Friday, May 16, 2008
*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
Thursday, May 15, 2008
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:
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).
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
- Neutral Point of View - all articles must be written with a neutral point of view, as fair as possible and without bias
- Verifiability - editors should proof that articles are provided using reliable sources, otherwise the article may be removed
- 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)
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).
Saturday, May 10, 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).
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).
Thursday, May 8, 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).
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).
Wednesday, April 30, 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?
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:
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...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
