The Blogging Community (reaction to Ch. 2 of Barlow)

In Chapter 2: "The Blogs In Society" of Aaron Barlow's "Blogging America The New Public Sphere," Barlow goes in depth about the society that exists within the blogging community and how it is effecting our "real" society. Barlow quotes Andrew Keen about how the blogging community is vastly growing and how there will be over five hundred million blogs by 2010 if people continue to be active bloggers. It is amazing how there is a community itself amongst the bloggers on the web aside from our "real" community. Being a blogger myself, I can say that I am a member of this blogging community and it did not come to my attention until reading this chapter about how incredibly large this particular community is.

An interesting point Barlow talks about are the criticisms of the blogs and the minimal of filtering when one is blogging and posting up entries for the public's viewing. As stated in the text by Barlow, a criticism many people have about blogging is that it is too easy. However, I am one to disagree with this criticism. I see blogging as writing in your diary except you are able to type it on the computer. Whether the individual decides to post their diary entries as public or not is totally their peragative. However, considering how far this society has come in regards to technology and advancements, writing your journal on the computer should not be made so difficult. It is true that with minimal and in most cases no filtering at all, people are allowed to blog about anything and everything they wish to blog about. With this arises the problem of the readers having problems about the particular topic and the thoughts that an author is blogging about. Barlow discusses the situation of people getting hatred comments to even death comments on their blog posts. Yes, everyone has their freedom on the web to post, say, or do whatever they wish to do so. However, I come in a stance that if it is not something you want to read about, then you should not be reading it. It is unfortunate to see how many people out there are sitting behind the screen sending death threats to people who are writing about particular topics that are not in the reader's favor.

With the threats and negativeness seen throughout the blogging community, people have been arguing for a "Blogging Code of Conduct." This can be understandable in a sense that in communities, there are always rules and regulations you must abide by, and considering the fact that blogging has now formed its own "community," there should be some sort of conduct that bloggers should abide by. However, I do not necessarily agree that this "Blogging Code of Conduct" will be as successful. If someone were to break a code of conduct, the most they can do is disable the user from posting blogs or comments. But if this were to ever happen, who will be the person or group in charge, regulating, and passing these "codes of conduct" to the bloggers? It just does not seem like a realistic idea to me.

With everyone from all over the world using the internet and being a part of the blogging community, it is going to be impossible to make rules and regulations. However, I believe that it can be a lot worse than what it already is due to the fact that there are no rules and that ANYONE can have access to the internet and do whatever they wish to do on it.

Searching for Information (essay #3)

With Web 2.0, social networking has almost become a “norm” amongst our society today. There are sites such as Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, to even sites like YouTube which enables users like you and I to personally update and post information for the public’s view. Cyworld is another one of the many social networking sites that are available. The website is pretty self explanatory. It is a web community where you can build your own cyber world as your personal homepage. It was first launched in South Korea (Cyworld in S. Korea) and has become very popular in a short period of time before making an expansion to the United States.

When researching this particular Web 2.0 tool, the first search engine I chose was Google. Anyone searching for any kind of information on the World Wide Web is quick to jump onto search engines such as Google to obtain what they are looking for. (Tenson, 2004). But hey, can we blame them? Google never seems to fail me while searching for something on the internet.

I began my search on Google with the keyword “cyworld.” The first result was the obvious, the link to the site itself. The second result was the infamous Wikipedia. However, the next result was what I found to be useful. It was an article from BusinessWeek. I knew this was a credible source because it was from a scholarly journal. The article began by talking about a student who is a member of the Cyworld community and began to go on about explaining what exactly Cyworld is and how it works.

From what seemed to be an infinite amount of results from a single keyword search, I was able to find some that were useful, as well as some that were not so useful. An interesting website I came across while browsing through the results was a website called Wikimedia Commons. It seemed to be a website just like Wikipedia, except this site revolved around photographs rather than information posted by the users. Though the result from Wikimedia Commons was not useful to my research, it was interesting to have come across it.

For the next search engine, I wanted to use one that was not as commercialized as Google or Yahoo. However, I am not familiar with many other search engines. So, of course I went on Google and searched “search engines.” It gave me a lot of results, many of them which I have never heard of. I chose to use a search engine called Mamma Metasearch – The Mother of All Search Engines. This time, I used the keyword “about cyworld.” The first two results were the same as Google’s results, the website itself and Wikipedia. The third result was from About.com about social networking sites, which I was a bit skeptical about. It talked about the different sites like MySpace, Facebook, Cyworld, etc, etc. However, the only reason as to why I was not sure if it was a useful source to me was because this particular article was for the purpose of reading comprehension for those who use English as a second language. The next couple of results were the same ones I found on Google, except in a different order. So from searching on Mamma, I came to realize that adding “about” into my keyword search did not help me too much.

The next place I went to hunt for information about this particular Web 2.0 tool was a database from the UAlbany library website called COM Abstracts. Though the searches through the school’s library website is where I would be able to find the most information from a credible, scholarly source, I must say, that this is probably the last search engine I would choose to use when doing a search; especially if it is not required by my professor for me to use the library database. To switch things up a bit, I typed in “history of cyworld” into the search field. However, it did not bring me back a single result. So then I went back and once again, typed in “cyworld” into the search field. Surprisingly, I was only able to obtain one result from this search. From reading the abstract, it seemed as if this article will be helpful as well as credible. However, I was unable to obtain the full text version.

Having to write this essay about the process of my search on a particular topic has helped me think more in depth about searching for information on the WWW, as well as carefully determining whether or not a particular source is credible. Though there are countless numbers of search engines available to us, I am still convinced that Google is my number one choice when searching for something on the World Wide Internet.



Works Cited:

Tensen, Bonnie L. (2004). Research strategies for a digital age (chapter 5). Boston: Wadsworth.

issues on privacy

In October 15th’s reading for class, “The externalities of search 2.0: The emerging privacy threats when the drive for the perfect search engine meets Web2.0” by Michael Zimmer, brought an interesting, yet scary fact to my attention. Zimmer describes in the first section of his article about the quest for the “perfect search engine,” the “perfect reach,” and the “perfect recall.” However, I believe there is no such thing as “perfection,” especially if it is something created by us humans. As every story goes, there is always a bad thing that comes along with the good things, and vice versa. Well, with the vast advancements of technology, Web 2.0 to be specific, it has brought us countless numbers of good things. Then there is the downside, which would be the issue of privacy in this case. While it is very convenient for us to do almost anything and everything on the internet today, we forget that not everyone behind the computer screen is the most innocent person in the world. Cases of identity theft, fraud, and many other crimes have increased as people have been scamming a lot on the internet. I, myself have almost been a victim of a scam very recently as I was trying to sell one of my used textbooks on facebook.

It’s so easy for us to go on a search engine, or any website to search for personal reasons or communicate with others on the internet, not realizing who is reading your information and who is able to obtain any kind of activity you perform while you are online. Many, if not most of us, do not realize or consider the fact that there is nothing “private” on the internet. Any and every information on the “World Wild Web” can be obtained by a complete stranger. This reality came to my attention when my boyfriend’s sister was first starting off her career as a singer in Korea. During the time of her first debut, she made a negative comment on her friend’s private page about another artist. Although it was all fun and jokes between her and her friend, the comment she had made was all over the Korean media in no time. The scary part was that this website is not even a site that many people in Korea use.

No matter how far in technology we get, there will always be some kind of glitch that will affect us in one way or another. With my personal experiences along with Zimmer’s article, I have come to realize that you always have to be careful of what you are doing on the internet and what kind of information you are putting out there for the whole world to have access to with just a simple few clicks of their mouse.

Web 2.0 - reading for 9/24

In Tim O’Reilly’s article “What is Web2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software,” he explains the difference between Web1.0 and Web 2.0 and how Web 2.0 got started. O’Reilly starts off by comparing and contrasting Netscape and Google. He explains that Netscape was made to be sold as a product whereas Google never made an attempt to be sold, but rather to provide service for all users.

Prior to reading this article I did not understand what Web 2.0 exactly was. Though I am still a bit unsure, I have somewhat of an understanding as to what it may be as the article is concluded by an explanation of the 7 important characteristics of Web 2.0.

From O’Reilly’s article, I have concluded that Web 2.0 is pretty much created by us, as in anyone and everyone who interacts on the internet on a daily basis. A good example he gives in the article that have led me to this particular conclusion is the idea of blogging. A thing called RSS has enabled us to be able to subscribe to anyone’s blog and be informed as the author of the particular blog you are subscribed to updates his/her blog. With that being said, without people constantly updating blogs and other people logging on to read these updated blogs, there would be no ongoing interaction on the internet. It would simply be just a place where we can obtain computerized information. Being able to have blogs on the web allows us to interact with others on a different level. For an example, some people might use their blogs to write about personal things that they do not wish to speak to someone else about on a personal level, yet wishes that someone out there would be able to read it.

With the birth of Web 2.0, using the internet has become a great deal of advantage to us. Not that it was ever a disadvantage before, but there are far less limitations as to what we can and cannot do on the web.

Advancements of the media & web

In chapter 3 of Jason Whitaker’s The Internet: The Basics, he explains in depth about the new media and web production. This chapter talked about the development and advancements of the old media. In his introduction, he explains the two main differences between old and new media, which are the movement towards digitization and what the advancements of digitization have to offer in terms of interacting. He then moves on by explaining in categories the different topics in the web such as hypertext, audio/video, java scripts, HTML, layouts of web pages, and etc.
Today the web is used constantly in our everyday lives and more than half of us do not realize the works or history behind it. Through the movement from analog format to digitization, we are now able to achieve greater things such as having a wide variety when one is trying to make a web page.

It is fascinating to me how we have such technology and advancements to use such things as HTML to link from one page to another, and have the option of changing our font or color schemes while making our own personal web pages.

Although Whitaker takes this chapter and approaches to explain each topic of advancement with the before and after, I felt that this reading was difficult; especially for someone like myself, who is not familiar with the “works” behind the web.

communicating on the internet (reaction to Kollock & Smith)

In the reading by Peter Kollock and March Smith called “Managing the Virtual Commons: Cooperation and Conflict in Computer Communities,” it discusses many issues having to do with communicating on the internet such as the problem of cooperation, the Usenet, social dilemmas in cyberspace, and managing the virtual commons. With the rise of the internet, a lot of good things have come out of it as well as the bad things. As I mentioned in my reaction to the first reading by Adams & Clark, people have become so dependent on technology that we no longer have to go out and do simple little things for ourselves. This would include communication. Computer-mediated communication systems such as the Usenet can be very helpful to us. However, it can also lead to some sort of miscommunication as well. As stated in the first section of the reading by Kollock and Smith, cooperation becomes very hard when you are communicating in the internet. Systems such as the Usenet enable people to filter out what they want and do not want to read. Therefore, while posting things on forums and sending out mass e-mails about a certain topic, there may be a lack of cooperation due to people not thoroughly reading everything there is to read about that certain topic. There was a short discussion in one of our previous class sessions about how communicating on the internet can alter the meaning of a message someone is trying to get across. A good example of this can be when we are e-mailing someone or instant messaging. It can also refer to text messaging. When communication is done only through text, you cannot hear the tone of the speaker’s voice or see their body language. I believe communication is more than just talking to someone verbally. You cannot clearly get your message across without the use of body language and altering the tone of your voice. As the conclusion of this reading state that “computers are being used, in effect, to manage networks of relationships between people,” I cannot say anything more than the fact that I agree 100%.

Defining Characteristics of the Internet (essay #1)

Due to the vast advancements of technology, we have many options and various forms in which we can communicate. Two major advancements within technology that is often taken for granted today are the internet and television. Because of the fact that these two mediums are available anywhere and everywhere, we take them to be a “necessity” and something that is just there. The internet and the television have their similarities as well as many differences. For starters, they are both forms of entertainment. We have things available such as soap operas, sitcoms, music channels, and etc on television while on the internet we have access to pretty much the same information the television has to offer. We can obtain information from watching the news on television, as well as going online and reading a news article off the web. Though these two technologies serve similar purposes, I believe the internet has a whole lot more to offer, as many other people may agree with me. In chapter 2, Adams & Clark refers to the internet as being a ‘macromedium.’
One major characteristic of the internet is that it is multimediated. Adams & Clarks suggests that the internet is multimediated because “when you visit a webpage, you most likely encounter a wide range of media: graphics, words, sound, and video.” (pg. 55) This statement can apply to when you turn on the television as well. You have different graphics, sounds, and videos while you are tuned into a particular channel on television. However, the television does not give you the option of having two channels on at once. Though there are televisions today that give you the option of having two split screens which are tuned into two different channels, you cannot hear the sounds coming from both channels at the same time. On the internet, you can have as many browsers as you want and you are able to surf the web at your own speed and pace. Also, while without the help of tivo and other recording devices, you cannot watch or save a particular show you were watching and fast forward or rewind to a part you want to rewatch or skip. However, while browsing on the web you have the option of pausing, fast forwarding, rewinding, or revising certain sites as many times as you want. As the television has set times and channels where a certain show is playing, the internet has the flexibility of allowing you to go to whatever website you want to watch, read, or listen to any content you want at any time.
A second characteristic of the internet is hypertextuality. Adams & Clark explains that without hypertextuality, the internet would be just like an ‘easier-to-produce television show.’ As stated in the text, hypertextuality is the ability to link one content to another. Hypertextuality gives us the option of being able to easily navigate from one site to another. The television does not give us this option since we have to channel surf and the only way of knowing what is on another channel is through the channel guide. Hypertextuality allows you to surf the web and end up on a website completely different from what you were originally looking for. This allows us to be able to come across different topics that may interest us, and would never have crossed our minds otherwise.
Another important characteristic of the internet is (a)synchronous. When we communicate synchronously, it means we are communicating at an instant, or at the same time. When our communication is asynchronous, it means it is not at the same time. The internet allows us to communicate while the television does not. Though the television is some type of communication, such as a news message being delivered to a mass audience, it does not give us the option to communicate back and forth at an instant. The internet allows us to obtain information at an instant while being able to put out information on the web instantly as well. The internet gives us the option to communicate one way to a mass audience, communicate one-on-one, or communicate in groups, via chat rooms, mass emailing, or blogs, as well as many other forms.
In my opinion, another defining characteristic of the internet is digitization. This enables us to store and transfer data more efficiently. An example Adams & Clarks gives in the reading is the use of MP3’s and CD’s. It was not too long ago when we had to go out to the store and buy CD’s in order to listen to our favorite tunes. It was time consuming to go out and buy the CD as well as another expense going out of our pockets. However, with the advancements of digitization, we are not able to download our favorite tunes in forms of MP3’s with just a click of a mouse and store it into our computer, MP3 players, and now we are even able to store it into our cell phones. The MP3 example is just one of many. Being able to digitize information by transforming them into bits has made communication a lot easier, faster, and convenient for us.
Finally, the last characteristic is interactive. This characteristic can somewhat go alongside the fact that the internet is multimediated. Being interactive gives you much more options than just channel surfing on the television or switching the stations on the radio. The internet gives you the option of interacting with another person or interacting with different programs. An example of being interactive on the internet on a personal level is chatting or e-mail. In the past, chatting and e-mail was only available through text, which means that you were not able to see or hear the other person. Then you were able to attach files, such as pictures, or sounds. With time, we are now able to chat by video or audio, which means you can actually see and talk to the other person on your computer screen without physically having to be in front of each other.
In conclusion, I believe the five defining characteristics of the internet are mulmimediated, hypertexuality, asynchronous, digitization, and interactive. The advancements of the internet have made it more convenient for us to communicate as well as many other things. Through time, I feel that the internet will be far more advanced that it will soon take over the roles of television, radio, and other forms of entertainment and communication, as it already has started doing so.