Final Seminar: Participatory Culture Then, Now and Tomorrow October 7, 2008
Posted by Tama in Seminar.11 comments
Your core reading/viewing:
[X] Axel Bruns. "Produsage: Towards a Broader Framework for User-Led Content Creation." Paper presented at Creativity & Cognition conference, Washington D.C., USA, 13-15 June 2007. Also see the interview of Axel Bruns recently conduct by Henry Jenkins: Part I; Part II.
[X] Jane McGonigal, ‘Saving the World Through Game Design’ [20 minute video presentation], 2008 New Yorker Conference, 28 May 2008. And once you’ve thought about the video, please visit the latest socially ‘game’ McGonigal and her colleagues are running, Superstruct. Explore the artifacts on the Superstruct pages, delve into the material created and edited by players (allow yourselves at least thirty minutes to really look at Superstruct).
[X] Cory Doctorow, ‘Giving it Away’ and ‘World of Democracycraft’ in Content: Selected Essays on Technology, Creativity, Copyright, and the Future of the Future, Tachyon Publications, 2008, pp. 71-75 and 201-206 respectively. (There are plenty of different formats of the whole book available online – feel free to read as much as you like, but please at the very least read the two very short essays I’ve suggested.)
Axel Bruns’ notion of ‘produsage’, where the concepts of producer and consumer collide in a world on increasing user-generated content creation, in some important ways updates or extends the idea of participatory culture discussed in the early weeks of this course. Bruns’ essay gives us a sense of the heightened role users play in the creating content, but it is also aware of the limitations of such an idea (something often forgotten as the selected examples of participatory culture and collective intelligence are continually rehashed).
In contrast, the video from Jane McGonigal gives a far more optimistic take on the world, where the participatory culture surrounding socially meaningful games can act as the perfect focus on collective intelligence. More to the point, the latest socially-aware gaming experience from McGonigal and her colleagues is being played right now, so looking at Superstruct will, hopefully, let us see how well these ideals are working in this world of meaningful play.
Finally, Cory Doctorow’s two short essays (and other writing in Content) return to two key questions in relation to digital communication: ‘How can copyright be meaningfully situated within an informatic economy, especially in relation to older media forms [such as books]?’ ; and ‘How will the social fabric of virtual worlds be governed?’. Also worth considering is the fact that the book Content is itself licensed under a Creative Commons license.
Questions to Consider:
[1] Is Bruns’ model of ‘produsage’ a more accurate and realistic version of participatory culture as it operates today (and tomorrow)? How well does the idea of produsage reflect aspects of your own life, and what role do you think produsage has in our increasingly digital communities? How well does produsage describe the examples of participatory culture examined throughout this unit?
[2] How well does Superstruct work as an example of collective intelligence in the real world? Are socially-responsible games good learning tools? Is so, are they still fun (or do you think they’d be fun)? Where is the boundary between play, learning and activism in Superstruct? (Do you think this style of meaningful gaming would be useful to investigate other political or social issues?)
[3] Returning to the question of copyright, looking at Doctorow’s example and the unit overall, is there a future for copyright in the era of digital communication, and if so, how do you think it should operate?
[4] Finally, how have your own ideas about participatory culture and digital communication changed since the beginning of this unit? What surprised you the most? What worries you? What makes you hopeful and optimistic about our digital future?
The Last Blog Comments
As well as making your last comment or two about the topics raised in this seminar, can I ask everyone to please make one additional reflective comment detailing your thoughts about this unit overall: did it work as a coherent unit for you? What was most interesting or enjoyable? What didn’t work as well? Any suggestions about things that should be changed?
And that’s the final seminar done. Now you’ve just got your major projects to complete – and to post to the blog – and that’s your iGeneration experience done (at least in the formal sense)! 
[Image ‘Wake up!’ by Eddi 07, CC BY]
Closed Social Networks: Who can see my Facebook or Friendster? October 1, 2008
Posted by ramfelsean in Seminar.14 comments
Closed Social Networks Seminar presented by : Alvin and RamfelSean
Suggested Readings
Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship
by Danah M. Boyd and Nicolle B. Ellison
Slap in the Facebook: It’s Time for the Social Networks to Open UP
by: Scott Gilbertson
Why you should beware of Facebook
from http://www.theage.com.au
posted January 20, 2008
The phrase “no Man (and woman) is an island” never looked more applicable than now. Looking at the popularity of Social Networking Sites (SNS) these days, it seems that some things never change despite centuries of evolution. If the deductions are right, people living in ‘virtual worlds’ today share a similar instinct with their earlier counterpart – the quest for company. The main difference is that people today have a myriad of “tools” assisting and encouraging them to get connected. From the numbers, many people have already given in to their instincts! Of course, there are exceptions. Anti-SNS advocates have existed for as long as the sites have been created. So, just what are SNS? Taking a step further, what are “closed social networks”?
As the Internet proliferated, people found ways of sharing common interests and interact with other like-minded people through SNS (such as MySpace, Friendster, etc). Looking at it on a global scale, that meant potentially millions of people (which is already happening) communicating with one another on a variety of topics as wide as the Internet could hold. Now, take a step back and look at that from an information-sharing point of view. Imagine the reach your message(s) can have with the number of people converging on a particular point in cyberspace.
But wait a minute, there is no guarantee that you can actually reach out to this “online audience” at all. Some networks are ‘closed networks’, which mean access is only for members (not that it’s very difficult to get anyway). Having said that, even if you do gain access to the network, you still may not get to “connect” with everyone else on it. That is because some, if fact many, profiles are usually set to ‘private’ (only a select few can view). Nevertheless, you may still drop a note if you wish.
While browsing through this week’s readings, keep in mind the following issues:
What role(s) does social network sites play in “connecting people”? What potential do you think social network sites hold for the future of inter-personal communication?
Do you think Social Networks should be ‘closed’ (only accessible to members) or ‘open’ (accessible to all)? Do ‘closed’ social networks serve their intended purpose?
Does the collection of information by Social Network Sites (such as Facebook) bother you? Do you think the laws in Australia (or in your home country) are sufficiently designed to apply to Social Network Sites (i.e. in terms of privacy issues, protection of information, defamation, etc)?
YouTube: Creators, Owners, Advertisers September 24, 2008
Posted by tang12 in Seminar.15 comments
[1]David Pitlyuk A History of Advertising on Internet Video and Where is it Going Topics of Interests for entrepreneurs & my ramblings 23 August 2007.
[2]Andrew Ross Sorkin (Oct, 2006). Dot-Com Boom Echoed in Deal to Buy YouTube The New York Times.
[3]Stephanie C. Ardito (May, 2007). Social Networking and Video Web Sites:My Space and YouTube Meet the copyright cops Searcher Vol. 15 No. 5.
As part of Web 2.0, YouTube enables users to to upload, share, save videos under favorites, create playlists and comment on videos. YouTube has created a community that is highly motivated to watch and share videos. The YouTube service is free and has been supported by advertising.
Since its acquisition and launch by Google with USD1.65 billion in February 2005, YouTube had reportedly attracted an audience of 72 million by August 2006. This is achieved mainly due to the accessibility of Youtube, which allows anyone to upload and share video clips on www.YouTube.com and across the internet through websites, mobile devices, blogs and emails.
It is also highly participatory whereby anyone can join in the community to watch, share and give their comments on the clips. Audiences can see first-hand accounts of current events, relive their favorite TV moments, find videos about their hobbies and interests, discover new artists and filmmakers, and even uncover something unimaginable. YouTube empowers people to share their experiences, talents, and expertise with the world.
The following clip is an interesting version of how some people perceive Web 2.0 and the platform it represents.
While doing the readings, please keep these questions in mind:
1. How do creators, owners and advertisers carry out their roles on YouTube? Are there any conflict of interest? If so what are they?
2. What are the copyright issues involved in the use of YouTube? How have these issues affected the usage of YouTube?
3. Is there a future for advertisers on YouTube? If so what form does it take?
Podcasts, Critical Comments and The Next Seminar September 17, 2008
Posted by Tama in Seminar.3 comments
First off, can I just say to everyone: well done, your podcasts are all really engaging; I’ve enjoyed listening to every single one! Following that line, don’t forget you need to listen and share your thoughts. To be fair, it would be fantastic if everyone got two comments on their podcasts (it wouldn’t really be fair for one person to get five comments, another person none). That said, beyond the two critical comments you’re required to make, you’re most welcome to leave comments on the other podcasts, too, if you like!
Secondly, in our next seminar which is on Project planning, discussion and refinement you’ll be pleased to hear there are no set readings. Instead, you need to bring along your thoughts about the major project you’d like to do for this unit. Depending on what everyone wants to do, we’ll discuss potential ideas and then refine them into a form which can be equitable (ie things which can actually be marked alongside each other at the end of the day). Your only major stipulation is that your major project must explore participatory culture and digital communication in a meaningful and focused way. Also, think about what form you’d like your project to take: a straight-forward essay; a short video piece; a longer podcast; some sort of blogged investigation; and so on. Think about something that would be of interest and engaging to you.
Keep in mind, though, that there will be a fair amount of negotiation and refinement needed for each idea, so bring along your thinking caps, and your flexibility!
Let me reiterate, though: your podcasts are all really interesting, and you should all be proud of your efforts!
[Photo: ‘Fireworks at the Taste of Chicago’ by Zesmerelda, CC BY.]
Week7 Videogames: User-Generated Content & Machinima September 3, 2008
Posted by guans01 in Seminar.11 comments
Readings
[1] Peter Price, BBC news: “Machinima Waits to Go Mainstream” 16.20.2007.
[2] Harrison Heller, Promotinf Machinima: “Experiments in Machinima“,Introduction,16.08.2008.
[3] Paul Marino, Machinima:”Filmmaking’s destiny”, O’Reilly: Digital Media. 08.09.2004.
Machinima was defined by filmmakers-a merging of three creative mediums: filmmaking, animation, and 3D game technology. And it is the art of producing films using graphics rendered by computer games. It can be viewed as a young medium. BBC News talks about the Europe’s first Machinima Festival at the De Monfold University. They emphasis that this new medium brings so many game creativity, and production techniques and it also brings a large benefits to filmmaker production.
Harrison points out the experiments in “Machinima” are an exhibition of experimental Machinima films. There are some developed Machinima productions(ICone and Moviestorm), previsualization(Antics3D), or3D animation(MotionBuilder). He also picks up some typical Machinima to show us its features and forms such as2184 person, Febles and Men and The Dumb Man.
Paul depicts that “Visual Cinema is inevitable” because it is a filmmaking destiny. The first Machinima film was creatived in 1996; its path becomes easier to see, based on past experiences and expectations. the software and hardware were utilized by Machinima is a kind of stepping stones of Innovation. Dr. Perlin represents features for future Machinima software, it speaks directly to the creative flexibilities that Machinima affords. Characters can capable of interaction-not only with enviroment, but also among themselves. Furthermore, as far as the creators themselves, it should think about the setting a Machinima Standard? How it grows up and features of future.
Guys, when you complete these readings, please think about these questions.
[1] Does Machinima produce a revolutionary in Filmmaking? (Much is about of Machinima, does it destroy the game or create the game, what kinds of benefits would it brings in Machinima industry?)
[2] How do you understand Machinima’s narratives, realism, and genre and its features in light of2184person, Febles anf Men and The DumebMan. ( When you click to the link , seeing the game video, do you like story in that video, deeply think about in your standpoint?)
[3] How does the Machinima develop now and in the future, in your opinion?(Mentioning whether could we set up its standard, in software and rules, and searching the target audiences and markets.)
[4] How does Machinima relate to broader trends in participatory culture? (Compared with YouTube, Flickr and so on.)
Week 6 – Wikis & Collective Intelligence August 27, 2008
Posted by rouli in Seminar.14 comments
Reading for this week:
1. Henry Jenkins,” What Wikipedia Can Teach Us About Media Literacies (Part Two)” Confession of an Aca-Fan, The Official Weblog of Henry Jenkins. 20 June 2007
2. Brock Read, “Can Wikipedia Ever Make the Grade?“, The Chronicle of Higher Education. 27 October 2006
3. Daniel Terdiman, “Wikipedia Faces Growing Pains”, Wired: The Enterprise IT Guide. 01.10.05
Wiki is one form of the web content that is designed to facilitate writing and editing by as many people as possible. Wiki enable document to be written collectively and open the possibility for all the people to correct the mistakes, edit and verify the entire document. Wikipedia is the most prominent Wiki that growing rapidly since it born in 2001. It is already attracts at least 684 million visitors yearly by 2008. There are more than 75,000 active contributors working on more than 10,000,000 articles in more than 250 languages. As of today, there are 2,532,059 articles in English (www.wikipedia.org). This is one of the examples of what Pierre Levy stated as collective intelligence, “where no body knows everything, everybody knows something and what any member knows is available to the group as a whole at a moment notice” (check Jenkins’ text).
However, there is a long debate about accuracy and authority in Wikipedia. Reading for this week address some of the issues related with Wikipedia, as a form of Wiki.
To make this more interesting, check these videos to find out how exactly Wikis work:
“Wetpaint Wiki in Plain Engish” and “Wiki in plain English”
While reading the text, consider these questions:
1. What are the main differences between Wikipedia as a form of collective intelligence with expert paradigm and other traditional works? Do you think collective intelligence is the same with mass opinion?
2. What were the issues behind the growing tension between Wikipedia and academics?
3. What sort of argument that people use to question the Wikipedia accuracy?
Week 5- Blogs Seminar August 19, 2008
Posted by yanm in Seminar.20 comments
The core readings for this seminar are:
[1] Tama Leaver,”The Blogging of Everyday Life”, Reconstruction, 6.4, 2006.
[2] Adrian Miles,”Blog and Documentary (all middle)”, vlog 4.0, November 16th, 2006.
[3]Derek Barry,” Australian Blogging Conference – The Politics of Blogging” , September 29th 2007.
As we know, blog has become the fourth most influential network communicate technology after the Email,BBS and IM. However, the BBS is excessively public; on the contrary, the Email and the IM are too much personal . “With the shift to digital media and related communication technologies, the amateur voices of millions of grassroots online cultural producers are cohering to form a realm of participatory culture which is often exemplified in the form of the weblog or simply blog.”[1] Blog is a website which always origins as personal space, with regular entries of commentary. By and large, it can be seen as personal online dairy which includes individual’s day to day existence. Obviously blogs start out as primarily textual but now it is trivial to include images, audio and video within a blog. In addtion, the blog has aroused the controversial issue among people. With the more types of the blogs appearing, especially, in light of the blog in educational area, it has mutated into a far more academic form, whichi is formed as platform to share and exchange thoughts. For example, the edublogs website can meaningfully extend the educational experience, giving us a space to engage, write and communicate beyond the tutorial room.
Quotation[1] from “The Blogging fo Everyday Life” Tama Leaver Reconstruction 6.4,2006
When you enjoy the readings, please keep these simple questions in mind:
[1] How is the blog influent and recreate people’s life (especially for the young people)?
[2] Performative documentaries stress subjective experience and emotional response to the world. So what are the most distinctive differences between blogs and documentaries as you think?
[3] What are the character of the Australia’s blogosphere and how do politics apply to it?
Week 4 – Citizen Journalism Seminar August 12, 2008
Posted by annaw77 in Seminar.16 comments
This week please read these articles:
1) Mark Glaser (2006). Your Guide to Citizen Journalism. (Please also read the open comments section at the end of the article).
2) Shayne Bowman and Chris Willis (2003). We Media: How Audiences are Shaping the Future of News and Information. (please read Chapter 5)
3) Salam Pax. Where is Raed? (Please have a look at the whole blog, and pay particular attention to the blogs in 2003).
Citizen journalism is a relatively new phenomenon that is undergonig rapid growth. We will speculate on the impact that citizen journalism will have on mainstream media, both for their content and their sheer number. In this seminar, we will discuss the multiple forms that citizen journalism can take. We will also discuss different perspectives, some of which suggest that citizen journalism is necessary for a robust democratic society and to challenge traditional media’s hegemony. Other perspectives suggests that citizen journalism is inherently fraught as the ‘industry’ is not bound by journalists’ code of ethics of independence and objectivity, and therefore cannot be viewed as a credible news source.
When reading the articles, consider the following questions:
1. Will citizen journalism improve the quality of news media generally? In what ways?
2. Can citizen journalism be regulated and still function?
3. What do you see to be the future relationship between traditional media sources and citizen journalism?
Week 3 Seminar: Copyright, Creativity & The Creative Commons August 5, 2008
Posted by Tama in Seminar.16 comments
This week please read these items:
[X] Lawrence Lessig, “Preface”, Introduction”, “Piracy”, “Conclusion” and “Afterward” from Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity. New York: Penguin Press, 2004, pp. xiii-xvi, 1-79, & 257-306. (The link will open the entire book as a PDF, but you’re only required to read the page span indicated. Of course, you’re welcome to read it all if you have time! The full book is in the library is you prefer to read hardcopy.)
[X] Sam Howard-Spink, "Grey Tuesday, Online Cultural Activism and the Mash-up of Music and Politics." First Monday 9.10, 2004.
And please listen to this presentation:
[X] Lawrence Lessig, ‘Final Free Culture Lecture’, Stanford University, 31 January 2008. (53 minutes, video file)
Last week Henry Jenkins and J.D. Lasica gave us some grounding in the way that cultural interaction and production have changed in recent years, especially in the context of digital media. Building upon these ideas, this week we’re turning to the work of Lawrence Lessig who has been called, among many other things, the Elvis of cyberspace law! Lessig is a passionate crusader for a legal system which reinforces and encourages creativity, rather than locking creativity down (which is what the MPAA [Motion Picture Association of America] and RIAA [Recording Industry of America Association] and their anti-piracy rhetoric platform are doing in Lessig’s view). In the excerpts from Free Culture that you’re reading, pay particular attention to the way culture has changed in terms of ownership and in terms of what that entails for creativity and cultural production. I’d encourage you to also explore the websites of the Creative Commons organisation, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Lawrence Lessig’s own website. Lessig’s book is a great read, so if you have time you may want to dip into some of the other chapters, too. You’re also reading an article by Sam Howard-Spink which explores the cultural reaction to ‘The Grey Album’, and the reaction when copyright holders tried to remove the album from circulation. (If you’re interested, you can download the Grey Album using bittorent via links here, or watch the Grey Video – a music video featuring one of the remixes from the Grey Album.)
When reading, keep these questions in mind:
[1] How does the rhetoric of ‘piracy’ work in the debate(s) surrounding digital cultural production and creativity?
[2] How has copyright as an idea evolved over time? (Think about the politics behind the way copyright works.)
[3] How have large corporations and copyright holders reacted to new media forms and new media technologies in the past two decades?
[4] What does ‘Grey Tuesday’ tell you about the way individuals react to the current copyright system? How representative do you think this attitude towards copyright is amongst young people today?
[5] What does an organisation like the Creative Commons hope to achieve in terms of copyright and creativity?
[Image Credit: ‘culture is not a crime’ by Dawn Endico CC BY]
Week 2: Participatory Culture 101 July 29, 2008
Posted by Tama in Seminar.31 comments
Your core readings for this seminar are:
[X] Henry Jenkins, "Interactive Audiences?: The ‘Collective Intelligence’ of Media Fans" in Dan Harries (ed.), The New Media Book, (London: British Film Institute, 2002), pp. 157-170.
[X] Tim O’Reilly. ‘What Is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software’, O’Reilly Network, 30 September 2005.
[X] J.D. Lasica, "Darknet mini-book: Introduction", "’Darknet’ foreword" (by Howard Rhinegold), and "The teenage filmmakers" in Darknet: Hollywood’s War against the Digital Generation. John Wiley & Sons, 2005.
The article by Henry Jenkins looks at interactivity and audience agency, giving a sense of where culture has been in terms of participation and ownership, and then looks to how culture is shifting facilitated, in part, by digital communication. Tim O’Reilly’s article famously introduces the idea of ‘Web 2.0’ which has widely been adopted to describe the shift toward online cultures built for and by users. Finally, the excerpts from J.D. Lasica’s Darknet look at what immediate changes and battles are happening in the Western cultural context due to immediate challenges made by digital communication and interaction tools.
While this seminar is meant as a general overview, keep these questions in mind when doing you reading:
[1] Is participatory culture a brand new idea, or does is have historical precedents?
[2] How are the terms ‘ownership’, ‘community’ and ‘culture’ actually used in these readings (and are these stable terms, or do they mean something different for each author)?
[3] How is the shorthand ‘web 2.0’ deployed by O’Reilly and how accurate do you think it is?
[4] How open and accessible is cultural production in the twenty-first century? What are the trends, and where do you think things are headed?
(Remember, after our face to face conversation in the seminar, your thoughts and reflections on the topic should be posted as a comment on this post.)
