FeedMy face deserves to get slapped by a donkey #alwaysbeengirl
Wadup!
Media Production degree student. Areas of work include All around photographer /journalist /video creator. Along with specialised short videos and graphic design.
Also part of the Nonstandard Corp family.
Contact Email For Quote: Stringbean@hotmail.co.uk
Youtube
Vimeo
Flickr
Facebook
Birthdays all around #InYourPants
Sex robot? #InYourPants
In Your Pants… #OhMy
WATCH ME
ESSAY TIME - RESEARCH PAPER
Research paper
To what Extent is Web Participation harmful to society?
Web participation culture has helped shape our society and everyday culture as it is becoming a much larger part of our everyday lives, but the idea of negative or harmful effects that it brings with it leads me to believe that it is just not only the ‘average internet user’ that would be overall effected. Should we be worried about what may become of this? Or are the beneficial factors one to override what we may see as harmful and overshadow them to the point of non-existence. These will be a few ideas, which I will be discussing.
Wikipedia is a unique site as it grows from group collaboration and feeds on the participation of its users, but because of this main factor, can this site be stated as a ‘reliable’ source for news and information? According to Andrew Keen, ‘Wikipedia has become the third most visited site for information and current events; a more trusted source for news than the CNN or BBC websites, even though Wikipedia has no reporters, no editorial staff, and no experience in news-gathering’.[i] I think Keen raises a valid point in how Wikipedia could bring about harmful effects by the misleading of information to those who visit. The word ‘could’ should be emphasized as the anonymous creators who contribute could range from a Harvard professor to a child who has just enough brain power to login to a computer, which Keen refers to T. H. Huxley’s scenario of infinite monkeys with infinite typewriters. Where in this case the typical web amateur who has the power to steal, lie and mislead at a click of a button.
Henry Jenkins would in some light oppose this view saying the convergence of participation of a ‘global frequency network’[ii] to build a worldwide, free encyclopedia, where traditionally such devices have been corporatized, is a project ‘for the common good’. Although there is some justification to what could be termed reliable since it isn’t just experts who contribute, a view that Keen shares, however Jenkins labels these people as ‘an army of volunteers’. An army to help create, shape and share information, and where Jenkins says Wikipedia ‘receives around 60 million hits per day’,[iii] they prove to be doing anything but misleading, otherwise the popularity of this site would rapidly diminish.
Blogs also have an important role within web 2.0 and web participation, and with this, I believe blogs hold similar characteristics that can relate to other participation themed sites like Wikipedia and YouTube alike. In terms of exhibitionism, relay of knowledge and information compared to creating, with the collective amateur interest. Although blogs are generally for personal use, they can also create devastating effects. Keen believes the rise of blogs are one of the main sources which are molding individuals perspectives to break free from the restrictions of the ‘real world’, which in time will pay its price. ‘The pasting, remixing, mashing, borrowing, copying-the stealing- of intellectual property has become the single most pervasive activity on the Internet.’[iv] The web, being a digitized back catalogue of information, is slowly creating a youth culture which think it is justified to steal content from another source, usually created by the professionals or experts, which has the potential to create chaos with the next generation of ‘copy and pasters’. ‘A June 2005 study by the center for Academic Integrity (CAI) of 50,000 undergraduates revealed that 70 percent of college students admitted to engaging in some form of cheating; worse still, 77 percent of college students didn’t think that Internet plagiarism was a “serious” issue.’[v]
However, looking at David Gauntlett’s view paints a different picture. In terms of writing blogs, the opposite of his ‘sit back and be told’ theory would be ‘making-and-doing’,[vi] which in favor is evidently a more productive method of learning. ‘According to a June 2006 study by the Pew Internet and American Life Project, 34 percent of the 12 million bloggers in America their online “work” to be a form of journalism’.[vii] Blogs are a perfect location for communities of expression of personal hobbies. Although the high amount of exhibitionism on the web may be seen as a negative due to the idea of author and reader slowly becoming one, the combination of the ‘making-and-doing’ culture and the growth of exhibitionism allows the construction of niché communities for anything and everything. The idea of participation in this sense helps construct the web, building lives or ‘second lives’ around this rather than damaging the one you already have.
The effects of blogs and other such devices where copyright laws become ‘messy’ due to the websites inability to control the users and what they upload, is nothing short of a trend in history. ‘Until 1891 American copyright law benefited only citizens and residents of the United States’.[viii] This relates to Charles Dickens and how he earned nothing of the American editions of his novels, even though they were more popular in America than England at the time. Looking at how popular Dickens is today would it be fair to say that the theft of the content was justifiable to spread his popularity? Would it be right to say because of the exception for American publishers to reproduce his novels, created a catalyst in why he has become this famous? With web 2.0, its hard to see what is justified and to what ethics people see right, as most participation sites are a global community.
YouTube could be considered as the best and worst site imaginable, simply because of in what way you look at it, your view may fit accordingly. To begin with, YouTube is a user-friendly site. A simple design with a simple video upload tool, which also has an easy access embed code that, allows videos to be posted on blogs and other social networking sites. These are just factors which grant the site a degree of initial success, but after all, it is the user generated content which fills the site with regular participants, subscribers and viewers. YouTube could also be said to be the next big rival against traditional television. It would be wrong to say this is because YouTube is a source of better quality programming, or that users are choosing to watch YouTube videos over television, as this is not true. It is only because it is another source of providing moving image combined with its popularity which results in companies using YouTube to advertise, either creating an advertising deal with YouTube or creating their own viral video to promote their product. This factor alone greatly affects the revenue from television if providers of funding chose different methods of advertising, in this case their other method may be considerably cheaper.
Keen would also say that YouTube is a waste of time to our culture. ‘Technology doesn’t create human genius’.[ix] He also says ‘The site is an infinite gallery of amateur movies showing poor fools dancing, singing, eating, washing, shopping, driving, cleaning, sleeping, or just staring into their computers’.[x] Keen makes a valid point that all this attention and popularity has come about from watching what is nothing more than what started as home movies, but the interest of corporate companies uploading content have made it so much more. Burgess and Green say that YouTube works as a ‘double function as both a ‘top down’ platform for the distribution of popular culture and a ‘bottom up’ platform for vernacular creativity’.[xi] This, like the characteristic of blogs, is a prime source of expression of creative talent, where with this creates participation upon commenting and rating to encourage and further each others work or talents. YouTube also creates a home for a place of users and corporate to come together and often collide. The band Okay Go, being an example where their success came specifically from their YouTube viral video.
The convergence of user and professional would be the view on Henry Jenkins. ‘We take control of the media as in enters our lives.’[xii] YouTube and its free nature and its limited rules have allowed us as the user to have more control over the media. What we read, what we share and what we chose to recreate or remix. This culture, although previously existed didn’t fully bloom until web 2.0 and made the world of the media a more diverse place.
Overall many moral panics over types of media are usually the typical course of history, but is web 2.0 something, which could bring about more devastation? No doubt participation culture does have negative effects, such as the ability to manipulate information or steal hundreds of years worth of copyrighted material, however I believe balance will occur to a point, which will only excel the positives of free culture and web participation.
[i] Andrew Keen (2007) The Cult of the Amateur, London, Nicholas Brealey publishing, P4
[ii] Henry Jenkins (2006) Convergence Culture, New York, New York University Press, P254
[iii] Henry Jenkins (2006) Convergence Culture, New York, New York University Press, P254
[iv] Andrew Keen (2007) The Cult of the Amateur, London, Nicholas Brealey publishing, P142
[v] Andrew Keen (2007) The Cult of the Amateur, London, Nicholas Brealey publishing, P145
[vi] David Gauntlett (2010) A Make and Connect agenda, [Online] Available from: http://www.theory.org.uk/david/makeandconnect.htm [Accessed 23/1/11]
[vii] Andrew Keen (2007) The Cult of the Amateur, London, Nicholas Brealey publishing, P47
[viii] Edward G. Hudon, (1964) ‘Literary Piracy, Charles Dickens and the American Copyright Law’, [Online] Available from: http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/abaj50&div=312&id=&page= [Accessed 23/1/11]
[ix] Andrew Keen (2007) The Cult of the Amateur, London, Nicholas Brealey publishing, P204
[x] Andrew Keen (2007) The Cult of the Amateur, London, Nicholas Brealey publishing, P5
[xi] Jean Burgess and Joshua Green (2009) YouTube Online Video and Participatory Culture, Cambridge, Polity Press, P6
[xii] ‘HCDMEDIAGROUP’ (2009) Henry Jenkins, [Online] Available from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibJaqXVaOaI [Accessed 23/1/11]
Literature Review take 2
My literature review will be the analysis of select authors/sources to further and discuss the points made by Andrew Keen and to what extent they are valid in todays world.
Main sources; Andrew Keen’s ‘The cult of the amateur’ (2007) [Book]
Burgess and Green’s ‘Online video and participation culture’. (2009) [Book]
Other sources; Henry Jenkins ‘In a social networking world, whats the future of TV?’ (2009) [Blogpost]
Youtube ‘Most subscribed of all time’ [Accessed 23/12/10]
The change that the web has brought about that has transformed our culture and society more than anything in the last decade is astronomical, but are these changes overall beneficial? Some have the view of only negative (Keen) and others mainly positive (Burgess and Green), but what is the middle-ground? Can any view be boldly said to be correct or incorrect?
Andrew Keen is a very biased individual. He believes in chaos, caused by amateurs which he heavily relates to T.H.Huxley’s infinite monkeys with infinite typewriters, and how all this chaos in our society and deteriorating culture comes down to web 2.0, but at an age of information, once we have entered, we cannot leave but simply make decisions as a community to fight against these overwhelming negative aspects. He backs his points by factual knowledge, one example of participation within this, being the use of Wikipedia and how any joeschmoe can change a page’s content, even with provocative motivation. ‘On Wal-Marts, somebody eliminated a line about underpaid employees making less than 20 percent of the competition.’
He goes onto say that the majority of information being relayed on the internet, either being the many millions of blog posts or simply through social networks are usually ‘just another person’s version of the truth’
coming from only few reliable sources such as CNN or BBC. He says ‘Wikipedia has become the third most visited site for information and current events’.
And having no editorial staff or reporters, its open source nature could easily lead to what he calls ‘the blind leading the blind.’
He goes to on say that because of this, just one area of the entire media industry, newspapers and magazines have declined in circulation due to the power amateurs now have in circulating their own news. They do this as an open source, free of charge basis, but as more and more people rely on these sources of information than credited, professional sources, there will always be this constant decline.
Ideas such as this are important to consider as Keen raises points that the world could be misinformed by many areas of knowledge due to the actions of very few individuals. Whereby with very little effort, could create chaos to everyone. Not chaos in the terms of which Keen thinks all civilization will end, but in the terms that our society need professionals and amateurs in separate spheres to create a balance. In many ways I agree with this as balance is crucial otherwise it would become a communist system (coined by Keen), where society would fail. But from my perspective, there will always be that balance as the positive effects of web 2.0 will always outweigh the negative due to adaptation.
Burgess and Green have an ideology quite opposite to Keen, whereby they backup the amateurs saying indirectly, they’re motivation is not to create chaos, but to express themselves in what has grown into the new world of web 2.0 which has allowed anyone and everyone to publish themselves to the new world.
Time after time Keen is quick to point the blame at all those contributing to what has been given to them, by that I mean sites such as You Tube or Blogspot. However, these websites have been created by such professionals where with the free-space nature of the web allows such individuals to express and publish themselves on an independent basis. An example of this is being You Tube was created by ex-paypal employees. In terms of research, this is my view of what Burgess and Green have been trying to describe and explain to some degree.
The best way in which to summarize their ideology in reflection to Keen would be ‘ordinary people doing extraordinary things’. Their view being, web 2.0 has brought has a lot more than just information, but connection between one another. The ability to interact with complete strangers or closest friends via social network sites, forums or open-comment sites as You Tube. The ability to express yourself although has negative aspects, is dominated by the positive according to Burgess and Green as there are multiple plaforms in which to share your talent and get recognized for that hard work. An example of this is the arctic monkeys. Through communities sharing their tracks via the web they have become professional from amateur as they were given the chance to advance. The authors point is that creativity shouldn’t just come from those who ‘have the ability’ to do so.
Looking at the You tube page of most subscribed of all time, its not surprising to see that out of the top 10, only 2 of them are credited commercial programs which could be experience on the television. However some of them being created shorts, outtakes, short clips or just lined up extra information wouldn’t fit the criteria for broadcasting, which in favor led to their popularity on the web, via fan base or general popularity. These You Tube channels being Top Gear at number 4 and BBCWorldwide at number 8, the rest being amateur driven content.
You Tube being the largest video driven website, would count as sufficient evidence that amateur created content greatly outweighs the popularity of traditional themed content. By that I mean, amateur creativity is anything, anyone can think of, to where traditional media - where it is broadcast quality via content, has to be filtered to also stick to strict guidelines, and thats where the difference begins.
Keen would look at this saying that how users would rather experience the same entertainment from watching amateur, on demand content compared to broadcast quality programs, which would damage the revenue in which the big companies are able to reproduce more shows time after time. But as You Tube users become more popular, since You Tube will be the only location in which they will remain their popularity, they are stuck in this endless loop where they aren’t making anymore money from what they do than any other user. The Only way in which they would is if they pass over into the professional sphere, which because of its constant decline, may never happen.
Burgess and Green would look at this trend to believe that those ‘amateurs’ in the top 10 are being recognized for their creative talents. They would say You Tube, being a site for participation, allows users to interact and become part of the website of video process. I have discovered that most of the top 10, interact with their audience, either asking questions to their audience to respond or accept questions. This factor has always been a hit on popular television, and by users now also with online culture. They would say the global community re-enforces each other and exercises entertainment and enjoyment from ideas and creations, either being pure talent or expression of the vernacular creativity style. Web 2.0 is a sharing, collaborating and expression ate world, not just of mis-intensional misleading.
These different views help me to separate the different views and in time to challenge the hypothesis of them both, as neither of them are right to my understanding but to empower a realization of what is happening behind the scenes.
literature review
My literature review will be the analysis of select authors/sources to further and discuss the points made by Andrew Keen and to what extent they are valid in todays world.
Main sources; Andrew Keen’s ‘The cult of the amateur’ (2007) [Book]
Burgess and Green’s ‘Online video and participation culture’. (2009) [Book]
Other sources; Henry Jenkins ‘In a social networking world, whats the future of TV?’ (2009) [Blogpost]
The change that the web has brought about that has transformed our culture and society more than anything in the last decade is astronomical, but are these changes beneficial? Some have the view of only negative (Keen) and others mainly positive (Burgess and Green), but what is the middle-ground? Can any view be boldly said to be correct or incorrect?
Andrew Keen is a very biased individual. He believes in chaos, and how this chaos in our society and deteriorating culture comes down to web 2.0, but at an age of information, once we have entered, we cannot leave but simply make decisions as a community to fight against these overwhelming negative aspects. He backs his points by factual knowledge, one example of participation within this, being the use of Wikipedia and how any joeschmoe can change a page’s content, even with provocative motivation. ‘On Wal-Marts, somebody eliminated a line about underpaid employees making less than 20 percent of the competition.’
He goes onto say that the majority of information being relayed on the internet, either being the many millions of blog posts or simply through social networks are usually ‘just another person’s version of the truth’
coming from only few reliable sources such as CNN or BBC. He says ‘Wikipedia has become the third most visited site for information and current events’.
And having no editorial staff or reporters, its open source nature could easily lead to what he calls ‘the blind leading the blind.’
Ideas such as this are important to consider as Keen raises points that the world could be misinformed by many areas of knowledge due to the actions of very few individuals. Whereby with very little effort, could create chaos. Not chaos in the terms of which Keen thinks all civilization will end, but in the terms that our society need professionals and amateurs in separate spheres to create a balance. In many ways I agree with this as balance is crucial otherwise it would become a communist system (coined by Keen), where society would fail. But from my perspective, there will always be that balance as the positive effects of web 2.0 will always outweigh the negative.
Burgess and Green have an ideology quite opposite to Keen, whereby they backup the amateurs saying indirectly, they’re motivation is not to create chaos, but to express themselves in what has grown into the new world of web 2.0 which has allowed anyone and everyone to publish themselves to the world.
Time after time Keen is quick to point the blame at all those contributing to what has been given to them, by that I mean sites such as You Tube or Blogspot. However, these websites have been created by such professionals where with the free-space nature of the web allows such individuals to express and publish themselves on an independent basis. An example of this is being You Tube was created by ex-paypal employees. In terms of research, this is my view of what Burgess and Green have been trying to describe and explain.
The best way in which to summarize their ideology in reflection to Keen would be ‘ordinary people doing extraordinary things’. Their view being, web 2.0 has brought has a lot more than just information, but connection between one another. The ability to interact with complete strangers or closest friends via social network sites, forums or open-comment sites as You Tube. The ability to express yourself although has negative aspects, is dominated by the positive according to Burgess and Green as there are multiple plaforms in which to share your talent and get recognised for that hard work. An example of this is the arctic monkeys. Through communities sharing their tracks via the web they have become professional from amateur as they were given the chance. The authors point is that creativity shouldn’t just come from those who ‘have the ability’ to do so.
A relative point that Henry Jenkins made on one of his blogposts; Joss Whedon, a already credited producer, created ‘Dr. horribles sing-along-blog’ as a personal project during the recent writers strike. Initially available free via the internet now available on itunes, this short program won an Emmy. His point being if this had been a traditional broadcast or promoted/distributed in other ways than the free culture of the web to begin with, although being a personal project, he may have been given a lot more credit into the work that had been put in and stated in the post quoted by Whedon ‘If we were on TV, maybe we would’ve won an Oscar…’ This ties in with Burgess and Green as many ‘ordinary people’ may have what maybe considered talents to a professional level, will never have the same recognition as the professionals due to the platform of what they are able to broadcast themselves. However web 2.0 has empowered those alike as a global community and sites most popular like You Tube, has the power to give audiences that could well rival that of TV to express pure talent, or enjoyment of vernacular creativity.
These different views help me to separate the different views and in time to challenge the hypothesis of them both, as neither of them are right to my understanding but to empower a realization of what is happening behind the scenes.
1 Andrew Keen (2007) The cult of the Amateur p3
2 Andrew Keen (2007) The cult of the Amateur p4
3 Andrew Keen (2007) The cult of the Amateur p4
4 Andrew Keen (2007) The cult of the Amateur p4
Credits test.. good or not?
Birthdays all around #InYourPants
Sex robot? #InYourPants
In Your Pants… #OhMy
WATCH ME
ESSAY TIME - RESEARCH PAPER
Research paper
To what Extent is Web Participation harmful to society?
Web participation culture has helped shape our society and everyday culture as it is becoming a much larger part of our everyday lives, but the idea of negative or harmful effects that it brings with it leads me to believe that it is just not only the ‘average internet user’ that would be overall effected. Should we be worried about what may become of this? Or are the beneficial factors one to override what we may see as harmful and overshadow them to the point of non-existence. These will be a few ideas, which I will be discussing.
Wikipedia is a unique site as it grows from group collaboration and feeds on the participation of its users, but because of this main factor, can this site be stated as a ‘reliable’ source for news and information? According to Andrew Keen, ‘Wikipedia has become the third most visited site for information and current events; a more trusted source for news than the CNN or BBC websites, even though Wikipedia has no reporters, no editorial staff, and no experience in news-gathering’.[i] I think Keen raises a valid point in how Wikipedia could bring about harmful effects by the misleading of information to those who visit. The word ‘could’ should be emphasized as the anonymous creators who contribute could range from a Harvard professor to a child who has just enough brain power to login to a computer, which Keen refers to T. H. Huxley’s scenario of infinite monkeys with infinite typewriters. Where in this case the typical web amateur who has the power to steal, lie and mislead at a click of a button.
Henry Jenkins would in some light oppose this view saying the convergence of participation of a ‘global frequency network’[ii] to build a worldwide, free encyclopedia, where traditionally such devices have been corporatized, is a project ‘for the common good’. Although there is some justification to what could be termed reliable since it isn’t just experts who contribute, a view that Keen shares, however Jenkins labels these people as ‘an army of volunteers’. An army to help create, shape and share information, and where Jenkins says Wikipedia ‘receives around 60 million hits per day’,[iii] they prove to be doing anything but misleading, otherwise the popularity of this site would rapidly diminish.
Blogs also have an important role within web 2.0 and web participation, and with this, I believe blogs hold similar characteristics that can relate to other participation themed sites like Wikipedia and YouTube alike. In terms of exhibitionism, relay of knowledge and information compared to creating, with the collective amateur interest. Although blogs are generally for personal use, they can also create devastating effects. Keen believes the rise of blogs are one of the main sources which are molding individuals perspectives to break free from the restrictions of the ‘real world’, which in time will pay its price. ‘The pasting, remixing, mashing, borrowing, copying-the stealing- of intellectual property has become the single most pervasive activity on the Internet.’[iv] The web, being a digitized back catalogue of information, is slowly creating a youth culture which think it is justified to steal content from another source, usually created by the professionals or experts, which has the potential to create chaos with the next generation of ‘copy and pasters’. ‘A June 2005 study by the center for Academic Integrity (CAI) of 50,000 undergraduates revealed that 70 percent of college students admitted to engaging in some form of cheating; worse still, 77 percent of college students didn’t think that Internet plagiarism was a “serious” issue.’[v]
However, looking at David Gauntlett’s view paints a different picture. In terms of writing blogs, the opposite of his ‘sit back and be told’ theory would be ‘making-and-doing’,[vi] which in favor is evidently a more productive method of learning. ‘According to a June 2006 study by the Pew Internet and American Life Project, 34 percent of the 12 million bloggers in America their online “work” to be a form of journalism’.[vii] Blogs are a perfect location for communities of expression of personal hobbies. Although the high amount of exhibitionism on the web may be seen as a negative due to the idea of author and reader slowly becoming one, the combination of the ‘making-and-doing’ culture and the growth of exhibitionism allows the construction of niché communities for anything and everything. The idea of participation in this sense helps construct the web, building lives or ‘second lives’ around this rather than damaging the one you already have.
The effects of blogs and other such devices where copyright laws become ‘messy’ due to the websites inability to control the users and what they upload, is nothing short of a trend in history. ‘Until 1891 American copyright law benefited only citizens and residents of the United States’.[viii] This relates to Charles Dickens and how he earned nothing of the American editions of his novels, even though they were more popular in America than England at the time. Looking at how popular Dickens is today would it be fair to say that the theft of the content was justifiable to spread his popularity? Would it be right to say because of the exception for American publishers to reproduce his novels, created a catalyst in why he has become this famous? With web 2.0, its hard to see what is justified and to what ethics people see right, as most participation sites are a global community.
YouTube could be considered as the best and worst site imaginable, simply because of in what way you look at it, your view may fit accordingly. To begin with, YouTube is a user-friendly site. A simple design with a simple video upload tool, which also has an easy access embed code that, allows videos to be posted on blogs and other social networking sites. These are just factors which grant the site a degree of initial success, but after all, it is the user generated content which fills the site with regular participants, subscribers and viewers. YouTube could also be said to be the next big rival against traditional television. It would be wrong to say this is because YouTube is a source of better quality programming, or that users are choosing to watch YouTube videos over television, as this is not true. It is only because it is another source of providing moving image combined with its popularity which results in companies using YouTube to advertise, either creating an advertising deal with YouTube or creating their own viral video to promote their product. This factor alone greatly affects the revenue from television if providers of funding chose different methods of advertising, in this case their other method may be considerably cheaper.
Keen would also say that YouTube is a waste of time to our culture. ‘Technology doesn’t create human genius’.[ix] He also says ‘The site is an infinite gallery of amateur movies showing poor fools dancing, singing, eating, washing, shopping, driving, cleaning, sleeping, or just staring into their computers’.[x] Keen makes a valid point that all this attention and popularity has come about from watching what is nothing more than what started as home movies, but the interest of corporate companies uploading content have made it so much more. Burgess and Green say that YouTube works as a ‘double function as both a ‘top down’ platform for the distribution of popular culture and a ‘bottom up’ platform for vernacular creativity’.[xi] This, like the characteristic of blogs, is a prime source of expression of creative talent, where with this creates participation upon commenting and rating to encourage and further each others work or talents. YouTube also creates a home for a place of users and corporate to come together and often collide. The band Okay Go, being an example where their success came specifically from their YouTube viral video.
The convergence of user and professional would be the view on Henry Jenkins. ‘We take control of the media as in enters our lives.’[xii] YouTube and its free nature and its limited rules have allowed us as the user to have more control over the media. What we read, what we share and what we chose to recreate or remix. This culture, although previously existed didn’t fully bloom until web 2.0 and made the world of the media a more diverse place.
Overall many moral panics over types of media are usually the typical course of history, but is web 2.0 something, which could bring about more devastation? No doubt participation culture does have negative effects, such as the ability to manipulate information or steal hundreds of years worth of copyrighted material, however I believe balance will occur to a point, which will only excel the positives of free culture and web participation.
[i] Andrew Keen (2007) The Cult of the Amateur, London, Nicholas Brealey publishing, P4
[ii] Henry Jenkins (2006) Convergence Culture, New York, New York University Press, P254
[iii] Henry Jenkins (2006) Convergence Culture, New York, New York University Press, P254
[iv] Andrew Keen (2007) The Cult of the Amateur, London, Nicholas Brealey publishing, P142
[v] Andrew Keen (2007) The Cult of the Amateur, London, Nicholas Brealey publishing, P145
[vi] David Gauntlett (2010) A Make and Connect agenda, [Online] Available from: http://www.theory.org.uk/david/makeandconnect.htm [Accessed 23/1/11]
[vii] Andrew Keen (2007) The Cult of the Amateur, London, Nicholas Brealey publishing, P47
[viii] Edward G. Hudon, (1964) ‘Literary Piracy, Charles Dickens and the American Copyright Law’, [Online] Available from: http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/abaj50&div=312&id=&page= [Accessed 23/1/11]
[ix] Andrew Keen (2007) The Cult of the Amateur, London, Nicholas Brealey publishing, P204
[x] Andrew Keen (2007) The Cult of the Amateur, London, Nicholas Brealey publishing, P5
[xi] Jean Burgess and Joshua Green (2009) YouTube Online Video and Participatory Culture, Cambridge, Polity Press, P6
[xii] ‘HCDMEDIAGROUP’ (2009) Henry Jenkins, [Online] Available from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibJaqXVaOaI [Accessed 23/1/11]
Literature Review take 2
My literature review will be the analysis of select authors/sources to further and discuss the points made by Andrew Keen and to what extent they are valid in todays world.
Main sources; Andrew Keen’s ‘The cult of the amateur’ (2007) [Book]
Burgess and Green’s ‘Online video and participation culture’. (2009) [Book]
Other sources; Henry Jenkins ‘In a social networking world, whats the future of TV?’ (2009) [Blogpost]
Youtube ‘Most subscribed of all time’ [Accessed 23/12/10]
The change that the web has brought about that has transformed our culture and society more than anything in the last decade is astronomical, but are these changes overall beneficial? Some have the view of only negative (Keen) and others mainly positive (Burgess and Green), but what is the middle-ground? Can any view be boldly said to be correct or incorrect?
Andrew Keen is a very biased individual. He believes in chaos, caused by amateurs which he heavily relates to T.H.Huxley’s infinite monkeys with infinite typewriters, and how all this chaos in our society and deteriorating culture comes down to web 2.0, but at an age of information, once we have entered, we cannot leave but simply make decisions as a community to fight against these overwhelming negative aspects. He backs his points by factual knowledge, one example of participation within this, being the use of Wikipedia and how any joeschmoe can change a page’s content, even with provocative motivation. ‘On Wal-Marts, somebody eliminated a line about underpaid employees making less than 20 percent of the competition.’
He goes onto say that the majority of information being relayed on the internet, either being the many millions of blog posts or simply through social networks are usually ‘just another person’s version of the truth’
coming from only few reliable sources such as CNN or BBC. He says ‘Wikipedia has become the third most visited site for information and current events’.
And having no editorial staff or reporters, its open source nature could easily lead to what he calls ‘the blind leading the blind.’
He goes to on say that because of this, just one area of the entire media industry, newspapers and magazines have declined in circulation due to the power amateurs now have in circulating their own news. They do this as an open source, free of charge basis, but as more and more people rely on these sources of information than credited, professional sources, there will always be this constant decline.
Ideas such as this are important to consider as Keen raises points that the world could be misinformed by many areas of knowledge due to the actions of very few individuals. Whereby with very little effort, could create chaos to everyone. Not chaos in the terms of which Keen thinks all civilization will end, but in the terms that our society need professionals and amateurs in separate spheres to create a balance. In many ways I agree with this as balance is crucial otherwise it would become a communist system (coined by Keen), where society would fail. But from my perspective, there will always be that balance as the positive effects of web 2.0 will always outweigh the negative due to adaptation.
Burgess and Green have an ideology quite opposite to Keen, whereby they backup the amateurs saying indirectly, they’re motivation is not to create chaos, but to express themselves in what has grown into the new world of web 2.0 which has allowed anyone and everyone to publish themselves to the new world.
Time after time Keen is quick to point the blame at all those contributing to what has been given to them, by that I mean sites such as You Tube or Blogspot. However, these websites have been created by such professionals where with the free-space nature of the web allows such individuals to express and publish themselves on an independent basis. An example of this is being You Tube was created by ex-paypal employees. In terms of research, this is my view of what Burgess and Green have been trying to describe and explain to some degree.
The best way in which to summarize their ideology in reflection to Keen would be ‘ordinary people doing extraordinary things’. Their view being, web 2.0 has brought has a lot more than just information, but connection between one another. The ability to interact with complete strangers or closest friends via social network sites, forums or open-comment sites as You Tube. The ability to express yourself although has negative aspects, is dominated by the positive according to Burgess and Green as there are multiple plaforms in which to share your talent and get recognized for that hard work. An example of this is the arctic monkeys. Through communities sharing their tracks via the web they have become professional from amateur as they were given the chance to advance. The authors point is that creativity shouldn’t just come from those who ‘have the ability’ to do so.
Looking at the You tube page of most subscribed of all time, its not surprising to see that out of the top 10, only 2 of them are credited commercial programs which could be experience on the television. However some of them being created shorts, outtakes, short clips or just lined up extra information wouldn’t fit the criteria for broadcasting, which in favor led to their popularity on the web, via fan base or general popularity. These You Tube channels being Top Gear at number 4 and BBCWorldwide at number 8, the rest being amateur driven content.
You Tube being the largest video driven website, would count as sufficient evidence that amateur created content greatly outweighs the popularity of traditional themed content. By that I mean, amateur creativity is anything, anyone can think of, to where traditional media - where it is broadcast quality via content, has to be filtered to also stick to strict guidelines, and thats where the difference begins.
Keen would look at this saying that how users would rather experience the same entertainment from watching amateur, on demand content compared to broadcast quality programs, which would damage the revenue in which the big companies are able to reproduce more shows time after time. But as You Tube users become more popular, since You Tube will be the only location in which they will remain their popularity, they are stuck in this endless loop where they aren’t making anymore money from what they do than any other user. The Only way in which they would is if they pass over into the professional sphere, which because of its constant decline, may never happen.
Burgess and Green would look at this trend to believe that those ‘amateurs’ in the top 10 are being recognized for their creative talents. They would say You Tube, being a site for participation, allows users to interact and become part of the website of video process. I have discovered that most of the top 10, interact with their audience, either asking questions to their audience to respond or accept questions. This factor has always been a hit on popular television, and by users now also with online culture. They would say the global community re-enforces each other and exercises entertainment and enjoyment from ideas and creations, either being pure talent or expression of the vernacular creativity style. Web 2.0 is a sharing, collaborating and expression ate world, not just of mis-intensional misleading.
These different views help me to separate the different views and in time to challenge the hypothesis of them both, as neither of them are right to my understanding but to empower a realization of what is happening behind the scenes.
literature review
My literature review will be the analysis of select authors/sources to further and discuss the points made by Andrew Keen and to what extent they are valid in todays world.
Main sources; Andrew Keen’s ‘The cult of the amateur’ (2007) [Book]
Burgess and Green’s ‘Online video and participation culture’. (2009) [Book]
Other sources; Henry Jenkins ‘In a social networking world, whats the future of TV?’ (2009) [Blogpost]
The change that the web has brought about that has transformed our culture and society more than anything in the last decade is astronomical, but are these changes beneficial? Some have the view of only negative (Keen) and others mainly positive (Burgess and Green), but what is the middle-ground? Can any view be boldly said to be correct or incorrect?
Andrew Keen is a very biased individual. He believes in chaos, and how this chaos in our society and deteriorating culture comes down to web 2.0, but at an age of information, once we have entered, we cannot leave but simply make decisions as a community to fight against these overwhelming negative aspects. He backs his points by factual knowledge, one example of participation within this, being the use of Wikipedia and how any joeschmoe can change a page’s content, even with provocative motivation. ‘On Wal-Marts, somebody eliminated a line about underpaid employees making less than 20 percent of the competition.’
He goes onto say that the majority of information being relayed on the internet, either being the many millions of blog posts or simply through social networks are usually ‘just another person’s version of the truth’
coming from only few reliable sources such as CNN or BBC. He says ‘Wikipedia has become the third most visited site for information and current events’.
And having no editorial staff or reporters, its open source nature could easily lead to what he calls ‘the blind leading the blind.’
Ideas such as this are important to consider as Keen raises points that the world could be misinformed by many areas of knowledge due to the actions of very few individuals. Whereby with very little effort, could create chaos. Not chaos in the terms of which Keen thinks all civilization will end, but in the terms that our society need professionals and amateurs in separate spheres to create a balance. In many ways I agree with this as balance is crucial otherwise it would become a communist system (coined by Keen), where society would fail. But from my perspective, there will always be that balance as the positive effects of web 2.0 will always outweigh the negative.
Burgess and Green have an ideology quite opposite to Keen, whereby they backup the amateurs saying indirectly, they’re motivation is not to create chaos, but to express themselves in what has grown into the new world of web 2.0 which has allowed anyone and everyone to publish themselves to the world.
Time after time Keen is quick to point the blame at all those contributing to what has been given to them, by that I mean sites such as You Tube or Blogspot. However, these websites have been created by such professionals where with the free-space nature of the web allows such individuals to express and publish themselves on an independent basis. An example of this is being You Tube was created by ex-paypal employees. In terms of research, this is my view of what Burgess and Green have been trying to describe and explain.
The best way in which to summarize their ideology in reflection to Keen would be ‘ordinary people doing extraordinary things’. Their view being, web 2.0 has brought has a lot more than just information, but connection between one another. The ability to interact with complete strangers or closest friends via social network sites, forums or open-comment sites as You Tube. The ability to express yourself although has negative aspects, is dominated by the positive according to Burgess and Green as there are multiple plaforms in which to share your talent and get recognised for that hard work. An example of this is the arctic monkeys. Through communities sharing their tracks via the web they have become professional from amateur as they were given the chance. The authors point is that creativity shouldn’t just come from those who ‘have the ability’ to do so.
A relative point that Henry Jenkins made on one of his blogposts; Joss Whedon, a already credited producer, created ‘Dr. horribles sing-along-blog’ as a personal project during the recent writers strike. Initially available free via the internet now available on itunes, this short program won an Emmy. His point being if this had been a traditional broadcast or promoted/distributed in other ways than the free culture of the web to begin with, although being a personal project, he may have been given a lot more credit into the work that had been put in and stated in the post quoted by Whedon ‘If we were on TV, maybe we would’ve won an Oscar…’ This ties in with Burgess and Green as many ‘ordinary people’ may have what maybe considered talents to a professional level, will never have the same recognition as the professionals due to the platform of what they are able to broadcast themselves. However web 2.0 has empowered those alike as a global community and sites most popular like You Tube, has the power to give audiences that could well rival that of TV to express pure talent, or enjoyment of vernacular creativity.
These different views help me to separate the different views and in time to challenge the hypothesis of them both, as neither of them are right to my understanding but to empower a realization of what is happening behind the scenes.
1 Andrew Keen (2007) The cult of the Amateur p3 2 Andrew Keen (2007) The cult of the Amateur p4 3 Andrew Keen (2007) The cult of the Amateur p4 4 Andrew Keen (2007) The cult of the Amateur p4
Credits test.. good or not?
