One Man's Trash Is Another Man's Treasure

My del.icio.us bookmarks contain many things. Admittedly, I am addicted to fashion magazines, as a direct sibling to my aspiration to forge my career in the magazine industry, thus I have bookmarked more than a handful of websites that serve as my glossy-paged friends in digital format. Additionally, I am interested in how the emergence of virtual cultures and participatory culture is going to affect my career, and thus how these things may impact on the journalism industry as a whole. It only takes a simple search on delicious, or even a few clicks through my network, to find a favourites page completely different to mine. One of these pages would be likely to belong to someone with no interest in fashion, and who believes the journalism industry consists of pushy interviewers with cameras and microphones. And yet, they are still in my network. To me, this seems somewhat problematic.

The resounding theme when evaluating the participation component of online communities is that they provide people with a medium of communication with people of similar interests. Thus, when pondering the example I have given, the question of how online communities evaluate quality of information arises. If people form communities with people who have opposite interests, how then do people separate trash from treasure?

As mentioned in an earlier post, Bruns (2008) suggests that 'consumers' of online content do not contribute individually to these communities, but are continually collaborating, and thus enhancing and enriching each other's content to develop it further. If this is the case for people with opposite interests, I pose the question of how people might develop information that is of almost no interest to them. That is, they will more than likely interpret the information to suit their personal focus, which may not resonate with others in the community. After reading several blogs in my journey through these interpretations of virtual cultures, I have commented on more than one blog suggesting the notion of ‘loser-led’ content; and the suggestion that everyone will have a different framework for evaluating information. This lack of a universal framework may lead to conflict and thus the issue of quality remains.

For me, the most effective way for online communities to evaluate quality is for people to stay loyal to their like minded communities. While fraught with the debate of online communities fragmenting society, it seems the only way for one man’s treasure to be another man’s treasure. Having said this, if the outcome was the opposite, the process would be cyclic and, in my opinion, no progress would necessarily be made in the organisation of information on the internet.
In summary, the process of assigning quality to information, and thus identifying oneself with an online community, is quite individual. The notion of collective intelligence is thus only applicable to certain communities perhaps?

Ponder that one…

Sarah D.

Go Straight to The Source

Before embarking on an investigation of open source software, I have a confession to make. Before today, I had no idea what open source software was. To be completely honest, I would very possibly have selected the term in my vocabulary and dropped it in to the ‘nerdy things you don’t need to know about’ section. Having said this, I do remember my grade eleven Information Technology teacher animatedly explaining something to do with ‘open’ and ‘sauce’, and I guess I was too busy thinking about lunch to pay attention. Now, however, my understanding has matured, and I understand that open source doesn’t refer to what I may put on a sausage roll before consuming it.

Bruns (2008, p37) identifies that “[o]pen source software development provides one of the earliest present-day examples for produsage in action”. However, before considering the value of open source software as a medium of produsage, we must clarify what open source software actually is. In order to do this, I refer to the predicament we face when using the term ‘product’, as outlined by Bruns (2008). Traditionally produced commodities are developed by a producer, who then passes the finished product to a distributor, who finally sells to a consumer. As the notion of produsage outlines, these roles are now blurred, with users or consumers of content having the opportunity to continuously contribute to and extend media ‘products’.

Having delineated produsage from production, further discussed in a previous blog entry, it is now necessary to identify open source software not as products, but as blueprints for produsers to develop through accessing the source code for the software. That is, open source software is named so due to its source being open. This allows consumers a ‘hands on’ approach, rather than a fruitless system where feedback on products is very rarely acted upon promptly. Bruns (2008) explains that the ‘reputational benefits’ that come from sharing information and developments far outweigh any commercial dividends which may present themselves had the information been kept closed. Thus, this ‘new’ system of computer-mediated communication appears to be beneficial to both producers, developers, consumers and produsers alike. I use the term ‘new’ loosely, due to my new found understanding of the role that open source software plays in the ways the internet is employed by people to communicate. As Bruns (2008) reveals, “… few users of the Web are likely to be even remotely aware of the extent to which their … communication is made possible by open source software technologies.” I can safely say that I was certainly not included in the few until this blog entry.

Although I have understood the general idea of open source software, I admittedly struggled to find the relevance of open source software to my future career or my personal interests. Therefore, in order to draw my own conclusions on this topic, I relate the intention behind open source software to magazine production. That is, most magazines dedicate a section to ‘letters to the editor’ or feedback of some sort. This allows me to ponder the impact an open source system may have on a reader’s enjoyment of a magazine. In a digital format, a reader could shape the magazine around their own specific and individual interests… A bridge I’m sure I will cross when I come to it.

You're Missing Out, Grandma... The Great Debate

Unlike previous entries, I dedicate this particular post to my dear grandmother. This may seem strange, as my posts before today rely heavily upon academic sources, but it is after a long and somewhat tiring debate that I blog to reflect on the interesting events that have just unfolded around my family dinner table. The very behaviour I am engaging in now would horrify and confuse poor Grannie.

I believe that what I have just witnessed is a 69-year-old woman in complete ‘moral panic’ mode, a term coined by Stanley Cohen (1972) that I learnt about in my first semester at university. Goode & Ben Yehuda explain a moral panic to be, "...characterised by the feeling... that evildoers pose a threat to society ... and therefore 'something should be done' about them and their behaviour." I believe it is extremely necessary for me to explain that I am in now way suggesting my grandmother is unintelligent, quite the opposite. The debate in which my family, inclusive of two educated in psychology, a senior school drama and history teacher, a student in her final year of an early childhood education degree, a mechanical engineer, and myself – a second year student interested in the ways communication (and thus life) is changing, just took part in all started when one of my sisters spoke the three magic words: “Just Google it”. As innocent as the suggestion seemed, I opened a can of worms by voicing my observation of her dependence on ‘Google logic’, a term which Bruns (2008) explains as a way of “…measuring importance and relevance of information by tracing patterns in large-scale user behaviours.”

In the intriguing dispute that ensued, Grannie voiced her opinion that ‘technology savvy’ people possess an increasing air of superiority due to their use of new technologies and the internet, one which is unfounded and somewhat rude. Further to this, she is quite happy to pay her phone bill at the post office, thank you very much. The Internet: more convenient? Maybe. Necessary? No.

Having argued on topics such as access to news and current affairs and convenience with regard to ‘everyday’ activities (like paying phone bills and sending flowers), the conversation became more fascinating when the topic turned to communication with other people. Having been a devoted pen pal to several people over decades, my grandmother was always going to avidly defend the authenticity of a hand written letter as opposed to “… emotionless text created by a machine” that you would find in an e-mail. Herein lies the moral panic. Not only did Grannie nearly have kittens when the issue of giving credit card details over the internet was required to send someone flowers came up, but rebuttal was futile when trying to convince her that she was ‘missing out’ by not communicating online.

I would like to conclude this entry by drawing on a previous entry. If produsage will never completely overtake production, as Axel Bruns (2008) suggests, then why must we embrace the shift? Not only is my grandmother a fantastic examplar of this notion, but the debate we had opened my eyes to the idea that whilst online communities connect people, the reality of the digital divide is also pushing generations apart, evident by my lack of understanding of the way Grannie goes about her daily life, and vice versa.

Finally, at the end of the day… wouldn’t it be nice to receive a handwritten letter?
My grandmother and I are now pen pals... and I find it so refreshing I don't have to remember another password.

Til Next Time,

Sarah D.