, 2008
a second life for produsers?
As we know, the term ‘produsage’ refers to the new “hybrid form of simultaneous production and usage”. (Bruns)
This concept of ‘produsage’ is particularly evident when we consider online, user-led MMORPG's such as The Sims and Second Life. Instead of following traditional game structures, these MMORPG’s are becoming increasingly dependent on the gamers themselves, rather than the game producers, to create content. In fact, Herz , (as cited in Bruns), reports that that “some 90% of content in The Sims is now created by its users.” It is clear that the computer games paradigm has shifted significantly from its traditional boundaries to now “providing a rich narrative and social environment in which multiple gamers cooperate in creating their own narrative paths, based on cues placed in the game by its developers or other users” (Bruns)
Produsage has been taken a step further in the Second Life game created by Linden Lab in San Francisco. Not only are users encouraged to create their own content, but they can also sell it online for real money. In this case, the in-game economy is directly linked to that of the outside world with produsers spending their cold, hard cash in exchange for Second Life’s currency (Linden Dollars). According to the game’s website the value of the Linden Dollar fluctuates based on supply and demand but “over the last few years, rates have remained fairly stable at approximately 250 Linden Dollars (L$) to the US Dollar” (Second Life, 2008) The purchase of these Linden Dollars is almost essential when beginning to use the program as they allow gamers to purchase virtual items to increase their social status online, and gain the necessary tools to build a virtual business (if desired). Once they are underway, the sky is the limit for produsers who can create and sell any content they can dream up.
When we take this into account, it can be seen, as Bruns suggests, that the notion of produsage in online games such as Second Life should be viewed as a producer/consumer hybrid also. Online gaming has been redefined by the commoditisation of content and we must now consider the economic, legal and ethical dilemmas this presents.
Bruns (p4) explains that “the community-based development of any form of content necessarily requires members of the produsage community to adopt more permissive approaches to legal and moral rights in intellectual property than is the norm in traditional, corporate content production. While content producers by legal default hold copyright in their work, this is not feasible for content produsers, who after all are participating in a collaborative, ongoing, and iterative process of content development which explicitly requires its participants to work on the content already contributed by their predecessors.”
With the existence of these real-world issues, many argue that online MMORG’s (such as Second Life), can cause users to confuse the distinction between their virtual game-world and physical reality. When we consider Second Life’s economy however, it is clear that the program cannot really be considered virtual at all. The economy is entirely real with real-life value in real-life dollars.
When produsers are using real money to run real businesses and buy real products... can Second Life really be considered a game? Or, as the name suggests,...an actual second life?
----
Second Life. 2008. Economy http://secondlife.com/whatis/economy.php (accessed April 25, 2008).
Bruns, A. n.d. The Future Is User-Led: The Path towards Widespread Produsage http://produsage.org/files/The%20Future%20Is%20User-Led%20(PerthDAC%202007).pdf (accessed April 23, 2008).
Bruns, A. n.d. Produsage:Towards a Broader Framework for User-Led Content Creation http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab=courses&url=/bin/common/course.pl?course_id=_29175_1 (accessed April 23, 2008).
This concept of ‘produsage’ is particularly evident when we consider online, user-led MMORPG's such as The Sims and Second Life. Instead of following traditional game structures, these MMORPG’s are becoming increasingly dependent on the gamers themselves, rather than the game producers, to create content. In fact, Herz , (as cited in Bruns), reports that that “some 90% of content in The Sims is now created by its users.” It is clear that the computer games paradigm has shifted significantly from its traditional boundaries to now “providing a rich narrative and social environment in which multiple gamers cooperate in creating their own narrative paths, based on cues placed in the game by its developers or other users” (Bruns)
Produsage has been taken a step further in the Second Life game created by Linden Lab in San Francisco. Not only are users encouraged to create their own content, but they can also sell it online for real money. In this case, the in-game economy is directly linked to that of the outside world with produsers spending their cold, hard cash in exchange for Second Life’s currency (Linden Dollars). According to the game’s website the value of the Linden Dollar fluctuates based on supply and demand but “over the last few years, rates have remained fairly stable at approximately 250 Linden Dollars (L$) to the US Dollar” (Second Life, 2008) The purchase of these Linden Dollars is almost essential when beginning to use the program as they allow gamers to purchase virtual items to increase their social status online, and gain the necessary tools to build a virtual business (if desired). Once they are underway, the sky is the limit for produsers who can create and sell any content they can dream up.
When we take this into account, it can be seen, as Bruns suggests, that the notion of produsage in online games such as Second Life should be viewed as a producer/consumer hybrid also. Online gaming has been redefined by the commoditisation of content and we must now consider the economic, legal and ethical dilemmas this presents.
Bruns (p4) explains that “the community-based development of any form of content necessarily requires members of the produsage community to adopt more permissive approaches to legal and moral rights in intellectual property than is the norm in traditional, corporate content production. While content producers by legal default hold copyright in their work, this is not feasible for content produsers, who after all are participating in a collaborative, ongoing, and iterative process of content development which explicitly requires its participants to work on the content already contributed by their predecessors.”
With the existence of these real-world issues, many argue that online MMORG’s (such as Second Life), can cause users to confuse the distinction between their virtual game-world and physical reality. When we consider Second Life’s economy however, it is clear that the program cannot really be considered virtual at all. The economy is entirely real with real-life value in real-life dollars.
When produsers are using real money to run real businesses and buy real products... can Second Life really be considered a game? Or, as the name suggests,...an actual second life?
----
Second Life. 2008. Economy http://secondlife.com/whatis/economy.php (accessed April 25, 2008).
Bruns, A. n.d. The Future Is User-Led: The Path towards Widespread Produsage http://produsage.org/files/The%20Future%20Is%20User-Led%20(PerthDAC%202007).pdf (accessed April 23, 2008).
Bruns, A. n.d. Produsage:Towards a Broader Framework for User-Led Content Creation http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab=courses&url=/bin/common/course.pl?course_id=_29175_1 (accessed April 23, 2008).
Monday, April 21, 2008
diy media - the good, the bad and the ugly
The shift from web 1.0 to web 2.0 has meant that the internet is no longer characterised by one-way published content facilitated and updated only by webmasters. It is now a social entity that allows and encourages information sharing and user generated content. Web 2.0 has spawned the rapid growth and expansion of online communities such as blogs, wikis and social networking websites. With such a wealth of user-generated information at our finger tips, has DIY media made it easier or more difficult to fulfil our information needs?
There is no doubt that DIY media has changed the way we view, collect, sort and share information. We are now assaulted with thousands of suggestions when we perform searches for topics of interest. We are offered an expanse of resources at the click of a mouse, but how do we know what is useful?
So much content with so little regulation prompts some to argue that DIY media has, in fact, made it more difficult to find useful information. They believe that quality of content has been sacrificed in favour of quantity.
To illustrate this, I have just now performed a Google search for “Napoleon”. The search greeted me with “about 23,000,000” results, the first three being a Wikipedia entry on Napoleon I of France, a Wikipedia entry on the Napoleonic Wars, and the website for Napoleon Perdis Cosmetics. Not a single site listed on the first page of results had any academic credibility whatsoever. Of course, by simply searching “Napoleon” with no other details to narrow the search, I did bring this sort of useless information overload upon myself, but it is an effective example of what DIY media critics are saying.
The internet has given us a voice. Not just those of us worth listening to however, but everyone. Everyone with access to an internet connection can now share with the world their opinions on the best way to lose baby fat, Paris Hilton’s sex tape, butter vs margarine, sumo wrestling, John Howard’s eyebrows... It seems the human race feels it is obligated to share thoughts, feelings, ideas and opinions about anything and everything.
But how do we sift through the oceans of worthless crap to find the information we are looking for? Online academic journal databases are a useful place to start if it is credible, scholarly information we are after. But almost all of these resources cost money to view. Does this then mean that only the privileged have access to academic resources and everyone else must wade through the rubbish?
If it is opinions we are after, DIY media has certainly improved the scope of information available to us. We are now able to view and understand different opinions on just about any topic that could ever interest us. In this way, the growth of DIY media has been positive as it allows us all the platform to express our views.
When we come to true, credible, scholarly information on the other hand, I believe that DIY media has indeed made our quest for information more difficult. We are simply bombarded with too much garbage for our searches to be truly effective.
There is no doubt that DIY media has changed the way we view, collect, sort and share information. We are now assaulted with thousands of suggestions when we perform searches for topics of interest. We are offered an expanse of resources at the click of a mouse, but how do we know what is useful?
So much content with so little regulation prompts some to argue that DIY media has, in fact, made it more difficult to find useful information. They believe that quality of content has been sacrificed in favour of quantity.
To illustrate this, I have just now performed a Google search for “Napoleon”. The search greeted me with “about 23,000,000” results, the first three being a Wikipedia entry on Napoleon I of France, a Wikipedia entry on the Napoleonic Wars, and the website for Napoleon Perdis Cosmetics. Not a single site listed on the first page of results had any academic credibility whatsoever. Of course, by simply searching “Napoleon” with no other details to narrow the search, I did bring this sort of useless information overload upon myself, but it is an effective example of what DIY media critics are saying.
The internet has given us a voice. Not just those of us worth listening to however, but everyone. Everyone with access to an internet connection can now share with the world their opinions on the best way to lose baby fat, Paris Hilton’s sex tape, butter vs margarine, sumo wrestling, John Howard’s eyebrows... It seems the human race feels it is obligated to share thoughts, feelings, ideas and opinions about anything and everything.
But how do we sift through the oceans of worthless crap to find the information we are looking for? Online academic journal databases are a useful place to start if it is credible, scholarly information we are after. But almost all of these resources cost money to view. Does this then mean that only the privileged have access to academic resources and everyone else must wade through the rubbish?
If it is opinions we are after, DIY media has certainly improved the scope of information available to us. We are now able to view and understand different opinions on just about any topic that could ever interest us. In this way, the growth of DIY media has been positive as it allows us all the platform to express our views.
When we come to true, credible, scholarly information on the other hand, I believe that DIY media has indeed made our quest for information more difficult. We are simply bombarded with too much garbage for our searches to be truly effective.
Monday, April 14, 2008
online communities - the new black
The modern, digital world we live in allows us to connect and socialise like never before. We have advanced telecommunications systems that allow us to contact each other at any time, virtually anywhere in the world. The internet gives us instant access not only to the people we know, but to everyone, everywhere with a connection. With the ability to connect to others via mobile phones and instant messaging, one would think our need to be socially connected would be more than satisfied. Instead, we have become social networking maniacs.
Telephoning, Emailing, IMing and SMSing is clearly not enough. The phenomenal success of websites such as Facebook and Myspace are certainly testament to our voracious appetite for online communities. It seems we cannot bear to be isolated from each other for even one second of our day. Don’t we all feel naked when we forget our mobile phones and even worse if our internet is down for a period of time? Don’t we feel like we might be missing something?
Is it this feeling of being “out of the loop” if we are not connected to everyone, everywhere, every second, that prompts us to use every piece of technology we possibly can as a social tool? We use our Ipods to podcast, our mobiles to take photographs and connect to the internet, our laptops to organise and manage not only our schedules but now our friendships as well. When we discuss the notion of friendship, can we even class our “friends” on Myspace and Facebook in the same league as our real-world acquaintances? What does this mean for modern relationships? Have online communities redefined the very meaning of “friend”?
While we are procuring, organising, managing and ranking our “friends” through the use of online communities, are we sacrificing the quality of our real-world relationships? Christine Rosen (2007)suspects we are and says we use social networking sites as “convenient surrogates for offline friendship and community”. But what does this say about us? Rosen (2007) believes “it shows a desire to avoid the vulnerability and uncertainty that true friendship entails. Real intimacy requires risk—the risk of disapproval, of heartache, of being thought a fool. Social networking websites may make relationships more reliable, but whether those relationships can be humanly satisfying remains to be seen.”
So... do we use online communities as social tools in order to enhance our true, real-world relationships or to conveniently avoid them?
----
Rosen, C. 2007. Virtual Friendship and the New Narcissism. The New Atlantis http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/virtual-friendship-and-the-new-narcissism 17 : 15–31. (accessed April 12, 2008).
Telephoning, Emailing, IMing and SMSing is clearly not enough. The phenomenal success of websites such as Facebook and Myspace are certainly testament to our voracious appetite for online communities. It seems we cannot bear to be isolated from each other for even one second of our day. Don’t we all feel naked when we forget our mobile phones and even worse if our internet is down for a period of time? Don’t we feel like we might be missing something?
Is it this feeling of being “out of the loop” if we are not connected to everyone, everywhere, every second, that prompts us to use every piece of technology we possibly can as a social tool? We use our Ipods to podcast, our mobiles to take photographs and connect to the internet, our laptops to organise and manage not only our schedules but now our friendships as well. When we discuss the notion of friendship, can we even class our “friends” on Myspace and Facebook in the same league as our real-world acquaintances? What does this mean for modern relationships? Have online communities redefined the very meaning of “friend”?
While we are procuring, organising, managing and ranking our “friends” through the use of online communities, are we sacrificing the quality of our real-world relationships? Christine Rosen (2007)suspects we are and says we use social networking sites as “convenient surrogates for offline friendship and community”. But what does this say about us? Rosen (2007) believes “it shows a desire to avoid the vulnerability and uncertainty that true friendship entails. Real intimacy requires risk—the risk of disapproval, of heartache, of being thought a fool. Social networking websites may make relationships more reliable, but whether those relationships can be humanly satisfying remains to be seen.”
So... do we use online communities as social tools in order to enhance our true, real-world relationships or to conveniently avoid them?
----
Rosen, C. 2007. Virtual Friendship and the New Narcissism. The New Atlantis http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/virtual-friendship-and-the-new-narcissism 17 : 15–31. (accessed April 12, 2008).
Saturday, April 5, 2008
how do technologies become cultural technologies?
Technology has long since progressed from its original purpose to make our daily tasks quicker and easier to fulfil. We now witness the emergence and growth of new technologies every, single day without batting an eyelid. In fact, we are now at the point where we not only embrace it, we expect it. It has become so much a part of our cultural identity that the concepts of culture and technology must now be considered as intertwined.
In his book “New Media: an Introduction” (2005) Terry Flew discusses the notion of technologies becoming "cultural technologies", and explains that this occurs when technologies are used for personal purposes. One common way technologies become “cultural technologies” occurs when we use the technology as a social tool. Thousands of modern inventions have been utilised for social purposes though this may not have been the use for which the technology was originally intended. Modern forms of social networking have birthed these “cultural technologies” and created cultural communities.
----
Flew, Terry. (2005). New media : an introduction, Melbourne: OUP, pp.61-82.
In his book “New Media: an Introduction” (2005) Terry Flew discusses the notion of technologies becoming "cultural technologies", and explains that this occurs when technologies are used for personal purposes. One common way technologies become “cultural technologies” occurs when we use the technology as a social tool. Thousands of modern inventions have been utilised for social purposes though this may not have been the use for which the technology was originally intended. Modern forms of social networking have birthed these “cultural technologies” and created cultural communities.
----
Flew, Terry. (2005). New media : an introduction, Melbourne: OUP, pp.61-82.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)