*giggle*

Oh you so knew I had to put at least one picture of puss in boots here after the referral to Shrek :D

Far thee well dear Ogre

Not to say that this blogging journey has been like an ogre....plus I like Shrek :) I think it's an awesome movie! I'm such a kid at heart. Note the gaming blogs...??
Anyway, so this was blogging. It was, I must say, a learning experience. Whether good or bad....I guess we'll find out when I get my grade.

And who knows? I might continue blogging. Not here, start anew, but who knows what the future may hold. I could be the new Perez Hilton, what do you think? Katty Hilton doesn't quite sound the same though does it....
Well I can always change my name :D
So, this is goodbye
Hope you've enjoyed some of the posts on the way.

Lots of love
xoxoxox
Katty S

Wikipedia

How do Wikipedians form consensus?

That's an interesting question which has, in the past, been greatly debated. Before I discuss this issue however, I will briefly go into a bit of background information on what Wikipedia actually is and what it entails.
Axel Bruns (2008) describes Wikipedia quite perfectly and simply in a number of dot points.
Wikipedia:

• collaboratively edited online encyclopedia, in hundreds of languages
• 'anyone can edit' - almost all pages can be edited by users
• edit histories and discussion pages available for all entries
• content creation process organised ad hoc by contributors

The online encyclopedia was officially launched in 2001 and today ranks as the top search result in a Google search. There are numerous key factors involved in Wikipedia's success, including shared ownership and philosophy of equipotentiality, however the three fundamental principles are:

1. Neutral Point of View - all articles must be written with a neutral point of view, as fair as possible and without bias
2. Verifiability - editors should proof that articles are provided using reliable sources, otherwise the article may be removed
3. No Original Research - the encyclopedia does not publish original research or thoughts, it is no place for personal opinions or experiences (just like a physical encyclopedia would be)

Many have argued that Wikipedia is not credible or does not provide quality articles, however, as I have mentioned in a previous blog, a recent study had found that Wikipedia is in fact just as reliable and credible as Encyclopedia Britannica. That would imply that Wikipedians do find consensus. But how?

It is quite simple. Wikipedia works like an open community. Anyone can edit, and because of its popularity people are constantly editing, and reading, and checking, so if there are incorrect facts represented in an article, they are soon adjusted by other users who would have spotted it. Thanks to tools such as editing history and discussion pages for each article, that has become quite easy. When I first started to use Wikipedia a couple of years ago I, like many other questioned its credibility. It is an excellent source, we have to admit that. Unfortunately it isn't good enough for University referencing (shame) but thanks to its (mostly correctness we now assume) it is a great place to start. ;)

Reference

Bruns, A. (2008) KCB201 Virtual Cultures: Week 11 Podcast: Wikipedia. http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/ (accessed May 15, 2008).

We're killing the newspaper!

After this weeks lecture on citizen journalism I thought I'd go into a bit more detail in this area, in particular what effects the online revolution of produsage has had on traditional newspaper formats.

It has been a daily ritual for many for years, reading their morning newspaper over a cup of coffee or on the way to work, however, over the past couple of years, the Internet, through citizen journalism, has increasingly generated more news, with increasing quality and credibility, having a dramatic effect on the traditional newspaper. Citizen Journalism is the act of citizens openly publishing their own media content, such as stories, images and videos, immediately made available and open for public discussion and further improvement (Bruns 2008a). Bruns (2008b, 2) has identified that citizen journalism "fundamentally disrupts the industrial journalism model by employing its users as journalists and commentators". This is evident through some significant newspaper figures.

Circulation and readership figures for newspapers have been declining significantly over the past few years. This is not helped by a decrease in advertising revenue, as well as from classifieds, most of which has transferred to the Internet. Some are going as far as saying that "the most useful bit of the media is disappearing". Over the last couple of years hundreds of newspapers have closed their doors because they could not compete with the rise in the Internet and a drastic decline in their readership numbers. Only the largest newspapers have survived, but even some of them are starting to struggle. Ironically, most newspapers now have websites as well as the printed version. Examples here include the online version of the Times and the Courier Mail.

So the signs seem to be obvious, blaming the Internet. However, some argue we are wrongly accusing the Internet, seeing newspaper decline has been part of a 20 year trend (which is longer than the average person has had Internet access). Some believe the real cause for the decline is 24-hour cable news, while others say it was the change in rules governing telemarketing. Axel Bruns (2008b, 2) has also identified that citizen journalism "better resembles a conversation than a lecture", which could indicate that there is hope for traditional journalists yet. There's no denying however, that the Internet now plays a major part in the slow death of newspapers.

Don't get me wrong, I love the Internet! I spend hours on end on it, and my home page is news site ninemsn.com. Studying media it is interesting to look into the effects of the Internet on other media. I also believe that citizen journalism is a great way for our voices, opinions and beliefs, which were quiet before, to be heard. However, I belief some news should be left to the experts. I wish to someday work as a journalist, but if citizen journalism continues to increase I might be out of a job. Therefore, moral of the story is, do keep buying newspapers so. Oh, and you'll get less spam and annoying epileptic flashing ads while you're reading too...

Reference:

Bruns, A. (2008a) KCB201 Virtual Cultures: Week 10 Podcast: Citizen Journalism. http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/ (accessed May 8, 2008).

Bruns, A. (2008b) 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 30, 2008).

Citizen Journalism - a question of quality?

How do communities evaluate quality?

OK, so this question could mean a lot of things. Quality where exactly? In culture, online, but where? Seeing this weeks lecture in my university subject KCB201 (which is why I am writing this blog by the way, for those of you who didn't know...) was about Citizen Journalism, so one can only assume to base this question on the quality of citizen journalism, in particular what is being published online.

Citizen Journalism is the act of citizens (people in the community) playing an active role in the process of collecting, reporting, analysing, and disseminating news and information. In other words, they are publishing content, traditionally exclusively done by journalists, such as news and other information, themselves. Axel Bruns (2008, 69) has also identified that in all its forms, citizen journalism is driven by similar motivations as open source software, both acting as a "corrective and a supplement to the output of commercial, industrial journalism".

If you still don't get it, watch the video below. It gives viewers a rough idea, outlining what citizen journalism is. Videos just somehow always seem to explain it so much better than text...

A question of credibility and quality comes into consideration here, because citizen journalism, like the name suggests, is produced and published by the public. A short educative paper I found online sums this problem up quite nicely. "The quality of any citizen journalism project reflects the contributions of those who choose to participate, and such projects can be havens for triviality or unreliable content. At the same time, many users are inclined to trust material they find online, particularly if it is called “news.” In this way, citizen journalism projects have the potential to implicitly validate content that might be inaccurate, offensive, or otherwise lack credibility."

However, take for example Wikipedia. Its content is entirely produced by volunteers. That means, anyone with an account can add information on a topic of their choosing. But how do we know that this information is then correct, how do we know the content is false? A study of the quality of Wikipedia article's has in fact identified that Wikipedia articles are about as accurate as those found in the Encyclopedia Britannica (BBC News).

Citizen Journalism has both its positives and negatives. I feel it's really up to the consumer to decide if what they are seeing has quality and credibility. It really also depends on the point of view you are wanting to take if you think something is right or wrong. In my opinion, I like Wikipedia for a way to get started on finding more credible information. After all, the producers of the content would have also needed to get it somewhere. I suppose in this way it does have some credibility. Now all I need is for my lecturers to see that too and essays would be a breeze (I wish)...

Reference:

Bruns, A. (2008) News Blogs and Citizen Journalism: Perpetual Collaboration in Evaluating the News, in Bruns, A. Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage, New York: Peter Lang, pp. 69-100. https://cmd.qut.edu.au/cmd//KCB201/KCB201_BK_163501.pdf (accessed May 8, 2008).

Music, Movies, TV - a Pirate's Booty

Aye, me hearties!
It's a pirates' world out there.

What happens if you miss the Ugly Betty episode of the season and no one has remembered to record it? You go online and see if it is up on the website, but what if it's not? Chances are, you either bite the bullet and wait for it to be released (fat chance, hey?), or you search for it online and within an hour it's saved on your computer and you're ready to go! Thing is, you've just become a pirate. And not the Keira Knightly or Johnny Depp kind either.

Online or Internet piracy can be simply defined as the act of stealing or illegally distributing content, such as software or music, using the Internet. It all started with the launch of a file-sharing computer program called Napster in 1999, which condemned the media industry to a war against the inevitable frenzy in digital downloads. Music and television are particularly hard hit, with small file sizes and as good quality as if you'd bought the CD in the store or watched the show on TV. Pirated movies, which are often of lesser quality and much larger in size, are also affected. Between 2005 and 2006 the number of illegal movie downloads doubled in the US, movie piracy, despite their size, becoming more popular than ever. Although Napster was shut down a year after its release due to legal issues, it had already set the stage for online file-sharing, resulting in the emergence of hundreds of programs such as Limewire, Ares, BitTorrent, and eDonkey.

In recent years the rise in file-sharing computer programs have encourage more piracy, which has in turn been increasingly putting pressure on media industries, the music industry even considering raising digital-music prices. In some cases, online albums now cost more than physical CD's. However, wouldn't raising prices of content spur additional illicit downloading? In fact it does. Mid-2007 The Australian published an article stating that illegal downloading of tracks had increased by 7% between 2006 and 2007. This follows a previous article in the same newspaper, regarding Australia as one the biggest market for pirate downloads, arguing that the "Internet offers a bootleg" for impatient fans who are not willing to wait for US shows to air on TV in their country months later.

Funnily enough, it is believed that movies uploaded onto the web are leaked from inside the industry. These movies were either on the Internet before its actual release, had text indicating they were copies of a pre-release DVDs, or showed evidence that they were yet to be edited. It's enough for anyone to proclaim "shiver me timbers".

In my opinion this online piracy revolution was inevitable. Increased accessibility and ridiculously overpriced CDs and DVDs have made downloading content very attractive. I feel this is a threat to the media industry that if not looked at properly, could be the downfall for some. In my opinion the media industry needs to reinvent itself to adapt to new media technologies within the 21st century. I'm not saying CDs and DVDs are the past, however companies need to reformulate their original structures, incorporate the Internet, and stay lucrative for them, the artists, Johnny Depp, and the fans. Savvy?

Open Source Software

How is open source work (as an example of community produsage) different from commercial production?

Open source is a "development method for software that harnesses the power of distributed peer review and transparency of process" (Opensource.org). It differentiates considerably to closed software development. The differences include:

• Closed source model (eg. Windows, Internet Explorer):
  
• source code remains confidential
• software development mainly in-house, by paid staff team
• development goals set by software company
• business model is selling finished software package
• non-disclosure agreements and other IP protections
• software production
  

• Open source model (eg. Linux, Firefox):
  
• source code freely and openly available
• anyone can see it, edit it, use it, under limited-rights license
  
• development goals set by community
• business model is providing services around the software
• software development by teams of volunteers in the community
• software produsage (Bruns, 2008)

The differences between an open and a closed source development model are clearly evident. Open source enables members of the community to contribute to the code, such as changing the code, beta testing, error reports, and documentation. The figure displays how the source code is freely available to the public, and how they can make improvements and adjustments, ending up with a better source code for everyone to share. In this way, initial users also become producers, thus becoming produsers of the content (see my previous blog on Produsage).

Some benefits of open source development include the potential for faster development, ability to explore multiple solutions quickly, zero cost for software purchases or upgrades, greater transparency, and development in direct response to user requests and suggestions. The model does however also have its problems which include a lack of financial support for marketing or solving 'dull' problems, and its survival depending on size and viability of the community (Bruns 2008).

However, I believe, open source software can easily overcome the few problems it does encounter. In my opinion, open source is a great and simple idea with a big impact. After programmers have published the initial code, the community can 'produse' the code; read it, modify it, and redistribute it. In its own words, "We in the open source community have learned that this rapid evolutionary process produces better software than the traditional closed model, in which only a very few programmers can see the source and everybody else must blindly use an opaque block of bits" (Opensource.org). With open source development, the possibilities could possibly be endless...

Produsage and Us

I thought I'd write another little blog concerning produsage and how it involves us, just in case you still think I can't spell or still don't know what exactly I mean. As stated in my previous blog, produsage is "the collaborative and continuous building and extending of existing content in pursuit of further improvement" (produsage.org). In other words produsage involves user led content creation.

Over the past few months and years user online creations have increased significantly, which has not gone unnoticed by the biggest companies in the business. For example, only recently MySpace has launched its promised developer platform which enables third-party developers (as in us, the users) to create applications for the social networking site. "With MDP (MySpace Developer Platform) you can create compelling new products that integrate directly into MySpace pages generating worldwide exposure!" (MySpace.com). This new platform follows in the footsteps of Facebook, which is riddled with applications, asking you to buy your friends, take quizzes, throw a sheep at your friends, find out your IQ or send plant gifts to your friends. Facebook's recent revamp of its developer platform which has seen hundreds of companies set up shop on the site. In other words, SPAM SPAM SPAM!! MySpace, Facebook and other top networks are now competing in comparing who is the most open.

Anyway, back to produsage. We, as users and consumers and now also producers, have more power than ever. We influence media companies, making influential input into what kind of content is created, often creating content ourselves. But Axel Bruns asks a good question, being : "Who controls the means of produsage?" Is it us, the consumers, or the media companies? I'd better let you read his article himself because he can, by far, explain it much better than me.

In my opinion, produsage/user led content creation plays an important role within today's media. The Internet has created an interactive audience and enabled our voices to be heard.

Completely off topic, before I finish up I also think I should explain the picture. I'm not a cat person as such, but my nickname is *Kat* and I thought this picture was just too cute! So yes, it are a fact :)

Produsage

What are the differences between commercial production and community produsage?

First of all you'd probably be thinking why I can't spell or (if not that) what produsage is in the first place? According to produsage.org, it is an idea who's time has come.
Explaining it simply, it is a word for user-led content creation, or users as producers. Hence, becoming produser. Axel Bruns defines produsage as "the collaborative and continuous building and extending of existing content in pursuit of further improvement" (produsage.org). Increased shared content and collaboration in a participatory networked environment is blurring the boundaries between producer and consumer, the user gaining increasingly more power and influence over what content is created.

The advent of new media technologies such as the Internet have seen a decline of the traditional model of production. The producer is not the only force behind content and decisions anymore, but the producer is now advised by consumers or even gains ideas from users. Axel Bruns identifies four key principles present in all produsage projects (produsage.org). They are:

• Open Participation, Communal Evaluation
• the community as a whole, if sufficiently large and varied, can contribute more than a closed team producers
  
• Fluid Heterarchy, Ad Hoc Meritocracy
• producers participate as is appropriate to their personal skills, interests, and knowledges; this changes as the produsage project proceeds
  
• Unfinished Artefacts, Continuing Process
• content artefacts are continually under development, and therefore always unfinished
• Common Property, Individual Rewards
• contributors permit community use and adaptation of their intellectual property, and are rewarded by the status capital gained through this process.
  

Take for example Wikipedia. I use the website to find useful information on topics of concern or interest to me. If I am not happy with an article or one doesn't exist, I can contribute to the site by writing about it or editing an existing article on it, and then re post it for anyone to access. In this way I am a user and a producer of content, thus a produser. And absolutely anyone with a computer and internet access can do it. Of course there are many more other sites such as del.icio.us, YouTube, and blogger. All its members are produsers. Me, writing this blog right now, is me being a produser. I not only use blogger.com to read about things of interest to me, but I also post blogs and comments about things that concern me (OK, I'm being made to by my university subject but it's still the same thing).

Advantages of this conventional production may include:

• faster, more frequent updates due to fewer delays caused by editing and approval processes
• greater involvement of the community
• outcomes available to all
  

However, produsage can also have its disadvantages which include:

• mistaken updates may be made available, whether potential or accidental
• community knowledge may be limited
  
• communities may have internal disagreements

Still, produsages'/user-led content creations' time really has come. Millions of people worldwide are creating and contributing content every day. If you have a MySpace page, have you noticed the counter on your home page? It keeps going up. Every day people join this online revolution. We have more of a say of what media is being created, we have more power over what we consumer. We are produsers.

User Led Co-Creation: Gamers vs. Gaming Companies

You never really think about us, as the audience, being an extremely important factor within the media. After all, it is really not much of our concern as long we can watch a new episode of LOST every week and that our favourite website is still up and running. However, to those involved in the industry the audience is in fact the most important factor concerning media.

With the advent of new media technologies such as the Internet, and with it the introduction of open source software and content editing tools, do-it-yourself (DIY) and collaborative online communities have emerged to increasingly become an integral part of media content creation (Jenkins 2002, 157). People all over the world are becoming produsers, publishing blogs and creating MySpace accounts. We control the information age! It therefore came as no surprise that "You" were the Time's Person of the Year in 2006. We are "seizing the reins of the global media, for founding and framing the new digital democracy, for working for nothing and beating the pros at their own game".

Take for example the changing gaming culture and interface, and how gamers increasingly make contributions such as content and feedback to their favourite games. As you might know from my previous blog, my boyfriend made me join WOW and ever since then I've been curious about this whole gaming culture, how it works, and how the relationship between gamers and gaming companies has changed in recent years. John Banks (2002, 190) identifies that "entities such as 'audience', 'fan', 'producer', 'corporation' and 'consumer' are relational", the audience merging into a co-creative relationship with media producers.

Blizzard's popular MMORPG World of Warcraft (abbreviated WOW) , for example, has become immensely successful not only because of its top notch graphics, interface and game play, but also because developers have effectively worked alongside and listened to fans in discussion forums, users being able to contribute such content as artwork and comic strip style storytelling themselves. Blizzard has also released a User Interface Customisation tool to support and encourage modifications.
However, although the idea of produsage and user-led content creation may sound appealing to developers, it can also work against you. Auran Games' massively multiplayer online game Fury also offered forums on which users could interact with developers and make suggestions. However, the developers did not listen to their fans, the fans in turn became frustrated and angry, boycotted the game, resulting in the failure of Fury.

John Banks and Henry Jenkins have both identified the consumers increasing power, with audiences becoming increasingly more influential in the media, “gaining greater power and autonomy as they enter into the new knowledge culture” (Jenkins 2002, 158). Internet-based technologies, such as email and forums, have created an empowered audience, “who expects and demands that corporations will not only listen to their views, criticisms and input, but also enter into active dialogue with them” (Banks 2002, 189).

So does that mean game developers have to listen to everything that we say? We, as an interactive audience, are gaining more power, but that doesn't mean we control everything. We have power, but only to an extent. So what can I do? I can contribute on forums, make my own artistic creations to games or even change an open source code. But I won't...because I don't know how!! I'll leave that to the expert fans.

Reference:
Banks, J. (2002) Reflection on Week Eight Reading: Gamers as Co-creators: Enlisting the Virtual Audience – A report from the net face, Brisbane: University of Queensland Press

Jenkins, H. (2002) “Interactive Audiences?” in D. Harries (ed.) The New Media Book, London: BFI Publishing, pp.157-170.

Social Networking Sites - They're Taking Over!!

You'd think the internet would soon have enough social networking sites to cater to every possible genre, culture and subculture there is by now, yet new such sites continue to emerge every year.

I own a MySpace, and a Facebook, used to have a B4UParty account (well...at least I think that's what it was called) and my German friends keep urging me to join some German social networking site of which I have forgotten the name. Then of course is there the blogger account, the YouTube account (although I haven't uploaded anything yet, I'm too lazy...), contributions to forums, AllWomenTalk, MSN, and three email addresses. At least I hope that's it...

Now, you've probably read through that and gone *Whaatt??* The thing is, you're probably the same, if not worse. I have all these applications, luckily I am not unfortunate enough to be addicted to any of them. I use them for information,study, just for some fun if I'm bored, or mainly to stay in contact with friends. Since the advent of new media technologies such as the internet, social networking sites have popped up everywhere!! Note the picture above, depicting only a small fraction of all the sites that are out there. There is a site for everything you could possibly imagine and more.

Where will it end?

From Web 1.0 to Web 2.0

How is Web 2.0 different from Web 1.0?

Web 1.0, roughly defined, refers to the state of the World Wide Web between 1994 and 2004, before the Web 2.0 craze. Websites were mainly strictly one-way published media, static pages instead of dynamically user-generated content. In Web 1.0, there was a clear distinction between Web readers and Web writers, their roles generally disjoint.

However, such distinctions and inability to create ones own content gradually disappeared with the evolution of Web 2.0. On Web 2.0, a web user my simultaneously be a reader and a writer, seeing the development of user-created content. Web 2.0 aims to facilitate creativity, information sharing, and collaboration among users. These three concepts have led to development of web-based communities, social networking sites, wikis and blogs, such as MySpace, Facebook, Blogger and YouTube. Users have been able to increasingly contribute to the web through such sites, as can be seen in the diagram above.

The top half of the diagram depicts Web 1.0, where there is a clear distinction between the creator of the content ("Webmaster") and its users ("Internet Surfers") who had no contributing factors. After the advent of Web 2.0 however, the "Webmaster" doesn't have ultimate control anymore and other users and surfers are able to now contribute to the web. Many online users are linked with one another through the web, interacting with one another, subscribing to blogs or becoming friends with users. The diagram clearly and simply depicts how the web has changed for us and how we are now more part of it than ever.

According to Tim O'Reilly, who first made the term Web 2.0 notable: "Web 2.0 is the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the move to the Internet as platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform."

Andy Budd confirms this view, stating that on Web 2.0, we start to watch the Web as an application platform. It is the web as a platform that has enabled users to contribute their own content and collaborate with other users. Andy
emphasises the Web as a change of thought. "Web 2.0 isn't a thing... It's a state of mind."
It may sound weird but it helps us to understand the web's evolution. Web 2.0 is essentially still the same as Web 1.0 but it is the users and businesses that have revolutionised it into what it is today. Of course, it is faster, easier to use and has improved significantly, but it's the users that have made the Web and still make the Web through their understanding of it.

Comparing Web 1.0 with Web 2.0
Just to name a view:
Web 1.0 was about reading, Web 2.0 is about writing;
Web 1.0 was about companies, Web 2.0 is about communities;
Web 1.0 was about home pages, Web 2.0 is about blogs;
Web 1.0 was about owning, Web 2.0 is about sharing.

After writing this now, one question that interests me is, what would the Web be like today if it wasn't for Web 2.0? Would it still be controlled by the "Webmaster" and we, innocent "Internet Surfers", had nothing to say, nothing to contribute, and nothing to create? Or would it be different still?

Gamers, Gaming Culture and WOW

I've been lately curious if not even fascinated with gamers and the gaming culture. It's hard not to be when your boyfriend and pretty much 100% of his friends are frequent gamers (as in they play video games at least once a day). And what with the arrival of another good friend and his new purchase of a PS3 (Play Station 3) there doesn't seem to be a lot of time left for the girlfriend.

Funnily enough, I am a gamer too. Well, sort of. The example here, World of Warcraft, abbreviated WOW. About a week ago I showed some interest as my BF spent yet another night bewitching, casting spells, and killing other players . So he made a character for me *just as a joke*, and to his surprise I started playing it. I just found the graphics and the sheer scope of the game amazing!! A week later I'm up to level 18 already.....

For those of you who don't know, WOW is one of the most popular MMORPG (Massively multiplayer online role-playing game), in which a large number of players interact with one another in a virtual world. Originating from the original Warcraft: Orcs & Humans, the current The Burning Crusade is the fourth expansion of the game, with yet another set to be released in the near future. That is something WOW gamers are sure to get excited about, The Burning Crusade being the fastest-selling PC game of all time, selling nearly 2.4 million copies in just 24 hours.

Gamers are a complete subculture of their own in new media cultures/studies, and World of Warcraft gamers are yet another more fragmented subculture within that gaming culture, which is referred to as a hyperlocal culture or community. Users within that subculture all have something in common, a shared interest, or something that differentiates them from mainstream culture. WOW gamers, for example share their interest in the game, and can either add them as a friend to the game and talk to them in real time if they are both online, or they can discuss topics of interest in online forums.

Another example which differentiates WOW gamers is their online language. The abbreviations used by gamers seems like a completely different language!! Some of the more easier ones include lol = laugh out loud (we all know what that means) and afk = away from keyboard. But this is where it gets tricky.
I asked one of my friends to say a sentence in, what I call, WOW language. This is what he came up with:
LFM BWL Need DPS & Healer Pref. Lock & Pally.......
...... I know exactly what you're thinking, or more likely what you're not understanding. Let me translate that into more legible English. "Looking For More Need Damage Per Second & Healer Preferably Warlock & Paladin". Does that make more sense? Still not? Ah, it's too difficult to explain when the person writing doesn't get it themselves. Like I said, TOTALLY different language!! Maybe I just need to practice.

I could go on and on with this game and more, but it is just too big for me to put in one blog. There's just so much to talk about, PvP (player vs. player), the different characters, the realms, or even just more about gaming culture or MMORPGs. So I'll play a little more, explore a little more, kill a little more (that sounds so bad...) and learn a little more, and maybe then I can understand WOW language myself and write a little more about the amazing world of WOW.

Online Communities

How do online communities organise themselves?

With the advent of Web 2.0, more of us as users are increasingly becoming part of online communities. May it be talking to your friends on MSN, playing Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games with people in America while you're in Australia, or posting blogs and comments about your favourite topic. These activities (and there are many more) connect users with one another, forming online communities.

Roughly defined, online communities are groups of people interacting with one another via communication media, such as email rather than face to face, for social, educational and professional purposes (Lefever 2003). These groups can also be described as a network of people, all connected with one another, which have emerged 'from the net when enough people carry on public discussions long enough to form webs of personal relationships in cyberspace' (Rheingold quoted in Bruns 2008). Examples of online communities include MySpace, Facebook, Flickr, Wikipedia, and even Blogger.

I, like so many, have followed the flock of sheep (the hype, so to speak) and have made a MySpace Page.....and a Facebook....and a blogger page....and let's best leave it at that. But why not? 'Social psychology has found that people join groups in general for both feelings of affiliation and belonging as well as for information and aid in goal achievement' (Ridings and Gefen quoted in Bruns 2008).

Now I'm not so sure about it aiding me to achieve my goals (although many people have become successful online) but the other points speak quite true. I joined, not only because my friend absolutely insisted upon it, but because it did make me feel like I belonged. Plus, these days if you're in High School and you don't have either a MySpace or Facebook page you might as well not exist. Funnily enough, every time a lecturer asked who of us had such an account, many were to embarrassed to put their hand up. Why is that?
Joining online communities, like Ridings and Gefen suggest, is also helpful in gaining information. For example, if you're after celebrity news and gossip, Perez Hilton's page is where you need to go. He is also a prime example for someone getting famous just by writing blogs online. Now don't think anyone can do it. God, wouldn't that be great! He just was what's called an early adopter of this new media technology, plus, he probably just got really really lucky. Damn...

I haven't even answered the question yet!! Why and how do online communities organise themselves? Bruns (2008) has identified numerous reasons, the major ones being:

• ability to build cooperative networks with other communities
• ability to operate in fields of interest neglected by mainstream media, business, politics, research
• active user participation as content creators
• new forms of collaboration and social organisation
• new forms of personal and community identity

There is also the knowledge that strength lies in numbers, and even though individuals have limited to ability to change frameworks within a networked environment, they can still contribute and they do have power. Online communities have the ability to largely influence society, impact as cultural institutions, media practitioners, knowledge managers, economic factors, and political movements. Because when it comes down to it, we, as users within new media technologies, are gaining more and more power in the media. Online communities are 'not just collections of individuals operating within the existing technoculture, but independent institutions within society, changing the technoculture environment'! (Bruns 2008).

So let's get to it! :)

in the beginning....

Hi,

So I'm new to this whole blogging thing, although I have known about it for years and never really have jumped on the bandwagon so to speak.
But being forced (ah, that's such a harsh word, so lets say made...?) to now write my very own blogs for a subject at university I thought I'd give it a go, seeing I'm being assessed on them and all....

Why not though? Everyone seems to be doing it these days, so I am now officially losing my blogging virginity. I don't really have much to say in my first blog (what a sad way to loose my virginity!!) but it will get better. Or so I hope.
This blog will mainly be about KCB201 Virtual Cultures, which is the subject I'm currently taking. Every week I'll post at least one blog on related content we are currently discussing in the unit. So lets hope I don't make a complete fool of myself by trying to sound intelligent.

Anyway, here goes...... post!!