Cultural Production & New Media

          The ability for the population to participate in producing in all kinds of things online is ever increasing. The amount of websites that allow its users to produce their own and consume others cultural content is a new trend within the Internet and the media. This consumption of existing copyright cultural content is within the creative industries which is defined as “Depending on where you are, the term seems to incorporate music, theater, animation, recording, radio, TV, architecture, software design, toys, books, heritage, tourism, advertising, fashion, crafts, photography and cinema as portions of gross domestic product or balances for trade” (Miller, 2004). This creative industries is largely located on the internet in places such as Instagram, Facebook, YouTube and the list goes on. The ability for a mass production of themes, pictures, music and characters that are already under copyright laws is seen on these websites. For example, on YouTube users can upload songs, remixes or videos that are under copyright without attaining that particular copyright. These users usually disclose a statement in their video’s description saying, “ I don’t own this copyright”. Thus, discussed in the reading guide “supporters of the culture-as-commons ideal argue for the easing of copyright restrictions on users in order to permit the free exchange of ideas and the sharing of works” (Module #4, reading guide).  The increase of the importance of copyright laws on such items like ideas, music, videos, pictures, ect need to be addressed.

        Large cultural industries such as movie producing companies do in fact display efforts of complete control over their products. “This exhibitionist tendency manifests itself through a range of practices such as performers gesturing to the audience with an inviting look or wink conjurors bowing in magic films and comedians smirking at the camera” (Rizzo) The movie producer has complete control over how the actors and actresses act during the movie, which types of music is played in the movie, what clothing style will be used and all the other scene decorating, plot constructing and accessories. Control over all these aspects of large cultural industries has an influence on its audience, in both positive and negative ways. For example: If a movie regarding the concept of environmental friendly were created, its audience would be influenced to save the environment (go green). However, if a movie were created criticizing our government this would be a negative influence. Loosing faith and support in our government could lead to increased crime and protests against the government. Therefore, large cultural industries and their amount of control over their products do indeed have positive and negative influences on its consumers. 

 

References: 
Miller, T. (2004) A view from a fossil. International Journal Of Cultural Studies, 7(1), 55-65. 

Rizzo, T. YouTube: the New Cinema of Attractions SCAN | journal of media arts culture. Vol 5, No. 1, Online journal. 
 
Image
 
 
 The above photo are the two most important actions in this creative industry: downloading and uploading. This is how the producer and the consumer communicate their information (copyright or not). 

Reference: 

Digitalart (2011). Downloaded uploaded buttons stock photo [Digital image]. Retrieved from: http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/Computers_g62-Download_Upload_Buttons_p60409.html

3 Comments

Filed under Water

Wikipedia: Still not sold

Wikipedia is defined as “an online information source that is increasingly used as the first, and sometimes only, stop for online encyclopedic information […] and is often criticized for the credibility of its user-generated posts” (Royal and Kapila, 2009). Wikipedia is criticized for its unreliable and inaccurate information on its website. However, if an academic portion of the public edits the articles posted on Wikipedia the information would become more reliable and accurate. I will be discussing the lack of reliable and accurate information found on Wikipedia’s article on Sustainability. Analyzing the reliability of the participates that produce, edit and organize this information will either increase or decrease the trustworthiness of its articles. This aspect of the creation of Wikipedia can influence the article in a negative way.

The participates are accountable for producing, editing and organizing the information on each article on Wikipedia are in fact the reason why Wikipedia is criticized for being unreliable and inaccurate. These participates could be anyone, your neighbour, your high school teacher, your friend and even you. Blogger jdibiase18 stated that “the main issue with Wikipedia is that there are too many cooks in the kitchen (Jdibiase18, Environment and Climate Change, 2013).  However, there are certain people that commit wrongful edits in order to muddle and ruin articles just because they want to. “Anyone can edit is an invitation for troublemakers and vandals who make thousands of foolish changes to articles every hour” (Jensen, 2012). These troublemakers accept partial blame of creating a perception of incorrect information on Wikipedia. Even though these wrongful edits are removed quickly, there are thousands and thousands of articles that cannot be monitored 24/7. The sustainability article shows multiple troublemaker edits in which the frequent editors discussed as a group and removed these edits right away. For example, “Hi, two other editors keep scrubbing this from external links”. This displaying that there are editors that are continuing deleting external links throughout the article.

This continuous editing on this Wikipedia has resulted in creative arguments. “This seems to be a unilateral re-write by Granitethighs, who apparently threw out the former article and substituted the current version. I do not see any consensus for these changes and want to understand more about how/why they came about.” This statement is taken directly from the Sustainability talk archive and displays the tension between editors and their perception of correct information. Every single editor believes his or her piece of information is correct and accurate, however that is not the case. The knowledge does differ between people; nevertheless it is not opinions that are discussed in the article but instead facts and correct information concerning the article.

This sustainability article talk achieve has demonstrated that until recently this article was under cited, under sourced and have inaccurate and incorrect information on it, in which making it very unreliable. For example one of the editors recently posted this statement; “I am amazed that there is suddenly such concern with precision (now) when the original article lacked precision so much. Included here would be the lack of citations and therefore the tendency for statements to become unsubstantiated assertions; repetition; a lack of clarity in exactly where the discussion was going and more – not least of which (because of the lack of citation) it was far more open to the criticism of being “original research” than the current article”. This exhibits the unreliability of Wikipedia articles.
            For example within the Wikipedia article sustainability, there is a section devoted to discussing sustainable water. This section is lacking information on the various ways that water is over consumed and its negative affects. Also, there is no section relating to the recommendations that can be considered to limit or reduce this over consumption of water over time. Thirdly, there are only three sources within this section. Blogger ENVIRONEST stated that “In most cases, it is the lack of references that creates the most tension between the page contributors” (Environest, 2013). More academic sources could be used to develop a more reliable and accurate section on the sustainability of water.

            My recommendations to increase the amount of reliable and accurate information throughout Wikipedia’s articles deal with academic professionals. There are thousands of teachers throughout elementary and high school and also thousands of university and college professors. These are the portion of the population, who should only be aloud to produce, edit and organize Wikipedia articles. I believe it is important to have someone with credentials in the field of study in regards to the article they are creating or working on.  Jensen researched the editors of the 1812 article on Wikipedia and found that the top four editors had in fact credentials in the military field (Jensen, 2012). These credentials ranged from an American history professor to a recent Britain graduate. This assists the article to become more reliable and accurate because of the certain people who created and edited this article. Blogger Deforestation stated her opinion on this topic: “I agreed mostly with Jensen’s article because he spoke about one the biggest disadvantages of Wikipedia is its lack of authority. I too agree with this because the individuals who are writing or editing are not required to have any credentials” (Deforestation, 20130). The article I studied did not display the editors to be of any credentials, just regular people editing Wikipedia articles. This in fact gives the sustainability article on Wikipedia a potential to contain unreliable and inaccurate set of information.

In conclusion, “this is the power of technologies and regulatory systems governing our everyday lives and defining individual identities vis-à-vis collective identities” (Dijck & Nieborg, 2009). The power of technology has proven a great, important and influential one. Wikipedia its self is viewed by hundreds of thousands of people a day, in which influences all these people. This is why the lack of reliable and accurate information of the articles is such a persuading factor. A random person could edit something that is 100% incorrect and the reader would have no idea. Thus, using Wikipedia one must be cautious and keep in mind that the information displayed could be wrong.

 

References:

Jensen, R. (2012). Military History on the Electronic Frontier: Wikipedia Fights the War of 1812. Journal of Military History. 76, 1. pp 1165-118

 Royal, C. & Kapila, D. (2009). What’s on Wikipedia, and What’s Not . . . ?: Assessing Completeness of Information. Social Science Computer Review. 27, 1. pp 138-148

Van Dijk, J. & Nieborg, D. (2009). Wikinomics and its discontents: a critical analysis of Web 2.0 business manifestos. New Media & Society. 11, 5. pp 855-874.

 

 

Wikipedia Article Talk Achieve:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sustainability/Archive_3

 

 Image

This digital image above displays the participants that produce, edit and organize these articles, which includes the trouble makers, people with credential and everyone else. 

Image:
Vlado (2011). People Network Stock Image [Digital Image]. Retrieved from: http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/Business_People_g201-People_Network_p32685.html

Leave a comment

Filed under Water

Wikipedia: Feedback

The feedback received regarding Wikipedia was amazing! The first idea that caught my idea was concerning the relationship between the search engine used (Google) and Wikipedia. When searching for information or definitions students use Google to find out this information. Wikipedia is usually the first result on Google that comes up. However, the other results that are displayed could also be inaccurate but since Wikipedia is known to be incorrect we look at that website in a different mindset. One of my comments said “of course, I am also aware of many of the methods used to position search engine results so I’m not even satisfied by reviewing the top 10 returns because I know many of them have paid someone to hold onto those top spots”. The results on Google do not show up in order of accuracy or correctness, in stead they are the websites that have paid the most money to be there. If I created a websites with all incorrect information and paid Google to put it at the top of their search engine results, would people believe the information is correct, just because its ranking on Google?

The second comment that interested me was regarding the negative motion of lack of authority and the ongoing editing wars on Wikipedia. The lack of authority is the issue behind this websites inaccuracy. Allowing anyone to post anything on Wikipedia leads to troublemakers to post incorrect information. This could be harmful for the users, damaging their paper or even altering the knowledge they possess. This inaccuracy influence peoples perception of Wikipedia in a negative way. The only way to decrease this risk associated with Wikipedia’s information is to monitor who posts what. In my opinion, they could limit who posts information on Wikipedia by only allowing education professionals to post items.

The third comment that I did not think of was concerning the positive aspect of Wikipedia, users participation together. The idea that random people are working together to create information for others is a positive thing. Creative minds working together can in fact construct a great outcome of information. I agree with this because the idea that people are coming together to create things for other people’s usage is awesome.

The late statement I liked was “Plus, who’s to say that everything we read in a history text book is true either”? The information in textbooks could also be wrong. The eyewitness or the reader can in fact misinterpret what actually happened. You never know. There is always a possibility that an important action or event in history was interpreted wrong or was never written down. People just automatically believe what they read from textbooks and academic sources. But this information could also be incorrect you never know! 

Leave a comment

Filed under Water

Wikipedia!

    Before completing the assigned readings I used Wikipedia cautiously. I used this website only for non-academic knowledge and information. In my opinion I did not want to use this as a source for a essay or a project because the information regarding such topics could be wrong or over exaggerated. I was very hesitant in how I perceived and used the information learned and gained from Wikipedia.

    The first article relating to Wikipedia that I read was “What’s on Wikipedia, and What’sNot . . . ?” written by Cindy Royal and Deepina Kapil. In which one particular line caught  my attention; “Parnas, and Weinstein (2005) listed several risks inherent in the Wikipedia model: accuracy, motives, uncertain expertise, volatility, coverage, and sources” (Royal and Kapil, 2009). These listed risks of Wikipedia are in fact similar to my personal risks that I expect to see when working with Wikipedia. Accuracy, volatility and sources in fact are changed and/or modified by the user. However, these three aspects must have their information 100% right in order to correctly display the information. The one aspect that I believe is most important is motives. A user can in fact change or add information in a way that they perceive it or how they want others to perceive it due to their motives. These motives can be either good or bad. Good ones could be supporting or advertising a good cause through other Wikipedia’s. Nevertheless, bad motives could be to start conflict between groups of people.
    The second article was regarding the editing of a War o 1812 article on Wikipedia; Military History on the Electronic Frontier: Wikipedia Fights the War of 1812 written by Richard Jensen. He explains that the ongoing issue in relation with Wikipedia is the constant wrongful editing of articles. ““Anyone can edit is an invitation for troublemakers and vandals who make thousands of foolish changes to articles every hour (Jensen, 2012). These troublemakers make the public that use Wikipedia very hesitant when obtaining and reading information off this website. Jensen (2012) further explains how these wrongful edits are quickly removed. However, there are thousands and thousands of articles that all cannot be constantly monitored for wrongful edits. Thus, I have trouble believing that all of these bad and wrongful edits are found and fixed in a quick manner.

    The third article called Wikinomics and its discontents: a critical analysis of Web 2.0 business manifestos, written by Jose Van Dijck and David Nieborg. One statement really made me think about Wikipedia as a form of public participation and creativeness. “Mass creativity, peer- production and co-creation apparently warrant the erasure of the distinction between collective (non-market, public) and commercial (market, private) modes of production, as well as between producers and consumers; the terms also cleverly combine capital-intensive, profit-oriented industrial production with labour-intensive, non-profit-oriented peer production” (Dijck and Nieborg, 2009). The action to be able to edit articles on Wikipedia actually brings to the public and forces one to participate with each other in order to compete an article. However, this article could have the incorrect information.

    Therefore, After reading these three articles my opinion in relation to Wikipedia has not been changed but only modified. To me Wikipedia is filled with incorrect information that people have added in order to fill their motives or to be a ‘troublemaker’. However, Jose Van Dijck and David Nieborg’s article really opened my eyes up to the bigger picture, public participation. This massive participation between the public is in fact a great aspect of Wikipedia. Thus, modifying my outlook on Wikipedia however, I still will be very careful when reading and obtain information off this website.Image
This picture above describes Wikipedia, in which people participate together to add their knowledge to an article. 

 Krishnan, R. January 30, 2011. Social Network Stock Image. [Image] Received from http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/Communications_and_N_g263-Social_Network_p25773.html

References:

Jensen, R. (2012). Military History on the Electronic Frontier: Wikipedia Fights the War of 1812. Journal of Military History. 76, 1. pp 1165-118

 Royal, C. & Kapila, D. (2009). What’s on Wikipedia, and What’s Not . . . ?: Assessing Completeness of Information. Social Science Computer Review. 27, 1. pp 138-148

Van Dijk, J. & Nieborg, D. (2009). Wikinomics and its discontents: a critical analysis of Web 2.0 business manifestos. New Media & Society. 11, 5. pp 855-874.

5 Comments

Filed under Water

Twitter Hashtags

#Water
#Savewater
#Green 
#Waterconservation 
#Waterissues

Leave a comment

Filed under Water

Comments Response: Internet Blog

The comments I received from my initial blog post regarding the Internet showed similarities. The idea of your personal information and posts can in fact be seen by the public is concerning was commented on again. Having your Facebook profile setting as private does not give you total privacy. The employees of Facebook do monitor the profiles in which they can access all your information and see what you post. However, they are the public, they are the people who you do not know that you are attempting to hide your personal information and posts from. This I realize to be ironic. You go through all these various steps, processes and cautionary measures to keep your information and posts private however, the hundreds of employees of Facebook can easily access all this information and you would not even know it.

One comment stated “one of the major problems of social networking is you actually do not know if the profile picture is the person as there are multiple fake Facebook profiles”. This is another valid issue that I did not consider. A reality television show on MTV called “Cat Fish” is a show that demonstrates that there are lots of these “fake” Facebook profiles. They follow individuals who have started a relationship within someone online that they have never met. When they finally meet up the individual is usually shocked because they person that have been chatting to and are in an online relationship with is not who they say they are. Sometimes they are different ages, body types, hair colour, and genders and even with fake names as well. This just shows that an issue of the fake Facebook is out there.

The issue regarding information stuck in the World Wide Web forever was a common topic in the comments. Once an individual posts a picture it is online forever. This picture (if bad) could be harmful to you, career and other aspects of life. When applying for a job some employers will check your Facebook to get a sense of what kind of person you are. If an employer sees things like swearing, drunk pictures and disrespect on your Facebook profile they will automatically assume what kind of person you are, without even meeting you. Thus, your Facebook profile does in fact develop and construct yourself identity and ho others perceive you. This can go both ways. If you profile is filled with pictures of family, flowers and nice inspirational posts then your employee will take that into account in your hiring process. Lastly, to resolve this automatic perception of your self-identity one can consider all privacy settings on to limit the information shown. Also, I find the new trend on Facebook is to make your last name your middle name to avoid employers finding your Facebook.

Thus, the comments received were very similar to my initial blog post, however they have assist me in furthering my discussion on this topic and exploring areas I did not consider to.

Leave a comment

Filed under Water

Internet = Big Brother

Today’s society is constantly associated to technology, such as cellphones, tablets and computers. However, the one thing all these forms of technology have is their connection to the Internet. Having a pathway to use the Internet all almost all technology devices is a very dangerous thing. Sherry Turkle at TED Talks 2012 explained this action as overpowering us humans. “The little devices in our pockets are so psychologically powerful that they don’t even change what we do, they change who we are” (Turkle, 2012). Sherry Turkle describes the large access to the internet not only dangerous but it also has the ability to change the individual. This is where the balance of public, private and personal within the social media world is so important. The public aspect is one that allowing the public, meaning every single individual on the Internet sees what you are posting. Private, meaning these other people cannot see what you posted. Lastly, personal concerning the usage of social media websites and showing your information to selected friends and family. I currently use Facebook and my settings are as private as they get because I do not want people I do not know to see what I’m posting. My profile is very limited with information, I do not provide my email, phone number, address, ect. However, I do have what school I attend and my birthday (month and day but no year), but that is about it. I am debating on changing my last name of my Facebook profile to my middle name to discourage others from trying to find me and to keep my name private. But I have not made that change yet. Therefore, I balance public, private and personal by limiting what personal information I provide on my social media websites and I make all my setting extremely private. Boyd and Ellison (2008) explains the harsh reality of social media especially Facebook; a feature that differentiates Facebook is the ability for outside developers to build applications which allow users to personalize their profiles and perform other tasks, such as compare movie preferences and chart travel histories”(Boyd & Ellison, 2008). Having this information all this information on one website can become hazardous. For example, Instagram (a social media picture network) has developed new policies that conclude that the pictures that the users and upload to the website/app will then in return be saved and used by Instagram. This policy takes away your privacy rights as an individual however, when signing up you must click the ‘I agree’ button in regards to their policies. Thus, when releasing personal information I now read the social media policies because I do not want my information sold to other companies and so on. The knowledge that my social media activities are under constant surveillance influence provides me with a sense of ‘Big Brother’. This sense of feeling will most defiantly alter what I post online. Albrechtslund (2008) demonstrates that this Big Brother feeling is actually more common then believed. Most individuals on the Internet especially on social media websites have no idea regarding this surveillance. Therefore, in my opinion individuals need a better understanding regarding the surveillance on the Internet. Also, the knowledge of the balance between public, private and personal should be common. There is always someone watching.

References:

Albrechtslund, A. (2008) “Online Social Networking as Participatory Surveillance.” First Monday. 13,3

Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship  danah m. boyd Nicole B. Ellison Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication Volume 13, Issue 1, pages 210–230, October 2007

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.proxy.library.brocku.ca/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x/pdf

Places we don’t want to go: Sherry Turkle at TED2012
http://blog.ted.com/2012/03/01/places-we-dont-want-to-go-sherry-turkle-at-ted2012/

Image

The above image demonstrates the little privacy settings that a social media website (Facebook) has. 

3 Comments

Filed under Water