freedom of the blog

Today we talked about the book “Clear Blogging”, and how different types of people in society are now communicating through blogs. I think this is both good and bad. Celebrities like Mark Cuban, Jennifer Love Hewitt, and even Rosie O’ Donnell have blogs. I think they do this because they know that blogs are a great way to communicate with the public freely, and it allows them to respond to anything the tabloids or news may say about them. I think over time more celebrities will understand the power behind blogging, just like the other forms of mass media. However, I wonder about letting military personal have blogs, as we discussed today. I don’t think blogging is necessary for people that are doing classified things, even if they are done anonymously. In fact, just today we learned that Prince Harry is over fighting in Afghanistan. All of the media outlets had known this for 10 weeks, but kept it a secret for his safety. Turns out this news was broken not by the mainstream media, but by somebody’s blog! I don’t like that. I think blogs are giving too many people a voice, and allows for information that doesn’t need to be put out there. People may say that we have a right to know all information, but I don’t think so. I think things like this, and secret operations that are for the betterment of society shouldn’t be ruined by some guy with a blog.

gotta have feedback

The article “My blog: My outward brain” talks about the need we have for information and for feedback. At one point the author talks about how the more he blogs the more reward, (feedback) he receives, as people tell him or email about something he wrote. This reminds me of when high school, when Xanga was new and exciting. Everyone seemed to have one, and I remember I created one to see how much feedback I could get. The whole concept of posting your blog to Xanga was to get these things called “eprops”, which were nothing but comments from other Xanga users. There was no real reason to post if you weren’t getting eprops. So the blogs that didn’t get eprops were never really updated, while the people who got eprops a lot updated a lot. This tells me that people really want other people to read their blogs. Of course, this seems logical, because if you are posting stuff on the internet, you probably understand that people are going to read it. This always tells me that people felt a sense of social importance based on how many other people were willing to read their blogs. I’m not sure I ever learned anything knowledgeable from reading Xanga, but I learned about people’s emotions. I was almost embarrassed for other people at some of the personal stuff they would post to Xanga. I guess most people are so obsessed with feedback that they don’t care if they post something that they’ll regret later on.

blogs enhance literacy?

From what I read about “Using Blogs to Enhance Literacy”, the author makes some simple yet qualifying points. Her argument seems to be that blogging is good for learning and good for literacy. I think that a lot of her points that she brings up do make sense: blogs are easy to publish, allow people voices they wouldn’t have otherwise, and keep free speech alive. However, I wonder if perhaps blogging and other parts about Web 2.0, such as social sites and even things that connect us like text messaging, might be dumbing down the English language. In a lot of cases, especially with young people, we often type in slang, intentionally spell words wrong, use incorrect grammar and punctuation, all in the name of convenience and pop culture. I wouldn’t be surprised I there were a good number of young people out there who think the correct way to spell “you” is “u”. I think that the number one compliment you can give blogging is that it has made communication easier. No one feels the need to be correct in all of the things I mentioned, because they know people will understand whatever point they are making no matter how words are spelled or ideas expressed. So to simply say that blogging and Web 2.0 has done nothing but good things for learning would be incorrect in my opinion. I think this will only get worse, as communication progresses and blogs become even more rampant, we will see a decline in the understanding of correct grammar and proper language use.

map assignment

Here is my concept map. I chose to do it on the late night talk shows on regular TV. I think there are a lot of different choices, and there are many similiarites and few differences. I came to this conclusion after watching them and creating these ideas, and seeing how many of them share the same ideas. I don't think I will do my final project on this, but I think this is a good basic concept map idea.

I think concept maps are good to help you get started on papers/big assignments. For one of my other classes, we actually did a concept map activity earlier today. The teacher put up an idea, and we picked two people that fit that idea, and we started naming things about them that could connect. I think concept mapping is a good way to brainstorm and to show people how things go together. These ideas not only work for our web 2.0, but for all classes!

social network? hmm

Latour’s book “Reassembling the Social” (which I spoke about today), makes a lot of sense once you start understanding it. Latour argues that putting the label “social” on things is unnecessary and leads to boxing ideas in. I think that the world as a network, runs off of everything. From people to animals to technology, everything needs to be in function. It is unwise to be putting the label of social on things in an attempt to describe life as a certain way. Stuff happens, things change, it’s a natural part of the world. Describing phenomenon’s as a “social” science or some sort of social force is redundant. We are all a part of this social network, although Latour wouldn’t like us calling it a social network!
I think that the world is full of intermediates and mediators, which is something Latour might have a different opinion on. It takes mediators to push new forces through, and intermediates are the people who are pushing these through because the mediators are behind them. There are obviously powerful people and hierarchies in our world, so I think that it is natural that intermediates do exist. However, perhaps we are made mediators when we begin to push these forces because it takes everything to bring a force through. I’m sure Latour will keep discussing this with himself, and share it in his next book.

hidden power of social networks

Anne’s discussion on “Hidden Power of Social Networks” was another example of connectivity, which seems to be all we talk about. Part of her discussion was about breaking people up into groups and having us find what was similar about our blogs. It was an interesting way to look at breaking down social networks. I think that if we really wanted to, we could have found a way to group any random people in our class together and found some sort of blog similarity between us. I think her point about not being able to categorize everyone together, in terms of business employees was very valid. I think a lot of times whether it be in business, sports, or other uniform social walks of life, people are judged by standards that may not be the right way to look at everyone. For instance, in sports, just because a basketball player can score 20 points doesn’t necessarily mean he is a valuable player. He might play on a losing team and only be scoring garbage points. A winning team might have a player who scores less than that guy, but rebounds and defends and does what it takes to win. This makes him the more valuable player. The same with what she says about the business employees and how a peripheral and central employee aren’t exactly cut and dry who is better. I learned from this discussion that it is easy to make the mistake of putting people in certain categories that may or may not accurately represent who they are or what they are capable of. You must be able to interpret results accurately.

map theory

We have used concept maps as students as early as grade school. Well, at least I have and I'm sure you have as well. I remember teachers in elementary school having us make concept maps that would link all of the particular characters and themes in the different stories we read together. As a kid I remember liking these things and thinking that they were very helpful in linking information together. I know alot of kids thought they were annoying. I like the line in this reading that says "The learner must choose to learn meaningfully". If connecting a bunch of words together can help you recall parts of a novel, business plan, or whatever important information you need, then it is up to the learner to choose to learn. Concept maps provide clear, precise, direct information to the reader. I also agree that you must "possess prior knowledge". We only ever made concept maps after we were finished going over whatever it was we were making a map of. It doesnt make sense to link things together if you don't first have a general understanding of the idea.
The concept map works like the mind. One line in the reading is that the map is like our brain because of its complex connections of information. All parts of our brain must flow to process information to other parts of the body. The concept map shows you visually how the flow of information is connected and how parts of ideas are generally connected and not seperate intities.

strange but true

I saw a news story today about a family whose mother died a long time ago, a mysterious death that was believed to be an accidental overdose. The woman’s kids were young at that time, and knew little about her death. Now they are adults and remembered their father talking about a preacher she used to go and see. One night, one of the kids was watching a local news report and they were talking about that same preacher and how he was involved in a woman’s mysterious death a long time ago. So the kids went and checked it out and realized it was the same preacher and he was with their mom when she died. The only reason that story aired on TV was because the police released the wrong files of a man with the same name that was supposed to be on the news. So the kids went to meet with this guy to find out what he knew about their mom and they end up finding out that he is the father of 2 of them. Also, they find out that they used to attend the same church when he was the preacher there! If that doesn’t show an example of being connected and six degrees of separation, then I don’t know what does.

six degrees

The more I think about the “Six degrees” book we were informed about, the more I am amazed at the concepts. To think that we are all connected by technology and even through social life is a popular idea, yet one I never understood or believed. I had heard all about the six degrees of Kevin Bacon thing, although I wasn’t sure who he was, I thought the idea that you can connect every actor or actress to him was nutty. Even during our class discussion, when we were discussing if somehow everyone on the planet is connected and whether we could relate ourselves in someway to someone. I immediately thought to myself, “there is no way anyone in here could get to the President.” Thinking that surely this has to be the most powerful person in the land, and none of us could connect to him. Then Mrs. Strickland asked the question of if we could get something to him, and sure enough, one person spoke up and said they had the proper connections. I was floored that we could get something to the President in less than six steps!

I think the internet works in a similar way. With the right links, clicks, and what not we could be viewing anything and connecting to anyone almost. On facebook there is a group I found called six degrees of separation where they are trying to see if everyone on facebook can be linked somehow. I would say yes, we are all linked. By being a part of this group, we have all linked together for something. I think the internet is a giant web that is connecting all people, whether they use it or not. You don’t have to be computer literate to be a part of the web. Anyone can post anything about you whether you know it or not. I think one day, the internet can make it possible to link people in less than six steps.

connected

The quote that I liked most from the "Connected" readings was the one about power and how structures aren't just one thing but made up of many things. "Like every infrastructure, from highway systems to the internet, the power grid is not really a single entity, but several regional networks cobbled together under the rubric of greater connectivity for the good of all". This is saying that it takes alot of different ideas and workings to come together in order to create something great. This sort of reminds me of Power Rangers, when all of the individual robots would combined together to make the Megazord to beat one bad guy, rather than attack 5 on 1. I never understood why they didn't just go at him as individuals, seeing as they would outnumber him. However, I came to the realization that together they were more powerful as one bot than as 5. This is how the internet works. It takes a bunch of individual ideas, pages, scripts, and people to combine together to create this ultra influential being that outweights every other form of digital communication. We need power lines to talk to people on the phone, we need broadcast stations to watch TV shows, we need many different yet connected things in order to create these big powerful forces.

instant entertainment

Sifting through the different blogs during Aaron’s presentation in class today was exciting and a good learning tool. I was very interested in seeing all of the new blogs and if there was any way we are all connected. I came across some very interesting blogs; from one dedicated to the High School Musical kids to some that were in another language. I found this kind of difficult to see how a webpage filled with pictures of Zack Effron going to the store and combing his hair and how a page dedicated to a Venezuelan politician were connected. Then again, I guess the purpose of any web page is to inform about something. I guess we are all connected through our mediums of communication.
I find the part about being enveloped and not being able to concentrate on something one at a time very telling. I recently heard that every time you change the TV channels, your brain receives a jolt. This means that your mind is shifting from one idea to another so rapidly, that overtime your brain can become addicted to needing these shocks. This is one theory why we have so much ADD nowadays. I think the same is with the internet. Going from vastly different webpage to webpage is also probably creating shocks and satisfying our desires. I think we as a people probably are so used to instant entertainment options that we will always be stuck in this envelope of ideas.

fakes and reality

I believe strongly now that people create social identity’s that are false over the internet. A lot of times this is done to try to pretend you’re someone your not, but also I’ve come to realize that sometimes people do it as a means of humor. In relation to our class discussion about social identity, I watched some of my friends chatting online and pretending they were older men the other night. I never knew they had these secret chat identities. They pretend that they are women and chat with guys. It’s really funny because they have these really x-rated chats, just because these guys think they’re girls. However, this made me wonder of perhaps these guys that are chatting with them are only pretending to be guys. Maybe they are in on their own joke, and are playing around with my friends. Can we really trust any type of supposed identity if we aren’t talking to someone in person? Is it possible to display your true feelings and emotions over the internet or some other means of communication? This experience has made me really stop and wonder how many facebook profiles, myspace profiles, and whatnot really display peoples likes and dislikes. Maybe it is all just pretend.

the hyper linking

My first reaction after reading today’s reading was “they were working on the internet in 1993?’ I have no recollection of ever using or knowing what the internet was until 1998 or 99. But then I realize that yes, it makes sense they were creating this phenomenon back then, and the world did move forward even though I was too young to pay attention. The fact that a simple hyper link was so amazing to these guys is like car companies being amazed at putting air conditioning in cars. Links appear on every single internet page and are as much a part of the internet as email, or chatting. I remember in high school when I noticed a bunch of girls typing in their online diaries during class, and wondering what this was they were doing. When they told me about the site called Xanga, and informed me that it had been around for over a year and showed me all of the features, I was amazed. I had no idea there were such things as social networks. The thing that amazed me most were all of the different links there were, or “friends” that were on people’s pages that with one click would bring up another person’s Xanga page. I have never been up on the internet, so this was all pretty amazing to me. This idea of connectivity through linking was an instant phenomenon among people my age, with what felt like everyone using Xanga at one point. But quickly, college came and Facebook was the new thing, and everyone got off of Xanga. I think that with the creation of new technology, and the changing landscape of newer ways to stay connected, one day linking may be as outdated as house phones.

communication mediums

There is no doubt that without written word, we would be severely held back in terms of communication. In fact, you wouldn’t even be reading this right now if it wasn’t for the continuation of the medium of technology and the ways in which we write words. I think the reading brings up an interesting point when it says that it is more important the media man uses to communicate than what they are actually communicating. This says a lot about how we listen, and how our minds are convinced. This reminds me of the story about the first ever political advertising for President in 1952. Eisenhower, (who won) decided to use the new technology of TV to his advantage by running ads, while his opponent refused because he thought it would be disgraceful. Four years later the same candidate ran again and decided to run TV ads this time. I also think it is interesting how this article points out how we lived in “directionless dark of the mind”. Also, “the hand that filled the parchment page built the city”. I think this means he who communicates most effectively gets to make all the rules and influence all the people. It will be very interesting in the coming year to see how Web 2.0 influences the masses.

Does majority always rule?

“Two heads are smarter than one”. Isn’t this a common phrase that is accepted by many? The remarkable success of group intelligence is somewhat expected. If you put a bunch of people together, one person who knows the answer can act confidently and tell everyone else what it is or display through his actions his confidence and influence the others to follow him. Or, the majority of people may actually know the answer and be correct. The Who Wants to be Millionaire example doesn’t surprise me, because if you read multiple choice questions, generally the majority will be right. I used to watch this show, and every time they did the “ask the group” lifeline, I always immediately assumed the majority was right. I can’t recall an instance that I saw where the majority was wrong. However, the majority isn’t always right. Just today I saw a news poll that said over 50% of young people think Robin Hood was real; over 50% also think Florence Nightingale was imaginary, along with King Richard the Lionhearted. Of course Robin Hood is fake, and Nightingale and King Richard were real. I guess examples like these just prove that you can’t always trust the majority. Sometimes one head may be smarter than two.

design website

I find the website that we are to look at about graphic design to be pretty ugly looking at first look. The font and colors chosen make it look like something from the early 90's if websites had existed then. The whole website is dumb. The first thing you see is a bunch of advertisments for contests and other junk. You have to click on links on the side that really don't even advertise what this junk is that you should click on. When you do click on something, it just takes you to some random wierd pictures that the captions don't even describe what you are looking at. This looks like a website that was created by a bunch of drug users. I don't think this website is run by Americans. I would guess this is from Europe because it has that European strangeness to it and seems like the kind of thing young people over there would create. I don't understand the point of this site. Is it to inform about graphic design or to present a bunch of new age art design and tease the mind? The article section is somewhat informing. The authors write about ways to present designs and what is effective and what isn't. I think for a website that prides itself on graphic design, they sure are hypocrits. I chose to change the background colors and the text colors on my blog site, because it seems everyone has picked the same template and is using the same colors. It looks too plain being all white and grey, so I chose to change it to blue.