Community of practice

A community of practice is the process where a group of individuals come together and learn from eachother because they have similar, or,the same, goals. They interact together as they aim to reach these goals.

An example of this could be a facebook discussion group of people who are all struggling with the same unit at uni. They could support and interact with each other to help eachother out to reach the shared goal of passing the unit, something they might not have been able to without eachother's help within the CofP.

CofP's are born out of these common goals and the desire of all members to succes at achieving them and are not set up by some greater authority. In this example, the CofP is not a form of support provided by the university of any other support-institution, it has spontaniously come to exist out of the members' desire to succeed.

The forum on this unit COULD be seen as a CofP, however it HAS been set up by the university. The discussion groups on this specific unit that are going on Facebook and similar platforms, however, have spontaniously come to exist due to interaction between students with the same problems and aims.

Website analysis: NME.COM

a)HOW IS YOUR CHOSEN SITE STRUCTURED?
The website (which also comes in a USA-version which uses the same layout) uses a horizontal row of hyperlinks to the different sections of the website, some of these sections feature a 2nd row of hyperlinks underneath this navigation-bar that link to even more specific sub-sections.
Just above the main navigation bar we find the date, a link to the US-version of the website and a search field that allows users to search either the website or the web in general. The Op left is reserved for the (recognised) NME logo (Top-left is the first thing you see, after all) and the top right is filled by an ad-banner. The navigation bar helps users find what they want from the website fairly quickly, after all the whole point of hypertext is that it's selective, non-linear and enabling users to just go for the part that serve their needs without having to work their way though stuff they're not interested in.

The font page of NME.com features the latest updates from each section of the website, so the latest added news stories, the latest photos and videos added, the latest features, reviews, concerts announcements, blog-entries, etc. The front page also enables the user to log in (or sign up to) a SNS-type service called MyNME.

The bottom of the page features another navigation area, repeating the links in the top bar but also links to other websites run by the same publisher and to NME’s profiles on Myspace, Facebook, Twitter & Youtube.

These top and bottom navigation areas are the same on practically all pages of the website due to the use of a web-template. NME is a dynamic website as opposed to a static one as the website’s content is constantly updated.

b) WHAT IS IT ABOUT ON A CULTURAL LEVEL
The NME website clearly relies on the reputation, public image and heritage of the NME magazine. However, the website doesn't simply present itself as the web-presence of the magazine, but as the online home of NME as an institution in general. The publisher seems to be eager to expand the NME brand's values and reputation to mediums other than the magazine itself seeing as in recent years they have also launched an NME radio station and NME Television channel (both featured on the website with NME Radio being available online aswel). I would argue that this way they want to make the NME synonym with the type of music (alternative/indie) and associated culture it deals with. Obviously, the readers of the magazine and those familiar with the brand and familiar with the music and culture associated with it would be interested in the website and they appear to be the website's target audience. Young, somewhat well-educated, predominantly male. It uses the norms of the indie-culture and adresses the user appropiately, using somewhat specialist terms where required and expecting the user to know what they mean, thus expecting the users to have some basic knowledge about the subject. (Could be seen as a mild example of boundary maintenance? The process of keeping “those who don't belong in this group” out by using specialist terms they will not get. What do people think?)

Despite presenting itself as a somewhat “alternative” platform, the increase in interest from the general public in the indie genre means that it is now quite a lucrative business. And despite this “facade” it doesn't manage to hide the fact that it is in fact a commercial website. Not only NME's co-operation with other brands such as Shockwaves (for the awards) and quite often co-operating with music retailer HMV make this clear but the website also features quite a large amount of advertisments, some slightly more covert than others. For example, the 'store'-link in the top navigation bar appears to take the user to a sub-section of the nme.com but is actually hyperlink directly to a completely different website, an online shop. Also, an important feature of the website is the online concert-ticket store, which is featured not only in the “gigs & tickets” section of the navigation bar but is even featured on the front page. The “check availability” links in their own turn then take you directly to another website that sells concert tickets online, no doubt paying a commission to NME's publishers IPC Media. It is a clever way of making use of the way the NME brand has become associated with the musical genre itself. You can easily imagine somebody typing NME into google to find out where to get concert tickets to see their favourite band.

c)WHAT IS THE APPEAL FOR ITS USERS?
Obviously, because the website's brand and its particular subject seem so very much associated with each other it is an obvious starting point for those who are interested in the music and culture it deals with, but also for those who wish to find out more about it. The news stories on the website, which is solely related to indie music and associated popular culture and written by members of a dedication website-team, can be commented on by users, but no stories can be submitted so the website isn't an 'open' news source. A traditional news source instead then, which seems to be in line with the way IPC/NME aspire to display NME as the country's main media institution when it comes to indie/alternative popular culture. This will probably make the user, who is familiar with NME's reputation, think of the website as a reliable news source about the subject that can be trusted. But surely IPC/NME's commercial means must influence the site's news values and the way it applies gate-keeping when selecting which stories are covered (and how).

The website also offers a social networking type area where users can set up their own profiles, private message and discuss related subjects in the discussion forums provided, all this does seem to produce a type of online indie-community where the users can discuss aspects of it that may be too niche or specialist to be discussed on other more general music websites, even if the website is ultimately run by IPC Media/NME for commercial purposes. So I would imagine it could be assumed that the online community doesn't provide complete openness and freedom to the user.

Sadly Sadly SADLY, due to a fault in the website's system, I could not finish the registration-process in order to check out this interactive part of the website myself. I have been trying for several weeks now and even e-mailed the web team about it but it still doesn't seem to be working. Surely they must notice at some point that they don't have any new users registering to their website? Hmm.

Week 5: Produser/Produsage/Intercreativity

A) What do you understand by the words ‘produser’, ‘produsage’, and ‘intercreativity’? Are they useful in understanding collaborative creation of content online?

The term produser is a term that has come up in lectures and readings a lot in this unit so far, it basically showcases the way in which everybody who is a user on the internet is potentially a produser of content aswel. Intercreativity could be described as podusers publishing their own creative output which other produsers can then alter/add to freely as long as thier version of the output is thenstill freely available to be edited by other produsers. This "open source" principle is, for example, used by different types of software, Firefox being one of the most well-known examples. (I am actually being terribly "open-source" at the moment as I'm doing this blogging in Firefox on a Linux-PC while playing some music in Songbird, wow!)

b) p. 4 When collaborative sites have moderation functions to prevent a ‘free for all’, does this defeat the purpose?

Well, in a way, it does go against the basic principle of free-for-all podusing, but at the same time keeps the process running in a way that enables produserage (???) to last as otherwise it'd get too messy and unable to "compete" with traditional "institutional" creative conent.

Week 5 | Meikle: Indymedia and The New Net News

Para. 7-9 What do you think constitutes ‘news’ on the Web?


Well, the article claims that the internet “has led to a shift in how we recontextualise news around a much larger search for information”. I think the jist of this phenomenon is that the internet has significantly removed the "authority" of news services. Whilst before the audience would mainly use one source for their news-imput for different types of media (reading ONE newspaper and/or watching ONE TV news bulletin) the internet makes it very simple to look at different news sources and select the news stories they find interesting (and often click on those for a more in-depth analysis of the story) Also, news sources other than big established agencies can run news-services online. And, as I have said abut a lot of things on the internet, they can often report about news on very specific interests and for very specific communities. However, not all of the news sources online are reliable, in fact, ever idiot can start a website and declare themselves a news source. But following a combination of both types of news sources could be a good idea: using the open news sources to find out the latest events and checking the established (quality checked) news sources later to confirm their reliability.



Para 9 Are there ‘new kinds of journalist’ online? If so, how so?
I guess by new kinds of journalists we could mostly think about those who post on "open" news sources like Indymedia where, according to their website, anyone can post news stories and news-media:
"The content of the Indymedia UK website is created through a system of open publishing: anyone can upload a written, audio and video report or a picture directly to the site through an openly accessible web interface. Through this system of 'Direct Media', Indymedia erodes the dividing line between reporters and reported, between active producers and passive audience: people are enabled to speak for themselves. At bigger actions, Indymedia UK volunteers extend this participatory model by establishing 'Public Access Terminals' on the streets, and facilitating direct access to the technical equipment that enables participants to upload to the website."

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/static/mission.html

However, obviously, in a similar way as WIkipedia, nobody "owns" the content, but that also means that , really, there is nobody responsible for it, or it's genuinity. Anonymous posting of articles means that the produser's actions have no consequences for them. Therefore, I'd say that websites like Indymedia is a good way to get an idea of what is happening, but not to take anything for fact unless it has been confirmed by professional sources in a similar way in which Wikipedia is good to get "the jist" about something but relibale sources need to be checked before what WIkipedia states is in fact true.

Paras 14-15 Are those who want to make DIY news online, best thought of as part of an alternative culture (that also exists offline) or is it more diverse than that? Think of examples beyond Indymedia.
In all honestly I am somewhat struggling with this one, but I'll have a go at it. I think that news concerning news coverage on alternative (small) cultures is often going to mostly be covered by DIY (open) news sources simply because the stories are too specificaly bound to an area of interest to get the attention of larger news sources. Also, a small open news-platform specific to a culture or interest can set up their own set of news values that are suitable for the culture or interest/perspective it covers. I don't think it is solely bound to offline-cultures or even alternative cultures persé, as some open news sources do cover "general" news stores aswel (be it from a specific point of view) but particular alternative cultures can make good use of the open-news formula, after all, what is the point of being alternative bybeing a DIY news source if you don't bring a certain specific point-of-view or directness to the story, there isn't much that makes it different from other (so-called professional) news sources.

d) Para 18 Is open news quality news?
Well, it can be, there is just hardly any way of checking it. Therefore it's hard to tell whether or not something is or isn't a non-biased report and what the intentions of the DIY journalist were when they wrote it (and how much research actually went into writing it.) The changes in the formula of the website in 2002 do show the institution's own doubt of the quality-value of open-news though, as now stories that make the front page were selected to do so rather than just wacked onthere.

e) Para 19 Can open news ever be completely open? Do people take different (possibly unequal) roles in collaboration?
I can't ever see open publishing being completely open, as not all web-users can be trusted the websites do need constant checking and moderating. Anyone can contribute but different websites will always have their own rules, regulations and discourses on what is and what isn't considered suitable material to be on their website. For example, Indymedia themselves in their mission statement:

We aim to live up to the following principles:
-Indymedia United Kollektives works on a non-hierarchical basis
-we reject all systems of domination and discrimination
-we acknowledge that the struggle for a better world takes many forms.
-The focus of the Indymedia UK collective is on grassroots politics, actions and campaigns
-Indymedia United Kollektives does not have any ties with political parties or larger NGOs
-we understand that by lobbying there will be no radical change.
-As a collective our attitude is assertive, and where necessary confrontational

Discrimination is considered a big no-no, understandibly, and so is Indymedia not beig affiliated with any political parties, but it IS an ideology that it is not acceptable all the same. Also, how can you even check a produser's own ideologies and point-of-view and what exactly ARE the parameters of an unacceptible article (other than these two extreme examples)? Surely, it can't always be that simple to say what is own opinion and iseologies aren't always that easy to spot. Furthermore, where does moderating end and freedom of speech start?

Hmmmm, loads of stuff to think about here.

Week 4 | Topic 1: Lister

What do you think of the notion that online community can be empowering/disempowering?

I think you could argue in favour of both of these standpoints really. Yes, it does enable people with a specific interest, or specific lifestyle for that matter, with a community where they can freely express themselves, something they wouldn't be able to otherwise. Empowering. However, on the other hand I would argue that at the same time it takes away the need for them to learn how to fit these ideologies and interests into society in general and could even affect their sense of what is and what isn't socially acceptable in general everyday life. Disempowering.

So basically it enables them to not always have to conform to "the norm" while at the same time it might cause them to lose touch of what this norm actually is.



Does the Net provide a ‘public sphere’ where citizens can engage with each other? If so, how, and are there any limitations?

Urm, yes. Everything that occurs and then gets discussed enters "the public sphere" I would think. Specific topics in specific online communities, unless it's things that affect almost every one of us which then end up being discussed everywhere, BUT from the community's own perspective. (E.G. Music forum PopJsutice's users are discussing the demise of physical music stores and if the credit crunch is affecting how likely they are to download illegally while on TVforum the effects of the credit crunch on the budgets of original television programming is discussed.)

Yes, it is still a very closed network of communities, but then again, the original concept of the "public sphere" took place in elitist "coffee houses". So yes, it is still a closed group discussing matters in the publ;ic sphere, but at least now it's all of us who have access to our own "public spheres" of our choice.

To what extent are ‘dangerous materials’ prominent on the Internet (or ‘junk and jerks’ as Kollock put it)? What do their existence mean in terms of the ‘freedoms’ the Net allows? Is freedom always positive?

Well, the question whether or not freedom is always positive may be a bit much to just ask onhere, but I guess it CAN be said that the negative aspects of freedom (the junks and jerks) are an unevitible side-effect of total freedom in any context. Yes, the internet allows freedom of speach more than any other place but thse niche points that re made on the net may indeed well be hateful, racist or frowned upon for any iother reason. The Junks and Jerks that like to "set the cat amongst the pigeons" by making exptreme statements in other, normally peaceful, communities is something that doesn't just happen online, but the internet and the way you can adapt your own cutom-made identity do make it much easier.


To what extent can ‘ordinary’ Net users become producers of culture, rather than people who ‘respond’ to culture supplied for them?

I think we all knows the stories about bands being pciked up by record labels after A&R bigwigs heard their music on Myspace. And yes, Myspace Music is a good example of a website where the suers become the producers of culture. The same goes for Youtube, where lots of people upload their own short films and other artistic projects.



It has now reached the point where internet services are even completely undermining the role of the big record and film publishing companies:

In early 2006 large online music-download retailer 7digital launched something called "indiestore". this service allowed independent and unsigned artists to upload and sell their music though both the seperate indiestore.com site aswel as the main 7digital store for free (and receiving a commission for every track sold). (Normally only record companies can provide online music download stores with copies of music, so, actually getting your song ON iTunes isn't quite as simple as many unsigned artists would've hoped!) As 7digital/indiestore report their sales to chart compiling orginisations in several countries (about 20 I think) this once even led to a single from an un-signed artist appearing in the official UK singles charts. So, maybe it's not just the music retailers (Zavvi, anyone?) but one day even the record labels themselves who may have to compete with internet-based services and companies.

Reading week 4 | Visionary communities

CHAPTER 3.6: Visionary communities
On page 173 the book discusses the summary of (somewheat pro-technologic) claims from Jones (1994:26) that computer mediated communications will:

1. Create opportunities for education and learning.
Well yeah, I can see what point is being made here and yes, even though this book was written WAY before technology of this kind made it to the classroom Jones was right in suggesting that CMC was a good platform to use for educational purposes. It has become one of the main forms of communication in higher education, for example, on our course e-mail has become the main way to contact lecturers outside of lectures and seminars. Or, a more intense example: this very unit which is, bar the weekly lecture, completely internet-based.

2. Create new opportunities for participatory democracy.
It seems that democracy, and voting particularly, is still a bit of a non-mover. Several countries are doing tests with online-voting (I once participated in a test-session like that in the NL myself, gotta love dual citizenship!) but hasn't become the norm anywhere as yet. However, the internet IS a popular platform for campaigning and expressing political views and agenda's. Including those that not normally would have been published in any other type of media due to the small scale or individualist character of them.

3. Establish countercultures on an unprecedented scale.
Yes, it does, but, like I mentioned before, it enables these different counter-cultural norms of behaviour within a specific, smaller online community. A sub-culture is still a sub-culture, even online, the main difference is is that CMC makes subculture a lot more accesible for those interested.

4. Ensnarl already difficult legal matters concerning privacy, copyright and ethics.
I Jones by this means what I think he means then yes, people are more like to entangle themselves in these matters. And indeed, not exactly making them any easier, but at least people get actively involved with these matters rather than just following the norm entirely.

5. Restructure man/machine interaction.
Well, I suppose. We have become more dependent of machines, that's one thing that's for sure, seeing as we rely on it to communicate to others. But still, it's the other produser that's interacting with us though these technologies. It's not the actual machine, so... Not really.

Reading week 4 | Networks & communities

CHAPTER 3.5: NETWORKS AND COMMUNITIES

This sub-chapter summarises different theorist's views on Computer-mediated communication (CMC), and suggests that most of these different arguments are based around the notion of "community". Even though they might not even entirely agree on what the term community actually means exactly.

One of the first points of views that is mentioned "...an antidote to the social fragmentation of contemporary life" [p. 172] (which funnily enough doesn't get referenced by the author) is one that I find a particularly interesting one as it somehow inplies that the social fragmentation in real life is something that happens completely seperate from the influence of online communities. Also, surely, the niche nature of many online communities which I mentioned on the blog before SURELY enables for fragmentation of social relations more than anything.

"Computer mediated communications, it seems, will do by way of electronic pathways what cement roads were enable to do, nomely connectus rather than atomise us, put us at the controls of a 'vehicle' and yet not detachus from the restof the world." (Jones: 1994: 10)

Although I can deffinitely see the point Jones is making here, being part of the greater "world" without giving up the sens of individual choice that the internet brings, I personally would argue that the sense of individual choice and the way you can easily avoid certain aspects of the "greater" community easily make that people do all go seperate ways.

Yes, you CAN go different individual ways and still be connected with everyone, for example by using big general-public orientated services like Facebook, but there is nothing stopping you from JUST being part of niche and interest-specific online communities (sometimes even based on actual real-life minorities, for example "the well" ) and therefore losing touch with "the rest of the world".

Week3 | Topic 1

In what ways can the Net be thought of as an ‘open architecture?’
I think the term Open Architecture is synonym for the way in which "produsers" can design and build a world/environment around themselves. It is their own decision what online communities and activities they engage in and how they customise it by who they talk to and can pick & mix online services to form a set of online platforms that are suitable in respect with the online "world" they want to live in. To be honest, I had some trouble with trying to understand the concept of Open Architecture, but this is pretty much how I understood it.

Do you think that assuming an online persona (via screen name/handle/avatar etc) encourages people to play with the identity they present online and take risks in the ways the express themselves?
I think a lot of the things I said for task two need to be taken in consideration when answering this. I think the tendency of people to assume an alternative online persona does depends on the platform/service it is on. Web forums and online communities can make it very easy for produsers to play around with their identity and if it doesn't work out or they end up ebing hated by other users there is always a hundred million other places where they can play around with new characteristics. I guess this brings back the whole ethical debate again, and different analists have had very different views as of wether or not this is a possitive or negative thing. Some would think it is just a harmless phenomenon, others reckon it might not be entirely free of side-effects as it does not provide certain parts of "actual" identities have like social struggle as the niche communities on the web do not come with the prejudes and dominant ideologies that mainstream society does have. Also, produsers can get their own adopted new identity wrong by basing it entirely on stereotypes, thus confirming them.

What do you think of postmodern views which stress the fluidity of online selves and their apparent disembodied status, which has been argued frees people from being represented through signs of their race, gender, class etc?
I believe the book suggests that, even though the internet is the same for everyone, the produser's real-life background does affect their behaviour online as they have still been raised with the same ideologies. It is very similar to one of the things that was described in the Living Culture unit last semester. I, annoyingly, cannot think of the right term now but it was about people, no matter how much their financial status has changed, they will still have the same tastes and ideologies. I'll look up what it's actually called in my notes from last semester. (Might take a while to find it, though!)

Do cyberidentities constitute an alternative to ‘normal social reality’?
I suppose it can be seen as a way to escape everyday reality and, indeed, try out different identities or a different side of your identity that isn't as accepted in real life as it might be in a niche online community. That way it could be a way off expressing things you can't express elsewhere. So in that sense I agree that they are an alternative to "normal social reality" as they have different ideologies and are therefore different from the usdual everyday 'norm'.

Are online relationships the same as offline ones?
It really depends on who the relationship is with and where the 'online relationship' takes place. On niche web-forums the changed standards would affect the type of relationship two produsers have, especially if the two don't know eachother in the outside world. But, like on facebook, one-to-one conversations can take place between people who see eachother all the time, and I guess that doesn't change the relationship between them.

Week 3 | Topic 2 | Question A

Is withholding one’s identity ethically wrong?

I think this depends entirely on the website or other internet-service used. A really basic example can be given by comparing the two most popular social networking websites. Rivals they may be, but the social discourse and expectations of how people represent themselves is totally different. Facebook on the one hand expects users to use their real name, upload ONLY pictures of themselves, and communicate with people in their actual lives/environment, for example by using networks based on employers or educational institution which you can only join if you can proof that you are part of this "group". So Facebook is more a tool to contact people you actually know rather than a place to meet people. Myspace, on the other hand, is more about customising a page very much and creating an online persona that is perhaps only remotely related to you real-life identity. Myspace actually is more about meeting people based on similar interests like music and things like that. For example, my own Myspace page only passingly mentions that my name is Frank (http://www.myspace.com/fbcnl)

Not normally a problem at all, users of the respective websites know what to expect from other users onthere, but it WOULD be (ethically?) wrong to use Facebook like Myspace and think of a vaux identity onthere as people will expect you to be yourself.

More examples would be Role Playing Games and chatboxes. Role playing games (MUD's, MOO's, World of Warcraft and so on) are all about constructing a custom-made identity, and other users knwo this. In chatboxes (still depending on the theme though, but i'm generalising here to make my point) people may expect you to be yourself and if they are, it could be considered wrong if you pretend to be somebody you're not. Especially if you are doing this in order to gain people's trust/information or God knows what else.