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.

From Commercial Production to Produsage

In order to evaluate the differences between traditional forms of commercial production and the new idea of 'produsage' (Bruns, 2008), it is necessary to consider the reasons such a comparison is beneficial to our understanding as members of the information age. That is, we must analyse in some way the reason for the introduction of the new term produsage, and why it is one that is likely to squeeze its way into the ‘words for regular use’ section of our vocabularies.

It would seem that an important step in the comparison between production and ‘produsage’ would be to define the term ‘produsage’. However, when attempting to do so the very nature of the term proves this to be somewhat problematic. Bruns (2008) explains that the need for the term ‘produser’ comes from the fact that,

“…users are always already necessarily also producers of the
shared knowledge base, regardless of whether they are aware of
this role—they have become a new, hybrid, produser.”

As an active participant in producing content, mainly through social networking web sites, I can appreciate the role that I play in contributing to the ‘product’ that is user-lead software. I put this term in inverted commas to highlight the ‘terminological dilemma’ (Bruns, 2008) posed by the existence of opportunities for content to be user-created. That is, that because people can participate in and contribute to virtual cultures and online communities, the ‘product’ as such is never finalised, but is instead being constantly developed and arguably improved.

Bruns (2008) suggests that, “… not the adjectives and qualifiers which we may attach to the term ‘production’ are the problem, but the very noun itself.” From this, it can be plausibly deduced that it is certain behaviours exhibited by consumers when participating in online communities, or contributing to something like open source software, that fuels Bruns’ (2008) suggestion to describe what is occurring as ‘produsage’. Therefore, the differences between commercial production, which Bruns (2008) suggests will never be completely replaced, and produsage lie simply in the opportunity for users and consumers of the ‘product’ to adapt the content to their own personal interests and needs. Traditional commercial production involves the development of products that are offered to consumers to use, but not to broaden or contribute to. Therefore, the problem as such only lies within the terminology used; welcome ‘produsage’.

In order to add consequence to this shift in terminology through my own personal interpretations, I feel I must connect the importance of amending said terminology to the journalism industry. As a traditionally print industry, and one which I hope to enter, I appreciate not only the shift in terminology, but the act of produsage itself. That is, through the opportunity for me to contribute to sites such as this one, Blogger, I am connecting with a potentially global audience through the medium of the internet. Although the credibility of blogging is somewhat debated, I see it as an opportunity for my creative practice as an aspiring journalist to thrive.

Is there a Method to this Madness?

In chapter 4;Virtual Cultures, of his publication New Media: An Introduction, Terry Flew suggests that "[o]ne of the most interesting elements of the development of the Internet as a global communications network has been the rise of virtual communities, or virtual cultures, based around ongoing interactions among those participating in computer-mediated communication (CMC)" (Flew, 2004). When discussing the existence of virtual communities, Flew cites Howard Rheingold as defining virtual communities as “social aggregations that emerge from the Net when enough people carry on … public discussions long enough … to form webs of personal relationships in cyberspace” (Rheingold, 1994). My personal interpretation of the term virtual communities or virtual cultures relates to groups of people who gravitate toward each other in an online environment due to similar interests, study areas, or attributes. It is then through these similarities they communicate and collaborate in order to form a community alternative to any they experience physically.

Having defined what exactly it is we’re talking about, we must ask ourselves how these online communities organise themselves. That is, we must consider the motivations behind participation in online communities; consequentially evaluating the impact this participation in online communities has or will have on physical society as we know it. Additionally, a more serious question of whether people stay true to their physical identities when contributing online must be pondered, as well as the notion of exclusivity and the digital divide. That is, whether people in general are becoming more connected through the opportunity to contribute online or whether society is becoming fragmented by the existence of various individual-specific communities, allowing for people to only communicate with others in their 'comfort zone'.

Flew (2004) argues that online and offline communities are no longer separate, and that online communities now form a part of our everyday physical lives. This argument comes with the challenge that online communities are only available to people with access to them; which sparks multifaceted debate concerning the digital divide. Flew (2004) goes on to suggest that offline communities are traditionally restricted by geographical or physical boundries, and are regulated by social norms and practices. However, online communities allow us to break through these, allowing for what is arguably a more integrated, connected society. Further to this side of debate, 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 others content to develop it further. From this, it can be argued that the journey from Data to Wisdom (DIKW) is fostered through this process, thus connecting society in a way which would be restricted by any offline means.

On the other hand, some may argue that online communities, by virtue of their selective nature, fragment society. This argument depicts a valid traditional argument, while also portraying signs of ‘moral panic’; a term coined by Stanley Cohen (1972), which provides a topic for discussion somewhat superfluous to the topic at hand. This argument is fuelled by the notion of the digital divide, which acknowledges the availability or unavailability of technology to varying socio-economic classes, and thus the exclusion of certain societal groups.

For me personally, I feel that the latter of these arguments is representative of a 'you can't please everyone' paradigm. As an aspiring journalist, this phrase is one which I anticipate to become a mantra of mine in the process of building a career. Whether online communities will connect or fragment 'society' in a general sense is a question which will inevitably fuel constant and evolving discussion.

Til Next Time,
Sarah D

The New Kid on The Block

The buzz word status of Web 2.0 has fuelled a multifaceted debate surrounding the differences between this 'new' development and Web 1.0. It can be put to rest, according to Tim O'Reilly (2004), that the re-branding of the Web 1.0 simply aims to illustrate the changes in the ways software developers and consumers employ the World Wide Web, rather than referring to any technical specifications or changes in technological elements. Furthermore, O'Reilly (2004) describes Web 2.0 as a business which embraces the web as a platform by using its strengths, such as a potentially global audience. Bruns (2008) predicts that "the rise of what is now described as social software or Web 2.0 environments stands to have a profound impact on social practices, the media, economic and legal frameworks, and democratic society itself...". This illustrates that Web 2.0 acts as a catalyst for how consumers are fast becoming producers of their own content, leading into Bruns'(2008) term produser.

Bruns (2008) delineates the need for the term produser by ascertaining that “… the distinctions between producers and users of content have faded into comparative insignificance”. In my opinion, the increasing democracy of the internet, through increasing participation in Web 2.0 environments, will have an impact on not only the things Axel Bruns' (2008) mentions, but also on communication in its most basic form. That is, I agree with what Wesch (2006) points out in his video The Machine is Us/ing Us (see Video link on right hand side of this page); that this participatory manner in which people approach communication via the internet will not only have an impact on social practices, but make society totally rethink values and beliefs, such as family and love, not to mention ourselves as individuals. As a member of a physical society, community and family, it may prove difficult to identify ourselves with the same connection in an online environment. It is my understanding that it is this process which is not only helped but encouraged by Web2.0 environments.

As for how this approach differs from the approach widely employed for Web 1.0, the dissimilarities speak volumes about how produsage (Bruns, 2008) has grown throughout this shift, and thus how the shift from unquestioned consumerism to user-created content has been embraced and utilized. Whilst the products of Web 1.0, Bruns (2008) gives the example of Microsoft Windows, are offered to consumers to use, they are not given to be extended or contributed to (Bruns, 2008). Thus, comparisons can be drawn between this traditional approach to media content as produced by others, and the contemporary and expanding approach of user-created content, or produsage (Bruns, 2008).

To conclude this web log on this particular issue, it must be acknowledged that 'participatory culture', a term coined by Henry Jenkins (2007), is what is being supported by Web2.0 as a thoroughfare into produsage (Bruns, 2008). Bruns (2008) suggests of production and produsage that one will never completely take over the other, but it is this idea which must be questioned by consumers, in order for them to ever fully participate in produsage. That is, if this 'new' way of living and communicating is never going to become the only way, then why must we embrace it? Just some food for thought....

Til next time,

Sarah D