The topic of my storify focuses on Alana and June Thompson, also known as Honey Boo Boo. This show is featured on TLC, and has received many negative comments against it. Highly critiqued for the "go-go" juice used in the show, to get Alana (7 year old) hyper before going on stage. Alana is a "larger" toddler, and only gets noticed because of her poor, hick family, unlike other girls in the pageants, who are acknowledged based on looks. Many people think this show is absolutely ridiculous, as it showcases that Alana never actually wins pageants, how she eats cheese balls for breakfast and stereotypes people living in southern United States. They first appeared on Toddlers and Tiaras on TLC, which is also highly criticized for showing young girls looking like older more sexualized women, and teaching them that beauty is the number one priority from a young age.
Take a look at my storify for more news, clips, tweets, Facebook posts and stories related to Honey Boo Boo.
http://storify.com/ToddlersTiaras2
Summative- New Journalism
When talking about citizen journalism, the main issue that rises is most people aren't actually participating, and if they are, the validity of the content is lost. The feedback I recieved followed this notion, as the first person said, he was more of a consumer than a producer. Social media provides us (people with access) the opportunity to comment and say what they want on news stories, which takes away from the journalists jobs who strive on being trustworthy and respectable. I feel, along with the second person commenting, that there is no real harm in sharing your opinion on events. We live in a place where everyone has the right to be heard equally, even if it is just how they feel about a news story. As long as people are aware of whose posting what, there is no harm. As colin (first person) said in his blog, and I agree with, in the end it comes down to money, which a lot of the topics in this class relate to. Twitter now has accounts for major newspapers, people have the news so easily accessible and at their fingertips. Which is convenaint for the "tweeters" but they are providing this in hopes that they click on the link, leading them to their website with their content. Technology, as mentioned isn't going anywhere anytime soon, so I agree that politicians will start using this to their advantage, as the second person said, we just need to be aware of the "forces at play". As social media progresses and people become more comfortable with it, perhaps we will see more producers commenting on events and putting their two cents into a topic. As for now, both consumers and the people providing the information seem to be happy, we get news quickly (what this generation is about) and they get their money.
When the bombing in Boston happened, I saw on twitter and Facebook people uploading pictures of possible suspects and men on rooftops, this is just an example of how, like Hermida (2012) said social media provides more eye witnesses in a crisis. I found this interesting, but like anything, going agaisnt the tradtional form of things is hard to do, but social media is providing an outlet to go agaisnt tradtional forms of journalism.
When the bombing in Boston happened, I saw on twitter and Facebook people uploading pictures of possible suspects and men on rooftops, this is just an example of how, like Hermida (2012) said social media provides more eye witnesses in a crisis. I found this interesting, but like anything, going agaisnt the tradtional form of things is hard to do, but social media is providing an outlet to go agaisnt tradtional forms of journalism.
New Journalism
This week we are talking about citizen journalism, I wasn’t too
clear on what this exactly was so I googled it (of course) and good old
Wikipedia showed up. Two definitions from Wikipedia stood out to me, because they
made citizen journalism make more sense. The first was "playing an active
role in the process of collecting, reporting, analyzing, and disseminating news
and information” (Bowman and Willis, 2003) and second "When the people
formerly known as the audience employ the press tools they have in their possession
to inform one another” (Rosen, 2012). With the rise of social media it is clear
that more people can openly discuss issues, such as the news freely and how
they see these topics. People are no longer to just listen to what others
think, they can express how they feel through social media. Social media
provides the opportunity to challenge traditional and formal journalism, but
with this comes consequences. As Hermida (2012) discusses the verification of
information, the truth and validity of a given topic that journalists claim
they have the ability to do is lost when the average person can post whatever
they please. Schudson and Anderson (2009) explain that journalist are able to
see reality of a situation, which gives them special authority over the news
but with new technology, taking pictures and having blogs these people are receiving
more and more credit along with creditably in what they post. Twitter has made
it possible for TV networks and newspapers to send a message instantly out to
the social media world, it is live broadcasts of the news (Hermida, 2012).
Another opportunity that has occurred because of social media and citizen
journalism is when a crisis or news event does happen, there are more eye
witnesses and people who can gather reports as events unfold in real time
(Hermida, 2012).
Even though I have social media accounts such as Twitter and Facebook, I would still say I am a consumer when it comes to citizen journalism. I read what other people have to say on news issues, and perhaps search through twitter when something big has happened, but I rarely comment on how I feel about a topic, or give my two cents. Again, I don’t think social media sites are going anywhere anytime soon, I believe they will keep evolving, therefore we should learn ways to embrace and use these sites for good. News events of all kinds draw millions of people worldwide, and the Internet gives everyone (who has access) the ability to discuss among themselves, as well as to provide other information about these events (Friedman, S. M. 2011).
Hermida, A. (2012). TWEETS AND TRUTH: Journalism as a discipline of collaborative
verification. Journalism Practice. 6:5-6, p659-668.
Friedman, S. M. (2011). Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima: An analysis of traditional and new media coverage of nuclear accidents and radiation. Bulletin Of The Atomic Scientists, 67(5), 55-65.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_journalism
Even though I have social media accounts such as Twitter and Facebook, I would still say I am a consumer when it comes to citizen journalism. I read what other people have to say on news issues, and perhaps search through twitter when something big has happened, but I rarely comment on how I feel about a topic, or give my two cents. Again, I don’t think social media sites are going anywhere anytime soon, I believe they will keep evolving, therefore we should learn ways to embrace and use these sites for good. News events of all kinds draw millions of people worldwide, and the Internet gives everyone (who has access) the ability to discuss among themselves, as well as to provide other information about these events (Friedman, S. M. 2011).
Friedman, S. M. (2011). Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima: An analysis of traditional and new media coverage of nuclear accidents and radiation. Bulletin Of The Atomic Scientists, 67(5), 55-65.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_journalism
Podcast
This week I tried out a new way of blogging, called sound blogging! I really enjoyed it. I discuss the issues surrounding children's beauty pageants by reading an article than further discussing it. Click on the link below to listen!
Sound Blog
https://soundcloud.com/toddlers-tiaras/childrens-beauty-pageants
Article
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=126315&page=1#.Uc-ULJrD_IU
Sound Blog
https://soundcloud.com/toddlers-tiaras/childrens-beauty-pageants
Article
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=126315&page=1#.Uc-ULJrD_IU
Summative - Piracy
This
week we focused on piracy in the music industry. What surprised me the most is
how serious of an issue this is, I honestly hadn’t thought about it much
before. Perhaps because people do it constantly and in the “privacy” of their own
home (so we don’t see this crime happening) is why I wasn’t as aware of this
issue. Also, because in most cases the product isn’t directly in our hands
(like stealing from a mall) people may not believe the crime is as bad.
Whatever the reason, until reading these articles I didn’t see piracy as such
an offensive crime, but they have changed my mind and it is stealing. The four motivations,
although they make sense, in the end it is still going against the law. I have
watched a pirated movie, and listened to pirated music before, so I am at fault
as well. Just like some of the articles said, people say contradictions (just
like I did) I know it is illegal and I see the reasoning behind the laws, but I
have still participated in these actions (although a lot less than others). The
other thing that surprised me is how most weeks, the topic always dwindles down
to be about money. I guess it’s true that the world revolves around money,
especially when it comes to the new technologies. Every company is searching on
how they can make the most profit and every individual is searching for how to
save a quick dollar. The culture vs. commons articles from last week relate
really well to this week, as people discussed that in the digital industry,
music and film are there to be shared amongst the community, while large corporations
have a different opinion. The laws and regulations are made by a small group of
people that then affect a much larger group of people (I’m finding this to be
true in a lot of aspects of life). When it comes to piracy, I think it will
continue to be a vicious circle, companies will continue to make laws and
enforce them, while people will continue to break these laws and find
entertainment for themselves for less or even free. It is going to remain with
the us against them world of capitalism.
Music Piracy
The
music industry like any other wants to make profit. Money, Money, Money is the
main goal for large corporations, like I had previously talked about in Culture
vs. Commons. A small group of individuals make the decisions regarding
everyone. After reading these articles, I would say the main reason piracy
happens is for just that reason, the inability to afford the content. Even if
people can afford the content, if you could get it for free, wouldn’t you? In my
own experiences, I’m not a huge music person, but if I ever put music on my iPod
or made a CD, it came from other peoples laptops, who downloaded it illegally
through itunes or limewire. The only person I know who buys their itunes music
is my Dad (lol) and I’m pretty sure he just doesn’t know how else to do it.
Steinmetz, K., K. Tunnell (2013) describes digital piracy as ‘‘the illegal act of copying digital goods, software, digital documents, digital audio (including music and voice), and digital video for any reason other than to backup without explicit permission from and compensation to the copyright holder’’. I think this definition explains the rules and laws to protect copyright and prevent piracy. I must say before reading these articles I hadn’t really thought about music piracy as a criminal act, because it is so easily accessible and almost everyone I knew participated in it, it didn’t cross my mind that it is illegal. What I found most interesting about Steinmetz, K., K. Tunnell (2013) article was the four motivations for engaging in piracy, (1) to share culture=content, (2) to sample, (3) the inability to afford content and (4) to undermine the current copyright regime. Many people believe that data is put out there to be shared amongst everyone, also no one wants to purchase something and then find out that they don’t like it or aren’t interested in it, so they sample the music beforehand. As I mentioned above, Steinmetz, K., K. Tunnell (2013) state that 41 percent of the participants said they can’t afford the content and this is why they “steal” it. Others simply don’t support the recent industry, as they are making the money, not the artists. I found it extremely interesting that people said if they could directly pay the artist they would, instead of having to pay these large corporations. They want to cut out the middleman, and support the music artist, the talent, I don’t think that this would ever work, as these companies pay big bucks to market the material, but nonetheless it is a cool concept to think about.
The internet (as we learn in this class) is becoming a large commons, and a place where everything can be shared for everyone to hear. In some cases it is making life easier, cheaper as information is becoming more easily accessible. Even though this is the case for the internet and its users, I have to agree with McCourt, T., P. Burkart. (2003) that this won’t cause record companies to go under, although it provides new challenges against piracy laws, it can also benefit them as they can buy and sell and create packages for online consumers. The article talks about using subscriptions to make more money because they are paid in advance and while they encourage heavy users, they also make money off people who only visit once in a while.
As I said before, I don’t really participate at all in music piracy, I’m not the most tech-savvy and didn’t really have the time or interest to download music to “sample” for myself. Therefore the laws against music piracy don’t directly affect me, but that being said from reading these articles I think the companies (Big Five) should make a better attempt at pleasing the consumers. Perhaps focus on the people buying the products rather than just how much money is being made through the process.
References
McCourt, T., P. Burkart. (2003). When Creators, Corporations and Consumers Collide: Napster and the Development of On-line Music Distribution. Media, Culture & Society. 25 (3), pg. 333-350
Steinmetz, K., K. Tunnell (2013). Under the Pixelated Jolly Roger: A Study of On-Line Pirates. Deviant Behavior. 34 (1), pg. 53-67
Steinmetz, K., K. Tunnell (2013) describes digital piracy as ‘‘the illegal act of copying digital goods, software, digital documents, digital audio (including music and voice), and digital video for any reason other than to backup without explicit permission from and compensation to the copyright holder’’. I think this definition explains the rules and laws to protect copyright and prevent piracy. I must say before reading these articles I hadn’t really thought about music piracy as a criminal act, because it is so easily accessible and almost everyone I knew participated in it, it didn’t cross my mind that it is illegal. What I found most interesting about Steinmetz, K., K. Tunnell (2013) article was the four motivations for engaging in piracy, (1) to share culture=content, (2) to sample, (3) the inability to afford content and (4) to undermine the current copyright regime. Many people believe that data is put out there to be shared amongst everyone, also no one wants to purchase something and then find out that they don’t like it or aren’t interested in it, so they sample the music beforehand. As I mentioned above, Steinmetz, K., K. Tunnell (2013) state that 41 percent of the participants said they can’t afford the content and this is why they “steal” it. Others simply don’t support the recent industry, as they are making the money, not the artists. I found it extremely interesting that people said if they could directly pay the artist they would, instead of having to pay these large corporations. They want to cut out the middleman, and support the music artist, the talent, I don’t think that this would ever work, as these companies pay big bucks to market the material, but nonetheless it is a cool concept to think about.
The internet (as we learn in this class) is becoming a large commons, and a place where everything can be shared for everyone to hear. In some cases it is making life easier, cheaper as information is becoming more easily accessible. Even though this is the case for the internet and its users, I have to agree with McCourt, T., P. Burkart. (2003) that this won’t cause record companies to go under, although it provides new challenges against piracy laws, it can also benefit them as they can buy and sell and create packages for online consumers. The article talks about using subscriptions to make more money because they are paid in advance and while they encourage heavy users, they also make money off people who only visit once in a while.
As I said before, I don’t really participate at all in music piracy, I’m not the most tech-savvy and didn’t really have the time or interest to download music to “sample” for myself. Therefore the laws against music piracy don’t directly affect me, but that being said from reading these articles I think the companies (Big Five) should make a better attempt at pleasing the consumers. Perhaps focus on the people buying the products rather than just how much money is being made through the process.
References
McCourt, T., P. Burkart. (2003). When Creators, Corporations and Consumers Collide: Napster and the Development of On-line Music Distribution. Media, Culture & Society. 25 (3), pg. 333-350
Steinmetz, K., K. Tunnell (2013). Under the Pixelated Jolly Roger: A Study of On-Line Pirates. Deviant Behavior. 34 (1), pg. 53-67
Which would you prefer?
Here's a look at a video about the negative aspects of children's beauty pageants. I used Mozilla popcorn to create it!
Take a look and tell me what you think!
http://popcorn.webmadecontent.org/15pq
Take a look and tell me what you think!
http://popcorn.webmadecontent.org/15pq
Summative Module 4
I had written that YouTube was by the people for the people,
which I still agree with. An average Joe can simply create a video and post it
online and receive recognition, but I do also agree with Colin’s argument. He
discusses how the creators of YouTube are in it for the money, as it has become
so popular they can make a profit by attaching advertisements and short commercials.
I liked his comment on how because content is so easily accessible and people
can borrow and steal others work quickly, therefore there is easy money to be
made. Although social media sites publicize the good aspects such as connecting
with friends and sharing funny videos, most of the time it boils down to how
much how much money can be made. The second person to comment (mimmzz) was
really supportive of the points I made in my discussion. She touched upon the argument I made about other
countries not having the same wealth and access to technology as we, or the
United States do. This makes it extremely difficult to spread wealth and
education across nations, as they are behind in technological advancements. I really
enjoyed watching the Everything is a
Remix videos, they were educational along with entertaining. Kirby Ferguson
really opened my eyes to how truly everything including music, movies and
products are a reproduction of someone else’s creations. Now a days you don’t need
“expensive tools, a distributor, even skills” to create a product online. I
have learned that media convergence will continue to grow because as we know,
people now are mutli-tasking at every given second. Smartphones was an example
used by many people, as phones have become somewhere to communicate along with
take pictures and play games. This was taking one person’s idea and adding and
changing it to satisfy consumers, people are always wanting the newest and
latest technology. Therefore media is changing the way people think, the way
people are, as the decision process is in the hands of a few people, but
effects masses of people.
Culture Commons vs. Culture Commerce
As
we have talked about before in this course, I am a consumer when it comes to
online content. Although I participate in social media sites such as Facebook,
twitter and instagram, I wouldn't consider myself a producer. I don't create
educational videos or discuss relevant issues online. Even though I don't
produce, I really enjoy watching what others have produced. Such as youtube
videos, watching television shows online and looking at pictures. I think a
true producer is someone who contributes meaningful information or creates
interesting content online (I am not there yet). What inhibits me from producing
and posting online content is lack of skill. I’m not sure how to make a “cool”
video, and I haven’t had the desire to post my thoughts online. Everything you
post is there for life, so you have to be careful of the content that is being
posted (which relates back to my previous blog about Facebook).
Henry Jenkins (2004) discusses media convergence, how tons of different ideas from different places come together as one. My first thought was smartphones, which he also mentioned. Phones used to be used as purely a way to communicate with one another, now you can play games, access all social media sites, and send pictures and text (Jenkins, 2004). Now people are always multitasking, media is shaping the way people are, it can lead them to do certain things, change their thought process and decisions on products. Jenkins (2004) brings fourth that on one hand media is now easily accessible, cheap and fast paced for the community, but on the other hand it is dominated by small, limited groups of people. Therefore one person or group can change the way everyone thinks. If there information is put out through all different types of media, TV, internet and radio, everyone is hearing this message. That being said, there is no real consistency for media, because we have so many ways to access information now. We can see an overload of different viewpoints at our finger tips. Jenkins (2004) says that we can either have media all focused on one message, through one or a few people or a bunch of different sources, where than the public decides what is important, it is very difficult to find a happy medium between these two.
Teresa Rizzo in YouTube the New Cinema of Attractions explains that this concept is much like it was back in 1906. Kirby Fergusson says that everything is copied from something, and therefore YouTube was somewhat formed on the basis of something else. Movies are a bunch of events that lead to a climax, whereas YouTube is random and acknowledges that people are watching. On YouTube you can post comments and responses to the videos, and they are available all day and night. The whole point of YouTube is to gain attraction (Rizzo). People enjoy the immediacy and intense experiences, it creates visual curiosity by labeling videos as “amazing clip” or “must watch” (Rizzo). YouTube is an example of something that made by people for the people. Consumers, such as myself enjoy watching what producers have made. Being able to comment and share what we want, gives us the feeling that we can freely access and share ideas even though there are copyright laws pushing against us. Convergence, and access to these online materials is uneven within given countries, the wealthier have access to computers and Internet and therefore others are striving to keep up with these technological advancements.
Jenkins, H. (2004) The Cultural Logic of Media Convergence International Journal of Cultural Studies March 2004 7: 33-43
Rizzo, T. YouTube: the New Cinema of Attractions SCAN | journal of media arts culture. Vol 5, No. 1, Online journal.
Henry Jenkins (2004) discusses media convergence, how tons of different ideas from different places come together as one. My first thought was smartphones, which he also mentioned. Phones used to be used as purely a way to communicate with one another, now you can play games, access all social media sites, and send pictures and text (Jenkins, 2004). Now people are always multitasking, media is shaping the way people are, it can lead them to do certain things, change their thought process and decisions on products. Jenkins (2004) brings fourth that on one hand media is now easily accessible, cheap and fast paced for the community, but on the other hand it is dominated by small, limited groups of people. Therefore one person or group can change the way everyone thinks. If there information is put out through all different types of media, TV, internet and radio, everyone is hearing this message. That being said, there is no real consistency for media, because we have so many ways to access information now. We can see an overload of different viewpoints at our finger tips. Jenkins (2004) says that we can either have media all focused on one message, through one or a few people or a bunch of different sources, where than the public decides what is important, it is very difficult to find a happy medium between these two.
Teresa Rizzo in YouTube the New Cinema of Attractions explains that this concept is much like it was back in 1906. Kirby Fergusson says that everything is copied from something, and therefore YouTube was somewhat formed on the basis of something else. Movies are a bunch of events that lead to a climax, whereas YouTube is random and acknowledges that people are watching. On YouTube you can post comments and responses to the videos, and they are available all day and night. The whole point of YouTube is to gain attraction (Rizzo). People enjoy the immediacy and intense experiences, it creates visual curiosity by labeling videos as “amazing clip” or “must watch” (Rizzo). YouTube is an example of something that made by people for the people. Consumers, such as myself enjoy watching what producers have made. Being able to comment and share what we want, gives us the feeling that we can freely access and share ideas even though there are copyright laws pushing against us. Convergence, and access to these online materials is uneven within given countries, the wealthier have access to computers and Internet and therefore others are striving to keep up with these technological advancements.
Jenkins, H. (2004) The Cultural Logic of Media Convergence International Journal of Cultural Studies March 2004 7: 33-43
Rizzo, T. YouTube: the New Cinema of Attractions SCAN | journal of media arts culture. Vol 5, No. 1, Online journal.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder- Op-ed
Documents has taken a new form- Wikipedia, technology has transformed ideas and concepts written on paper and posted them online for masses of people to see. Brown, J. S. & P. Duguid. (1996) discuss how documents have always been passed around through groups of people, and essentially is has changed overtime but really the internet is a document. Therefore Wikipedia is great in the fact that many people can enjoy the access to online information, but we have to be careful to see where the information is coming from.
My blog does focus on children’s beauty pageants, but for the op-ed piece I have decided to focus on beauty as a general topic area, as Wikipedia didn’t offer too much information on beauty pageants alone. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beauty is the Wikipedia address and I will be discussing the talk section of this webpage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Beauty
.
This talk page allows people to discuss and see multiple views in order to ensure reliable and accurate information. The themes that are present on this talk page are body weight, definitions of beauty, why feminine beauty is also discussed and seen and not masculine beauty, the viewers wanted to change things such as images (picture of a beauty pageant winner, as this focuses mainly on physical appearance), along with beauty being directly related to youth. These themes all touch on the idea of children’s beauty pageants.
Young (mostly) girls who are competing in these pageants are being taught to put a huge emphasis on self-appearance and overall beauty. For the last blog post we had to discuss whether or not we use Wikipedia as a reliable source, and many people said no. After reading these “talk” pages I still stand by my decision of not using Wikipedia as an academic source. Many of the people commenting and making changes have no accountability or real legitimacy. While reading the posts by others, there was no real tension between people, they just stated their opinion and moved on.
In the article Wikinomics and its discontents, Van Dijk, J. & Nieborg, D. (2009) state that Wikiepdia is created by crowds of users who define the information, Wikipedia relies on peer production. This shows the co-creation aspect of Wikipedia, and although this is democratic of the site, because everyone has the equal opportunity to state their opinion, I don’t think this makes the site very reliable.
In one section of the talk, it discusses the image used on the beauty page, which was of a beauty pageant winner. A person referred to as Jcbutler commented on a lot of posts, including this one and when I went to click on them, it shows they have retired. Therefore I wouldn’t say they are a very accurate contributor.
The topic that I found most interesting was how body weight and beauty are rarely discussed in relation to men. A couple people were concerned with this fact, and so am I. I believe this is a western way of thinking, how women are so obsessed with looking good. They participate in hair dye, manicures, pedicures, waxing and many other things to stay looking young and “beautiful”.
All of the information edited for this Wikipedia page seems to be personal opinion on a given topic, most of the people also don’t care what others have to say, as long as their opinion is heard (or seen). Van Dijk, J. & Nieborg, D. (2009) say that Wikipedia is edited by people to satisfy themselves, and get a lot of views, not for the good of the community. I believe this is mostly true, as the posts didn’t seem to be a collaborated agreement. Most people changed what they wanted, when they wanted, and most of these people lacked credibility.
In one section of this talk, called “human beauty” it is discussed that there won’t be a general consensus on one attractive female (again with the feminization of beauty) to post a picture of. The idea is that anyone’s picture who is posted on the beauty page, will be subject to recurring debate and ridicule, when I researched this person they come up as blocked, and therefore even though I believe what they said, by not showing themselves, they don’t show much credibility. Many of the comments are purely based on personal opinion, which let’s face it, isn’t that what beauty is?
When searching through peoples comments, only one had a direct link to who they are, although we can appreciate that, he was just an average person blogging from “his vacation home”.
Royal, C. & Kapila, D. (2009) discuss in their article What’s on Wiki and What’s not….? That although more writers and editors are better than fewer, as this would help to decrease bias and provide more feedback and opinions, allowing all these people to comment also leads to individuals believing the information is inaccurate. They also discuss how current topics are covered more, I saw this first hand, and this is why I had to use a very broad topic area. Therefore we see that Wikipedia is incomplete in certain areas.
I actually do like the idea of masses of people being able to participate openly and having freedom to discuss their ideas. This being said, I still think Wikipedia lacks reliability and credibility as they do allow anyone to share. Despite the fact that everyone can share, only certain people will, Van Dijk, J. & Nieborg, D. (2009) state that only 13% of online users are creators, making the content lack variety and unbiased material.
References
Van Dijk, J. & Nieborg, D. (2009). Wikinomics and its discontents: a critical analysis of Web 2.0 business manifestos. New Media & Society. 11, 5. pp 855-874.
Royal, C. & Kapila, D. (2009). What's on Wikipedia, and What's Not . . . ?: Assessing Completeness of Information. Social Science Computer Review. 27, 1. pp 138-148.
http://theilliterateparent.wordpress.com/
http://ao04rs.wordpress.com/
http://mimmzz.wordpress.com/
Summative Blogpost - WIKI
I
enjoyed reading what people had to say with regards to my blogpost about
Wikipedia. First, Colin brought up the issue of bias material on Wikipedia, and
how I think that is the main issue. He said that it isn’t the fact that people
are bias, because truly everyone is, it is the fact that these comments are
posted anonymously and therefore we can’t do a background search on these
people to see if they are legit. I didn’t think of it like this, but I really
enjoy this point. If we could see who posted ideas and comments on Wikipedia we
could than see if they themselves are a reliable source. As Colin said, they
can hide behind their bias, which makes it an issue. I think the idea of
Wikipedia is the fact that it is anonymous and therefore everyone is equal when
commenting, so I highly doubt they will change that even though it does raise
issues about the idea of bias. Michelle,
the second posting raised different ideas and issues. I enjoyed her perspective
on re-thinking and re-wording comments as more information is brought to light
in the future, this relates to the community involvement of Wikipedia. The only
problem with believing Wikipedia is completely community involvement is that although
anyone can comment and share their opinion only certain types of people are
actually going to log on and do so, one article says only 13% of people are
actually creators the others don’t participate in development. Also as talked
about in the articles, people post their opinion to satisfy themselves, so
although it is supposed to be a community effort, most views aren’t for the community.
Michelle discusses how different viewpoints, religions and cultures have
different views which may clash, but I think this is a good thing. It shows diversity
and different viewpoints on a given topic. Canada is a multicultural country
and I think we can continue to learn more by listening to others. Even though I
do agree with her that it brings chaos sometimes (lol). They both talked about
different things, Colin focused on bias (which isn’t always bad) while Michelle
focused on the communal aspect of Wikipedia. Overall I agree with Colin that because
the posts are anonymous, we can’t form an opinion of the author, if we could we
would be able to make our own assumptions of the topic. Michelle talks about it
becoming harder to adapt to change in technology because it is always improving.
I agree with this statement, I am 20 years old (you’d think I’d be pretty good
with technology) and I still feel behind on the times.
Thanks for the comments Colin and Michelle!
Thanks for the comments Colin and Michelle!
"all users are equally creative and are created equally"
Before
reading these modules, I did not use Wikipedia as a reliable source, mainly because
teachers or professors always told me not too. Therefore for assignments and
papers I did not trust this content. I did however use Wikipedia if I wanted a
quick overview of a topic for my own knowledge, because I believed it gave me
enough insight instantly on a subject. After reading these articles, I gained
more knowledge about how Wikipedia works and functions, but overall I do not
think I changed my opinion. I still would not use Wikipedia as an academic
source, but I do take pleasure in why Wikipedia endorses this type of encyclopedia.
The reason I would not use Wikipedia as a reliable source is because in Royal,
C. & Kapila, D. (2009) article they discuss that Wikipedia reflects the
people who use it the most. Bias is created, as current topics are more covered
and as anyone can edit and change the content it leads to people thinking the
information is inaccurate and incorrect (Royal, C. & Kapila, D, 2009). This
bias is also explained by Van Dijk, J. & Nieborg, D. (2009), they explain
that out of all the Internet users, only 13% are actually creators and
therefore the other 87% are not contributing to creating and discussing information
online. This proves the point that Wikipedia reflects those who chose to
contribute. Although the information processed on Wikipedia can easily be changed,
and only certain people will take time out of their day to contribute, making
it bias, I do actually enjoy why the site was created and is so popular. Van
Dijk, J. & Nieborg, D. (2009) also discuss the importance of Wikipedia,
they say it is a co-creation, as the users define the information. It allows
masses of people to participate which gains collectivism, participation and
creativity from a wide variety of people. Leadbeater (2006) says that consumers
become workers because they devote their time and effort to develop ideas for
one another, I think this is what our world should be aiming towards. Everyone
is seen as equal and has the equal opportunity to be creative. Although also in
this article Van Dijk, J. & Nieborg, D. (2009) explain that usually this
information is provided to satisfy themselves, to receive the most views or
comments, it is not usually shared in order to help others. I am really torn
between the content being bias and the idea of an open and free website for
writers and editors to share their insight. Technology is constantly improving
and changing, which relates to Brown, J. S. & P. Duguid. (1996) article
that discusses how documents make social interactions and practices. The
Internet (Wikipedia) is simply just a new form of documents. All along
documents have been shared and created through networks of people. Overtime
this fundamentally may change from a piece of paper to a computer but we will
always have a way of circulating information in a document form. Wikipedia is a
prime example of this because it is crowd and community based, everyone is
sharing their own understanding of a topic which is being changed and altered
by others, making it a peer production. As for me, honestly until I get the “go
ahead” from professors I will not be using Wikipedia as a reliable academic
source, but I appreciate the way it allows masses of people to participate and I
will continue to use Wikipedia for my own quick and easy searches.
 |
| suupedupscience.blogspot.com |
References
Royal, C. & Kapila, D. (2009). What's on Wikipedia, and What's Not . . . ?: Assessing Completeness of Information. Social Science Computer Review. 27, 1. pp 138-148.
Van Dijk, J. & Nieborg, D. (2009). Wikinomics and its discontents: a critical analysis of Web
2.0 business manifestos. New Media & Society. 11, 5. pp
855-874.
Summative
Although I only had one reply to my last blog post, it was long and I really enjoyed receiving this feedback and have decided to reflect upon just the one anyway. Colin (who commented) is a Dad, and getting his perspective on these topics is very interesting and makes me think of things from a different viewpoint. This comment gave me a new perspective, I had mentioned that toddlers and tiaras related to creating an online identity because they are both "made up" and these children act a certain way when they are in their own worlds, whether it be at a pageant in front of judges, or in the online social media world. I especially liked when Colin had brought up the point that this has to do with control that the parents have, in the pageant aspect they have full control over all the decisions the children make, their dress, makeup and hair. Meanwhile on the Internet they have little to no control over what their children are doing and the children can control their online identity. I don't know which is scarier? There has to be a happy medium. Colin pointed out in his blog, you can't be in control over everything your child does if you want to maintain a healthy relationship with them. Rather than focusing on whether the government or a higher power has access to my account and information wasn't my main concern, as they wouldn't have too much to find. As just an average person, if the government wants to see what I Google the most, or target what I purchase online, I'm really okay with that. We both agreed that it is more necessary to be aware of what you are posting in relation to how you represent yourself. Others may interpret something differently than you expected, because you can't hear the tone of voice, and they may take it out on context. Another idea that we both agreed on was that children may not be mature enough to realize what should and should not be shown online. Children are extremely smart (most know how to work social media better than their parents) and so, I believe that we should educate children on their choices, as social media is a huge phenomenon now, so they don't have to suffer with the consequences later on in life. I think as I have grown up, even though my parents warned me over and over about Facebook and privacy, I myself have matured into being careful about what I post online. Perhaps because of all the talk about potential employers looking at your Facebook, and hoping to have a career in my near future.
Thanks for listening! Amanda
Thanks for listening! Amanda
"We won't feel truly wanted again until the next email, text or call"
“We won’t feel truly wanted again until the next email, text
or call” (Marsden, 2010). As Sherry Turkle (1999) explains cyberspace is changing
everything, from our identities, sexualities and communities. We can create different
personae’s online, therefore we represent ourselves through multiple
identities. The internet gives us the opportunity to do so, it makes us think
of identity in complex ways, gives us the choice of who we want to be. This
relates to my topic of Children’s beauty pageants, they practice their routines
of being someone else, and being perfect performers. These children put on
make-up, hair, and even fake teeth, they flash a smile, sing a song and change
who they are in order to win a prize. This idea of pageants, is really creating
a different identity, someone who you can’t be in everyday life, much like
social networking sites. When we log on, we think it is just us and the
computer, it feels secluded, and when in reality we are linked to millions of
other people (Turkle, 1999). As for me, it can be difficult to maintain a good “rep”
online, because friends can post things that you didn’t necessarily want shown
and now it is on the internet forever. I have a Facebook and Twitter account,
and when I was younger, before I knew about the privacy settings I use to post everything
and anything, where I was, what I was doing, who I was with, and pictures of me
from parties. Now as Anders Alberchstlund (2008) explains in his section of
life after social networking, that your chances for employment can decrease if
your social media feeds show damaging events from your past. The embarrassing
thoughts and pictures can be accessed (Tribble, 2005) and therefore used against
you, and this is one of my concerns with social networking. I try to keep my
online identity respectful, as now my parents’ generation is becoming familiar
with Facebook, and I want to give off a good representation of myself. When it
comes to me knowing that I am under constant surveillance, say by the government,
I truthfully don’t focus too much of this aspect, rather than of people I know
being able to search and “creep” me. It rarely crosses my mind that a higher
power has access to my accounts. On Facebook (referring to this the most because
I have had it the longest) I am “private”, so only my friends can see what I post.
Now I am aware that this probably isn’t the case, but I have tried to takes
steps to make my Facebook page less visible to the public. I especially liked
when Turkle (2012) said “they don’t change what we do, they change who we are” I
think this is specifically related to cellphones. Texting is now very familiar to
people, we all want to “hangout” with certain people, while still keeping in contact
with others (thinking of this, it is very rude). She explains that we want to
spend more time with technology, because we believe that no one is listening to
us. I think this is very true, when we are on our phones we feel a sense of belonging,
this is also true with all social networking sites, it’s the fact that we are
never alone. Social media in my opinion is a huge phenomenon that isn’t going
anywhere anytime soon, and therefore we need to spend more time making younger
generations aware and helping change the way communication is learned, by
having face to face conversations and learning that it is okay to be alone
sometimes (Turkle, 2012).
References
Albrechtslund, A. (2008) Online Social Networking as Participatory Surveillance. First Monday. 13,3
Turkle, S. (Nov., 1999). Cyberspace and Identity. American Sociological Association, Vol. 28, No. 6, pp. 643-648.
Turkle, Sherry. "TED Blog." TED Blog Places We Dont Want to Go Sherry Turkle AtTED2012 Comments. N.p., 1 Mar. 2012. Web. 16 May 2013.
References
Turkle, S. (Nov., 1999). Cyberspace and Identity. American Sociological Association, Vol. 28, No. 6, pp. 643-648.
Turkle, Sherry. "TED Blog." TED Blog Places We Dont Want to Go Sherry Turkle AtTED2012 Comments. N.p., 1 Mar. 2012. Web. 16 May 2013.
About
Hey everyone! Thanks for visiting my blog, my name is Amanda Sexton and I am in third year Sociology at BrockU.
This blog will be discussing the controversial issue of children's beauty pageants, the good the bad and the ugly! Issues dealing with all aspects of the pageants, the positives such as self-confidence and the negatives such as eating disorders.
The hit show "Toddlers and Tiaras" will be discussed as it is on the TLC network, and brings fourth many of the concerns and aspects of children's beauty pageants. I find this show quite entertaining, while others might find it atrocious!
Continue to visit this page in order to learn more!
BlogRoll
http://diaryofapageantgirl.com/
Beauty Pageants: Applying mascara to minds? (2013rgs301grp1.wordpress.com)
I judged a child beauty pageant (fourfour.typepad.com)
Behind the Scripted Screen (2013rgs301grp1.wordpress.com)
Center for Discovery Eating Disorder Treatment Center Adds Equine Assisted Therapy (prweb.com)
Beauty Pageants: Applying mascara to minds? (2013rgs301grp1.wordpress.com)
I judged a child beauty pageant (fourfour.typepad.com)
Behind the Scripted Screen (2013rgs301grp1.wordpress.com)
Center for Discovery Eating Disorder Treatment Center Adds Equine Assisted Therapy (prweb.com)
Related Websites
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/jul/11/child-beauty-queens
http://www.cheo.on.ca/en/eating_disorder_info
http://kidshealth.org/teen/your_mind/body_image/body_image.html
http://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/beauty-pageant-children-effects-1115127
http://psychcentral.com/news/2012/10/29/child-beauty-pageants-may-be-more-about-parents/46818.html
http://www.cheo.on.ca/en/eating_disorder_info
http://kidshealth.org/teen/your_mind/body_image/body_image.html
http://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/beauty-pageant-children-effects-1115127
http://psychcentral.com/news/2012/10/29/child-beauty-pageants-may-be-more-about-parents/46818.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)