engl4320 : blogpost : 6

•March 8, 2010 • Leave a Comment

community & collaboration

Wow, those were the days. I almost want to cry; the World Wide Web just after birth. Let’s give it a nickname – how about ‘W3’. Sounds too much like a computer or something. Probably won’t catch on. Will it be a lawyer, or a doctor, or ooh, maybe a travel agent? Nope, as we all know it turned out to be all of the above and then some.

Tim Berners-Lee article, “The World Wide Web” was fit for reading back in 1994 but was definitely not standard for 2010. To be fair, it was meant more for educating than entertaining. It had all the seduction of black text on white paper, but I’m sure in 1994 it was widely read – and today, I am so thankful it was. This article was specifically written for the potential the World Wide Web held for online collaboration between widely distributed global communities. At the end of Berners-Lee’s article, the section titled “The Future,” perked me right up and I thought, ‘ha’, now were getting somewhere. I was extremely interested in reading just how accurate their predictions would turn out. I read and was please to learn their Web fundamentals still exist today: document searches based on document names, nonexpert hypertext editors (me), more sophisticated document definitions, and, okay, three-dimensional imaging not quite there yet (but close I’m sure). Oh and here’s the big one: “Easy-to-use servers for low-end machines to ease publication of information by small groups and individuals.” They were talking about me in that one too! Way to go guys!

In classic literary style, Tim Berners-Lee politely closed out his article in this manner: “It is intended that after reading this article you will have an idea of what W3 is, where it fits in with other systems in the field, and where it is going.” Nicely said Tim, and yes sir, I do.

Looking back a bit further from 1994, let’s say about 50 years, we may come across Vannevar Bush’s 1945 article on the proper use of technology. I understand that it very closely resembles 50 plus years into his future, almost in a prophetic kind of way. I can only guess that the reason the article was assigned as reading material is in part due to the eerie comparison to present times. The suggestion of unified collaboration is clearly evident. Bush places emphasis on what the world would be like if mankind joined forces for a common cause. However, I cannot shake the feeling the article, “As We May Think”, is a collection of clever omissions and non-specific facts. Yes, Bush does address specific forms of technology but the speculations of what can be if mankind collaborated are much more generalized. I cannot put my finger on specifically what it is but the overall tone seems vague with a touch of common insight. This is not to say that the article in not well-written, because it is.

And if traveling through time is not enough, a bit of shock and awe might. I don’t think Mr. Berners-Lee had the following use in mind for his fledging protégée. However mind-numbing Julian Dibbell’s long introduction was, “A Rape in Cyberspace” evolved into an interesting read, it just took some intense concentration and re-reading not to give up. I had no idea what a MUD or MOOer was. At the beginning the terminology was too user specific and since I am not a (MUD) user I found myself lost. But after I got past the first few pages setting the stage for the purpose of the chapter, I began to understand. In fact, I was highly interested in how a self-sustaining virtual society would deal with the situation of a virtual rapist. And sadly they didn’t. What it came down to was one lone headsman willing to drop the axe. He didn’t even consult his fellow townsmen. We sat there quietly allowing everyone to have their say. Then after the heated discussions regarding the fate of the virtual rapist, Mr. Bungle, slowly subsided, JoeFeedback, (very likely one of the unnamed wizards of LambdaMOO), came to the conclusion that Mr. Bungle needed to be toaded; and so he was. And I was happy to see him leave with both virtual sadness and joy. My town will never be the same.

What is at the heart of this RL (real-life) versus VR (virtual reality) assault is that to the virtual victims there is RL emotional attachment. Never mind that the rape never ‘really’ existed. The windfall is how it affected not only those assaulted but those in the virtual community as well. After all, there is a (virtual) rapist in their (virtual) neighborhood. While the game was not real the natural responses of the players were honed in a real world society. The problem is that the two, VR and RL, cannot be dealt with in the same manner. In their VR there is not police station and there are no police. The only way to deal with the situation was to call a town meeting and discuss how Mr. Bungle was to be dealt with. The fundamental problem with that is that he could come back ten minutes later as a completely new character and no one would know it was him. In fact, after being toaded, a new character did emerge, with slightly strange habits, and many of the townsfolk came to the conclusion that Mr. Bungle had been reincarnated. There was nothing anyone could do.

Although this was small town business, it was definitely not small town news. No local newspaper carried the story. It was not headline news on ABC, CNN, or FOX. It was probably not even on the Associated Press wire. But it was real to the victims and to the townsfolk. It was real to Mr. Bungle.

How real is the Internet? How does it affect our real lives? Is it really a threat to RL? Well, the answer to that is – yes. The Internet is just as physical as the electrical impulses that pass between our brain’s neural net. People have been fired from their jobs after having posted thoughts or images or simple comments online. Sadly, those that needed to stand at attention during the early days of Internet development were the same ones that tended to keep the public aware of its progress: the News media – but they didn’t. The pure arrogance of those that controlled media empires caused a huge opportunity to go unchecked. It took a lot of catching up by newspapers and television stations but the damage was done and many did not survive. Clay Shirky’s observations in Chapter 3: “Everyone Is A Media Outlet”, of Here Comes Everybody, is clear in its historical analysis of how the News media interpreted the potential of the Internet as a media threat. No one foresaw the rapid relocation of Internet rookies on the couch to Internet veterans on the blogs. A new vehicle of information transfer, the blog, took hold. Newspaper circulation dropped, but why? I can only speak for myself. The last time I held a newspaper subscription was in 1992. About that same time I grew tired of television News ‘personalities’. The nightly News seemed to be fueled by negative stories. I no longer cared about the majority of topics. In a nut shell – I was bored with both newspapers and television, and I rarely logon to and read online News websites. Politics aside, I was not and am not interested. It is far more informative and entertaining to read a variety of stories on a variety of websites from a variety of countries in half the time it takes to watch a 30 minute News broadcast.

engl4320 : blogpost : 5

•March 7, 2010 • Leave a Comment

community & collaboration

The first days of the Internet were surprisingly simple. One person would communicate to another. Signals would pass between them. Others would recognize those signals and join the conversation. The grasslands were tall with gold and brown. A spear was thrown. Success, a prehistoric bison is taken down. The community will survive.

Not much has changed in ten thousand years. It seems though that communities regularly go through changes. The Industrial Revolution created middle class wealth. Sons and daughters no longer needed to live with parents until marriage. What technology gave users was a new sense of freedom from what they had known. It’s ironic when technology comes full circle. Some of the most advanced technology known to man has made the Internet what it is today, yet today’s Internet relies heavily on community and collaboration. Today, a cell phone replaced hunger. High speed fiber optics replaced grunts and hand signals. A teenager replaced the bison. I’m referring to Clay Shirky’s, “It Takes A Village To Find A Phone.” In both scenarios, everyone loses. Yes, even the Neanderthal loses because with each spear thrown he advances his understanding; he loses a bit of innocence. Such is life, progress is inevitable, but the basics of humanity cannot be ignored: community and collaboration.

“It Takes A Village To Find A Phone” is a very animalistic and primordial example of how very little humans have evolved since leaving the safety of the African canopy. This story of the, OMG, lost cell phone was embarrassing to read and even more embarrassing to ponder because it relates to every human being alive today. The situation all boiled down to “which side do you choose” and “have my back – even if you know I’m wrong” attitudes. Societies can be so perfectly immature. This interesting story is an excellent example of social networking. Clay Shirky’s, Here Comes Everybody, must be an interesting read.

Howard Rheingold’s assessment of the history and by-products of collaboration is an insightful interpretation. His tongue-in-cheek approach is intentionally comical but still rings with latent accuracy. He begins his lecture by describing how early humans may have evolved into socially complex societies, first as hunter-gathers, later as creators of the printing press and mass media, and even later as a capitalist-consumed species. I did not really grasp the full concept behind ‘Prisoner’s Dilemma’ and ‘Tragedy of the Commons’, except that sometimes cooperative societies are not always self-destructive; and that successful societies have a tendency to ‘punish’ the cheaters within such societies. This relates back to the “It Takes a Village” scenario. Open-source societies and the basic development of the Internet over the last ten years tend to be successful because of one central concept: trust.

Trust is a key element of collaboration. But it’s a kind of unspoken rule. Kevin Kelly also presents a well-written explanation of the evolution of the internet but from a different perspective. Kelly seems to insist that Internet users today just don’t ‘get’ it. I argue that they do, it’s just subliminal. I see how incredible the internet is. I’m fascinated with what the future will bring. However, nobody can accurately predict the next big evolution for the Internet. I do appreciate the potential for a single ‘thinking’ entity. But we are incapable of ‘seeing’ it while it evolves because that would require knowing of ever advancement in technology at every moment it is created or placed online. Vannevar Bush didn’t see it, Ted Nelson didn’t see it, and we don’t see it, because we can’t see it. And in 2015, they won’t see it because they will be it. In fact, today, we are also it. We can predict it through analysis but we can’t ‘see’ it. Luckily though, we can look back and appreciate it through another decade’s hindsight, and hopefully help even guide it. But really, how can you not ‘get’ it? Well possibly, and this would back up Rheingold’s theory, the common user doesn’t get it because they subconsciously, even impulsively, trust in the basic structure of any (online) community. I think the need to filter thoughts and tuck raw understandings deep into the conscious mind allow humans to act and react intuitively. It’s like downloading the latest update of Quick Time in order to watch videos associated with the current versions – without having to ask ‘why?’. During a bison hunt no one wants to lose a member of the tribe because everyone has a stake in the outcome, but during the hunt you’re not thinking for the other individual, you’re thinking for the group – because you ‘get’ it… intuitively. At one point you had to learn the concept of the hunt, but once you were able to acknowledge that collaboration was the key to success, your mind was free to allow the concept to become somewhat subconscious, absorbed if you will. In other words you ‘got’ it, so now let’s start hunting. The one direct comment that really stood out to me was this,

“The deep enthusiasm for making things, for interacting more deeply than just choosing options, is the great force not reckoned 10 years ago. This impulse for participation has upended the economy and is steadily turning the sphere of social networking – smart mobs, hive minds, and collaborative action – into the main event.” – Kevin Kelly

I wander just how much The Matrix (early 1999, yeah! 1999) influenced what the Internet has become. Just as Star Trek affected NASA developments and NASA research has affected everyday life (please place popcorn label face down).

I believe Kevin Kelly’s explanation of the ‘get’ comment in his Wired article, “We Are the Web”, refers to the rapid, near invisible, online communal creation of One Internet Machine or Mind… one, not billions of hard drives, just one. No longer would there be stand alone desktops or any reason for portable jump drives. All information would be available to anyone accessing it just as seamlessly as we access our own thoughts. Basically the world would not be plugged in because there would be nothing to unplug from. It is fascinating knowing I was an active participant in the early years of the Internet. Although I am not a techno geek, I have always been an ‘interested’ user. Just as Kelly suggests, we are constantly adding to the knowledge of the Internet ‘Machine’. In the early days, while in the military, one of my responsibilities was uploading weather observation data onto several platforms, one of which was the Internet. At that time there was nothing to ‘get’. It was and still is a brain-stem with nerve endings but without a central brain. It has grown in the same way a clock’s minute hand moves or a tree grows… gradually and virtually unseen. But it still has no central core. What Kelly suggests is that it will never have a central core, just as a sea sponge has no brain but lives on its own and feeds itself. But it needs more than information to be self-sustaining. It needs sensitivity. Today, even websites like “We Feel Fine” (Jonathan Harris and Sep Kamvar) show just how much human emotion is available online. Because this website references age, weather, location, and other bits of data, a learning Internet would be able use sites such as this as a sort of ‘second opinion’ for cross-referencing emotional and social tendencies. I get that anything is possible but is a planet size mass of wire and cable and spoon fed information enough to make it a sentient being? It might think so. Ironically, it might become more human as we become less human. It would take unbelievable amount of collective man-hours uploading enough information to the internet to the point it of becoming self-sustaining. Or it might take one computer programmer.

But is all this online collaboration healthy for us? Individuals such as myself, just as I am at this moment, typing away at an essay that will soon be posted on my blog, …is all this alone-time healthy? What about the effects of isolation and lack of physical contact. “We are using life on computer screens to become comfortable with new ways of thinking about evolution, relationships, sexuality, politics, and identity.” This quote was pulled directly from Sherry Turkle’s online article in Wired magazine, “Who Am We?” For me, it makes me feel as part of the community. I feel the isolation allows me to express my thoughts and not those of anyone standing beside me. For me though, I have long been comfortable with my own company as well as that of others. I do not feel I am missing out on anything but just the opposite. And for many, I expect the anonymity of online chatter allows them the opportunity to be a part of something – whether that person is naturally shy or was voted as prom queen in high school. MUD rooms are a good example of that. Everyone has their troubles, everyone gets taken advantage of, everyone has a bright idea, and everyone has an opinion they may not be comfortable expressing in the physical presence of their peers. Everyone is human. And, paradoxically, everyone is attracted to new technologies, even the Amish. Find one person who is not intrigued by it.

My mother uses the internet to track and locate our family’s history. She loves it. She’s quite good at. I don’t think she realizes that she’s contributing every day to the greatest entity know to ever exist. I’ve read articles describing which generational group uses the internet the most, young or old or somewhere in between. But what I find really interesting is this Machine doesn’t care who feeds it. What this Machine has done though is ‘isolate’ the generation gap by placing it in quarantine and is now waiting for society to delete it. I could type one word into a search engine and be given search results somewhere between my mother’s genealogy research and the racist views of a skinhead. As far as my mother is concerned there is no commonality. But the Internet doesn’t think like we do. This new global network reminds me of what our fast-paced culture has been slowly losing. For the most part children not longer live with their parents. The accepted idea of an ‘extended’ family under one roof, for my culture, is so un-American. Yet ironically, the Internet reassures us that networking and the pulling of resources is most likely the one thing we all have in common; electronic roots for an electronic brain. It makes me even more of a humanistic optimist.

engl4320 : blogpost : 4

•February 9, 2010 • Leave a Comment

The wind is blowing pretty hard outside. I’m in the mood for hot cocoa. I wish there were snow on the ground. Is snow plural? Well, at least I have Twitter. I played around with several different images and color combinations. I settled on snow covered trees in Switzerland, olive green background, ice blue highlighted text, and light taupe text in the main body on a white background. Sounds like a recipe for something sinful. I think it’s very soothing to look at. I’m pleased. I’ve been to Switzerland, on vacation while in the military. Fell in love with the place. It was exactly what I expected and more. One of these days I’m going to send a ‘tweet’ from Switzerland. Would that even matter? Steven Johnson’s article, How Twitter Will Change the Way We Live, gives me pause. Although I can see his point, I’ve only been using Twitter for a short time. I think it’s too soon for me to be agreeing with him. I don’t think he’s wrong, I just still see myself as, well, a twirgin. Is that okay? Well, it’s my blog. I get the emotional dependency Twitter releases. I understand the necessity to stay connected. It’s just… well, meeting new friends can be really scary. Even though I’m pretty outgoing, I like to accept my friends slowly. During a conversation with a recently renewed acquaintance I exposed something personal because I chose to. I told her that it takes me usually six months to come to the realization that the person I call friend truly deserves to be called friend. Six months. I have my (personal) space (no pun intended) and to earn a place adjacent to that space a person needs to be honest and willing to be vulnerable. Okay, maybe Twitter has potential. Why on earth would anyone want to create 140 character-long lies? And vulnerable; yes, people who Twitter tend to be openly vulnerable. I like the term “ambient awareness”. Not only does it convey a radiancy about your circle of friends, it also subtly suggests a central point of origin if you happen to get lost.

As an interesting follow-up to Steven Johnson, Huberman, Romero, and Wu seem to be the party-poopers for social networks. In their abstract, Social networks that matter – Twitter under the microscope, Huberman and said company explain that only a handful of individuals, from a declared network of hundreds, are actually regularly communicated with on a routine basis. Emphasizing that limited attention spans and limited time do not allow for a truly open-ended daily network. But to use the analogy of a spider web, the spider doesn’t catch prey by threading its silken spokes close together. A network gets its name by referencing a (fisherman’s) net – thrown wide to catch many. Huberman should set aside his spear of the unknown unless his target is a Buffalo. Twitter is not a beast, it does not have horns nor does it have motive. Ironically, YouTube has gone under similar fire but after watching Michael Wesch’s presentation, An Anthropological Introduction to YouTube, I’m beginning to wonder. After the Industrial Revolution, what did we lose? Are humans really self-centered, materialistic, and naturally bad drivers? I don’t think so. It occurred to me that placing technology (of any kind, be it a laptop or 1920’s Ford) into the hands of thinking machines (humans) could possibly bring out the worst in people. There’s something pleasurable about ownership that cannot be denied, and showing off naturally comes next. So how does that translate to YouTube. It doesn’t. The contents of YouTube cannot be owned and I believe those who post onto it understand that. And it is that simple fact that allows individuals to express their opinions and faults so freely in their videos. YouTube allows us to be human. When was the last time you ‘acted’ human simply for the sake of being human without caring what those around you think? All civilizations have codes of behavior that we are ‘taught’ to adhere to, not through instinct but through nurture. YouTube seems to bring out instinct – spontaneous, uninhibited truths.

Where YouTube allows us to ‘be’ more human, digital media in any format, allows us to ‘think’ more human. The human brain has always had fast-forward, rewind, and pause, but it wasn’t until ‘copy & paste’ did the means of communicating thoughts come even close to replicating the human brain activity. No, I cannot type as fast as I can think but at least on a computer I can edit much quicker than on a typewriter with black ribbon or pencil on paper. Anyone remember White-Out? Yeah, I’m nostalgic, I still use it occasionally, but I much prefer digital editing. Michael Wesch’s video, The Machine is (Changing) Us: YouTube and the Politics of Authenticity, indicates to be that my brain is now externalized through digital media – that brain being the internet – and through other brains as well. It wasn’t so long ago when there was a discussion of how interracial marriages would lead to a single human race in the distant future. Scientists put that concept to rest through careful analysis of basic gene pools. Now we have to address the creation of a single brain. Not one that controls us but one we control through input.

Twitter Application Analysis : Twistori.com

•February 8, 2010 • Leave a Comment

Love : Hate : Think : Believe : Feel : Wish

David L Phillips

What mood are you in right now? Do you ever wonder if others are thinking the same thing you are thinking at this very moment. Well, twistori.com is an ‘experiment’ application that is incredibly addicting. For this application you do not download anything onto your computer or Twitter homepage. Instead, you simply go to twistori.com and select a word on the left of the screen. By linking directly to the primary Twitter stream, you will immediately start receiving real-time twitter activity that starts with the word you chose preceded by the word ‘I’. For example, I selected ‘Hate’ and this is the first ‘tweet’ that came up (followed by a continuous stream of other tweets beginning with ‘I hate…’): “I hate having to share somebody I love so much. I wish it was mine and only mine.” Click on another word and the same thing happens. Sometimes you get corny stuff, sometimes emotional, sometimes one of the tweets makes you stop and think for a moment. I’m almost scared to click on one of the words for fear someone may be exposing some deep dark secret. For each ‘I hate’ response, no Twitter name is associated with the response. I wonder, do they know I’m listening?

As an artist, this is very useful as a reference point for analyzing personalities and character. You can copy and past the tweets as they scroll across your screen in single file. Like individual soldiers, each one marches to it’s own beat. The randomness can be seen as poetic. As an abstract artist, I see individual ‘cracks’. Frozen moments in each Twittarian life. Some are fissures that run shallow and are short lived, while others are confessional fractures that are ready to explode. If you feel like allowing your emotions to ride a roller-coaster of feelings, twister.com is definitely a site to check out.

– David.

engl4320 : blogpost : 4

•February 4, 2010 • Leave a Comment

Posting To Twitter Using My Cell

my response to:

(Cellphone Application)

I really enjoy experimenting with new software and applications. It’s like getting lost in a new city. Well this time I may have gotten a bit too lost. I am not really sure if this qualifies as one of the applications we were to review but here goes.

I noticed somewhere along the line that we could possibly use our cellphones to post to Twitter. I logged onto my carrier, T-Mobile, and found that they did support this feature. I followed the steps to the letter. I was a bit lengthy getting it set up but was well worth it. After several back and forth texts between Twitter and my cell – you know, password, etc., I was ready to go.

I tested all my (hard) work out. Success – it worked! Once installed it is very easy to use. There are several options: You can post new Tweets without have to receive any; you can elect to receive only tweets directed specifically to you; or you can elect to receive all messages. I chose not to receive any messages. By sending a simple “ON”, “OFF” or “START”, “STOP”, text to Twitter, I can easily turn my features on.

What’s the benefits? I’m on the go all the time. Even with a laptop I don’t always have the time to Tweet. In regards to class assignments, I can easily keep up with my “3” Tweet minimum each day. Ya’ll should check this feature out – it’s really great!

– David.

engl4320 : blogpost : 3

•February 4, 2010 • Leave a Comment

What Is A Blog?

my response to:

(Jill) Rettberg

Rettberg explains in very simple terms what a blog is, what type of person is writing a blog, what type of blog they are writing, but most importantly, she explains how to read a blog.  More specifically how you can get the most from a blog.  She explains the three basic types of blogs: Personal Blogs – personal life stories, Filter Blogs – intended to help others find or rate things or services, Topic-driven Blogs – usually the entire blog relating back to one specific idea or topic.  One key element that all blogs should have in common is the frequency to which they or updated, usually daily or on certain cycles.

Lifehacker

my response to:

Gina Trapani

About a year ago my mother told me that when I was little I used to write lists about everything.  To this day I jokingly as if anyone has seen my latest list listing where all my other lists are located.  I asked my mother why she didn’t buy a day planner for my 8th birthday.

I intend to really check out Lifehacker.com.  Not for all the neat tricks but more so for the down-sizing I would like to accomplish over the upcoming year.  I really want to simplify.  I definitely appreciate Trapani’s generosity of sharing the names of some of the software or extensions she utilizes.  Some I have heard of and other I have not – but isn’t that the intent of blogging, getting information out there?  Gina Trapani is also an excellent example of ‘life after blogging’.  She is now in demand for lectures and such.

PostSecret

my response to:

Frank Warren

This was an exceedingly interesting article to read.  As an artist you are always trying to find a niche.  The problem is most artists are looking too hard.  Stop looking.  Frank Warren wasn’t ‘trying’ to create a therapeutic website; it was just the outcome of an experimental form of art that became something he really couldn’t control.  His was of control the response to the influx of postcards sent in was to develop a website that supplemented the original artists installation in Washington, D.C.  Where many artists like to move on to another project, Warren felt compelled, maybe even responsible, to create a place out of respect to his ‘patrons of secrets’.  That became the website, PostSecret.  In all fairness, I am not certain if the name ‘PostSecret’ was developed for the original exhibition or specifically for the website.  The reason I mention this is because it is a very memorable and catchy name – something very important, especially if you do not intend to use advertising.  Personally, I had heard the name several years ago and even though I have never been to the sight and I still remembered the name when it was first mentioned in class.

Social Bookmarking in Plain English.

my response to:

The Common Craft Show

I signed up for Delicious quite awhile back but never really ventured onto the sight. I wish I had. My computer is covered with web-linked shortcuts I’ve dragged and dropped where ever I thought they would be useful, like the desktop, folders, etc. What an incredible tool Delicious is going to be. I’m constantly finding websites with great information. Sometimes it might be just one article or just one picture. Other times it might be the entire sight. The problem is I never know which one it is unless I change the shortcut name to reflect how much information I expect to find on the website at a later date. By using Delicious I’ll be able create tags specific to the quantity and quality of the site. I have so many links on my laptop right now I know the transfer to Delicious is going to be time consuming but worth it in the long run.

I cannot end this analysis of Social Bookmarking without a quick reference to “www.commoncraft.com”. What a great concept. I was once hired to rewrite technical manuals for a manufacturing facility where the average language did not exist. There were so many languages spoken it became clear at the beginning that a typical ‘English’ manual was not going to work. I modeled my solution around those little emergency cards onboard airplanes, you know, the ones that explain the emergency exit procedures. Well, Common Craft has taken it a step farther. I really plan on utilizing this website as much as possible, hopefully as a self-educational tool regarding internet related topics.

Folksonomies – Cooperative Classification and Communication Through Shared Metadata

my response to:

Adam Mathes

Metadata – can’t go surfing without it!  Data about data is so much easier than ___?___ data.  I still remember, when I was younger, asking how to spell something and being told to go look it up in the dictionary.  I really hated that.  Some words just aren’t spelled the way they sound.  Well, websites are the same.  With so many site to research Metadata helps to narrow that list down considerably.  It’s like having the first half of the word before you even open the dictionary.  That’s a huge asset.  There are two main ways metadata is created: Professional creation – time consuming, expensive, but more trustworthy and accurate; and Author creation – freely available, opinion-based, usually quick and to the point, and although not always so trustworthy, still worthy of consideration.  Case-in-point: Wikipedia versus New York Times, which one is most accurate?  Answer: neither – accuracy for both depends on the author of the article, not the entity itself.

engl4320 : blogpost : 2

•January 26, 2010 • Leave a Comment

What is Web 2.0

my response to:

Tim O’Reilly

Gives an excellent comparable view of what was and what is.  Where Web 1.0 was great, new, fun, and attractive, Web 2.0 is a hyped-up but scaled down version of Web 1.0.  After the dot com bubble burst around 2001, the true essence of the web began to form.  The only way this could happen is if the serious users became more serious.  Web 2.0 is just simply more user friendly than 1.0.  Web 1.0 was about the individual.  Web 2.0 is about the collective.  This is expressed in the article when O’Reilly explains how internet era software for 2.0 is delivered as a service, where in the past it was a product.

The amorality of Web 2.0

my response to:

nick / Rough Type

The new religion is not what many dreamed it would be because the users were passing around a collection plate made of transparent software.  Okay – what does that mean?  When I started using the internet on a daily basis in 1998 (I had been overseas since 1992 in not so internet-friendly locations), I saw the internet as something immature but still promising and incredible.  For me is has only gotten better.  For others, in the mid-1990’s, who may have set up a shrine around their CRT monitor, their candles burned out long before their monitor did.  Their imagination pre-defined what they wanted the internet to be, instead of letting the internet become what it needed to be – that which it is now – a place that worships the user instead of the user worshiping the flat screen.  The internet today is amoral because IT does not judge the user.  The user is judged by other users or the users own self-conscious.

The Good, the Bad, and the Web 2.0

my response to:

Conversational Debate between Keen and Weinberger

Keen: digital narcissism = Cult of the Amateur…  (me) yes, this is true, even though I do it, who really cares what I’m thinking at 3:27 am.  Has the internet has (caused) people to become self-centered?

Weinberger: the internet is not a reincarnation of a soul-inflicting comic book or shock radio… (me) Jerry Springer was not of the internet age.  People were the same before the internet and they are the same now – sometime during the mid-1980’s ‘status’ became increasingly important.  Ever since then, you didn’t (and still don’t) have to be wealthy to be famous.  Before the internet, people ‘acted’ wealthy and attitude was everything.  That is still the same in 2010 – it’s just that your self-centered message is broadcast to the world instead of your neighborhood.  The five degree separation rule had been dropped down to 3.64 degrees.

Is Google Making Us Stupid?

my response to:

Nicholas Carr

No.

Interactivity is Evil!  A critical Investigation of Web 2.0

my response to:

Kylie Jarrett

I’m a Fine Arts major not an Internet (Nuclear) Engineer.  I love information.  I love the internet.  I love people who love that too.  Internet Evolution is good, but this was over my head.  I don’t suggest reading this at 3:27 am and posting it on your Facebook’s “What’s on your mind?”