Webpage 1:
This page, written in the summer of 2006 expresses the writer's personal critisism of the concept of the digital native and the digital immigrant. Claiming they are terms that are overused (ALREADY!) to describe something they do not understand or simply to dismiss the behaviour of those who they call digital natives or immigrants.
The page enables users to respond to the article.
Webpage 2:
This page, also from 2006, gives a (VERY!) brief history of the concept of "digital natives/immigrants" and quotes to opposing views on the matter. Sadly, that is all it does.
Webpage 3:
This webpage features a news article from a large British newspaper, also from 2006, explaining the concept itself (by using an example) as well as an example of "the opposite", talks of a "digital divide". Experts involved give their views and the article continues to report on academic research done on the phenomenon. The article concludes with several predictions of future developments of the concept. The article points out that it is not just a case of the age of a person but also their willingness and ability to embrace new technologies. How useful the article is to you depends on your knowledge of the concepts themselves as the article pretty much only covers the basic concepts of digital natives/immigrants themselves, the findings and opinion of experts are only mentioned quite briefly. The article is perfectly useful to give somebody and idea of what digital natives and digital immigrants actually ARE but doesn't seem to go particularly "deep" into the material. However, as it does mention some of these "experts" it could perhaps make it easier to find out more about them elsewhere.
Showing posts with label Topics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Topics. Show all posts
Thursday, 12 March 2009
Monday, 16 February 2009
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."
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."
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.
Friday, 13 February 2009
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.
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.
Thursday, 12 February 2009
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".
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"
Friday, 30 January 2009
Week 2: Topic 2 | Blogs
NAVIGATION | Navigation around the blogs is quite easy, especially since I already had experience with Blogger in particular. It easy to keep track of new posts on blogs of your peers, making it easy to respond to each other's posts. Also, the actual posting-part of the website works very intuitive and is easy to use.
EXPRESSION | Well, originally the essence of blogging is publishing your thoughts and musings to the world, and it is noticeable how blogger is clearly designed to make it as easy as possible but at the same time enables more advanced functions like HTML-support and custom layouts for those "in the know".
In this case it works very well as it enables us to put our different findings in different posts and make it easy for people to find similar posts by using tags.
INTERACTION | It's nice to have an on-the-spot comment-option here on blogger enabling people to comment immediately after reading the post without having to go elsewhere. Hopefully over the next few weeks the blogs will become a places of in-depth discussion and fiery debates! It's a nice thing to be able to read back what people are on about, something you can't do in a real-life discussion without having to ask and halting the process of the conversation when doing so.
TIME | The same goes here as what I said about this this specifgic topic about the forums, really. It is nice to do the work at a time when you are at your best, whether it's at 10 AM or 10 PM, the site works the same and people can respond to your posts anytime after you've posted them!
AUTHORITY AND IDENTITY | THe person who's blog it is is sort-of in charge I think. But more like a discussion leader, if anything. He/She brings up the points of discussion and the conversations go from there. For the rest of it I think the same sense of equality is on the blogs as there is on the forums.
SPEECH & WRITING | The same applies as to the blogs, I feel. The mode of address is quite informal as there is no requirement to use formal "essay style" writing. It is merely a platform to raise topics and share your findings with others. It is even possible to just say that you really don't get or really don;t agree with something that's written or taught on the course.
EXPRESSION | Well, originally the essence of blogging is publishing your thoughts and musings to the world, and it is noticeable how blogger is clearly designed to make it as easy as possible but at the same time enables more advanced functions like HTML-support and custom layouts for those "in the know".
In this case it works very well as it enables us to put our different findings in different posts and make it easy for people to find similar posts by using tags.
INTERACTION | It's nice to have an on-the-spot comment-option here on blogger enabling people to comment immediately after reading the post without having to go elsewhere. Hopefully over the next few weeks the blogs will become a places of in-depth discussion and fiery debates! It's a nice thing to be able to read back what people are on about, something you can't do in a real-life discussion without having to ask and halting the process of the conversation when doing so.
TIME | The same goes here as what I said about this this specifgic topic about the forums, really. It is nice to do the work at a time when you are at your best, whether it's at 10 AM or 10 PM, the site works the same and people can respond to your posts anytime after you've posted them!
AUTHORITY AND IDENTITY | THe person who's blog it is is sort-of in charge I think. But more like a discussion leader, if anything. He/She brings up the points of discussion and the conversations go from there. For the rest of it I think the same sense of equality is on the blogs as there is on the forums.
SPEECH & WRITING | The same applies as to the blogs, I feel. The mode of address is quite informal as there is no requirement to use formal "essay style" writing. It is merely a platform to raise topics and share your findings with others. It is even possible to just say that you really don't get or really don;t agree with something that's written or taught on the course.
Tuesday, 20 January 2009
Study guide week 1: Topic 1
The study guide tells that for Topic 1 for this week we need to familiarise ourselves with the different forms of online communication that we are going to need for this unit.
The two main points highlighted in topic 1 are:
a) What are the characteristics (in terms of the kinds of communication they allow) of the following?:
b) How do you use them if you do; what for; what’s your experience of using them?
Email and email lists
Usenet and Bulletin board systems
IRL’s chat rooms, messenger services
MUDs + MOOs – merging with online gaming
Websites
Intend to start reading today on the subject and respond to the questions as soon as I've finished reading/researching/thinking about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
