Open Source Software

I didn't go the tute today, how embarrassment, but I will make what I can of the lab materials:

Are ALL the applications collaborative? Do they all involve DIY?
From what I gather, the vast majority of open source software users will never look at the source. (This is merely a personal opinion.) I'd also say that not everything involves DIY, though it is possible... Basically, you decide your own level of involvement.

I brainstormed that:
- famous open source examples are linux and firefox. It was spun out of a corporate entity, and everyone uses it, even nontechnical users.
-Emacs: more estoric application. It's a text editor mostly used by programmers and other power users, and most installations of it are heavily customized because it actively invites that feedback

From a legal perspective, there are two main schools of open source licencing/copyright. There is the GPL - GNU public licence. This says that a) you can't sell the code for profit b) you must provide the source code to any end users if you modify and distribute it. There's the BSD licence, which has it's roots in the Berkely Standard Distribution of unix (not *legally* unix, it must be noted, but unix in the sense that it's a unix-flavoured and compatible system. AT&T own the trademark "UNIX"). It says that the code under it is free, do whatever you want... BSD licenced code can be taken, changed, and sold for a profit under a different licence -- it's simply considered polite to contribute your code back to the project.

I suppose the lesson in all this ambiguity is, GO TO YOUR TUTORIALS.

References:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html

http://www.linfo.org/bsdlicense.html

SecondLife??

Call me old fashioned, but I really don’t understand what the appeal of SecondLife is. I know, I know, people come online to create a new image for themselves, slip into a different persona, and enjoy a new life for a change. But… Still, it’s not for me. I just see it as a waste of time. I read through the Four Corners transcript, and I see it was trying to inspire me to get excited about the phenomena that is SL. I read it with an open mind, but I am still not moved by the idea. At all!

Maybe I am young and naïve, but I just don’t know why some people need to turn to a ‘virtual life’ to satisfy themselves? How sitting in front of a computer, living a fake reality is somehow fulfilling? I don’t mean to offend anyone. I just don’t understand!

I imagine some people are living a life online that they feel they couldn’t have in real life… for example, some are promiscuous… I imagine in reality they might be married, or perpetually single – so perhaps SL has an element of wishful thinking attached? I’m young and fond of my life. I’m at that post-adolescent idealistic stage where I think I can be whatever and whoever I want to be. Could that be why I don’t want to join up?

I suppose it comes down to a different value system. I value my friends and family, my pets, my housemates, my house, my possessions, my garden… I love going to uni. I wont go as far as to say I love catching the bus and running down George St everyday, but you get the idea. I love life… It’s the best thing in the world. To me, what I achieve physically, mentally and emotionally in a day is much more important than what happens virtually. I’m not a virtual millionaire… but who cares?

No matter how much I read or how many testimonials I hear… I don’t think I will ever join SL. A brisk walk around my suburb, a coffee with friends, making my boyfriend smile, a stroll through the markets… That is what I enjoy. Not developing a weightless avatar in cyberspace.

“After a hasty makeover, the next lesson is how to communicate. In 'Second Life' you don't talk, you and your avatar type.
There's a parrot. Oh, "How to talk." "Hello...Polly". "Hello, Polly."
Polly didn't reply.” (Four Corners)

^^ I enjoy talking and I’m a terrible typist. I can’t imagine going even one day without a single conversation… My worst nightmare!

I suppose I think that spending hours online to me, is a waste of FIRST life.

[nb. This is my honest opinion, I don’t mean to disrespect any SL fans, I’m happy for you if you enjoy it! Hopefully this will provoke some comments though! Please disagree with me, I want to be enlightened!!]

References:
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2007/s1876134.htm

Produsage...

Web 2.0 is a concept that is difficult to grasp, but I am satisfied that I finally understand! I interpret it, from the information delivered in class as well as readings direct from O'Reilly, as being the mechanism that allows and encourages us to contribute and share knowledge, ideas, creativity in all forms online. It is all about participation and interaction.

I agree with Axel Bruns who suggests that, despite the paradigm shift, web 2.o is poorly understood -- perhaps due to the fact that it is inadequately theorized. In the broadest of terms, his idea of 'produsage' refers to anything that actively involves the end user as a participant. (It form as a hybrid of production and usage.)

In contrast to the readings and lecture material, there are a number of articles in First Monday that oppose aspects of Web 2.0. I found Petersen's Loser Generated Content: From Participation to Exploitation quite interesting. He argues that Web 2.0 encourages us to participate but then 'sells us out' if you will, for commercial gain. This seems like a pretty pessimistic outlook, however he has a valid point. He uses the examples of myspace, flickr and Last.fm being sold for unbelieveable sums of money. No the networking site cannot claim ownership of the individual content, however it is the user 'community' and participation that is sold. The proof is there. Are we merely being exploited? Are users the new commodities that can be bought and sold?

Well, I would feel like an idiot if that is the case. Pleasure doing business with you, Blogger.

References:
Axel Bruns – Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life and Beyond: From Production to Produsage (ch. 1) Axel Bruns – "Produsage: Towards a Broader Framework for User-Led Content Creation

http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2141/1948

Thank you, youtube...

I just found a different video that also answers the question: WHAT IS WEB 2.0???
For those of you in KCB201, I found this one a little more informative. We've all heard of the buzz words, but now they are actually explained.



OT: I get the impression that every Web 2.0 enthusiast gets a kick out of doodling on a white board during his/her presentation.

Week 7 tutorial - From Production to Produsage

Hello! Today I re-read over this blog, only to realise that I have failed to actually say much about myself. Well that's about to change...

You've probably picked up on this from reading the title but surprise, surprise my name is EMMA! I am not usually so blunt, however this blog is for academic purposes. I'm 20 years old and I study Creative Industries (Media and Communication)/Law at QUT, Brisbane, Australia. (Believe it or not I did actually read The Handbook for Bloggers & Cyber Dissidents, specifically the chapter on how to blog anonymously...)

This week I am becoming more familiar with blogging. I will admit, I find it all a bit daunting. With an increase in networking through sites like del.icio.us, my little rants could find their way onto the computer screens of academics, industry-based professionals and other members of the public... It's a tough crowd! On the other hand, maybe no one will visit. I might be too boring and drive everyone away?!!


In relation to this weeks material, as a law student and dedicated nerd, I found the EFF: Legal Guide for Bloggers quite interesting. It's great to be able to read through guides which will assist me in blogging, as it's something that I am quite unfamiliar with. I found that while it is annoying to be ethical at times; for e.g. by referencing intellectual property/respecting privacy rights, it's something I feel quite strongly about. I will endevour to be a 'responsible blogger' as I feel it increases fairness and credibility. Moving on...

If truth be told, I actually wasn't at the tutorial this week. Regardless, I did the readings and specifically for the purposes of this blog, I found a copy of the tute question to discuss. Please, leave all applause until the end.

How is Web 2.0 different from Web 1.0?
I noted that Web 2.0 is based on collaboration between users. In contrast, older websites (web 1.0) were wellknown avenues of one-way information. This point is summarised well in the youtube video featuring Tim O'Reilly, who describes 2.0 as a platform where users add value.



References:
http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=542
http://w2.eff.org/bloggers/lg/

Voyeurism

As discussed in my last blog, online communities are not about proximity – unlike most ‘real life’ communities. Rather, they are more about common interest and or values. I discussed how in certain circumstances, political circles can segregate themselves by flocking together in their own eco-chamber. I’ve been thinking a lot about this, though I’ve shifted my focus to morally unacceptable behaviour i.e., deviant virtual culture.

Voyeurism is always something my parents were concerned about while I was growing up, as we lived in a house that faced a park. At night when the lights were on, anyone in the park could see in at what we were doing. I can understand my parents concern, as you know about the types that frequent public parks in the middle of the night.

Lurking doesn’t just take place in the bushes, however. In fact, the internet has provided society with the perfect tool to hone in on someone in particular. We’re all our own private investigators. I bet everyone reading this is guilty of internet voyeurism/lurking to some extent. I do it! I love to stalk around on myspace... Nobody knows I'm looking! Excuses aside, the internet lurking is a pretty scary thing, considering what is out there for people to find. Since creating this blog for an assignment, I’ve been looking around on Blogger and actually came across an old blog of a guy I went to school with. I mentioned it to him and after getting embarrassed he said something along the lines of “oh man, I don’t even remember that. I thought I deleted all that stuff”. I suppose we all forget how easy it is to put things on the internet without considering the consequences.

Flew outlines the option of having one or more online ‘personas’. He discusses how some people deliberately participate in the act of ‘trolling’; making misleading statements to fool people in particular online communities. His example was those who pose as medical professionals which could potentially endanger the lives of others. I thought in particular to the shocking case of Megan Meier, a girl who killed herself after being tricked by some school yard bullies over myspace. Read more about this here: http://www.bloggernews.net/111714

In retrospect, I can definitely see how having online personas can be a good, safe thing… a creative outlet if you will. However this article brought my attention to many serious issues -- some of which I didn't even know existed! (To be clear, I don't want to suggest that these forms of deviant behaviour are products of the internet. Merely, I believe that the internet encourages it, by allowing people to get away with anti-social behaviour in a variety of different ways.)

I'd like to talk more on this, especially since I think this post is a bit ambiguous... I'm not sure what I'm trying to say, I think I will need to do some further reading.

References:
Flew, Terry. (2005). Virtual Cultures in Flew, Terry, New media : an introduction, Melbourne: OUP, pp.61-82.

Virtual Communities

I will now give my two-cents on this weeks reading.

The word ‘community’ is flung around often in this article. Flew notes that it is a warm and persuasive word; one that never seems to be used unfavourably. It’s true, I for one associate ‘community’ with words like bonding, relationships, common interest, safety... For example my online community consists of friends and relatives on facebook, and I suppose my online contacts on MSN (which I hate to admit, is still my guilty pleasure). Similarly, a male acquaintance of mine is an avid follower of Neil Strauss (creator of “the game”) and belongs to a closed virtual community. It’s basically a forum for Brisbane pick-up artists involved with “gaming” to swap advice and experiences. My curiosity got the better of me and I tried to log on once – much to my dismay, it’s locked and you cannot join unless you’re invited/initiated (by the way, this happens in person… another example of online and ‘real life’ cultures converging!).

I got thinking about this. They all seem pretty full of themselves, which is why I assumed the community was locked… on the other hand, after reading Flew’s article I wonder if maybe they are just trying to remain exclusive. What I mean is, it’s quite common for communities to be infiltrated by those with a dramatically different point of view, often to upset the other members. (In this case, that would have been me!). In further support of this, I can incorporate one of the sites I found via del.icio.us (See? It all comes together now!). In Boyd’s Social Technology and Democracy, he coins the term ‘homophily’ online, to suggest that people with common interests join the same online communities. This yields positive and negative repercussions… He uses an example in the text of when an online community of cat lovers were infiltrated by a “tasteless” website. You can just imagine what happened there.

I love the way I can type an area of interest into google and find websites and forums full of like-minded individuals. Furthermore, I like cats and am sympathetic of the online attack from the so-called “tasteless” website.

Cats

Regardless, I can’t help but associate closed/locked online communities with the word “segregation”. It’s unfortunate that some communities are infiltrated, however, that’s the way the world is… We all have differing opinions! I am of the view, and Boyd’s article supports this claim, that virtual communities become disjointed from the “real world” if they lack balance. I will go one step further to suggest that this is when they can become dangerous (more on this further on).

Boyd provides an example for lack of balance; the Berkley Anti 54 movement. Many Berkley students protested this online, however they were clustered together in student communities; specific to their college. This created an 'eco-chamber' of similiar views and didn’t allow the movement to reach the mainstream media. Boyd claims that despite convergence culture, micro-cultures can form and trap users into a segregated online cluster.

Flew also discusses this notion. He mentions that for some people, the internet is a way to escape social situations in which you could feel awkward, by only connecting to like-minded individuals. In a political context, this can mean creating “electronic equivalents of the gated communities and architectural barriers that offer the well-to-do freedom from troubles associated with the urban underclass". My interpretation of this is that the internet can deliberately create new means of segregation. This could actually increase the upper class power struggle and vicariously, continue to oppress those underprivileged or in the minority. This can segue nicely into a ramble about the digital divide but I will save that for another time.

Last but not least, I question the term “community” in a virtual context. Sure, it offers like minded people a chance to share advice, thoughts and ideas, but what about in a morally unacceptable context? I am going to dwell on this for the time being.

References:
Flew, Terry. (2005). Virtual Cultures in Flew, Terry, New media : an introduction, Melbourne: OUP, pp.61-82.
Boyd, D. 2005. Social Technology and Democracy. http://www.danah.org/papers/ExtremeDemocracy.pdf (accessed April 12, 2008)

Week 6 Tutorial - Terry Flew's "Virtual Cultures"

How do online cultures organise themselves?

In the article New Media: An Introduction, Terry Flew discusses how online and offline cultures organise themselves. He suggests that the Internet has never been strictly a mechanical process, rather something that has always benefited from social influence and human engagement. It is with this reasoning that he claims online culture is not a separate entity, rather one that integrates and co-exists with our 'real life' culture.

In class I was asked to relate this to my own personal Internet usage to see if I agreed with Flew's statement. This was an eye-opener, because I have never considered myself to have an 'online culture'... I don't play warcraft, I don't use Secondlife... I surf the net all the time out of interest and for uni, but apart from email, my only social networking was in places like facebook. This however, is where I found my offline and online cultures converging. I thought about how the main purpose of facebook is to interact with people, especially those I've lost touch with since finishing school. This departs completely from it's virtual mechanism aspect and focuses more on blurring the line between virtual correspondence and real life interaction. In other words, although some of us participate in a virtual culture, a lot of the time it is based on social relationships and/or previous human interaction.

I found this weeks reading and tute material particularly interesting. And now here I am with a blog! I suppose now I can consider this part of my ever-growing virtual community.

Refererence:
Flew, Terry. (2005). Virtual Cultures in Flew, Terry, New media : an introduction, Melbourne: OUP, pp.61-82.

My very first post... Congratulations.

This is my first post! Now I can say I'm 'on the web'.