Why Wikipedians are so weird?

Matrix vs. eXistenZ

Both The Matrix and eXistenZ ask the question “what is real?” It is the way that the films focus on the question which makes the difference. In eXistenZ, the games that the film characters play becomes their world and it becomes impossible to tell, for viewers as well as the characters, at any point whether or not they are in fact still playing. Reality becomes irrelevant. It is possible that the film takes place in a virtual reality and this suggests that the blurred lines between reality and a game is impossible to make. The Matrix is more concerned about how the definition of reality can be bent.

In the scene where Morpheus brings Neo into the localized Matrix, they discuss these questions. Morpheus says something along the lines of if being able to feel, see, and smell something makes it real, then the Matrix can be considered real. The film seems to suggest that reality is subjective, that it all boils down to how our minds perceive what is on the outside. One of the powerful things about The Matrix that is lacking from eXistenZ is that at some point you wonder how we can know that we’re not ourselves in some form of Matrix, and I think the answer is that we really can’t. The fact is that we could just as easily be living in a simulated world. It may seem almost pointless to think about, but that’s the best part. The fact that it is on some levels irrelevant that what we experience might not be the “truth” says something about reality, that it is really relative.

We care about this question about as much as the people stuck in the Matrix might. For them the Matrix is reality just as much as the Nebuchadnezzar and Zion are reality for those outside it. Then the question becomes is “true” reality actually more valuable and if so why? Is ignorance bliss?

Gender Gap on Wikipedia

While researching gender bender issues on Wikipedia, I came across two articles in NPR and the New York Times that claimed that there was a huge gender gap on Wikipedia. Both supported this claim by citing the Wikimedia Foundation, which found that 87% of the members were male and only 14% of the members were female. However, I think there are some issues with this statistic.

Although I did not come across many avatars names that seemed feminine or avatars that listed their gender on their My Talk page, I still think the statistic is false. In class we studied that many people who join an SNS may or may not display their true offline identity. Therefore, there is a potential for numerous avatars on Wikipedia to choose to reveal themselves as males even though their offline identity is female.

Digital Divide Between Conventional Grading and Peer Grading

In “Crowdsourcing Authority in the Classroom,” Cathy Davidson tackles the negative comments she received about her new grading system. This is a perfect example of how technology is dividing our conventional grading system and our new peer grading system. Although many professors may think her grading style is truly unordinary, it has become the norm in all of my rhetoric classes.

This new form of grading came about because of technology. Technology has allowed professory to incorporate online wiki’s, blogs, documents (google docs), presentations (preznet), and others into the classroom. With new technology we also learn differently. For instance, we can submit our term papers through email or on a google doc. Thus, traditional methods are changing the way professors teach and the way we learn. In light of this, it is inevitable that Davidson is receiving such negative responses from traditional professors.

Davidson explained, “The point…is to show how, in Internet culture, we are often judging, responding, offering feedback, and working together through crowdsourcing but our educational system rarely if ever does anything to prepare students for offering or receiving feedback.” Here she highlights how our Internet culture is something to celebrate within the classroom because we can teach new methods of critiquing and offering constructive criticism.

Eventually, I think conventional professors are going to see how inefficient their grading system is once traditional forms of media go out of date.

Because I am a rhetoric major, I have been exposed to Davidson’s “crowdsource grading” methods. However, I am wondering if there are any other majors that would see this grading system work with their classes (engineers? Business? Etc.)? Do you think traditional methods of grading will cease as professors are faced with this digital divide in the classroom?

Bots v Humans on Wikipedia?

In researching the members of the hierarchal structure within Wikipedia, it seems that Wikipedia is now inviting robots to be contributors to the site. These robots, called bots, use automated or semi-automated software systems that carry out repetitive and mundane tasks in order to maintain 3,593,1070 articles of the English Wikipedia. So far there are 1,322 bots that each have accounts on Wikipedia and use avatar names such as “CrazyPhunkBot” and “GoblinBot6.” The Bot Approval Group (BAG) supervises and approves all bot-related activity from technical and quality control perspective.

Although bots are useful to Wikipedia because they can does numerous edits fastidiously and fix pesky grammar errors, there is a negative side that will raise some questions about their functionality. Now that bots are included in the Wikipedia community, I wonder if bots will be allowed to participate in the hierarchy? On average bots can make over a million edits per month, whereas the top human contributor (“Antandrus”) just reached about 100,000 edits over a period of seven years. Thus, if bots are ever allowed to be included into the social hierarchy within Wikipedia, all of the human Wikipedians would be doomed. Luckily, this has not happened (or has not happened yet).

Do you think that if bots have the power to rule our encyclopedic information, humans will no longer seem useful?

Good thing these bots have an emergency shut off button haha:

"How to Crowdsource Grading"

“How to Crowdsource Grading” explained how Cathy Davidson, a professor at Duke University, threw out the traditional method of grading. Instead, she has applied a new point system where her commentary and the students’ peer reviews serve as way to convey a student’s progress, goals, ambitions, and contributions to the class. Cathy Davidson like most my rhetoric professors have similarly incorporated this system into their classes. So what are the advantages or disadvantages?

Advantages:
From my experience I have found that students are extremely critical about the amount, level, value, worth, quality and success of my paper. Peer to peer evaluations can be a means of raising the bar by exposing students to the exceptionally good papers and the absolutely terrible papers. And as a result, you learn how to critically analyze other papers and see how you can improve your paper.

Disadvantages:
Peer to peer grading can be disadvantageous to large classes because a professor would have a hard time keeping track of the progress of students. Also, students might swindle the system which would go against the “good faith system.” For example, “halavais” commented that in her class there were two “gangs” that “reached an agreement that they would vote up each others’ work…and non-members work down…in order to increase their own grade in the class favorably. This would definitely defeat the purpose of constructive learning through peer review. Thus, a professor would be able to have more control over student interactions in a smaller class setting.

Now lets take it up a notch:
I propose that students only grade each paper through peer reviews of a rough draft and final draft. In addition, a student will present a case to the professor and the peer reviewer as to what grade they think they deserve and why they deserve that grade for each paper. A good case will be supported by examples of how their writing has improved, how their drafts have improved, etc. Then the professor will assess whether the student’s case is valid and deserving of the grade they think they should deserve.

Do you think this system would work? If you had a choice how would you change the traditional system of grading?

Cathy Davidson, Dr. Batt, Dr. Davis, and other professors have successfully proved that there are so many ways to incorporate peer review based classes into a grading system, and that there are so many other possibilities.

Wikipedia Comparison Report

“Wiki,” a Hawaiian word for quick, is coined as the term for expeditious websites that allow people to collaborate together with a click of a button. Wiki technology has led to the birth of a prominent information website called Wikipedia. In 2001 Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger launched Wikipedia—the largest and most popular web-based encyclopedia. According to Larry Sanger the purpose of Wikipedia is to “create a free encyclopedia based on the concept that it is editable by anyone and everyone, thus making it more accurate and reliable.” The medium used in Wikipedia is the editable articles. The Wikipedia community is open to everyone with access to the Internet, and anyone can collaborate with the click of an “edit” button. As it stands, Wikipedia boasts a community 13,989,210 Wikipedians (collarborators) that have collaborated on 17 million articles in over 270 languages. Like an encyclopedia, the articles range from a variety of topics, but unlike a written encyclopedia, articles can be changed or added as time progresses. The articles are not signed, and the contributors are unpaid volunteers.

Behind every article is a community of Wikipedians who vigorously pour their research and editing skills into every article. They share a common goal to make Wikipedia the most informative and accurate encyclopedia. Creating an account with Wikipedia is easy, and all that is needed to set-up an account is a username and password. Whether you claim your username with your professional title, real name, or remain pseudonymous, your edits and arguments will be judged on their merits. Once you create an account you will be welcomed to Wikipedia with a complex introduction page that features tutorials to inaugurate a new member into the Wikipedia community.

Wikipedia has many social features to participate and engage with members of the community. You can utilize meeting spaces in the discussions, edits, and My talk. These sections serve as asynchronous forums because members do not all have to be present at the same time. For example, members can read discussion comments about a particular topic that has been previously collaborated or edited by other participants and then add to them. The “discussion” and “edit” sections are clickable tabs found above each article, and act as meeting spaces for members to dispute the facts of an article or to incorporate additional information (images, links, sources, text, etc.). For example, if you want to collaborate on an article entitled, “The Great Barrier Reef,” you can either click “Discussion” or “Edit” tab located at the top of the article. “My Talk” pages also function as a meeting space because Wikipedians use “My Talks” as user profiles. There are also no flesh meets.

With the provided meeting spaces offered by Wikipedia, members have an important role and identity within this community. The community is based on a hierarchy that runs from most active to least active member. The community members who are the most active and trustworthy are given greater editorial control. In other words, they can be nominated as administrators, arbitration members, bureaucrats, arbitrator, or stewards. The following describes these positions in depth from the least authority to the greatest authority:
1. Editors: Many editors with accounts obtain access to certain tools that make editing easier and faster. Most of those tools, few learn about, but one common privilege granted to editors in good standing is "rollback", which is the ability to undo edits more easily.

2. Administrators ("admins" or "sysops") have been approved by the community, and have access to some significant administrative tools. They can delete articles, block accounts or IP addresses, and edit fully protected articles.

3. Bureaucrats are chosen in a process similar to that for selecting administrators. There are not very many bureaucrats. They have the technical ability to add or remove admin rights, approve or revoke "bot" privileges, and rename user accounts.

4. The Arbitration Committee is Wikipedia's supreme court. They deal with disputes that remain unresolved after other attempts at dispute resolution have failed. Members of this Committee are elected by the community and tend to be selected from among the pool of experienced admins. This committee can also boot members off of Wikipedia.

5. Stewards are the top echelon of technical permissions, other than the Wikimedia Board of Directors. Stewards can do a few technical things, and one almost never hears much about them since they normally only act when a local admin or bureaucrat is not available, and hence almost never on the English Wikipedia. There are very few stewards.

6. Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, has several special roles and privileges. In most instances however, he does not expect to be treated differently than any other editor or administrator.

Before requesting or accepting a nomination for these positions candidates have to be active, make regular Wikipedia contributions to articles for at least several months, follow the 5 pillars, and have gained the general trust of the community. Wikipedia contributors and leaders follow five basic principles to enforce meritocracy, communal standards of editorship and conduct. These five pillars operate as laws that help govern and democratize Wikipedia. These five pillars are:
1. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. This pillar defines what Wikipedia is and what it is not. According to the pillar, “it incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers.”

2. Wikipedia has a neutral point of view. This pillar describes the mandatory approach to neutral, unbiased and accurate articles.

3. Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit and distribute. This pillar prohibits personal views; defines Wikipedia’s role as an encyclopedia of existing recognized knowledge; and states that all content must have credible external sources.

4. Wikipedians should interact in a respectful and civil manner. This pillar compels Wikipedians to find consensus and avoid edit wars even when there is a disagreement.

5. Wikipedia does not have firm rules. Ironically, this pillar states, “Rules on Wikipedia are not carved in stone, and the spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule.”

While the first four pillars serve as rules that govern Wikipedia, the last pillar downplays the stringency of the laws as a whole. Therefore, the presence of the hierarchy is organized through an ad hoc meritocratic governance. Wikipedia is an “adhocracy” because the community functions as a self-correcting form of democracy (hence, “adhocracy”). Any knowledge that is posted can and most likely will be revised and corrected by readers. The continued ad hoc approach of Wikipedia contributes directly to the advent of its hierarchy; those users most active in editing content and engaging with the edits of others rise to greater visibility within the Wikipedia community. However, when they rise to greater visibility they have the potential to become either a leader or an outcast. Ultimately, then, Wikipedians can rise or descend in status depending on their content development process.

With the pillars in place, most Wikipedians use those regulations as guidelines to help them understand the definition of good content development. However, others will break those regulations established by the pillars, and in turn will have the potential to be booted off. First I will explain what makes a member an exemplar of Wikipedia. Good content development can be achieved through the various avenues within editing. In other words, Wikipedians can build up their repertoire by editing grammar, reverting vandalism, writing articles, and verifying sources. For instance, “Antandrus,” a long-term Wikipedian since 2004, built up his repertoire by contributing to content regarding early music in the Renaissance, early Baroque, and Medieval period. By April 2004, he became an administrator for his good content contributions. As an administrator he has continued to write about music, and also decided to edit articles for grammar. On his my talk page, he boasted that he rose up in status because he contributed to 623 articles, edited 90,000 times, and reached number 20 on “Wikipedians by Edit Count” in May 2007. Thus, “Antandrus” exhibited good content development because of the amount of music articles and edits he has contributed to. Another example is “Avraham,” who became an administrator in January 2006, and moved up in status to a steward in May 2006. “Avraham” is a Wikipedian who only takes part in editing articles by verifying sources and fixing grammar mistakes. When he described his philosophy on articles he stated, “I am…a very strong believer in having sources in articles, and quoting them. When an article is unsourced, by nature it is suspect…There are too many unsourced, or poorly sourced articles that people may take for real research on Wikipedia.” Like “Antandrus,” “Avraham” moved up in status by exhibiting good content contributions by editing articles and verifying the sources of articles. “Antandrus,” “Avraham,” and other devotees of Wikipedia are part of a huge self-organizing community that enforces a structure of meritocracy and communal standards of editorship and conduct. This community has found a common exigency to edit and expand existing articles, as well as add more articles to create the largest encyclopedia.

Among the devotees, there are some bad apples that vandalize Wikipedia either for propaganda or just to test the limits of the “edit” button. These members are called “sockpuppets” because they create “an online identity for purposes of deception within an online community.” As a result of their vandalism, the Arbitration Committee boots sockpuppets from Wikipedia. For example, “Reaper Eternal” discovered that “Yoyoboy305” vandalized the introduction section of the Church of Scientology article. “Yoyoboy305” falsely stated, “The first Scientology church was incorporated in December 1953 in The 3rd ring of hell” and continued to falsely state, “[Ron] Hubbard had been selling Scientology books and large piles of bull crap.” (See below)

“Yoyoboy305” disobeyed the pillars because he failed to include encyclopedic information and showed a biased point of view. Thus, “Reaper Eternal” seized the moment to criticize his unwelcomed vandalism on his “My Talk” page (I mentioned “my talks” are like user profiles) by stating:

In Wikipedian language, “Reaper Enternal” told him off when he suggested that “Yoyoboy305” should reread the section about “contributing constructively,” and to use “the sandbox” for edits (“the sandbox” is a place for Wikipedian noobs to learn how to use the “edit” function). “Yoyoboy305” has not had any activity since his last encounter with “Reaper Eternal,” most likely because he was not welcomed within Wikipedia. In another example, “Peter Karlsen” abusively used one or more accounts on Wikipedia, and as a result the Arbitration Committee blocked his account.

“Yoyoboy305,” “Peter Karlsen,” and other unwelcomed sockpuppets, were disruptive to Wikipedia for their personal attacks, edit wars, and soapboxing. These disturbances are in violation of the pillars and prove to be enough grounds to boot you from Wikipedia or exclude you from the community. Thus, sockpuppets are the bottom feeders of the hierarchy and are unwanted in the community.

Welcomed Wikipedians who have contributed enough to assume a role in leadership share similar educational backgrounds and gender. According to the Wikimedia Foundation, about 23% of leaders have completed a degree-level education, 26% are undergraduates and 45% have secondary education. Education plays an important role within Wikipedia because you have to at least know how to edit grammar, and when you contribute content within an article you have to at least be knowledgeable about the topic. In other words, it helps to have an educational background or expertise in an area when it comes to editing and/or contributing to content. After seeing numerous “My Talk” pages, I found that users love to boast about their educational background or area of expertise. For example, if you look at the figure below you will see how “Draceo” immediately discussed his academic credentials in his introduction.

“Nucleophilc” is yet another Wikipedian that used his “My Talk” page to boast that he had a Ph.D.

Although the hierarchy is not based on your level of education, it helps to have a high educational background because editing and contributing comes easier, and in turn the more contributions you make, the faster you will rise in status. Wikipedia’s online model similarly reflects our offline lives, where higher education relates to higher status in society.
The Wikimedia Foundation also found a huge gender gap between leaders. Of all the members 87% were male and only 13% were women. Although Wikipedia invites everyone to contribute, these statistics prove to be an uneven balance of the gender population. In light of this issue, I had to analyze what female Wikipedians were saying, and how accurate these statistics are. Two inactive female Wikipedians helped me understand the unfriendly aspects within Wikipedia. For example, “Pmlineditor” stated this on her My Talk:

“Pmlineditor” highlights that she felt alienated from the community because of the bureaucracy (hierarchal system), and how members monitor what other members do too often. Another inactive user named Sabby commented on NPR’s “Facing Serious Gender Gap, Wikipedia Vows To Add More Women Contributors.” She stated, “I used to contribute to Wikipedia, but finally grew tired of the “king of the mountain” attitude they have…such as the need for “reliable” sources when if they’d taken a moment to actually look at the reference they’d see they were perfectly reliable!” Thus, the bureaucracy and the “king of the mountain” attitude found within Wikipedia may discourage members from wanting to participate. Wikipedia is a competitive atmosphere because of the hierarchal structure. Many members want to reach the top of the echelon to be a Steward, and to rise in status you have to edit or contribute to articles. Ultimately, then, Wikipedia is a space that can be hostile to women. Adding to an entry requires a user not just to set herself up as an authority, but also to sign in and enter an online community that is deeply focused on trivia and information.

Although the hostile environment could be one reason for the gender gap, the accuracy of the statistics on the gender gap could also be another reason. In other words, it is quite possible that the percentage of female and male users is skewed because Wikipedians use avatars it is hard to determine who is truly male or female. Thus, the statistics do not take that into account, and there may not actually be a gender gap.

Without analyzing Wikipedia as whole, you would never guess the eccentricity of the Wikipedian community and structure. However, Wikipedians hold great importance in our society because they are on a grand mission to gather the sum of all human knowledge, and to distribute it for free to everyone on the planet in their own language. What it takes to accomplish that mission is an obsessive attention to detail and a tolerance for repetitive facts. They are quality snobs that are dedicated to the accuracy and quality of the encyclopedia. For this reason, the hierarchy and pillars fit well within this community. Without a hierarchy or pillars, Wikipedians might not be as organized or feel as driven to get involved on Wikipedia.

Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1uXpCFMmjHmEwtho7sb4TpHPahdabhuhm3GGkgBLQGXo

SR3 eXistenZ

David Cronenberg’s 1999 film, eXistenZ, conveys a world where the lines between reality and virtual reality blend with the advancement of virtual reality game pods that have replaced mechanical consoles. The film involves two main characters named, Allegra Geller, the game designer, and Ted Pikul, a marketing intern for Antenna Research. At a seminar, Allegra tests her new game, eXistenZ, with a focus group by connecting flesh-like game pods to each player’s spine through a bioport. While the game downloads, a realist assassin from the audience of the seminar shoots Allegra in her shoulder. After the assassin is gunned down, Ted Pikul helps Allegra escape from other potential realist assassins who think Allegra has degenerated reality with eXistenZ. Allegra worries that her pod, which contains the only copy of eXistenZ, has been damaged during the assassin. To test it, she needs to play with “someone friendly,” so she convinces Pikul to get a bio-port installed so that they can play the game together. Allegra and Pikul trust a gas station attendant to install the bioport, but the attendant secretly installs a faulty bioport in Pikul because he is a realist who wants to destroy eXistenZ. Before the attendant tries to kill Allegra, Pikul saves Allegra, and they evacuate to a lodge owned by Kiri. When Allegra and Ted finally port into eXistenZ, a video game shop owner (D’Arcy Nadar) gives them micro pods, that transports them to a factory. At the factory, they meet Nourish who claims to be their contact in the realist world. With an order from Nourish, Pikul kills the waiter at a neighboring Chinese restaurant. However, Pikul later realizes that the waiter was actually their contact and that Nourish was a double agent. Pikul and Allegra decide to destroy the game pods with a diseased pod, but Allegra becomes infected. Nourish finally destroys the pod by setting fire to the pod. Suddenly, Allegra and Pikul find themselves back at the ski lodge, but oddly, the fire and disease were brought from the game into what they thought was real life. Although the ski lodge seems real, Allegra still thinks she is still in the game and kills Kiri. After Pikul questions whether they are still in the game and whether Allegra was justified in killing Kiri, Allegra decides to kill Pikul because he is a realist assassin. In another convolution, the events in eXistenZ, were part of a layer of another game called tranCendenZ. After the tranCendenZ focus group converses about the game, Allegra and Pikul, decide to kill the tranCendenZ game designer (Nourish) because he should pay for distorting reality. As they leave, they aim their weapons at the guy who played the waiter, but the waiter asks, “Are we still in the game?” The ending is ambiguous and left for the audience to decide what was real and what was virtual.

eXistenZ brings in a thought provoking question of what constitutes the “real” and the “virtual.” eXistenZ probed at the desire to still believe that there is a distinction between the unreal and the real. We often associate movies like eXistenZ, Tron, and The Matrix as representations of a virtual reality that is still to be invented. Although we might view eXistenZ as unreal, we in fact do live in a world where the “real” and the “virtual” are part of a mixed reality. With ATMs, online virtual worlds (Sims, Facebook, etc), and video games (World of Warcraft, Fallout 3, etc) we can experience worlds of sufficient detail to the point that we can be tricked into believing that we are experiencing reality. When Pikul questioned whether Allegra and him were still in a game, and whether Allegra’s decision to kill Kiri was justified, I was reminded of how the volunteers of the 1960’s Milgram experiment felt. This experiment showed people’s propensity to follow orders even if they knew what they were doing was wrong; just as Allegra killed Kiri in the game. Similar to Allegra’s development of virtual characters within eXistenZ, Milgram developed a virtual reality experiment in which he recruited volunteers to play either the role of a “virtual teacher” or a “virtual student.” Each participant who took the role of a teacher would deliver a shock (varying from slight shocks to severe shocks) to the student every time an incorrect answer was produced. While “virtual teacher” believed that he was delivering real shocks to the “virtual student,” the student was actually a helper in the experiment who was simply pretending to be shocked. As the experiment progressed, the “teacher” would hear the “student” plead to be released from the painful shocks. Some of the test subjects felt so uncomfortable that they actually stopped participating and left the virtual reality environment. Some also wanted to leave, but said they did not because they kept telling themselves it wasn’t real just like Allegra thought after she killed Kiri and Pikul. This virtual reality experiment like eXistenZ, represented the ways in which the lines of reality and virtual reality are blurred. Both the volunteers of eXistenZ and the Milgram experiment knew they were given virtual reality roles in a “game,” but it became so realistic that they could not decipher the real and the unreal. The only difference was that the Milgrim experiment was reality and eXistenZ was just a film. Thus, as we become more technologically advanced, we will have to continue to ask ourselves what is virtual and what is real.

The New Digital Divide

Marcia Stepanek’s The New Digital Divide explained how Google, Facebook, data aggregators, and social networking sites use personalization filters to customize what we see on the Web. In addition Marcia Stepanek raised numerous issues regarding how the Web divides certain races and groups because we stay within our “self imposed comfort zones.” Marcia also suggested that this division was bad for civic engagement within a democracy.

While I agree with most of Marcia’s point regarding how the Web divides us, I do think that it also brings us together to perform acts of civic engagement within a democracy. Marcia made two points about civic engagement toward the end of her article. The first assertion was that “we must stop assuming that civic engagement will occur online on its own,” and the second assertion was that “the Net can be a force for civic engagement.” The assertions she offered made it seem as though we are a society that is loosing a sense of civic engagement, and that we are incapable of creating civic engagement opportunities on the web. In contrast to her views, I find the web to be the perfect forum to unite people of all different races, backgrounds, and cultures to perform civic engagement activities. One specific example of web-related civic engagement would be through community service efforts for Japan. Sony Music Entertainment teamed with Universal Music to create Songs for Japan which is an album sold on itunes, and the proceeds go to the Japan Red Cross to support the disaster relief efforts (http://www.3news.co.nz/Songs-for-Japan-album-goes-straight-to-1/tabid/418/articleID/204458/Default.aspx). Another online community service example is the “Hands for Japan” fundraiser on www.crowdrise.com/handsforjapan which uses social networking sites (such as Facebook, Twitter, and Groupon) to raise awareness about Japan’s disaster and to collect money from people all over the world. Ultimately, the list goes on and on. So, I think there is a huge effort for community service activities online, and like Ethan Zuckerman stated, “the Net changes things in the long-term by creating a new public space, one that in most closed societies around the world is not available any other way.” Since the net creates this new public space to unite people from all over the world, I think it amalgamates us rather than segregates us online.

Do you think there is more civic engagement online or offline? Do you think civic engagement (such as community service efforts) unites us more online or offline?

Augmented Reality Application

Dorian Benkoil’s “How The New York Times, Others Are Experimenting with Augmented Reality,” discussed Augmented Reality as “layering digital information onto the physical world” (Young, 1). Augmented Reality (or AR) is most common on the iPhone, Android, and other handheld devices that use built in GPS locators, compasses, graphics, and text.

Dorian Benkoil gave several examples on how the AR device could be useful, and from his suggestions I found the U.S. Postal Service AR and real estate AR to be practical. I am always shipping things to my hometown in California, and I am constantly wondering what box to choose to ship my things. With the AR application you can hold up your handheld device to an object, and the app will tell you what size of box you will need. They should also include shipping costs for the destination you want to send your box to on the AR application. The real estate application is also useful because you can walk up to an apartment complex or house with the AR application, and the AR will notify you of apartments or homes for sale. I think these two specific AR applications are useful because you can just scan the object you want to send or scan the home or apartment. This eliminates the time I waste going back and forth to the post office, or can eliminate the time I spend looking for a place to live. The AR app basically allows you to go to the source and find your information right there.

Summary/Response 2: Neuromancer

The backdrop to William Gibson’s novel Neuromancer, takes place in both real life and cyberspace. Case was once the best console cowboy (computer hacker) in the Sprawl, until Case stole data from his employers. As punishment for his theft, his nervous system was damaged with mycotoxin to prevent him from accessing cyberspace. Out of desperation to connect with cyberspace again, Case searches the “black clinics” in Chiba City, China for a cure. Molly, a modified headhunter is contracted by Armitage to find Case, and force him to join his team. In exchange for Case’s hacking abilities, Armitage repaired his nervous system, but in the course he also installed a slowly dissolving poison near his pancreas to blackmail him into doing missions. Case and Molly run Armitage’s first mission to steal the personality ROM construct of McCoy Pauley (Case’s former mentor) at a media conglomerate called Sense/Net. The ROM, nicknamed “The Dixie Flatline,” is important to Armitage because he needs the Flatline’s hacking expertise. While preparing for the run, a street gang named the “Panther Moderns” is hired to create a terrorist attack on Sense/Net. This distraction allows Molly to infiltrate the building and steal the ROM. The ROM cassette replicated “a dead man’s skills, obsessions, and knee-jerk responses” (74). Case and Molly discover that Armitage’s former identity was Colonel Willis Corto. Corto was the only surviving member of Screaming Fist, which was an operation to disrupt Soviet computer systems in Russia. The team attacked the Soviet computer center, and the team was defenseless against the Soviet lasers. The only member that survived was Corto. Corto felt betrayed by his Russian military because they conducted Screaming Fist, while knowing Corto and his team would be defeated. Corto disappeared into the criminal underworld. Case and Molly also learned that Armitage was backed by Wintermute, a Swiss AI owned by Tessier-Ashpool. After learning about Armitage and obtaining the Flatline construct, Case, Molly and Armitage head to Istanbul to recruit Peter Riviera. Riviera is an artist, thief, sociopath and drug addict who is able to create holograms with the force of his mind. Armitage orders Molly, Case, and Riviera to travel to Freeside, which is owned by Tessier-Ashpool. Winertermute’s nature is revealed when Case is in cyberspace at Freeside. Wintermute tells Case, “this is all coming to you courtesy of the simstim unit wired into your deck” (117). Wintermute was programmed by Tessier-Ashpool to merge with Neuromancer, the other AI. However, Wintermute could not do this without the help of Armitage’s crew. Case was supplied with a high-grade Chinese military icebreaker that he launched after Wintermute killed the Turing police who arrested Case for involvement in the “conspiracy to augment an artificial intelligence” (154). While Case uses the icebreaker, Riviera goes to Villa Straylight (residence of Tessier-Ashpool) to obtain the password to the Turing lock from Lady 3Jane, one of the 20 clones of John Ashpool and Marie-France Tessier. Molly also goes to the Villa, but upon entering 3Jane’s private cave, Riviera injures Molly’s leg. Case and Maelcum decide to go after Molly. Before they arrive, Case is sucked into an alternate reality in cyberspace by Neuromancer, who tries to stop their mission. Case rejects Neuromancer when “he turned and walked away” (236). Case and Maelcum find Molly, 3Jane, and Riviera. 3Jane has Riviera killed, and with the 3Jane’s password they drive the icebreaker into the Tessier-Ashpool core. Wintermute and Neuromancer unite, and together they were “the matrix…the sum total of the works, the whole show” (259). After the run, Case spent his Swiss account on a new pancreas, liver, and ticket back to the Sprawl. Molly leaves him forever, and Case continues to live his life. One night when he is in cyberspace, Wintermute-Neuromancer contacts Case to tell him that he located another AI transmitting the Alpha Centauri system. The novel ends with the sound of inhuman laughter, a trait associated with McCoy Pauley during Cases’s work with the ROM construct.

After Neuromancer, I was left to conceptualize the idea that humans integrate and modify themselves with technology to be more “machine like,” while the machines want to alter themselves to be something greater (or maybe something greater than humans). Although this is not much different than today, the humans of Neuromancer receive implants to modify themselves. The difference lies within the fact that today we modify ourselves through plastic surgery to aim for “the perfect beauty,” while humans of Neuromancer modify themselves to become “technologically beautiful.” For example, Molly augmented herself with cybernetic modifications that include a retractable, 4 centimeter double-edged blade under her fingernails, an enhanced reflex system, and implanted mirror lenses in her eyes. Peter Riviera also had implants put in to project holographic images that he sees through someone’s memory. Another example is Corto, who was terribly injured in Screaming Fist, received “eyes, legs, and extensive cosmetic work” (80). The humans of Neuromancer, just like us not only have an addiction to modifying themselves, but they also are addicted to integrating with technology. Today we have our addictions to facebook, while the humans of Neuromancer have an extreme addiction to cyberspace. When Case looses his ability to connect with cyberspace he became depressed and “the arc of self-destruction [is] glaringly obvious” (8). Gibson seems to show the humans’ dependencies of technology throughout their lives as goal for humans to be technologically advanced or modified. Gibson also highlights the opposing side where an AI named Wintermute tries to become a “superintelligence.” Both humans and the AI tried to achieve to be something greater. In the end Wintermute is unsuccessful in merging with Neuromancer to become the superintelligence that it wanted to be, while humans successfully modify themselves with technology, but never actually become “one” with technology. This may suggest that humans and AI’s can never fully achieve their image of perfection, but will always aim for those tendencies.

Individual Presentation of SARTRE -- Safe Road Trains for the Environment

After asking everyone in the class whether they would trust this system, I was surprised that the majority of the class would not trust the SARTRE system. Although the SARTRE system is not completely developed, many car manufacturers such as Lexus already adapted a similar system in their own cars. For example, the Lexus LS 460 was unvelied at the 2006 Detroit's International Auto Show to exhibit the ability to parallel park itself without any help from a human. And that was a long time ago! Since then Ford, Lincoln, Toyota, and BMW jumped on the bandwagon to create a parallel parking system like the one used on the LS 460 and in the SARTRE system. Thus, with the system already existing it was surprising to me that people still would not trust it. Some of you might own a self parking car! So I am curious...if you have one do you still self park it or trust the car just enough to self park?

I think the main problem with distrust in the SARTRE system is that we are not ready to let technology take over every aspect of our lives. We also cannot trust a computerized system to make judgment calls on whether or not to swerve left or right if debris falls onto the road. For this reason, I can understand why some people may distrust the SARTRE system. Again its the issue of man v machine.

Neuromancer Chapter 4

Chapter 4 got me interested in Neuromancer. In this chapter Molly and Case work together to penetrate the Sense/Net in Atlanta to steal a flatline construct. Molly keeps her cover discrete by dressing as a gum-chomping tourist wearing oversized sunglasses, pink raincoat, and mesh top. Case also assists Molly in the heist by connecting with her mind. Case is linked to Molly through a broadcast network created by the Panther Moders. Thus, Case can experience the world from inside Molly’s body without leaving cyberspace. Molly eventually steals the construct, but injures her leg.

(Side note: Who injures Molly’s leg? How does Molly injure her leg? Molly stated, “Little problem with the natives. Think one of them broke my leg” (63). So who are the natives?)

Molly is a fascinating character because she represents the shrewd hacker who is a tough-girl. She is independent and fearless. I also found it interesting that she led the heist on foot, while Case experienced the heist through her mind. She seems tougher than Case, but it makes me wonder if she will survive another heist if she puts herself in vulnerable situations (such as almost not making it out of Sense/Net with her broken leg).

Another interesting device in this chapter was the Hosaka. Hmmm Hosaka seems like Qwiki! The Hosaka tells you what it knows vocally, and the answer is given in multimedia form. For example, Case enters his topic, “Panther Moderns” (57), and the Hosaka “accessed its array of libraries, journals, and news services” (57) to tell Case about the Panther Moderns. In one instance the Hosaka explains the Panther Modern through an image of a boy who represented the Panther Modern (“dark eyes, epicanthic folds…an angry dusting of acne across pale narrow cheeks” (57). In another instance, it explains what Dr. Virginia Rambali has to say about Panther Moderns. Sounds like a modernized qwiki to me. 

Transcultural Confusion

In James Brown’s, Evil Bert Laden: ViRaL Texts, Community, and Collision, he explained how globalized web technologies welcomed great “transcultural confusion.” “Transcultural confusion” is a symptom of the web that has created “a new and heightened level of interaction between cultures” (Poster), and has “radically altered the old limits on the size sophistication, and scope of unsupervised effort” (Shirky). With the unsupervised environment surrounding the web, it is easy to understand why different cultures would be offended by certain content. Brown used the Bert Laden image and the Spice Girl concert as an example of “transcultural confusion,” by explaining that Asadullah and other Muslims felt the encroachment of Western popular culture on their Muslim values. Muslims want their “cultures, traditions and religious, and societal standards to be respected” (Brown), but how do we (by we I mean everyone on Earth) go about respecting every culture when the web openly displays everything and anything in an unsupervised environment?

Everyday, I encounter numerous political cartoons, fail blogs, and other seemingly comedic web articles, and realized that they are meant to be edgy and funny. However, I am sure there is a community (as discussed in Brown’s article) that would take offense to those. For example, the Bert Laden image was considered to be a joke by Dennis Pozniak’s standards, but to the Sesame Street producers, the image was “unfortunate” and “distasteful.” According to Brown, “The producers of Sesame Street made an immediate attempt to control their intellectual property.” Ultimately, with a free-for-all unsupervised web environment, and a lack of international intellectual property laws, the web will continue to cause “transcultural confusion.”

…..Unless you live in China, Iran, UAE, Morocco, Thailand, Turkey, Iraq, Brazil, Victoria in Australia, and India (http://mashable.com/2007/05/30/youtube-bans/). Brown stated, “The degree of autonomy of each culture to significantly reduce as a consequence of the global information network.” However, many countries like the ones I listed above, have taken government efforts to control the unsupervised and culturally offensive web technologies. For example, Morocco banned youtube because of videos that mocked the Moroccan king as well as some pro-Western Sahara clips. China has also banned facebook and twitter since 2009 (http://www.chinaeconomicreview.com/cer/2011_02/Open_book.html). And in addition to those bans, China’s government banned microblogging on Sina Weibo because people were comparing Cairo’s Tahrir Square to Tiananmen Square (http://www.hindustantimes.com/Cairo-protests-make-Chinese-censors-nervous/Article1-657400.aspx). Even if you tried searching for “Egypt” on a google search engine in China, you would find this statement “according to relevant laws, regulations and policies, the search results are not shown” (Patil).

Does government censorship of web technologies help the “transcultural confusion?”

Again we see the tensions from Convergence Culture take shape through Brown’s article. The web created an unsupervised environment, so the tension lies between a community that has learned how to rhetorically deal with web technologies (including offensive material), and a community that works against the new web media (censorship).

SR 1: "Convergence Culture" by Henry Jenkins

Henry Jenkin’s Convergence Culture Where Old and New Media Collide documented the cultural transition where old and new media interlock, as prosumers are urged to seek new knowledge, and make connections across an array of media platforms. Jenkins designates us as part of a convergence and participatory culture. Convergence is “the flow of content across multiple media platforms, the cooperation between multiple media industries, and the migratory behavior of media audiences who will go almost anywhere in search of the kinds of entertainment experiences they want” (2). Participatory culture “contrasts with older notions of passive media spectatorship…who interact with each other according to a new set of rules that none of us fully understand” (3). Jenkins described the potential for our convergence culture through Pierre Lévy’s “achievable utopia,” where “people from fundamentally different perspectives see a value in talking and listening to one another, and such deliberations form the basis for mutual respect and trust” (246). Ultimately, Lévy suggests that when everyone has greater access to information and new media platforms, companies alter the way companies market their products. Jenkins expresses this evolving nature and changing roles of communication through the Survivor case study where an emotional relationship was fostered between the brand and the consumer. Jenkins explained how this evolvement in communication spills into politics when he stated, “As we saw in looking at Campaign 2004, what we learn through spoiling Survivor…may quickly get applied to political activism or education in the workplace” (257). Jenkins shows that through each project of transmedia storytelling, a “distinctive and valuable contribution to the whole” is offered in return. Through this evolvement in communication which stimulates new ideas and new knowledge, Jenkins is hopeful that these new social structures will further create more “democratic citizenship

Henry Jenkins introduced Pierre Lévy’s idea of an “achievable utopia.” Everyday we strive to reach Lévy’s “achievable utopia” by communicating more freely and becoming more democratic. Although Jenkins and Lévy do not state if we will reach this utopia, I think that we specifically aim for this utopia through politics. For instance, the knowledge communities of Survivor Sucks, could be paralleled to the political knowledge communities of Wikileaks. WikiLeaks, like “Survivor Sucks,” has their own knowledge community, but instead of Survivor fans, WikiLeak’s knowledge community consists of 800 worldwide anonymous news sources and high-powered people. Wikileaks also stated that that their goal is to “break down the divisions and suspicions that currently shape international relations” (29). Thus, the goal of Wikileaks can be seen as a tactic to reach the utopia by allowing for free communication and being more “democratic” (in their eyes). In another instance, we are using Facebook videos instead of traditional media platforms (CNN, Fox, etc.) to get our news about the revolt in Egypt from young revolutionaries in “Cairo’s Facebook Flat” (http://video.nytimes.com/video/2011/02/08/world/middleeast/1248069622796/cairos-facebook-flat.html). This is yet another example of how our convergence culture is using the skills acquired in entertainment environments such as Survivor Sucks, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, among others, for political purposes. Ultimately, we have not reached Lévy’s utopia, but we are in an “apprenticeship phase” where “we are learning what it is like to operate within a knowledge culture…[and] we are still debating and resolving core principles that will define our interactions with each other” (249). Our active knowledge communities will continue to play a role through media platforms to reach the utopia by exposing all knowledge and democratizing.

Achievable Utopia

In Chapter 6, Pierre Lévy optimistically reiterated the idea of how an “achievable utopia” would allow knowledge communities to communicate freely to the point that we become more democratic. Jenkins stated, “In Lévy’s world, people from fundamentally different perspectives see a value in talking and listening to one another, and such deliberations form the basis for mutual respect and trust” (246). Ultimately, Lévy is suggesting that when everyone has the same access to info, distrust will evolve.

Although we have not reached the “achievable utopia,” we are in an “apprenticeship” phase. In explaining the “apprenticeship” phase, Jenkins described, “We are still learning what it is like to operate within a knowledge culture. We are still debating and resolving core principles that will define our interactions with each other” (249).

I can agree that we are in an apprenticeship phase, but I still wonder what constitutes an “achievable utopia? Lévy’s “achievable utopia” is too vague and abstract because it could mean so many things. Where do we start in order to communicate freely with each other? As more and more information accumulates through our apprenticeship phase, we will become overwhelmed. For example, I have to read 3 different newspapers a day (Washington Post, The New York Times, and The Wallstreet Journal) just to get the proper facts of a news story. 

Transmedia Storytelling

Transmedia storytelling is the way in which a story is told through multiple media platforms (video games, websites, books, etc.), and each element contributes to a fan’s immersion into the story. Transmedia storytelling can also be viewed as “New Hollywood’s” active marketing technique that has created media franchises.

Convergence Culture uses The Blair Witch Project as the paradigm for transmedia storytelling that began in 1999. Dan Myrick—the producer and director—explained, “To think of The Blair Witch Project as a film was to miss the bigger picture” (103). The book further explained this idea of transmedia storytelling through T.B.W.P as an occurrence in media platforms both before and after the film hit the theatres.

Before T.B.W.P was screened in theatres, it hit several media platforms such as the web and the Sci Fi Channel. These two platforms set the preliminary information needed to understand the concept of the “Witch.” For instance, the website—created a year before the film—explained the Burkittsville witch and the disappearance of the movie crew. Dan Myrick also stated, “The site provided documentation of numerous witch sightings over the past centuries…[which] forms the backdrop for its action” (104). The Sci Fi Channel also set the backdrop of T.B.W.P by investigating the witch in the movie. Ultimately, these two media platforms served as “the part for whole” of the transmedia story as they lured the audience into T.B.W.P before it even hit theatres.

After T.B.W.P hit theatres, the witch phenomenon continued to grow through other media platforms such as a comic book, soundtrack, and another website. For instance, Ed Sanchez—a crew member of T.B.W.P—wanted to continue with the Blair Witch phenomenon by creating a website that was framed in such a way to make it seem as though people were investigating the witch as though the witch really existed. Ed Sanchez stated, “We started fabricating artifacts, paintings, carvings, old books, and I would scan them in…What we learned from Blair Witch is that if you give people enough stuff to explore, they will explore” (105). Thus, T.B.W.P is not only a movie, but a transmedia story that unfolded through several layers of different media outlets.  

As transmedia storytelling is implemented as a marketing strategy, I see a clash between old Hollywood and new Hollywood. Jenkins explained, “The old Hollywood depended on redundancy to ensure that viewers could follow the plot at all times…The new Hollywood demands that we keep our eyes on the road at all times, and that we do research before we arrive at the theater.” Although the new Hollywood has turned us onto transmedia stories where we become active audience members who “do research before we arrive at the theatre,” I still miss old Hollywood. Yes, the futuristic and thought provoking films like The Matrix are fascinating, but I miss the “redundancy” used in old Hollywood films like Gone With the Wind and Casablanca.

Now the question is, what will define a movie as a “classic” according to new Hollywood? Will a “classic” be the movie that engaged the audience the most through different media platforms?

Is the redundancy of old Hollywood so bad?

Another question that comes to mind is how can transmedia storytelling be used to be a money making tool? I can think of one example of the top of my head—Entourage. HBO could have made more money off of Entourage by using transmedia storytelling. For example, HBO could have made “Aqua Man” into an actual movie played by Vince, or Median could have been based on a novel. Just think of all the possibilities! What other shows or movies would work with transmedia storytelling?

Cybersubculture Culture Topics

For my cybersubculture comparison, I would like to compare Qwiki and Wikipedia.

Qwiki like Wikipedia is a site that has improved the way people experience information. They emphasize storytelling rather than "searching" when you want to find out about a restaurant, person, place, etc. Unlike Wikipedia's textual online articles that explain information about a topic, Qwiki allows people to learn about topics through an interactive video that tells a story about that specific topic.

Other interesting info:
Qwiki is a new site as of last October, and was founded by Facebook's co-founder Ewardo Saverin (the nice guy from the "Social Network" who was duped by Mark Zuckerberg). The team that continually modifies and runs Qwiki are a diverse group who are from all over the world.

The Knowledge Community of "Survivor Sucks" Applied to the Knowledge Community of WikiLeaks

In reading Chapter 1, “Spoiling Survivor—The Anatomy of a Knowledge Community,” of Henry Jenkin’s Convergence Culture, I realized that on a profound level we can parallel the knowledge communities that follow Survivor to the knowledge communities that follow our government.

As we live in a culture that infuses technology in our day to day lives, it is easy to discover everything about a person, place, or in my example our government. Recently, WikiLeaks can be seen as the epitome of this example. WikiLeaks—the non-profit organization that publishes secrets and classified information—is parallel to the way in which “Survivor Sucks” worked. WikiLeaks like “Survivor Sucks,” has their own knowledge community, but instead of Survivor fans, WikiLeak’s knowledge community consists of 800 worldwide anonymous news sources and high-powered people. Another similar aspect that WikiLeaks shares with “Survivor Sucks” are the five “braintrusts” who work to verify whether the secretive information given from the knowledge community is valid. (We could even go to the extent of labeling Julian Assange as Chillone from “Survivor Sucks.”)

Now the question that Jenkins addresses, is why would we want to create knowledge communities to expose all aspects of democracy and government? In response to this question, Jenkins explicates (through Pierre Lévy’s perspective), “Such knowledge communities are central to the task of restoring democratic citizenship….The sharing of knowledge around the world is the best way of breaking down the divisions and suspicions that currently shape international relations” (29). In addition to Jenkins, WikiLeaks further explains that its purpose is to expose oppressive regimes and to reveal unethical behavior of governments and corporations (http://mirror.wikileaks.info/). With this in mind, another question comes to mind. Is it beneficial for WikiLeak’s knowledge community to expose our governmental flaws worldwide? That is the question that has caused much debate, and has caused a love-hate relationship with WikiLeaks.

When our government was exposed through WikiLeaks, Obama and other government administrators had a taste of what is to come with the advent of our powerful convergence culture, knowledge communities, and technology. WikiLeaks undermined certain aspects of our government by exposing our flaws and even gave away our future foreign policy plans for North Korea. Thus, we see why the knowledge community can be a great device for revealing corruption. However, it could be a bad thing if the knowledge community is exposing our foreign policy plans worldwide when our government is trying to be secretive with these plans so that the United States can continue to be a “Super power.”

Ultimately, we cannot escape our convergence culture, knowledge communities, or technology. In preparing for the future, Jenkins highlights that, “We are in a period of “apprenticeship” through which we innovate and explore the structures that will support political and economic life in the future” (29). We will find more knowledge communities and more braintrusts that will continue to restore democracy, and may even operate as a form of governance. 

Hello World

Hello World