Major Assignment 4: Digital Media Distribution

Many incoming college freshman don't know what they're getting into. This was the case for me. Because I had no one to discuss with and teach me what to expect from the college lifestyle I don't think I was prepared. If I could go back to my freshman year with the knowledge I know now, I think I would do things differently. I wanted to create a platform where my thoughts and ideas of college life could be shared and read by others. I also wanted to be able to answer questions and gain from the receivers of my information.

I am generally a shy person. This doesn't mean I don't have interesting thoughts. I may not speak out verbally but I do have opinions. This is why I enjoy blogging. Blogs allow me to write my thoughts and opinions down in any matter I choose and at any pace I choose. A blog post can be written in 1 minute or it could take hours to write. They allow me to spill my thoughts as they come to me. O'Reilly touches on this in his reasoning as to why blogging is a major feature of Web 2.0:

"If an essential part of Web 2.0 is harnessing collective intelligence, turning the web into a kind of global brain, the blogosphere is the equivalent of constant mental chatter in the forebrain, the voice we hear in all of our heads. It may not reflect the deep structure of the brain, which is often unconscious, but is instead the equivalent of conscious thought. And as a reflection of conscious thought and attention, the blogosphere has begun to have a powerful effect." 

Because blogging allows me to organize my ideas easily and allows connectivity through commenting and sharing, I thought that a blog would be the perfect place to publish my digital media project on advising incoming college freshman and parents.

I used the blogging platform, Blogger to create my blog and organize my ideas. I chose this platform because it is popular, I had a bit of experience with it, and I liked the way it was set up. In my opinion, one of the greatest features of Blogger is that it is owned by Google and is therefore connected to the user's Google account. For example, I can create contacts, subscribe to other blogs, read those other blogs with Google reader, and search for other blogs with Google Blog Search with ease. Blogs created with Blogger are also conveniently viewable through mobile devices. This creation of an easy-to-read, mobile version of the service ("Software Above the Level of a Single Device") is another feature O'Reilly uses to define Web 2.0. Through the use of an RSS feed, users who follow my blog can get instant updates whenever I post something new. Again, instant distribution in the form of a stream can be considered a feature of Web 2.0.

I decided that for now, Facebook is probably the best means of advertising my blog on my own. As Boyd suggests, we are living in a time where our information is accessed through a stream. I can distribute my blog on my feed so my friends can access it through their streams. When I post the hyperlink I can tag friends of mine whom I know are going to be incoming college freshmen in the near future so that I can make a pretty good assumption that part of my audience was reached. I understand that by distributing through facebook, I will only be reaching a fraction of my audience. I am unaware of better options at this time, however. Tagging my brother (who will be attending college next fall) and telling him to pass it on to his friends seems to be the most attractive method of reaching my audience right now. Facebook is now designed so that often when someone "likes" or comments on something posted by "friend 1", the content will show up on "friend 2"'s feed even though the "friend 1" and "friend 2" aren't friends. This means that I could reach a large amount of incoming college students even if my brother didn't share but simply liked the post. 

I feel that in my case, the success of reaching a large audience will be completely based on user distribution and sharing. I believe if incoming college freshman and parents appreciate my help and learn from my blog, the information will spread. I think that my blog could become a place of discussion among users. This participatory culture and participatory learning is discussed in more detail by Jenkins. I believe that the best case scenario would be if my blog eventually became a well known source for students and parents to gain knowledge, ask questions, and add input.

References:

O'Reilly, Tim. "What Is Web 2.0." O'Reilly Media. N.p., 30 Sept. 2005. Web. 20 June 2012. <http://oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html?page=1>.


"Web 2.0." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 20 June 2012. Web. 22 June 2012. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0>

Suthersan, Vinod. "5 Best Blogging Platforms 2012." 5 Best Blogging Platforms 2012 ~ Internet Tech Column. ITechColumn.com, 21 Feb. 2012. Web. 20 June 2012. <http://www.itechcolumn.com/2012/02/5-best-blogging-platforms-2012.html>.

Gillmor, Dan. "Google Buys Pyra: Blogging Goes Big-Time." SiliconValley.com. N.p., 15 Feb. 2003. Web. 20 June 2012. <http://web.archive.org/web/20031008161432/http://weblog.siliconvalley.com/column/dangillmor/archives/000802.shtml>.

Pilgrim, Mark. "What Is RSS." Xml.com. O'Reilly, 18 Dec. 2002. Web. 20 June 2012. <http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2002/12/18/dive-into-xml.html>.

Boyd, Danah. ""Streams of Content, Limited Attention: The Flow of Information through Social Media"" "Streams of Content, Limited Attention: The Flow of Information through Social Media" N.p., 17 Sept. 2009. Web. 20 June 2012. <http://www.danah.org/papers/talks/Web2Expo.html>.


Jenkins, Henry. "Why Participatory Culture Is Not Web 2.0: Some Basic Distinctions." HenryJenkins.org. N.p., 24 May 2010. Web. 20 June 2012. <http://henryjenkins.org/2010/05/why_participatory_culture_is_n.html>.

Art Form for the Digital Age

I agree with the points Jenkins makes in his discussion of video games as art. I have noticed that this has become a highly debated subject. I don't think it's fair to state that games cannot be art but cinema can be because games are pixelated images. As Jenkins refers to in his mention of Bambi's mother, animated films get the same respect as live action films. How are games any different? Jenkins states that games aren't able to bring tears to our eyes. I would have to disagree with this statement. As the player you tend to become attached to the characters you control and interact with. If, for example one dies or gets taken out of the story, it can be very emotional. This can be illustrated by the death of Aeris in the game Final Fantasy VII. Her complex character structure, background and story line coupled with the unexpectedness of her death affected many gamers.

I think in the coming years critics will come to accept games as art. The evolution of technology and digital media will be the driving force behind this movement.

Dream Machines

Will Wright seems to know exactly what he's talking about in his article, Dream Machines. When I realized it was Wright who wrote the article this became very clear to me. It is easy to relate what he discusses about personalization and customization to the products he produces. His "Sim" games have always embraced these concepts. His games allow customization and this leads to learning.

One passage I could relate to was:

"Just watch a kid with a new videogame. The last thing they do is read the manual. Instead, they pick up the controller and start mashing buttons to see what happens."

This is very true. I don't think I ever read an instruction manual as a child. Wright's point that this leads to experimentation and learning is valid in my opinion. Some adults don't even bother with instruction manuals. My mom always jokes that my dad's first step in constructing something (furniture, toys, equipment) is to throw out the directions.

O'Reilly

O'Reilly's list of Web 2.0's defining features in his article, What Is Web 2.0 doesn't make the most sense to me. I understand that he is making comparisons between "web 1.0" and "web 2.0" but I am so familiar with web 2.0, I have trouble understanding. I guess I was too young in the days of web 1.0 to really understand its qualities.

From what I understand, web 2.0 is basically more streamlined. Things are instant and connected. Companies offer services that make things easier on the user or searcher. One defining feature O'Reilly mentioned that I agreed with was "Software above the level of a single device." I agree that today's web can be defined by the devices that access it. New innovative devices have completely changed the way we view things.

Boyd

When I began reading Boyd's "Streams of Content, Limited Attention: The Flow of Information through Social Media" I immediately thought of Twitter and the piece I had written on it. I then found it fitting that he referred to Twitter in the next group of sentences I read:

"Those who are most enamored with services like Twitter talk passionately about feeling as though they are living and breathing with the world around them, peripherally aware and in-tune, adding content to the stream and grabbing it when appropriate. This state is delicate, plagued by information overload and weighed down by frustrating tools."

This group of sentences beautifully illustrates what Boyd is talking about.

As I continued reading, one thing began to bother me. This may be me being picky but it seemed as though Boyd assumed everyone in the world has access to the internet:

"Internet technologies are fundamentally dismantling and reworking the structures of distribution. Distribution is a process by which content creators find channels through which they can disseminate their creation. In effect, they're pushing out the content. Sure, people have to be there to receive it, but the idea is that there are limited channels for distribution and thus getting access to this limited resource is hard. That is no longer the case."

I understand the point he is trying to make but I don't think it's correct to allude to the fact that obtaining internet access is easy for everyone.

My favorite part of the piece:

"Figuring out how to monetize sociality is a problem. And not one new to the Internet. Think about how we monetize sociality in physical spaces. Typically, it involves second-order consumption of calories. Venues provide a space for social interaction to occur and we are expected to consume to pay rent. Restaurants, bars, cafes… they all survive on this model. But we have yet to find the digital equivalent of alcohol."

Very true.

 

Jenkins

I wasn't quite sure what point Jenkins was trying to make in his post, Why Participatory Culture Is Not Web 2.0: Some Basic Distinctions until the final paragraph. He seemed to contradict his title up until then. I guess I may not know what web 2.0 really is. From what I gathered he appreciates the fact that people with similar interests are able to learn through producing artifacts collaboratively but he doesn't think the web sees it that way. He thinks that the web sees users as consumers and nothing more. I'm not sure if I agree with this or not. I'll have to think on it and hear the class' opinion tomorrow.

Uncomfortable Silences

In class today while someone was preparing their presentation we had a short discussion on silence. Our professor made the point that as the teacher she has the power to talk about nothing ("bullshit") and as students we would listen to it. While we were discussing this a scene from one of my all time favorite films came to mind. I thought I would share the scene. (Warning: there is some explicit language).

I've often thought about this scene and the point Mia makes. As a generally shy person I find myself agreeing with her. When I'm with my friends or family I can appreciate a comfortable silence but when I'm in the company of people who are acquaintances or people who I'm not the most comfortable with I often feel the urgent need to discuss something, anything, just to break the silence. I don't know why I must "feel it's necessary to yak about bullshit in order to be comfortable." As Vincent says in the video, "[It's] a good question."