Wikipedia is a revolution in organising online content in an easy-to-navigate format. Because it implements open source, there is constant speculation about the reliability of its content. Wiki (as it is affectionately known) is placed under the social software umbrella (Bruns, 2008, 102). Wiki is a primary example of produsage, people are able to create a new entry or update an existing one, which millions of people have access to. Wiki adheres to Bruns' second principle of produsage: fluid heterarchies organised through ad hoc meritocratic governance. This concept is explored in my previous blog:
2. Fluid Heterarchy, ad hoc meritocracy. In open source contributors grow in the community through their esteem and influence on the project. There is no set dictator for the duration of the project. Leaders are fluid and ever changing according to their abilities and the merit of their contributions. In closed source the production development team is subject to traditional hierarchical structures. There is an appointed leader for the duration of the project and each employee has set individual tasks to complete.
As stated by Jenkins (cited in Bruns, 2008, 108), "any knowledge that gets posted can and most likely will be revised and corrected by other readers." Though it has no set hierarchical structure, Wiki remains a popular source of information, especially for university students.
A new search engine, Powerset, has recently been released, allowing questions, phrases and topics to be explored. Answers can be broken down into facts or scan summaries, and searches Wikipedia entries and other reputable sources (such as Freebase). Check this one out...
Reference
Bruns, A. 2008. Wikipedia: Representations of Knowledge in Axel Bruns, Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage. New York: Peter Lang. p 101-136.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
In response to The Endless Thoughts of Megan: Digital Distribution of Music
In response to The Endless Thoughts of Megan: Digital Distribution of Music
I thoroughly enjoyed reading your blog about the music industry, and how it has been affected by online file-sharing. Yesterday, SonyBMG released its predicted net income for the 2007 fiscal year. Although the major media conglomerate managed to gain $3.7billion, digital sales saw SonyBMG down 4 per cent, failing to offset the decline in the CD market (Blair, G, 2008).
Over the past year, Sony BMG, as one of the largest ‘dinosaurs’ remaining, has undergone radical changes to avoid extinction. In January 2008, Sony BMG announced they were going to drop digital rights management (DRM) and compete against Apple for valuable downloadable revenues (Holahan, 2008). Sony BMG is the last of the four major record labels to do so (the others being Warner Music Group, EMI and Vivendi [Universial Music Group]). DRM software was an attempt to stop illegal peer-to-peer sharing of music, though the principal analyst of a technology research company, Enderle (cited in Holahan, 2008) claims, “it (DRM) was hurting folks who were trying to follow the rules more than the folks who were pirating the music.”
On April 3, 2008, Sony BMG along with Warner Music and Universal Music signed a joint venture with MySpace Music. “We think of ourselves as undergoing a very fundamental transformation from being a CD company to a multirevenue stream, multibusiness company," says Thomas Hesse, president of Sony BMG's global digital business (Holahan, 2008).
With CD sales decreasing, major record companies are attempting to make money online through advertising, promotion and selling items such as concert tickets and T-shirts (Holahan, 2008). It is evident both from your blog and the actions of SonyBMG that, although the traditional music industry is far from dead, drastic measures are being taken to ensure the music lives forever... in the pockets of record companies.
References
Blair, G. 2008. Sony sees net income up 192%. May 14. THR.com. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/world/news/e3i9808673cbfb6ec1f5fd9eb117a2a0837(Accessed May 15, 2008).
Holahan, C. 2008. Sony BMG Plans to Drop DRM. January 4. Business Week. http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jan2008/tc2008013_398775.htm (Accessed May 15, 2008)
Holahan, C. 2008. The Record Labels’ Digital Future. April 4. Business Week. http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/apr2008/tc2008043_871448.htm?campaign_id=technology_AK (Accessed May 15, 2008).
I thoroughly enjoyed reading your blog about the music industry, and how it has been affected by online file-sharing. Yesterday, SonyBMG released its predicted net income for the 2007 fiscal year. Although the major media conglomerate managed to gain $3.7billion, digital sales saw SonyBMG down 4 per cent, failing to offset the decline in the CD market (Blair, G, 2008).
Over the past year, Sony BMG, as one of the largest ‘dinosaurs’ remaining, has undergone radical changes to avoid extinction. In January 2008, Sony BMG announced they were going to drop digital rights management (DRM) and compete against Apple for valuable downloadable revenues (Holahan, 2008). Sony BMG is the last of the four major record labels to do so (the others being Warner Music Group, EMI and Vivendi [Universial Music Group]). DRM software was an attempt to stop illegal peer-to-peer sharing of music, though the principal analyst of a technology research company, Enderle (cited in Holahan, 2008) claims, “it (DRM) was hurting folks who were trying to follow the rules more than the folks who were pirating the music.”
On April 3, 2008, Sony BMG along with Warner Music and Universal Music signed a joint venture with MySpace Music. “We think of ourselves as undergoing a very fundamental transformation from being a CD company to a multirevenue stream, multibusiness company," says Thomas Hesse, president of Sony BMG's global digital business (Holahan, 2008).
With CD sales decreasing, major record companies are attempting to make money online through advertising, promotion and selling items such as concert tickets and T-shirts (Holahan, 2008). It is evident both from your blog and the actions of SonyBMG that, although the traditional music industry is far from dead, drastic measures are being taken to ensure the music lives forever... in the pockets of record companies.
References
Blair, G. 2008. Sony sees net income up 192%. May 14. THR.com. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/world/news/e3i9808673cbfb6ec1f5fd9eb117a2a0837(Accessed May 15, 2008).
Holahan, C. 2008. Sony BMG Plans to Drop DRM. January 4. Business Week. http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jan2008/tc2008013_398775.htm (Accessed May 15, 2008)
Holahan, C. 2008. The Record Labels’ Digital Future. April 4. Business Week. http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/apr2008/tc2008043_871448.htm?campaign_id=technology_AK (Accessed May 15, 2008).
Sunday, May 11, 2008
In response to Marvelous Musings of a Procrastinating Uni Student
In response to Marvelous Musings of a Procrastinating Uni Student: "Nouveau Niche is the New Black"
I also agree, not only are producers understanding the importance of a niche market, society is finally embracing individualism! I would just like to add that the advertising industry has also noted this trend and are catering their campaigns to target the niche markets. Chris Anderson first started to explore niche markets with “The Long Tail” (Anderson, 2004). With 78 per cent of Australians connected to the internet (Internet World Statistics, 2007), online advertising has become a largely influential medium. Advertising agencies are encouraging clients to advertise online, specifically targeting niche markets. Websites are inherently niche; it is assumed people visiting surfingaustralia.com are interested in surfing.
Ideally, people would not see an advertisement which isn’t directly targeted at them. This is what niche advertising hopes to achieve; convergence has helped to make this ideal situation achievable. According to Bill Gates, in five years online advertising will generate $30 billion in revenues (Samuel, 2005, 10). Clearly, by investing time and research into ensuring the correct market is targeted advertisers can also benefit from nouveau niche.
References
Anderson, C. 2004. The Long Tail. Wired. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/tail.html?pg=5&topic=tail&topic_set= (Accessed April 1, 2008)
Internet World Statistics. 2007. http://www.internetworldstats.com/pacific.htm (accessed April 19, 2008).
Samuel, G., 2005. Media convergence and the changing face of media regulation. http://www.accc.gov.au/content/item.phtml?itemId=684901&nodeId=0212f46ad15b025ea7430a1b127a988d&fn=20050519%20Henry%20Mayer.pdf (Accessed March 13, 2008)
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Television. Is it falling behind?
Times have changed... How long until they change again? Television has been a primary medium for many media users over the years, only recently, with the expansion of Web 2.0, has television been given serious competition (Hartley, 2002, 124). Though we cannot predict what the future holds, it is suggested there will be media preferences towards interactivity, intercreativity and produsage (Bruns, 2008, 5). There is no denying that television has entertained a multitude of Australians since 1956 (Cunningham and Tuner, 2002, 173), over the years technological qualities (such as the introduction of colour and high definition television) have become highly developed (Klosek, 2007). However, currently television possesses no built in opportunity for advancing in interactivity, intercreativity and produsage (Bruns, 2008, 1). To counteract this, television has converged with the internet, utilising attributes which pertain to Web 2.0.
In the United States of America, networks are making popular television shows available through their websites via direct download or YouTube. Similarly, some Australian networks (see ABC) are becoming more active in ensuring their shows are available in podcast form (Bruns, 2008, 7). This age of hyperdistribution has been embraced by society, though surely someone must be worse off with this internet trend?
From the perspective of producers and advertisers, hyperdistribution has the opportunity to be beneficial, if the economical objectives allow maximum profit (Pesce in Bruns, 2008, 8). Something which would prove economically efficient is allowing advertisers to work with program producers when directly distributing online television content (Pesce in Bruns, 2008, 8). Revenue would come from advertisements inserted into downloadable programs, plus the standard internet advertising; pay-for-access fees for direct downloadable, commercial-free versions of a program; further revenue from advertising to potential world-wide viewers (Bruns, 2008, 8).
Contrary to belief, produsage site YouTube, has the power to generate revenue for online content (Haven, 2007). In regards to BBC, 43 per cent of online viewers claim they watch less television as a result of YouTube (Cashmore, 2006). CBS however have gained an increase in viewers from YouTube, though unsurprisingly CBS have their own YouTube account and regularly upload their videos (Cashmore, 2006). Online viewers are driven to original content after they view a clip they appreciate. According to Pesce (cited in Bruns, 2008, 9), “YouTube has been acting as an arbitrageur of media equalizing in equity in the marketplace,” as copywriters and producers have failed to upload videos online to capitalise on the new media market.
Produsage blurs the “boundaries between professional an amateur content” (Bruns 2008, 10), therefore encouraging all consumers to become active participants. Pesce (cited in Bruns, 2008, 5) best sums up the produsage concept: “sharing of media is an act of production in itself – we are all our own broadcasters.”
When there is a change in media technologies, there is a related change in the location of the audience (Couldry, 2005, 189). Audiences have changed since Web 2.0 emerged; the contemporary “diffused audience” uses at least one electronic medium constantly throughout the day, in nearly all aspects of professional and social life (Couldry, 2005, 186). With this societal trend shift, will television also undergo a cultural transformation?
The future of television depends upon a number of variables; hyperdistribution, produsage and technologies plus audience trends. Bruns (2008, 12) has predicted television will become a series of “televisual, audiovisual practices and media forms collected in categories such as ‘streaming media’, ‘video on demand’ and ‘downloadable video’. Though television has no built in opportunities to fully embrace new media technologies, by converging with the internet, television will hopefully be able to live a long, prosperous life, and be around to entertain our great grand-children. No doubt there will be another change in media trends by then.
References
Bruns, A. 2008. Reconfiguring Television for a Networked, Produsage Context. http://snurb.info/files/Reconfiguring%20Television%20for%20a%20Networked,%20Produsage%20Context.pdf (Accessed May 2, 2008).
Cashmore, P. 2006. YouTube Vs TV. November 27. Mashable: Social Networking News. http://mashable.com/2006/11/27/youtube-vs-tv/ (Accessed May 3, 2008).
Couldry, N. 2005. The Extended Audience: Scanning the Horizon in M Gillespie (ed.) Media Audiences. Maidenhead: Open University Press. p183-222.
Cunningham, S., G. Turner. 2002. The Media and Communications in Australia. New South Wales: Allen and Unwin.
Hartley, J. 2002. Communication, Cultural and Media Studies: The Key Concepts. 3rd ed. London: Routledge.
Haven, P. 2007. YouTube plans revenue sharing with users. January 27. MSNBC http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16842857/ (Accessed May 3, 2008).
Klosek, N. 2007. Future Technologies. Dealerscope. 49 (7). http://proquest.umi.com.ezp02.library.qut.edu.au/pqdweb?index=10&did=1314410151&SrchMode=2&sid=2&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1210761100&clientId=14394 (Accessed May 6, 2008).
Thursday, May 8, 2008
How do communites evaluate quality?
Citizen journalism is similar in nature to a peer assessment. Whereby, the quality of content is evaluated by individuals over time who then critique and build upon the existing information, in a snowball like effect. The more attention a post attracts (eg through comments or rating systems) the more credible and transparent a source becomes. It is through this peer assessment process that the reputation of a citizen journalist is built and the quality of the information produced is improved.
As humans it is in our nature to analyse and critique the information we receive. For example, Wikipedia, depsite being disputed as a credible source, studies have found that the information presented is generally accurate and of a reasonable standard (see here). Open participation allows a post to be freely and immediately evaluated by anyone. This may result in either positive or negative feedback, in effect rating the quality of the post. This process is constantly evolving, overlapping and interwoven. As Bruns (2008, 79) states, "citizen journalism is a clear example of fluid heterarchy, ad hoc meritocracy; a fundamental principle of produsage... The community governs itself through a constant process of mutual evaluation through peer commentary and criticism."
By Emma, Nat and Ella.
Reference
Bruns, A. 2008. News Blogs and Citizen Journalism: Perpetual Collaboration in Evaluating the News in Bruns, A. Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage, New York: Peter Lang, 69-100.
As humans it is in our nature to analyse and critique the information we receive. For example, Wikipedia, depsite being disputed as a credible source, studies have found that the information presented is generally accurate and of a reasonable standard (see here). Open participation allows a post to be freely and immediately evaluated by anyone. This may result in either positive or negative feedback, in effect rating the quality of the post. This process is constantly evolving, overlapping and interwoven. As Bruns (2008, 79) states, "citizen journalism is a clear example of fluid heterarchy, ad hoc meritocracy; a fundamental principle of produsage... The community governs itself through a constant process of mutual evaluation through peer commentary and criticism."
By Emma, Nat and Ella.
Reference
Bruns, A. 2008. News Blogs and Citizen Journalism: Perpetual Collaboration in Evaluating the News in Bruns, A. Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage, New York: Peter Lang, 69-100.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Your Kid's a Star? Really?
Nine Network: My Kid's a Star Citizen journalism is most easily defined as “non journalists committing random acts of journalism,” (Williams, 2006). Web 2.0 has encouraged the advancement of communication tools, and the way societies use these; it is becoming increasingly easier for people to participate in citizen journalism through the use of websites like citizenjourno and blogs. These online tools are giving individuals the power to voice their opinion on many topics, most notably current news, politics and media.
Recently, Channel Nine created an Australian version of reality television show, My Kid’s a Star. Ten young performers and their stage parents enter a Biggest Loser-type house and embark on a six week boot camp, the children, aged 9 to 16 are judged by show business agents whom offer (somewhat constructive) criticism. After the first episode aired on April 9, there was large media coverage noting the shows lack of ratings (News Limited, 2008). However, community outrage appeared in the form of blogs (TV Tonight and Ali’s Television Blog) and through public comments on articles in websites (such as news.com.au and The Daily Telegraph) addressing issues civil journalists failed to cover. For instance, judge Marki Costello called one contestant’s clothing ‘slutty’ (see here), parents talk about their children as brands and one nine year old broke down in tears when told they were wearing too much make up. Not only were the parents flagged as child abusers, but the Nine Network was labelled greedy and incompetent (Clune, 2008). Whilst the show is now showed in the less-desirable midday on Saturday timeslot and attracting less media scrutiny, citizen journalists are still voicing public indignation that the show remains on air.
What does citizen journalism mean for the future of television? Other programs have already been held accountable by citizen journalists, Networks Ten’s Teen Fit Camp (nee Teen Fat Camp) had to change its name following media and participatory criticism (Knox, 2008). Ultimately citizen journalists are monitoring media and ensuring transparency and ethically sound principles are held. Citizen journalism also holds advantages for networks and producers, allowing them to see opinions and suggestions by simply searching the Internet. This free criticism can prove priceless for producers in assessing the strengths and weaknesses of their program and by addressing noted flaws, prospective crisis’ can be averted.
Although citizen journalists are not technically ‘qualified’ as journalists, and their blogs and comments are often subjective, it allows “communities to comment on stories and thereby build up a more detailed, communal understanding of [the story’s] background, context and impact, as well as evaluating the information contained in the initial reports and combining or contrasting it with other available information,” (Bruns, 2008, 75). Citizen journalism is influential and efficient though cannot replace the credibility and objective view of traditional media, it does however provide individuals with the power to communicate and express opinions directly to producers and networks.
References
Bruns, A. 2008. News Blogs and Citizen Journalism: Perpetual Collaboration in Evaluating the News. In Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life and Beyond: From Production to Produsage, 69-99. New York: Peter Lang.
Clune, R. 2008. My Star Kids are being abused. The Daily Telegraph. April 13. http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23529669-5006014,00.html (Accessed May 6, 2008).
Knox, D. 2008. First Review: My Kid’s a Star. April 4. TV Tonight Australia’s Leading Blog. http://www.tvtonight.com.au/2008/04/first-review-my-kids-star.html (Accessed May 6, 2008).
News Limited. 2008. My Kid’s a Star latest Nine failing. news.com.au. April 29. http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/story/0,26278,23615109-10388,00.html (Accessed May 6, 2008).
Williams, L. 2006. Citizen Journalism – What is it? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58iZpMRclwI&feature=related (Accessed May 6, 2008).
In response to Community 2.0: "Blogging as a form of Citizen Journalism"
Community 2.0: "Blogging as a form of Citizen Journalism"
I found your entry on this interesting and informative though could have benefited from including content regarding citizen journalism and how it has influenced traditional mass media.
An article I found on PoynterOnline outlined the 11 layers of citizen journalism. This article made me more aware of the different types of citizen journalism that can occur.
The simplest way to be a citizen journalist it to provide public comments, level three is Open Source reporting, levels four and five address blogging, which is relevant to your entry. As we get deeper into citizen journalism, stand-alone citizen journalism sites "establish a news-oriented site comprised entirely (or nearly entirely) or contributions from the community," (Outing, 2005).
Further up is when organisations combine citizen journalism with the work of professinals. The final level, eleven, is where readers are editors, which is prevalent in Wikinews.
I think that by addressing these, or even providing external links so readers can investigate more, your entry will be further enhanced.
Reference
Outing, S. 2005. The 11 Layers of Citizen Journalism. Poynter Online. http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=83126 (Accessed May 6, 2007)
I found your entry on this interesting and informative though could have benefited from including content regarding citizen journalism and how it has influenced traditional mass media.
An article I found on PoynterOnline outlined the 11 layers of citizen journalism. This article made me more aware of the different types of citizen journalism that can occur.
The simplest way to be a citizen journalist it to provide public comments, level three is Open Source reporting, levels four and five address blogging, which is relevant to your entry. As we get deeper into citizen journalism, stand-alone citizen journalism sites "establish a news-oriented site comprised entirely (or nearly entirely) or contributions from the community," (Outing, 2005).
Further up is when organisations combine citizen journalism with the work of professinals. The final level, eleven, is where readers are editors, which is prevalent in Wikinews.
I think that by addressing these, or even providing external links so readers can investigate more, your entry will be further enhanced.
Reference
Outing, S. 2005. The 11 Layers of Citizen Journalism. Poynter Online. http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=83126 (Accessed May 6, 2007)
Friday, May 2, 2008
Citizen Journalism. What is it? How does it affect traditional media?
Citizen Journalists are "people who are non journalists committing random acts of journalism." (William, 2006)
Web 2.0 allows consumers to communicate, consume and inform. This is extremely prevalent within citizen journalism, and now with the existence of certain websites such as Global Online Voices and through blogs, more possibilities to be active participants are available.
The core principle behind citizen journalism is to allow people to document issues which are of importance of them in an enviroment where others can view their work. Citizen journalism occurs primarily online through blogs, stand-alone citizen journalism sites and WikiNews. Often, issues addressed through citizen journalism are those which are overlooked by mass media, or given a skewed representation. These niche markets include current topics such as alternatvie movies and music, sub-cultures, technological advances and most popularly politics.
However, mainstream media is starting to realise the importance and influential properties which citizen journalism holds. MSNBC, Associated Press and CNN each have a related citizen journalism website.
Richard Sanbrook, Director of BBC's Global News Division states:
Evident with the tragic Virginia Tech shootings, footage taken on a students mobile phone quickly adorned headlines of CNN, an example of the relationship forming between civic and citizen journalists.
Citizen journalism is a clear example of fluid heterarchy, ad hoc meritocracy; a fundamental principle of produsage (Bruns, 2008, 79). "The community governs itself through a constant process of mutual evaluation through peer commentary and criticism," (Bruns, 2008, 79). This, along with the other fundamental principles of produsage are mentioned in my previous blog, How is open source different from commercial production.
With the shift towards user-generated content, citizen journalism gives people the ability to influence traditional mass media.
Web 2.0 allows consumers to communicate, consume and inform. This is extremely prevalent within citizen journalism, and now with the existence of certain websites such as Global Online Voices and through blogs, more possibilities to be active participants are available.
The core principle behind citizen journalism is to allow people to document issues which are of importance of them in an enviroment where others can view their work. Citizen journalism occurs primarily online through blogs, stand-alone citizen journalism sites and WikiNews. Often, issues addressed through citizen journalism are those which are overlooked by mass media, or given a skewed representation. These niche markets include current topics such as alternatvie movies and music, sub-cultures, technological advances and most popularly politics.
However, mainstream media is starting to realise the importance and influential properties which citizen journalism holds. MSNBC, Associated Press and CNN each have a related citizen journalism website.
Richard Sanbrook, Director of BBC's Global News Division states:
"... when major events occur, the public can offer us as much new information as we are able to broadcast to them. From now on news coverage is a partnership."
Evident with the tragic Virginia Tech shootings, footage taken on a students mobile phone quickly adorned headlines of CNN, an example of the relationship forming between civic and citizen journalists.
Citizen journalism is a clear example of fluid heterarchy, ad hoc meritocracy; a fundamental principle of produsage (Bruns, 2008, 79). "The community governs itself through a constant process of mutual evaluation through peer commentary and criticism," (Bruns, 2008, 79). This, along with the other fundamental principles of produsage are mentioned in my previous blog, How is open source different from commercial production.
With the shift towards user-generated content, citizen journalism gives people the ability to influence traditional mass media.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
How is open source different from commercial production?
In open source the source code is freely and openly available for everyone to view, edit and use, within a limited-rights licence. For example: FireFox and Linux. In the closed source, commercial model, source code remains confidential and must be bought by the end user. For example, the average user cannot access the source code for Windows Internet Explorer; only the in-house software developers are allowed access. The business model for open source software is to provide services to the commmunity, where as closed source's aim is to sell a finished product. The success of open source hinges on the active contribution and interest of users. In contrast, the motivations for the success of closed source production is the fiscal benefit to the commercial production team.
Open source is an example of produsage. Axel Bruns has idenitified three fundamental principles that define the term produsage:
1. Open participation and communal evaluation. Open source software is an example of this because the project is open for anybody to make contributions and evaluate and test its usability, a key feature of web 2.0. The software is continually updated through collaborative participation and new updates are available almost everyday (Bruns, 2008, p42). In contrast, closed source epitomises web 1.0 where users had no ability to contribute to software development. The availability of new closed source software is stagnant and relies on set release dates for 'new editions'.
2. Fluid Heterarchy, ad hoc meritocracy. In open source contributors grow in the community through their esteem and influence on the project. There is no set dictator for the duration of the project. Leaders are fluid and ever changing according to their abilities and the merit of their contributions. In closed source the production development team is subject to traditional hierarchical structures. There is an appointed leader for the duration of the project and each employee has set individual tasks to complete.
3. Unfinished artefacts, continuing process. In open source the project is always under development, continually evolving with no set end date. Whereas commercial production aims at delivering a complete package to meet a set deadline.
By Emma, Ella and Nat.
Reference
Bruns, A. 2008. Open Source Software Development: Probabilistic Eyeballs in Bruns, A. Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage, New York: Peter Lang, pp.37-68.
Open source is an example of produsage. Axel Bruns has idenitified three fundamental principles that define the term produsage:
1. Open participation and communal evaluation. Open source software is an example of this because the project is open for anybody to make contributions and evaluate and test its usability, a key feature of web 2.0. The software is continually updated through collaborative participation and new updates are available almost everyday (Bruns, 2008, p42). In contrast, closed source epitomises web 1.0 where users had no ability to contribute to software development. The availability of new closed source software is stagnant and relies on set release dates for 'new editions'.
2. Fluid Heterarchy, ad hoc meritocracy. In open source contributors grow in the community through their esteem and influence on the project. There is no set dictator for the duration of the project. Leaders are fluid and ever changing according to their abilities and the merit of their contributions. In closed source the production development team is subject to traditional hierarchical structures. There is an appointed leader for the duration of the project and each employee has set individual tasks to complete.
3. Unfinished artefacts, continuing process. In open source the project is always under development, continually evolving with no set end date. Whereas commercial production aims at delivering a complete package to meet a set deadline.
By Emma, Ella and Nat.
Reference
Bruns, A. 2008. Open Source Software Development: Probabilistic Eyeballs in Bruns, A. Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage, New York: Peter Lang, pp.37-68.
Sidestep university... Hello advertising career!
I am in my third year studying advertising so when I graduate I will have a higher chance of becoming employed in this elusive industry, some people opt out of completing a somewhat time consuming and expensive exercise and instead, turn to the Internet.
Introducing Adcandy! This is a website developed by Per Hoffman to provide the public with the opportunity to contribute advertising ideas, thus eliminating the middleman between companies and consumers. Adcandy has enabled the average Joe to penetrate the advertising industry with no educational background (Duncan cited in Cohn, 2005). Currently entrants receive modest monetary rewards for their ideas, though Hoffman is hopeful that the success of the website will allow for more generous rewards (Cohn, 2005).
Traditional advertising has seen a great change with the emergence of new media technologies (Cunningham and Tuner, 2002, 211), thus, it seems only too appropriate that the advertising industry has begun to see the benefits of produsage. Advertising has already capitalised on convergence and is now expanding to accommodate societal trends (Jenkins, 2002, 164).
“People want to participate in all forms of culture, so why not commercials, for better or for worse?” Hoffman (Cohn, 2005).
Hoffman’s idea for Adcandy originated from open-source programming, where its success solely depends on the enthusiasm and ability of the participants the project attracts (Bruns, 2008, 38).
“People are participating out of the love of doing it, not necessarily for professional reasons,” Hoffman (Cohn, 2005).
Advertising experts predict online open-source advertising will quickly become a new method to reach the public (Cohn, 2005). Mainstream marketers are embracing guerrilla tactics with audiences proving more difficult to reach with traditional advertising (Ives, 2004). Hoffman is hoping his unique approach to communicate with consumers will attract more companies, allowing advertisers the opportunity to gain insight into customers’ perceptions of their product, and possibly coming across a slogan or catch-phrase which proves useful for future campaigns (Cohn, 2005).
Adcandy also implements produsage to the highest degree, allowing open participation, communal evaluation (Bruns, 2008, 41). Adcandy’s mission is “to give consumers a voice and platform to express their creative advertising ideas, product improvement suggestions, and images. In doing so, [Adcandy] also hope to provide for companies with a unique look into the minds of their consumers,” (Adcandy, 2007). The project enables anyone to contribute by submitting entries into Adcandy’s competitions, viewers are able to ‘rate an ad’ and ‘vote on ads’, thus influencing competition results.
Adcandy embodies new media technologies, produsage and open source programming. Although internet advertising is popular amongst advertising agencies to target niche markets (Anderson, 2004), Hoffman has given the audience a chance to influence the industry. The shift from an active to interactive audience implies a greater connection to others, plus a greater sense of control over content (Croll, n.d).
References:
Adcandy. Where Consumers Make the Ads. http://www.citewrite.qut.edu.au/cite/harvard/index.jsp. (Accessed April 30, 2008).
Anderson, C. 2004. The Long Tail. Wired. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/tail.html?pg=5&topic=tail&topic_set= (Accessed April 1, 2008)
Bruns, A. 2008. Open Source Software Development: Probabilistic Eyeballs in Bruns, A. Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage, New York: Peter Lang, pp.37-68.
Cohn, D. 2005. You, Too, Could be in Advertising. Wired. http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2005/09/68949 (Accessed April 30, 2008).
Croll, J. n.d. The Changing Face of Media. http://www.mediamonitors.com.au/documents/The_Changing%20Face_of_the_Media.pdf (accessed April 17, 2008).
Ives, N. 2004. The Media Business: Advertising; Guerrilla campaigns are going to extremes, but will the message stick? The New York Times. June 24. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9501E3DD1E39F937A15755C0A9629C8B63 (Accessed April 30, 2008).
Jenkins, H. 2002. Interactive Audiences. In The New Media Book, ed D. Harries, 157-170. London: BFI Publishing.
In response to Emmy: "Get Smarter Facebook! You're driving me mad."
Emmy: "Get Smarter Facebook! You're driving me mad."
Facebook certainly has taken over the lives of a number of Gen Yers. I also agree that there is such a thing has having too many friends, especially with the addition of "people you might know" you find yourself reunited with your kindergarten sweetheart. I believe that the creators of Facebook see this as an advantage and they are helping you to reconnect with people in your past because for some reason writing a private message on Facebook seems a whole lot better than writing an email (let alone a letter).
In regards to you wanting some friends to see specific sections of your profile, when you select a friend you are given the option of allowing them to see your full profile or just a limited profile. If you have already accepted them as a friend then decide you don't want your landlord to find out about the giant alpaca you're keeping in her home, go to privacy (in the top right hand corner)and you can change and customise who can see parts of your profile.
So if you are extremely passionate about keeping some things private from others then there is a way... Facebook can help.
Facebook certainly has taken over the lives of a number of Gen Yers. I also agree that there is such a thing has having too many friends, especially with the addition of "people you might know" you find yourself reunited with your kindergarten sweetheart. I believe that the creators of Facebook see this as an advantage and they are helping you to reconnect with people in your past because for some reason writing a private message on Facebook seems a whole lot better than writing an email (let alone a letter).
In regards to you wanting some friends to see specific sections of your profile, when you select a friend you are given the option of allowing them to see your full profile or just a limited profile. If you have already accepted them as a friend then decide you don't want your landlord to find out about the giant alpaca you're keeping in her home, go to privacy (in the top right hand corner)and you can change and customise who can see parts of your profile.
So if you are extremely passionate about keeping some things private from others then there is a way... Facebook can help.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Radio Ga Ga - Video Go Go - Internet Ka Ka
When music legends Queen and playwright Ben Elton decided to write the futuristic musical "We Will Rock You", I bet they never thought their lyrical adaptation of Queen's 1984 hit, "Radio Ga Ga" would be close to depicting today's reality.
Original London Cast Recording - Radio Ga Ga
We sit alone and watch your light
Our only friend, through teenage nights
And everything we want to get
We download from the internet
No need to think,
no need to feel
When only cyberspace is real
It makes us laugh
It makes us cry
It makes us feel like we can fly
(Globalsoft)
Hope to record our life online
Touch any key, the world is mine
We're lost in space
But we don't care
Without your light our world's not there
Complete control, you are the power
Our lives are programmed by the hour
Globalsoft (Globalsoft)
All we hear is radio Ga Ga
Video Goo Goo
Internet Ga Ga
All we hear is cyberspace Ga Ga
Marketing Blah Blah
Always something new
Globalsoft, all your world loves you
We watch our shows
We watch your stars
Across our screens for hours and hours
We hardly need our eyes or ears
We just log on and dreams appear
(Globalsoft)
We're not alone
We have our friends
On cyber love we can depend
So stick around cos we'd all miss you
We need our graphics
Need our visual
Complete control, you are the power
We use our lives up by the hour
Globalsoft (Globalsoft)
All we hear is radio Ga Ga
Video Goo Goo
Internet Ga Ga
All we hear is cyberspace Ga Ga
Marketing Blah Blah
Always something new
Globalsoft, all your world loves you
Loves you
- For Lyrics (see here)
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Audiences reacting to new media technologies.
In recent years technology has boomed, especially within media. Now, 78% of Australians are connected to the internet (Internet World Statistics, 2007), 99% own a television set (Herr, 2007) and 2.7 billion people worldwide possess a mobile phone; a six million person increase over the past year (LiveNews, 2008). The question still remains who are the producers and who are the audience? Traditionally media has been controlled by conglomerates dictating what would be broadcast over radio and television or cited on the internet. The emergence of new media technologies however enables a once passive consumer to now influence content. The passive audience has become active and the active audience has become interactive.
The audience is changing with new media technologies. New media technologies occur when the boundary between producer and consumer are blurred (Sternberg, 2008). The introduction of Web 2.0 has seen the largest media transformation embodying convergence, DIY cultures and produsage, which will be explored further on. Users are able to create, produce and circulate content, use the internet to communicate or watch television and be viewsers and prosumers, all of which have become possible with the emergence of new media.This audience sub-culture includes “new media technologies, do-it-yourself media production cultures and economic trends favouring media convergence” (Banks, 2008). The shift from an active to interactive audience implies a greater connection to others, a greater sense of control over content and a greater sense of identification (Banks, 2008). A produser is a member of the Interactive Audience. A produser is someone whom produces and uses media content on the internet through websites such as Flickr, Facebook, Wikipedia and YouTube (Banks, 2008). This blog is a form of produsage.
Convergence is also prevalent, the internet can now be used to download music, watch television, communicate with people through Skype and read the latest news. A 22 per cent increase is expected in online growth by 2010 (Public Relations Institute of Australia, 2006). Television also experiences convergence, an example of this is reality television utilising mobile phone voting, concert tours, videogames, books and profits within the music industry to produce revenue; American Idol earned more than $260 million in profits by the end of its third season (Jenkins 2006). Convergence offers endless opportunities for mediums to be consumed in non traditional ways.
Advertising is also using convergence to better target a niche market. Bill Gates is forecasting in five years internet will attract $30billion in annual advertising revenues (Samuel, 2005, 10). According to Cunningham and Turner (2002, 5), industry convergence (where separate sectors of the communications industry merge) is an extension of technological convergence, increasing ability to carry and convert ‘content’.
Through utilising new media technologies, consumers are able to produse content they desire. The days have passed when consumers had limited options regarding the media they consumed, change has happened quickly and the forecast predicts more change to occur (Jenkins, 2002, 164).
Media landscape is changing, convergence is occurring within multiple mediums as technology develops, especially Web 2.0. Younger audiences are declining their television viewing and newspaper readership in place of rising internet usage. Traditional media companies are investing in new media technologies (e.g. News Corporation just bought MySpace) to accommodate the new audiences emerging (Croll, n.d.). This strengthens the relationship between producers and the consumer, therefore providing audiences with more social and cultural power over the media.
References (not linked)
Cunningham, S., G. Turner. 2002. The Media and Communications in Australia. New South Wales: Allen and Unwin
Jenkins, H. 2002. Interactive Audiences. In The New Media Book, ed D. Harries, 157-170. London: BFI Publishing.
Jenkins, H. 2006. “Buying into American Idol: How We Are Being Sold on Reality Television,” Convergence Culture. New York: New York University.
The audience is changing with new media technologies. New media technologies occur when the boundary between producer and consumer are blurred (Sternberg, 2008). The introduction of Web 2.0 has seen the largest media transformation embodying convergence, DIY cultures and produsage, which will be explored further on. Users are able to create, produce and circulate content, use the internet to communicate or watch television and be viewsers and prosumers, all of which have become possible with the emergence of new media.This audience sub-culture includes “new media technologies, do-it-yourself media production cultures and economic trends favouring media convergence” (Banks, 2008). The shift from an active to interactive audience implies a greater connection to others, a greater sense of control over content and a greater sense of identification (Banks, 2008). A produser is a member of the Interactive Audience. A produser is someone whom produces and uses media content on the internet through websites such as Flickr, Facebook, Wikipedia and YouTube (Banks, 2008). This blog is a form of produsage.
Convergence is also prevalent, the internet can now be used to download music, watch television, communicate with people through Skype and read the latest news. A 22 per cent increase is expected in online growth by 2010 (Public Relations Institute of Australia, 2006). Television also experiences convergence, an example of this is reality television utilising mobile phone voting, concert tours, videogames, books and profits within the music industry to produce revenue; American Idol earned more than $260 million in profits by the end of its third season (Jenkins 2006). Convergence offers endless opportunities for mediums to be consumed in non traditional ways.
Advertising is also using convergence to better target a niche market. Bill Gates is forecasting in five years internet will attract $30billion in annual advertising revenues (Samuel, 2005, 10). According to Cunningham and Turner (2002, 5), industry convergence (where separate sectors of the communications industry merge) is an extension of technological convergence, increasing ability to carry and convert ‘content’.
Through utilising new media technologies, consumers are able to produse content they desire. The days have passed when consumers had limited options regarding the media they consumed, change has happened quickly and the forecast predicts more change to occur (Jenkins, 2002, 164).
Media landscape is changing, convergence is occurring within multiple mediums as technology develops, especially Web 2.0. Younger audiences are declining their television viewing and newspaper readership in place of rising internet usage. Traditional media companies are investing in new media technologies (e.g. News Corporation just bought MySpace) to accommodate the new audiences emerging (Croll, n.d.). This strengthens the relationship between producers and the consumer, therefore providing audiences with more social and cultural power over the media.
References (not linked)
Cunningham, S., G. Turner. 2002. The Media and Communications in Australia. New South Wales: Allen and Unwin
Jenkins, H. 2002. Interactive Audiences. In The New Media Book, ed D. Harries, 157-170. London: BFI Publishing.
Jenkins, H. 2006. “Buying into American Idol: How We Are Being Sold on Reality Television,” Convergence Culture. New York: New York University.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Words....
A wise tutor once said to me;
"Natalie, your aim in life is to create your own word which is known to the general public."
Well to be honest it was only said to me a few weeks ago by a 23 year old tutor who just thought that it would be pretty cool to make up a word, but for Dr. Axel Bruns (who just happens to be the unit coordinator for this subject) the dream of many has become a reality.
No, a produser is not how someone who failed spelling would spell producer, it is a combination of producer and user... a term which accurately defines what our generation is. With the emergence of new media technologies user-created content is in surplus thanks to websites such as Facebook, MySpace, Flickr and blogs, such as the one i am writing now. In recent years technology has boomed, especially within media. Now, 78% of Australians are connected to the internet, 99% own a television set and 2.7 billion people worldwide possess a mobile phone.
The introduction of Web 2.0 has seen the largest media transformation embodying convergence, DIY cultures and produsage. Users are able to create, produce and circulate content, use the internet to communicate or watch television and be viewsers and prosumers, all of which have become possible with the emergence of new media.
Wow, you are now saying what is this "university student" going on about.... produsers, viewsers, prosumers? These words have been coined by peoples such as Bruns to describe this trend. A viewser is a viewer/user.... a prosumer is a producer/consumer.
Try and come up with your own words.... we'll report back to base in a few days...
"Natalie, your aim in life is to create your own word which is known to the general public."
Well to be honest it was only said to me a few weeks ago by a 23 year old tutor who just thought that it would be pretty cool to make up a word, but for Dr. Axel Bruns (who just happens to be the unit coordinator for this subject) the dream of many has become a reality.
No, a produser is not how someone who failed spelling would spell producer, it is a combination of producer and user... a term which accurately defines what our generation is. With the emergence of new media technologies user-created content is in surplus thanks to websites such as Facebook, MySpace, Flickr and blogs, such as the one i am writing now. In recent years technology has boomed, especially within media. Now, 78% of Australians are connected to the internet, 99% own a television set and 2.7 billion people worldwide possess a mobile phone.
The introduction of Web 2.0 has seen the largest media transformation embodying convergence, DIY cultures and produsage. Users are able to create, produce and circulate content, use the internet to communicate or watch television and be viewsers and prosumers, all of which have become possible with the emergence of new media.
Wow, you are now saying what is this "university student" going on about.... produsers, viewsers, prosumers? These words have been coined by peoples such as Bruns to describe this trend. A viewser is a viewer/user.... a prosumer is a producer/consumer.
Try and come up with your own words.... we'll report back to base in a few days...
Thursday, April 17, 2008
How is Web 2.0 different from Web 1.0?
For most of us studying at QUT now, we would hardly remember what Web 1.0 was about... it seemed so long ago... a whole 4 years ago (the first Web 2.0 conference was in October of '04), when we were mere high school peasants longing for a world of freedom which would be given to us through UNIVERSITY.
When Web 1.0 was in vogue, we were consumers not produsers, like the majority of Web 2.0 users are. A produser is someone who creates online content, this could be something as simple as having a Facebook account, and also consumes. Following on from this, Web 2.0 sees outcomes remaining always unfinished, and continually under development. In contrast to Web 2.0, Web 1.0 saw a small number of people impacting content creation, information was more static.
Social software has enabled us to be socially colaborative and createDo-It-Yourself communities. Examples of these are online publishing (a.k.a the blogging phenomenon), media sharing (Flickr and YouTube) and knowledge management (wiki and del.icio.us). This is how buzz words such as 'tagging' 'podcasting' and 'blogging' were coined. As mentioned earlier, a large number of people are now becoming invovled in creating web content, social software has made this transition possible. It allows better access for collaboration.
Essentially, Web 2.0 provides a more organised and categorised option from Web 1.0. It has higher content, is more functional, hence providing a democratic, personal and DIY medium.
- natalie ... & emmy
When Web 1.0 was in vogue, we were consumers not produsers, like the majority of Web 2.0 users are. A produser is someone who creates online content, this could be something as simple as having a Facebook account, and also consumes. Following on from this, Web 2.0 sees outcomes remaining always unfinished, and continually under development. In contrast to Web 2.0, Web 1.0 saw a small number of people impacting content creation, information was more static.
Social software has enabled us to be socially colaborative and createDo-It-Yourself communities. Examples of these are online publishing (a.k.a the blogging phenomenon), media sharing (Flickr and YouTube) and knowledge management (wiki and del.icio.us). This is how buzz words such as 'tagging' 'podcasting' and 'blogging' were coined. As mentioned earlier, a large number of people are now becoming invovled in creating web content, social software has made this transition possible. It allows better access for collaboration.
Essentially, Web 2.0 provides a more organised and categorised option from Web 1.0. It has higher content, is more functional, hence providing a democratic, personal and DIY medium.
- natalie ... & emmy
Is advertising blog worthy?
Blatantly the answer is yes. There has been a great change in traditional advertising since Web 2.0 and niche markets become extremely prevalent. If you continue to read my blog I will continue to address these issues... In the meantime, appreciate some rather hilarious but relevant cartoons:
What is assignment two about?
I missed last weeks tut, that was a mistake... now i am confused about this assignment. I may write about current unit issues or maybe stuff I tagged on delicious, or questions asked in class!! There are so many options yet all are so confusing.
Should I be writing in this chatty nature? Maybe it isn't scholarly enough... but i will figure it out, and write my 700 words per week about a topic somehow relating to virtual cultures.
I have faith in my ability...
Should I be writing in this chatty nature? Maybe it isn't scholarly enough... but i will figure it out, and write my 700 words per week about a topic somehow relating to virtual cultures.
I have faith in my ability...
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Virtual Cultures... blog
welcome to ntl.mtchll. which is my name minus all vowels, i'll give credit to Gmail for coming up with it though.
this is my first blog! sure there will be more to come because it is assessment for virtual cultures...
this is my first blog! sure there will be more to come because it is assessment for virtual cultures...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
