Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Trouble watching video?
If you're having trouble viewing the video I put a link to, you can paste it into your browser and it should work. Not sure what I did wrong! sorry!
Authority, Web 2.0 and the evil Wikipedia
This week's lectures brought up a few things (out of the many) I didn't know about the Internet. I had never actually heard of Web 1.0 or 2.0 until the wednesday's class! What is of interest to me about the difference between these two are the ideas about there being a "dying distinction" between producers and consumers. For me, the fact that they are merging into one marks an advance in our society as we are able to have input, whether it be facts or opinions, as well as being able to take away knowledge. The only doubts I have about this integration is regarding question of reliability. I guess this is where I should bring Wikipedia up...
As much as I love trawling through Wikipedia as a form of procrastination, I have been told over and over and over again NEVER to reference it in any academic assignment. And I can understand why. Just the other day as an experiment I added myself to the list of Unicol's notable former residents, along with Marc Ellis and Anton Oliver. Needless to say it was changed after just 24 hours, the fact that it was that easy makes me question the reliability in a big way! The experiment in this week's reading was interesting though. The fact that it concluded that "experts rated the articles as more credible than the non-experts" was an interesting outcome. Although, as it said at the end (and because I'm really keen to use some of the knowledge I've been picking up in my stats paper), the sample size in the experiment was small, and this, among other reasons, would suggest that results could not be completely representative of the population of Wikipedia users...
"So what then is the use of an encyclopedia which might be unreliable? For some it is of no use, for others, it's a good starting point." <===== I AGREE!
As for Web 3.0, although I have no idea what the Internet will progress into, a video I found on youtube gives some ideas about where the Internet and technology is heading in the future(visit it here) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fUHtc37MC8&feature=related. Some of it makes alot of sense, like the combining of organisations like Google and Amazon to for "Googlezon" which leads to the personalizing of the Internet,(a sort of tailoring of information for each individual user). The video also talks about the combining of materials from users demographics, interests, previous purchases, essentially our "lives", to form news that is "more relevant than ever before". Although these progressions may not be happening this year as in the video, (which I emphasise, is fictitious!) I have a feeling they are not too far away at all!
See ya!
As much as I love trawling through Wikipedia as a form of procrastination, I have been told over and over and over again NEVER to reference it in any academic assignment. And I can understand why. Just the other day as an experiment I added myself to the list of Unicol's notable former residents, along with Marc Ellis and Anton Oliver. Needless to say it was changed after just 24 hours, the fact that it was that easy makes me question the reliability in a big way! The experiment in this week's reading was interesting though. The fact that it concluded that "experts rated the articles as more credible than the non-experts" was an interesting outcome. Although, as it said at the end (and because I'm really keen to use some of the knowledge I've been picking up in my stats paper), the sample size in the experiment was small, and this, among other reasons, would suggest that results could not be completely representative of the population of Wikipedia users...
"So what then is the use of an encyclopedia which might be unreliable? For some it is of no use, for others, it's a good starting point." <===== I AGREE!
As for Web 3.0, although I have no idea what the Internet will progress into, a video I found on youtube gives some ideas about where the Internet and technology is heading in the future(visit it here) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fUHtc37MC8&feature=related. Some of it makes alot of sense, like the combining of organisations like Google and Amazon to for "Googlezon" which leads to the personalizing of the Internet,(a sort of tailoring of information for each individual user). The video also talks about the combining of materials from users demographics, interests, previous purchases, essentially our "lives", to form news that is "more relevant than ever before". Although these progressions may not be happening this year as in the video, (which I emphasise, is fictitious!) I have a feeling they are not too far away at all!
See ya!
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Virtual Communities and Social Networks
Talking about virtual communities and social networks this week in class, i was really able to relate to examples and use my own experiences to understand the concepts a bit better. I related the strong and weak tie theory to my own relationships with friends and groups of people and as a result I understood how important both forms of ties are to social networking. I personally have groups of close friends with whom I consider "strong ties" but thinking back to before I met them all, I realised that I had "weak ties" with most of them, which then developed after time and events, into strong ties. This made me realise how crucial weak ties are, despite the way the word "weak" gives a connotation of "less importance". As for the idea of "latent ties" that Erika briefly touched on, I know that I have the potential to meet and become friends with an array of new people after becoming friends with people from different cities and countries!
The seminar questions also got me thinking a bit about my online activities and behaviour.
I've decided that trust that I have is similar whether I am associating online or offline and the only qualms I have with online relations is that you never truly know who you are communicating with unless you have tools such as webcams etc. I would tell my best friend the same things online that I would tell her in person as I trust that she is using the same discretion that she would in either circumstance. When it comes to strangers, I wouldn't share personal information with them both online or face-to-face! As for people that I meet online, there is a huge difference in trust levels. You never know whether you're talking to a 16 year old swedish girl who likes horse-riding and painting or a 46 year old german man who likes pokemon and still lives with his mother... That kind of thing scares me a bit and I think I'm right to be a bit stand-offish!
Anyway, I'd better go!
Over and out
The seminar questions also got me thinking a bit about my online activities and behaviour.
I've decided that trust that I have is similar whether I am associating online or offline and the only qualms I have with online relations is that you never truly know who you are communicating with unless you have tools such as webcams etc. I would tell my best friend the same things online that I would tell her in person as I trust that she is using the same discretion that she would in either circumstance. When it comes to strangers, I wouldn't share personal information with them both online or face-to-face! As for people that I meet online, there is a huge difference in trust levels. You never know whether you're talking to a 16 year old swedish girl who likes horse-riding and painting or a 46 year old german man who likes pokemon and still lives with his mother... That kind of thing scares me a bit and I think I'm right to be a bit stand-offish!
Anyway, I'd better go!
Over and out
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Hackers: Old-school vs New-school
After doing the readings this week you kind of have to feel for "hackers" a bit don't you..? They've been given a tough time by society after having all these movies like "WarGames" and "The Net" bandied around. Most of us (including myself until this weeks lectures) think of hackers as thieving criminals or destructive intellectuals who hack for financial gain or for the pure enjoyment of seeing people suffer. After reading Thomas' article it becomes clear that actual "hackers" (not "crackers") are actually quite ethical, considering themselves the "watchdogs against industry abuses" and even have their own set of unspoken rules "never act maliciously" and "never hack for financial gain", the very rules I would have thought hackers aimed to break!
As for hacktivism, while it can be damaging, as Lucy said "I think using computers to enhance activism, by 'Hacktivism', is important as it provides a new platform for smaller/subordinate voices to be heard . . .". Computers have given a voice to those with little power to be heard, not just concerning hacktivism but with anything on the internet such as blogs or personal web-pages and this could be a stepping stone towards higher equality in the world.
What also struck me as interesting was the sort of conflict between 'old-school' and 'new-school' hackers. The old-school hackers attacking new-school hackers for violating principles that inspired themselves while new-school hackers taking stabs at old-school hackers for selling out and going corporate with their skills, most becoming rich in the process.
And we thought it was society against hackers... It seems like it is really different generations of hackers who are against each other!
As for hacktivism, while it can be damaging, as Lucy said "I think using computers to enhance activism, by 'Hacktivism', is important as it provides a new platform for smaller/subordinate voices to be heard . . .". Computers have given a voice to those with little power to be heard, not just concerning hacktivism but with anything on the internet such as blogs or personal web-pages and this could be a stepping stone towards higher equality in the world.
What also struck me as interesting was the sort of conflict between 'old-school' and 'new-school' hackers. The old-school hackers attacking new-school hackers for violating principles that inspired themselves while new-school hackers taking stabs at old-school hackers for selling out and going corporate with their skills, most becoming rich in the process.
And we thought it was society against hackers... It seems like it is really different generations of hackers who are against each other!
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Telecom confused
Finally installed internet at my flat (which is very exciting) and was flipping through the help booklet trying to install it properly when I spotted an interesting description of 'hackers'. It seems that Telecom has confused 'hackers' for 'crackers' with their description "Hackers will try and break into your computer using their knowledge of security flaws and, once past your computer's defences, they can do pretty much what they like. That means destroying files, stealing information and a whole lot more..."
Just thought it was interesting :D
Just thought it was interesting :D
Monday, March 10, 2008
Post #1- Dazed and confused
So...I'm pretty confused about this whole "blogger" system at the moment , even though it seems like such an easy tool. I've tried to spruce up my profile by adding page elements etc but the "add a page element" is unfortunately nowhere to be seen in my layout! So please forgive my 'less than amazing' profile for now until I sort myself out...
I'm Josephine and I'm majoring in psychology and possibly minoring in coms this year, I'll keep the personal info short though because I'm currently itching to go home and eat.
This week in class the topic of users identities caught my attention the most. Thinking about how we all construct identities online through things as simple as the language we use. It makes me think of the things I read on sites like bebo or myspace which have comments like "hEy bÂyBee! mIsSiN U hEaPz hUn!" which absolutely make me cringe. I guess I immediately create an image in my mind of the person doing the typing based on little more than a few capital letters here and there. Is that me just being judgmental or am I forming my own identity in relation to other identities? Who knows!
David M. Berry's article brought up interesting points about the issues of privacy on the Internet which made me question how appropriate the Internet really is for online groups and communities who wish to keep their activities private from outsiders. While I understand that the Internet is an amazing tool in the way it has no geographical limitations and can therefore bring members of groups from all corners of the world together, I also think that "lurkers" or "harvesters", as creepy as we might find them, do what they do simply because the Internet has made it so easy for them to do so. To protect private groups and communities I think that
"Herring's (1996) attempt to outline an ethic that "... respect[s] the privacy of individual participants while preserving the academic freedom to criticize" is something that needs to be looked into further and perhaps more Internet laws regarding ethics should be created. This said, I think it is important to preserve one's right to examine online activities for research purposes, especially when, as described in the Ian Miles article, technology is gaining such prominence in present times that its effects are so huge and have the need to be examined. Because online services are no longer "mainly restricted to a few professionals", studies of the Internet have great relevance to a large proportion of society these days so this paper should be very interesting and useful and I am looking forward to getting into it!
See you in class
I'm Josephine and I'm majoring in psychology and possibly minoring in coms this year, I'll keep the personal info short though because I'm currently itching to go home and eat.
This week in class the topic of users identities caught my attention the most. Thinking about how we all construct identities online through things as simple as the language we use. It makes me think of the things I read on sites like bebo or myspace which have comments like "hEy bÂyBee! mIsSiN U hEaPz hUn!" which absolutely make me cringe. I guess I immediately create an image in my mind of the person doing the typing based on little more than a few capital letters here and there. Is that me just being judgmental or am I forming my own identity in relation to other identities? Who knows!
David M. Berry's article brought up interesting points about the issues of privacy on the Internet which made me question how appropriate the Internet really is for online groups and communities who wish to keep their activities private from outsiders. While I understand that the Internet is an amazing tool in the way it has no geographical limitations and can therefore bring members of groups from all corners of the world together, I also think that "lurkers" or "harvesters", as creepy as we might find them, do what they do simply because the Internet has made it so easy for them to do so. To protect private groups and communities I think that
"Herring's (1996) attempt to outline an ethic that "... respect[s] the privacy of individual participants while preserving the academic freedom to criticize" is something that needs to be looked into further and perhaps more Internet laws regarding ethics should be created. This said, I think it is important to preserve one's right to examine online activities for research purposes, especially when, as described in the Ian Miles article, technology is gaining such prominence in present times that its effects are so huge and have the need to be examined. Because online services are no longer "mainly restricted to a few professionals", studies of the Internet have great relevance to a large proportion of society these days so this paper should be very interesting and useful and I am looking forward to getting into it!
See you in class
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)