Citizen journalism is a part of today's web 2.0 (also called participatory journalism). You don't have to be an educated journalist or have the job title journalist to publish a story. You don't even have to send your article or your opinion to a publisher to get your story published. You can just write a blog and there you go. You've published your own story for everyone to read. But a blog is not only for you to publish your story. When you open a blog you also open for everyone to comment on your blog (Steve Outing, 2005). Everyone is free to have their own opinion and they/we also are when it comes to articles printed in newspapers or elsewhere. But with citizen journalism it's open for everyone to publish their opinion for everyone instead of just having the chance telling your friends and family, and trying to publish a story in a paper. In a blog your story and your view is there to be criticized in any way at any time.
I've never tried blogging before I started this assignment and I don't know if I'm going to continue when I'm done with KCB201. This is simply because I don't like to write. But this does not mean I don't have any views on what I read or hear about. I guess I'll continue the "old fashion way" and just tell my ideas in person to friends, family or whomever I talk to. When this is said I don't mind people blogging at all. I think it is an easy way for people today to engage with what happens in the world either it is a world crisis or simply celebrity gossip.
Tuesday, 13 May 2008
Sunday, 4 May 2008
web 1.0 vs web 2.0
Around 2004 the name Web 2.0 became a frequent phenomenon around the world. This was
Tim O'Reillys conference around the topic. This has made many people speculate in if there is a difference between O'Reillys new Web 2.0 and the old Web 1.0 and if the Web 2.0 was really a new web. It can be hard to find clear borders between the two facts and maybe there are no really definite separation between them. We can look at Web 2.0 as a development of Web 1.0. But I will try to show some differences between the two.
When it comes to Web 1.0 internet pages were controlled by web masters. It was the web masters responsibility to update the pages. With Web 2.0 you can still have a web master who does this, but the consumers are also invited to contribute. As the video says people gather and interact. As O'Reilly says it is collective intelligence. I see it as the web masters are not the ones with the correct answer, they do not know everything. Not one person is the best to run a page online, but several persons together. Together they (or we) are collecting information, experience and knowledge and publishing it. Together everyone is making sure to update, give information and practise publishing.
Tim O'Reillys conference around the topic. This has made many people speculate in if there is a difference between O'Reillys new Web 2.0 and the old Web 1.0 and if the Web 2.0 was really a new web. It can be hard to find clear borders between the two facts and maybe there are no really definite separation between them. We can look at Web 2.0 as a development of Web 1.0. But I will try to show some differences between the two.
When it comes to Web 1.0 internet pages were controlled by web masters. It was the web masters responsibility to update the pages. With Web 2.0 you can still have a web master who does this, but the consumers are also invited to contribute. As the video says people gather and interact. As O'Reilly says it is collective intelligence. I see it as the web masters are not the ones with the correct answer, they do not know everything. Not one person is the best to run a page online, but several persons together. Together they (or we) are collecting information, experience and knowledge and publishing it. Together everyone is making sure to update, give information and practise publishing.
Wednesday, 30 April 2008
contibution to new media
Both Axel Burns and Henry Jenkins (2006) talks about the fact that the users of today's media are no longer a passive audience but rather an active contributor. The way I see it this is a way to include everyone (as far as they have access to media) and a way of saying that two brains work better than one. When people get the chance to participate in for example software development it is not to make a finish product but to keep on improving what was started. This way an invention can always get better. As Axel Burns says it is an unfinished product which keeps on getting better through gathering knowledge.
One good example Burns uses is Wikipedia. It is an encyclopedia but it is never brought to an end and made a book out of it. Instead you can read an article on Wikipedia and if you feel that you know more about the topic than what the article say you can add what you know. But when everyone can participate it is easy to question the quality of the articles added to Wikipedia or to the other 'products' that invites the audience to contribution. In one way Wikipedia has fixed this with referencing (as you would reference any other article). But at the same time there have been articles published that should not have been. Again Wikipedia wants to be of good quality and says that they will block people who edit an article wrong. So even though everyone are invited to join there is a kind of quality check of what you are contributing.
One good example Burns uses is Wikipedia. It is an encyclopedia but it is never brought to an end and made a book out of it. Instead you can read an article on Wikipedia and if you feel that you know more about the topic than what the article say you can add what you know. But when everyone can participate it is easy to question the quality of the articles added to Wikipedia or to the other 'products' that invites the audience to contribution. In one way Wikipedia has fixed this with referencing (as you would reference any other article). But at the same time there have been articles published that should not have been. Again Wikipedia wants to be of good quality and says that they will block people who edit an article wrong. So even though everyone are invited to join there is a kind of quality check of what you are contributing.
Tuesday, 29 April 2008
Do I need all in one?
Henry Jenkins brings up the opportunity for today's media to collaborate with each other (2006). When it comes to different medias working together it is amazing what they can make. It is impressive how I can with a small thing like my mobile phone do all the other things than just calling to people. If I have a camera on my mobile phone I do not really need to buy a camera on its own. And if I see something out of the ordinary I can just pick up my phone and take a picture of it. How handy! If the phone also has a mp3 player I will save room in my pocket since I do not need to by one. It seems very convenient and it saves much space in my bag. If I also can browse the Internet on my mobile I do not have to find a computer every time I want to search for or check something. On a busy day this could be really helpful. I have never in my life needed a video camera and I never really wanted one. But after I got my new phone which got one I occasionally find things I honestly feel I have to film. When I started to think back I found out I did not really need to send photos to my friends randomly before I got a camera on my phone. So maybe people do not need all the different tools in one device but feel the call to use it when it is already there. It can be convenient if you need all the different tools but for me I have realised it is too much. I have so many things on my mobile I do not even use.
It can be compared to the Swiss army knife. It is a knife but it is also so much more. It is a multi tool with bottle opener, screw driver, reamer and so much more. It is like a small toolbox. But now this knife is not only a toolbox anymore. It is also a mp3 player and a USB flash drive. It is both a toolbox and a technological device. As I said before; it is impressive how you can have one device but at the same time have all the tools you need for whatever occasion I would happened to bump into. But if I was walking around with a Swiss army knife for a week I am pretty sure I would not even use half of the tools it got because I do not really need them.
It can be compared to the Swiss army knife. It is a knife but it is also so much more. It is a multi tool with bottle opener, screw driver, reamer and so much more. It is like a small toolbox. But now this knife is not only a toolbox anymore. It is also a mp3 player and a USB flash drive. It is both a toolbox and a technological device. As I said before; it is impressive how you can have one device but at the same time have all the tools you need for whatever occasion I would happened to bump into. But if I was walking around with a Swiss army knife for a week I am pretty sure I would not even use half of the tools it got because I do not really need them.
Monday, 28 April 2008
Data, information, knowledge and wisdom
Bellinger, Castro and Mills defines the words data, information, knowledge and wisdom. The way I understand it data is the ground level and does not make sense all alone. This is what information is 'made' of. Further knowledge comes out of information. When you can understand the knowledge and use it in other context it is becoming wisdom. To get wisdom you first of all need raw material. This raw material is what Bellinger, Castro and Mills call symbols (2004). When the symbols are connected together in different ways so it gives a meaning it becomes information. The next step is knowledge and this is beneficial information. However this does not mean that you have to understand the information. This can be something you just memorize but do not really catch. When you work with the knowledge, reflect and try to understand it you are working towards wisdom. You put different knowledge you have together and analyse it. This is being in the learning zone trying to understand the information. Wisdom is when you understand the knowledge you have. When you can use the knowledge in other settings it is wisdom. According to Bellinger, Castro and Mills (2004) wisdom is something only people can have and it goes deeper then understanding, and to have/get wisdom you need a soul.
So as a human being I know I can have something a computer or a book does not have. I can have wisdom. The way I see it I need a brain to think, reflect and analyse my knowledge. But I also know I can use for example computers (Internet) to get this knowledge and learn. I can use this tool to get data, information and knowledge. Out of this I can go deeper in to what I read and hopefully this will become wisdom. The wisdom needs to be built up of something. It can not just be there without the raw material, and we have to get this raw material from somewhere. In today's society Internet is an easy access to this data we need to get to our wisdom.
What we see here is that information is data but data is not necessarily information. Knowledge is information but information does not have to be knowledge. And it is the same with wisdom. Wisdom is data, information and knowledge (and what goes deeper then that) but data, information and knowledge does not have to be wisdom.
So as a human being I know I can have something a computer or a book does not have. I can have wisdom. The way I see it I need a brain to think, reflect and analyse my knowledge. But I also know I can use for example computers (Internet) to get this knowledge and learn. I can use this tool to get data, information and knowledge. Out of this I can go deeper in to what I read and hopefully this will become wisdom. The wisdom needs to be built up of something. It can not just be there without the raw material, and we have to get this raw material from somewhere. In today's society Internet is an easy access to this data we need to get to our wisdom.
What we see here is that information is data but data is not necessarily information. Knowledge is information but information does not have to be knowledge. And it is the same with wisdom. Wisdom is data, information and knowledge (and what goes deeper then that) but data, information and knowledge does not have to be wisdom.
Advantages of social network
Social network service is a part of the online communities that uses software to create social networks. You can use the social network service for the preferences you would use another online community (as said in the blog about online community), you can use it to just keep in touch with friends and family or you can use it to get to know new people who for example shares your interest. Two popular social networks today are My Space and Facebook. I am only familiar with the use of Facebook. In the beginning when all my friends joined I did not wanted to be a part of it. Why on earth would I put myself out online so everyone who wants to have a look at what I do without talking to me in person. At this time I was living in Norway and did not see the advantages of being a part of a social network. But not much later I found out I was moving to Australia and I wanted to keep in touch with so many people. When I arrived there was so much I wanted to tell friends and family at home and so much I wanted to show them. That was when I found Facebook was useful. I could upload pictures for everyone to see and I could send both short and long messages home to tell them what is going on. For me this is a way to connect with people at home and be a part of their community even though I can not be with them physically. I guess this is what Shirky describes as a way of being a part of a community (Flew 2004). Both my family/friends and I have to send and receive. Not only did I find Facebook convenient when it came to keep in touch with all the people I know at home, I started to add the people I met when I came over to Australia and discovered how easy it was to get invitations to events, know what was going on in the city and how easy it was to contact the people who I did not have phone numbers but wanted to have contact with. So keeping up with old friends and getting new friends is what social networking can be about. Social networking is about socializing (Glasner 2005). And even though I was afraid to put myself "out there" in the beginning in now see many positive sides of being a part of a social network online.
Online community
An online community is a place where you can meet people online. This can be for different purposes like for work, for study, personal interests, gaming, getting new friends or simply just another way of keeping in touch with old friends. In today's Western society i think it would be hard for many people if they were given the task to find someone with a special ability without using the World Wide Web or their phone. Many of the people who were asked to do this would probably say that this is a hard task or that it would take so much time. I guess that's an advantage with online communities. It works much quicker than offline. I know I prefer to use the searching tool online for finding resources instead of searching offline because this is more efficiently for me. Using for example the QUT library ebooks search saves me time when I'm writing assignments. I also find that with just using the Google search tool I spend less time finding resources and more time learning, writing and getting new ideas. Not only do is it quicker to use the Internet but it is something I have an easy access to. According to Allan Schweyer 87 % of Americans have Internet access at home which I think would make it easy for them to do a quick search whenever they want to.
As I said an online community does not only have to be an advantage for university work. Imagine when you have finished your degree and are ready to look for a place to work. The Internet is a perfect place to look for different jobs. It is easy both for you and for the persons/companies who wants to employ you. You can find pages with search engines where you type inn what kind of job you would like, where you would like to work (like country, area or city) and press search and you will find the jobs available within your preferences. At the same time you can put your resume out there for the employers to find you. An example of a community where you can both search for a job and employers can search within job seekers is Australian Job Search. Here people can find you or you can find a work place.
According to Allan Schweyer the use of finding jobs online have increased the last few years. He also says that it has become more common for companies to search within online communities to find employers. It is also becoming normal to use referral systems so you can as an employer can refer people you know are worthy for a job. Again I think the use of Internet in these cases are easy and quick, and it is accessible for a lot of people.
As I said an online community does not only have to be an advantage for university work. Imagine when you have finished your degree and are ready to look for a place to work. The Internet is a perfect place to look for different jobs. It is easy both for you and for the persons/companies who wants to employ you. You can find pages with search engines where you type inn what kind of job you would like, where you would like to work (like country, area or city) and press search and you will find the jobs available within your preferences. At the same time you can put your resume out there for the employers to find you. An example of a community where you can both search for a job and employers can search within job seekers is Australian Job Search. Here people can find you or you can find a work place.
According to Allan Schweyer the use of finding jobs online have increased the last few years. He also says that it has become more common for companies to search within online communities to find employers. It is also becoming normal to use referral systems so you can as an employer can refer people you know are worthy for a job. Again I think the use of Internet in these cases are easy and quick, and it is accessible for a lot of people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)