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 introduction. Show all posts
Showing posts with label introduction. Show all posts
Thursday, 12 March 2009
Friday, 13 February 2009
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:
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:
Thursday, 22 January 2009
Online lecture Word-file - Part 1: Digital vs. Analogue (The science bit)
http://mchome.lincoln.ac.uk/newmediacultures/WEEK%201%20online%20lecture.doc
This article/lecture's first main argument seems to function mainly as an introduction to the concept of "new media" and points out that in this unit "new media" basically refers to "digital media".
Digital, as opposed to analogue means that actual "stuff" is being translated to code. DIGITal is called that because it's made out of DIGITS. Whereas analgue data actually gets physically stored, be it by picture (on an old fashioned film roll) or ridges (on a gramaphone record.)
Digital is a much smaller/streamlined/FASTER and much more precise way of saving and sending files and data. The data is translated into a code made out of 1's and 0's and transferred to the other end where it gets translated back into actual stuff. Of course there can be glitches where the code doesn't arrive 100% correctly which can then lead into a file having a little mistake in it which can cause it to not work at all.
Most of all digital enables to send much more data in less space, if that makes sense at all.
For example: Analogue telly where the airwaves send the actual pictures can only broadcast 5 channels (and in some areas only 4) where as the digital freeview terrestial technology enables 30-ish channels to be sent through the airwaves because they are turned into code first. But in order to receive them you need equipment that can translate the code back into the actual channels. In this case the infamous freeview box we all love so much. But because the broadcast has been turned into a code first and the whole code is translated back to visual/sound the data arrives much clearer which is why digital usually has a sharper picture than analogue. However, sometimes some part of the code can't get picked up properly by the aerial which then causes little parts of missing data which results in those little squary bits on the screen we see sometimes or the picture freezing for a moment. Luckily the box arrives data all the time so the error usually doesn't last very long whereas an error in the sending of one particular file could result in the whole thing not working.
Because things like the internet and mobile communications require a lot of data to be sent continuesly, there is no way things like the internet (esp. broadband!) could've worked if it was based on analogue technology. So yeah, it pretty much can be said that we owe a lot to digital technology and that the arrival of digital technology has changed our daily lives a lot, considering how many things we use every day (mobile/tv/internet, or even mobile TV though the internet!!) wouldn't have existed otherwise!
More to come soon! Esp. more things of how it affects us and stuff.
This article/lecture's first main argument seems to function mainly as an introduction to the concept of "new media" and points out that in this unit "new media" basically refers to "digital media".
Digital, as opposed to analogue means that actual "stuff" is being translated to code. DIGITal is called that because it's made out of DIGITS. Whereas analgue data actually gets physically stored, be it by picture (on an old fashioned film roll) or ridges (on a gramaphone record.)
Digital is a much smaller/streamlined/FASTER and much more precise way of saving and sending files and data. The data is translated into a code made out of 1's and 0's and transferred to the other end where it gets translated back into actual stuff. Of course there can be glitches where the code doesn't arrive 100% correctly which can then lead into a file having a little mistake in it which can cause it to not work at all.
Most of all digital enables to send much more data in less space, if that makes sense at all.
For example: Analogue telly where the airwaves send the actual pictures can only broadcast 5 channels (and in some areas only 4) where as the digital freeview terrestial technology enables 30-ish channels to be sent through the airwaves because they are turned into code first. But in order to receive them you need equipment that can translate the code back into the actual channels. In this case the infamous freeview box we all love so much. But because the broadcast has been turned into a code first and the whole code is translated back to visual/sound the data arrives much clearer which is why digital usually has a sharper picture than analogue. However, sometimes some part of the code can't get picked up properly by the aerial which then causes little parts of missing data which results in those little squary bits on the screen we see sometimes or the picture freezing for a moment. Luckily the box arrives data all the time so the error usually doesn't last very long whereas an error in the sending of one particular file could result in the whole thing not working.
Because things like the internet and mobile communications require a lot of data to be sent continuesly, there is no way things like the internet (esp. broadband!) could've worked if it was based on analogue technology. So yeah, it pretty much can be said that we owe a lot to digital technology and that the arrival of digital technology has changed our daily lives a lot, considering how many things we use every day (mobile/tv/internet, or even mobile TV though the internet!!) wouldn't have existed otherwise!
More to come soon! Esp. more things of how it affects us and stuff.
Tuesday, 20 January 2009
Lecture 20/01/2009
Today's lecture, which for our particular group happened to be after our first tutorial-thingy, was a basic introduction for this unit.
We need to keep up with out blogs on a week-by-week basis as they really will be assessed per week. In our blog entries we are required to address the findings of our research and our own opinions of it. Then fellow group members can respond to it, hopefully turning the whole thing into a bit of the discussion about the whole thing. After 10 weeks we'll drop this method in favour of an essay.
We were told that even the whole title of the unit "new media" is one that can be questioned as every form is media can be regarded "new" when they were first introduced.
We also got told some stuff about "netiquette" (how you're supposed to behave in our online communications) and the meaning of the term "RINCY" (Read it, no comments yet.)
Also, we were asked to post blog entires about this weeks reading/lecture as found on MC home.
We need to keep up with out blogs on a week-by-week basis as they really will be assessed per week. In our blog entries we are required to address the findings of our research and our own opinions of it. Then fellow group members can respond to it, hopefully turning the whole thing into a bit of the discussion about the whole thing. After 10 weeks we'll drop this method in favour of an essay.
We were told that even the whole title of the unit "new media" is one that can be questioned as every form is media can be regarded "new" when they were first introduced.
We also got told some stuff about "netiquette" (how you're supposed to behave in our online communications) and the meaning of the term "RINCY" (Read it, no comments yet.)
Also, we were asked to post blog entires about this weeks reading/lecture as found on MC home.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
