Difference between revisions of "User:Sabub/NMAC 4460 Journal"

From Students
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(added journal post 9 and citation)
(added journal post 10 and citations)
Line 51: Line 51:
 
I found myself agreeing wholeheartedly with Lessig's argument. As someone who has grown up in [[w:Remix culture|remix culture]], I have never seen it as harmful. It is great to enjoy and learn from work created by professionals, but it is also a great experience to create or view remixed work. It gives me an opportunity to see a piece of work from another perspective I never thought of and witness grassroots creativity, as [[w:Henry Jenkins|Henry Jenkins]] puts it, at it finest.{{sfn|Jenkins|2008|p=90}} When we treat practices that foster creativity like it is wrong, it can make things pretty boring.
 
I found myself agreeing wholeheartedly with Lessig's argument. As someone who has grown up in [[w:Remix culture|remix culture]], I have never seen it as harmful. It is great to enjoy and learn from work created by professionals, but it is also a great experience to create or view remixed work. It gives me an opportunity to see a piece of work from another perspective I never thought of and witness grassroots creativity, as [[w:Henry Jenkins|Henry Jenkins]] puts it, at it finest.{{sfn|Jenkins|2008|p=90}} When we treat practices that foster creativity like it is wrong, it can make things pretty boring.
  
 +
==September 29, 2019: Participatory and Remix culture==
 +
When it comes to the hacker ideology, open-source software, or participatory and remix culture, they all have a common relation to new media. They all deal with utilizing the information that came before and collaborating in order to further said information. They all have similar goals, as well as similar obstacles. Participatory and Remix culture does not aim to steal and ruin an author's work, just as hackers and software sharing does not. However, it seems that many see it that way. Specifically, [[w:Andrew Keen|Andrew Keen]] argues in his book [[w:''The Cult of the Amateur''|''The Cult of the Amateur'']] that sites like Wikipedia and Youtube, that thrive from contributors, are full of ignorance and absurdity .{{sfn|Keen|2007|p=4}} He believes that we should focus on mainstream media since they have better sources instead of sites where contribution is prominent.
  
 +
First, I wonder what he thinks about being on Wikipedia himself? Second, I wonder how we are expected to learn and grow if we do not take part in the creation process? I don't see how just being a part of a passive audience helps anyone. Especially since mainstream media isn't perfect. In order to develop media literacy, we need to practice it.{{sfn|Jenkins|2008|p=170}}{{sfn|Lessig|2006|p=80}} I know I learned how to edit videos and photos through remixing. 
 +
 +
Also, continuing a bit further on the argument against participatory and remix culture, the true author/artist is not always being looked out for. I think you should always support an artist since they do put work into their creations. However, that support doesn't always reach them directly. As [[w:Courtney Love|Courtney Love]] points out, artists do not make all of the money from song sales, the labels take most of it.{{sfn|Love|2000|p=}}  So when people use the argument that you are hurting the artist, whether it be monetarily or artistically, I don't think it is the strongest argument. If someone rips the song from a fan video you make, they probably weren't going to buy it anyway. That video also probably isn't going to taint the original meaning of the song. The artist is probably more concerned with the fact they don't own the song they wrote.
  
 
==References==
 
==References==
Line 65: Line 70:
 
* {{cite web |title=Hackers vs Crackers: Easy to Understand Exclusive Difference |url=https://www.educba.com/hackers-vs-crackers/ |website=EDUCBA |accessdate=15 September 2019 |date=16 July 2016}}
 
* {{cite web |title=Hackers vs Crackers: Easy to Understand Exclusive Difference |url=https://www.educba.com/hackers-vs-crackers/ |website=EDUCBA |accessdate=15 September 2019 |date=16 July 2016}}
 
* {{cite book |last=Jenkins |first=Henry |date=2006 |title=Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide |url=https://www.hse.ru/data/2016/03/15/1127638366/Henry%20Jenkins%20Convergence%20culture%20where%20old%20and%20new%20media%20collide%20%202006.pdf |location=New York |publisher=NYU Press |page= |isbn=0814743072 |ref=harv }}
 
* {{cite book |last=Jenkins |first=Henry |date=2006 |title=Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide |url=https://www.hse.ru/data/2016/03/15/1127638366/Henry%20Jenkins%20Convergence%20culture%20where%20old%20and%20new%20media%20collide%20%202006.pdf |location=New York |publisher=NYU Press |page= |isbn=0814743072 |ref=harv }}
 +
* {{cite book |last1=Keen |first1=Andrew |title=The cult of the amateur : how today's internet is killing our culture |date=2007 |publisher=Doubleday/Currency |isbn=0385520808 |edition=1st |url=https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Cult_of_the_Amateur.html?id=Z59TDBx1U2UC&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button#v=onepage&q=parasite&f=false}}
 
* {{cite web |last1=Kornblum |first1=Janet |title=Netscape sets source code free |url=https://www.cnet.com/news/netscape-sets-source-code-free/ |date=1998 |website=CNET |accessdate=22 September 2019 |language=en}}
 
* {{cite web |last1=Kornblum |first1=Janet |title=Netscape sets source code free |url=https://www.cnet.com/news/netscape-sets-source-code-free/ |date=1998 |website=CNET |accessdate=22 September 2019 |language=en}}
 
* {{cite book |last=Lessig |first=Lawrence |date=2008 |title=Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy  |url=https://archive.org/details/LawrenceLessigRemix |location=New York |publisher=Penguin  |isbn=1594201722 |ref=harv }}
 
* {{cite book |last=Lessig |first=Lawrence |date=2008 |title=Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy  |url=https://archive.org/details/LawrenceLessigRemix |location=New York |publisher=Penguin  |isbn=1594201722 |ref=harv }}
 
* {{cite web |url=https://groups.csail.mit.edu/medg/people/psz/Licklider.html |title=Man-Computer Symbiosis |last=Licklider |first=J. C. R. |date=1960 |website=groups.csail.mit.edu |publisher= |access-date= 8 September 2019 |quote= |ref=harv }}
 
* {{cite web |url=https://groups.csail.mit.edu/medg/people/psz/Licklider.html |title=Man-Computer Symbiosis |last=Licklider |first=J. C. R. |date=1960 |website=groups.csail.mit.edu |publisher= |access-date= 8 September 2019 |quote= |ref=harv }}
 +
* {{cite magazine |last=Love |first=Courtney |date=June 14, 2007 |title=Courtney Love Does the Math |url=https://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/ |magazine=Salon |location= |access-date=2018-08-18 |quote=The controversial singer takes on record label profits, Napster and 'sucka VCs.' }}
 
* {{cite web|url=https://grlucas.net/grl/New_Media|title=New Media|last=Lucas |first=Gerald |date=December 23, 2013 |website=grlucas.net|language=en|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=25 August 2019}}
 
* {{cite web|url=https://grlucas.net/grl/New_Media|title=New Media|last=Lucas |first=Gerald |date=December 23, 2013 |website=grlucas.net|language=en|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=25 August 2019}}
 
* {{Cite book|url=http://manovich.net/content/04-projects/033-new-media-from-borges-to-html/30_article_2001.pdf|title=New Media from Borges to HTML|last=Manovich|first=Lev|publisher=The MIT Press|year=2001|isbn=|location=|pages=13-25|access-date=25 August 2019}}
 
* {{Cite book|url=http://manovich.net/content/04-projects/033-new-media-from-borges-to-html/30_article_2001.pdf|title=New Media from Borges to HTML|last=Manovich|first=Lev|publisher=The MIT Press|year=2001|isbn=|location=|pages=13-25|access-date=25 August 2019}}

Revision as of 04:22, 29 September 2019

August 24, 2019: New Media

New media, as I understand it, provides communication, information, and entertainment through digital channels. This would include the internet, computers, smartphones and so on. A specific example of new media that come to mind are social media like Instagram or Twitter, blogs, and even Wikipedia. New media differs from "old media" like television and newspaper since it is interactive and constantly changing. New media allows people to not only receive messages but also put out their own messages for others to see. I think new media is also constantly moving since information can be put out and edited at any time. There is some overlap between old media and new media, examples being online newspapers and television streaming online. I think new media is such a broad term that I feel like it is difficult to identify everything that falls under the term.

August 24, 2019: New Media Revisited

After looking more into new media, it seems my original definition falls into that of Lev Manovich's proposition of "New Media as Computer Technology used as a Distribution Platform". While it is correct to some degree there are quite a few ways to define new media. Particularly, I realized I did not really touch on the studies associated with new media. The study of new media can focus on the objects themselves (like smartphones).[1] However, new media is not only how the digital instruments are used but also the study of how they change the way people act and think.[2] I'm kind of surprised I did not think about the theory and studies associated with new media considering I have taken so many classes related to the subject. I think I got so caught up with past definitions I have read that focus mainly on digital devices that I forgot about the cultural relation. New media is "a cultural process that involves not only the actual transmission of information but also the ritualized collocation of senders and recipients".[3] I mentioned briefly in my previous post, new media allows people to interact more. I did not mention just how much new media allows people to come together, share their ideas and even start movements. Through New media, people have brought back their favorite shows, driven political campaigns and spread movements like #MeToo.[4] New media is just as much about the social aspects as it is about the digital ones. I think it is important that I pay more attention to that since I am a new media student.

@Sabub: I didn't think of the devices themselves as a form of new media either at first. I liked your second point about how new media and communication go hand-in-hand. That's literally the name of our degree, but I never really thought about it in a sense of going together. We really have taken so many classes on it. I liked what Shannon found in her research. She mentioned that new media is a form of self-expression. If we are looking at new media as a cultural process involving communication, there's an aspect of how we represent and identify ourselves in that process. New media is definitely a powerful tool, but there are ways that the tool shapes the user, too. In the same way that agriculture has made farming less of a necessity for everyone (meaning less people would be able to grow their own food, if you look at it in a negative way), there are ways that new media is changing us that we are beginning to see. I think one negative way would be false information spreading so quickly. Hthrxlynn (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2019 (EDT)
@Sabub: Reading this opened my eyes to the realization that I have done the exact same thing! It is crazy how comfortable we get with what we are used to that we so easily overlook all the other aspects that can go along with something. New Media is definitely a large reason, if not the entire reason, as to why virtual/digital communication exists and has spread world wide, and why it is so important to society today. It drives the way we start and run our businesses, meet new people, create entertainment and commodities, express who we are, and enjoy entertainment ourselves. With our world so heavily dependent on technology today, new media and communication (the name of our degree, haha) are basically synonymous. As I thought about this more, the numerous ways in which new media has affected my experiences, people I know, and who I have become as a person are endless. Shannamartini (talk) 22:58, 7 September 2019 (EDT)
@Sabub: After reading your standpoints on new media and how it is distributed, I also think that sometimes we forget when using technology how to communicate with others. For example, from working in a restaurant, I sometimes notice how families and couples who come to eat together will choose to be using technology instead of communicating. Technology can drive us from communicating with individuals as a distraction. New media in the world keeps us so updated with newer things that in a way it shapes who we are. Jameiladudley (talk) 18:45, 8 September 2019 (EDT)Jameiladudley

September 8, 2019: Foundational Thinkers

While surely not the first to attempt to conceive a new age information device, Charle Babbage seemed to become a computer pioneer after he proposed the analytical engine. Though this mechanical general-use computer design never became a reality, it surely inspired future versions of the computer. The same could be said for Vannevar Bush and the Memex. Though only hypothetical, the idea for an endless library of information became the inspiration for later engineers and inventors, notably "Father of the mouse",Douglas Englebart. Bush and his ideas for the memex, in a way, predicted the online encyclopedia and personal knowledge base software, among other things.[5] While these thinkers presented ideas for systems, later foundational thinkers proposed ideas to improve on systems that already existed. J. C. R. Licklider saw the need for easier interaction between the computer and its user. Licklider wanted symbiosis, for man and computer to work together, almost like man and man would.[6] This close relationship between human and computer was also seen by an earlier thinker, Norbert Wiener. Wiener saw a connection between feedback mechanisms in machines and intelligent behavior.[7] It seems that most of these foundational thinkers took examples from the human brain and applied it to computers, and vice-versa when thinking how the two could interact. These foundational thinkers, along with ones I did not mention, have influenced new media through their ideas. Though they did not create the tools we use today, they proposed systems and foresaw possibilities, like interactivity and "human-machine symbiosis" that influenced others to build off of. Had they not pioneered the way, new media might not be what it is today.

@Sabub: Good work. Be sure to proof for typos. —Grlucas (talk) 06:28, 9 September 2019 (EDT)

September 8, 2019: McLuhan, the Medium, and the Message

Marshall McLuhan's phrase "the medium is the message," says that the medium or the channel itself is more important than the message within it. The medium has more of an effect on us than the content itself.[8] I found this idea incredibly interesting. I have heard this phrase many times before only now really understanding it. The medium we receive information from can affect how we live. A medium can affect us like how architecture helped in the evolution of music or how television made us change how we look at time and how our home is set up. Also, the way we think changes based on the medium. I think an example of how applicable the idea of the medium being the message is social media. The way apps like Twitter are set up affect how we communicate and create messages. Twitter has a 140-character limit for each tweet, so we have to think differently and change how we use language. We shorten our words and use slang to create a message because of the medium we are using. This I believe emerged from texting since the point was to convey a message quickly. Now, this "text speak" is used in everyday life, whether on social media or face-to-face. At this point, we rely pretty heavily on media as a whole to shape how we interact and live. As McLuhan said, technology is an extension of ourselves that we don’t really realize. [9]

@Sabub: Savannah, I love what you said about how the medium changes the way we think. I read the article I'm going to be writing my Wikipedia article about, A Rape in Cyberspace, this week. It talked about an online game where one user essentially used his character to violate other people's avatars on the game and what that meant in this online world. It was interesting to actually find myself agreeing with the victims of the situation, mentally comparing it to some early yet intense form of cyberbullying. You should read it if you get the chance! I'd love to hear what you think! Hthrxlynn (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2019 (EDT)
@Sabub: You make valid points about McLuhan's "the medium is the message" and how it relates to the current medium most people use to communicate. Social media has changed a lot since it's beginning when 32 characters were all an instant message could send on a flip phone. Now with apps like Twitter that as you said to limit the amount of character per post it has changed how people interact on social media as well as in person. Trying to remember all the acronyms for text talk compared to acronyms used can overwhelming. Which links back to McLuhan's the medium really is the message and how we'll communicate a decade or more from now.Amayesing77 (talk) --Amayesing77 (talk) 23:43, 8 September 2019 (EDT)

September 15, 2019: Being Digital

In 1995, Nicholas Negroponte outlined the history of digital technologies in his book, Being Digital. Along with the general history, he also predicted possibilities for the future of these technologies.[10] Many of these predictions ended up coming true in some way or another. Particularly, Negroponte's concept of newspaper's being tailored to our specific interest is something that has been becoming more common over time. The site DailyMe allows just this as users set up their own front pages with articles that fit their interest. Also, social media could also be applied to this idea. People subscribe only to who they want so they only get the "news" they are interested in.

Negroponte's comments on the touchscreen in his book and even earlier in his ted talk, interfaces also seem to have been a prediction.[11] While interfaces like the mouse are still used, the touch screen has stretched to phones, computers, and more. I think what is most impressive about Negroponte is how he saw digital technologies becoming a teaching tool, whether it be through games or accessing information. Negroponte identified this possibility both in his Ted talk and his book, and like many of his other predictions, it became a reality through the One Laptop per Child project.[12]

September 15, 2019: Understanding Hackers

My understanding of hackers after reading The Hacker's Manifesto is that hackers do not intend to do harm. Their main reason for hacking is to use technology to explore and expand on what they already know.[13] It is curiosity, not ill intent, that motivates them. The negative aspects that are usually attributed to hackers are actually brought upon by crackers. I personally used to put the two together in my head, even though "hackers build things and the crackers break the things".[14]

Though I am still a bit hazy on what "being digital" really means, I think hackers are a good example of the idea. I think being digital means using digital technology in both new and beneficial ways. It is finding ways to improve on what we already have. Hackers are a great example because they take note of what can be improved and how to protect what they are working on from crackers. Catherine Bracy has a very good quote on hacking in her Ted talk. "It's the idea that if you see a problem, you work to fix it, and not just complain about it".[15] I think the hacker's mentality is useful to everyone when it comes to being digital so we can keep learning and improving in technology (and possibly the world).

@Sabub I think what we view as hacking today is seen as digital but when Bracy was talking about Benjamin Franklin, she was pointing out that people don't have to have advanced technology to be hackers. And I also would put hackers and crackers together in my head. I guess that is because of the information we are exposed to about hackers. Whenever someone reports on some credit card company that has had a security violation where information on their clients is stolen, the headline usually includes the word hacker. I wonder if the people in media reporting on these type of things know there is a difference between hackers and crackers. --Jkoplin1 (talk) 18:57, 15 September 2019 (EDT)Jkoplin1
@Sabub: I thought it was interesting to learn that a hacker is not someone wanting to do any harm. When we watch television and movies, the hacker is someone who seems to be the one who is out to take advantage of the system to harm people and do things like break into your bank account. Learning that hackers can actually do some good has given me a new perspective on them. Now that I have learned this new information, I think that hackers are necessary. They can help point out the flaws in a system before crackers can take advantage of them. MGray1196 (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2019 (EDT)

September 21, 2019: Open-Source vs Proprietary Software

While watching Revolution OS, I realized I have never thought too deeply about proprietary software versus open-source. I use proprietary software every day since I use Microsoft Windows and Adobe Photoshop, due to industry standards, even though I could probably find a similar open-source program.[16] However, I use open-source software as well, like MediaWiki and Blender. I also use the Android operating system, which I just found out is based on Linus Torvalds' Linux kernel, though it isn't completely open source.

New media is littered with both proprietary and open-source options. While I use both in my daily life, I can't help but find myself seeing more benefits from open-source software. As Richard Stallman and the others say in the documentary, users should have the freedom to use the software how they want.When users have freedom, the software itself benefits through community contribution and evolution.[17]Although I understand wanting to keep software proprietary because you worked hard to create it yourself, it can be both greedy and detrimental to the future of technology and new media, when companies keep it secret to make money. How are we supposed to improve upon something if it is kept a secret? I think that the idea of the open-source movement applies to any type of media. If we show how something is created, we can build upon it and learn from it to make new things.

@Sabub: Good job with your short refs, but your bib needs to be in alphabetical order. Please see my feedback that I will be updating through the day on 9/24/19. —Grlucas (talk) 14:37, 24 September 2019 (EDT)

September 22, 2019: Open-Source, Free Software, and New Media

Like many people, I previously thought the open-source software and free software were the same things. While they stem from the same roots and share many of the same guidelines when it comes to sharing source code, they have different views. Where free software refers more to the user's freedom, open-source is focused on practicality. [18] I think both views are important when thinking about new media.

Eric S. Raymond's proposition "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow" made it easier for me to understand how beneficial showing source code to the public is.[19] When more people have access to the source code, they can make corrections and open up a marketplace of ideas, which makes it more practical for the software developer. The term open-source itself is also good for making the idea more digestible in the corporate world, case in point Netscape's coining of the term when releasing their source code.[20] I think that when major companies adopt this practice of releasing their source codes, it not only benefits them but also the future of open-sourcing.

I find that the idea of "free software", or I suppose specifically Richard Stallman's views, is also very true. Freedom is important because it fosters participation and community.[21] Not just when creating software, but also various forms of media. Restricting information doesn't do much good for innovation. It takes longer for things to be improved when you only let a few people see. Based on my understanding of what new media is, we need collaboration, to be critiqued, in order to create or improve it. So following the way of the open-source movement seems like a no brainer.

September 29, 2019: Read-only vs. Read/write culture

Lawrence Lessig argues that we do not need to sacrifice Read/write(RW) culture in order to protect Read-only(RO) culture or vice-versa.[22] The two can and should coexist. In fact, to create remixes, RO culture is needed since that is what remixes are made up of and is something we can learn from. However, RW culture is also valuable to us as it serves as a creative opportunity for us to take what we learn and make our own products. Both cultures are important, but it seems that there is a large focus on protecting RO while disregarding and diminishing RW, through copyright laws. Lessig proposes that the way to also protect RW culture is to decriminalize it.[23] Regardless of whether these laws are in place or not, RW culture will still exist. But if it continues to be considered a crime, younger generations will be taught they are criminals and that remixing, along with the creativity that comes with it, is a bad thing. Current laws should not be applied to remix culture because there is nothing harmful about it.

I found myself agreeing wholeheartedly with Lessig's argument. As someone who has grown up in remix culture, I have never seen it as harmful. It is great to enjoy and learn from work created by professionals, but it is also a great experience to create or view remixed work. It gives me an opportunity to see a piece of work from another perspective I never thought of and witness grassroots creativity, as Henry Jenkins puts it, at it finest.[24] When we treat practices that foster creativity like it is wrong, it can make things pretty boring.

September 29, 2019: Participatory and Remix culture

When it comes to the hacker ideology, open-source software, or participatory and remix culture, they all have a common relation to new media. They all deal with utilizing the information that came before and collaborating in order to further said information. They all have similar goals, as well as similar obstacles. Participatory and Remix culture does not aim to steal and ruin an author's work, just as hackers and software sharing does not. However, it seems that many see it that way. Specifically, Andrew Keen argues in his book The Cult of the Amateur that sites like Wikipedia and Youtube, that thrive from contributors, are full of ignorance and absurdity .[25] He believes that we should focus on mainstream media since they have better sources instead of sites where contribution is prominent.

First, I wonder what he thinks about being on Wikipedia himself? Second, I wonder how we are expected to learn and grow if we do not take part in the creation process? I don't see how just being a part of a passive audience helps anyone. Especially since mainstream media isn't perfect. In order to develop media literacy, we need to practice it.[26][27] I know I learned how to edit videos and photos through remixing.

Also, continuing a bit further on the argument against participatory and remix culture, the true author/artist is not always being looked out for. I think you should always support an artist since they do put work into their creations. However, that support doesn't always reach them directly. As Courtney Love points out, artists do not make all of the money from song sales, the labels take most of it.[28] So when people use the argument that you are hurting the artist, whether it be monetarily or artistically, I don't think it is the strongest argument. If someone rips the song from a fan video you make, they probably weren't going to buy it anyway. That video also probably isn't going to taint the original meaning of the song. The artist is probably more concerned with the fact they don't own the song they wrote.

References

Citations

Bibliography