FOLKSONOMY

A system of taxonomy (classification) based on the collaborative production of “tags”.

Made up of two key words- FOLK and TAXONOMY.

Labelling and tagging of images.

A tag: piece of information/ identifier. An act of ownership over a physical location over a specific time or place that is otherwise meaningless for those that have no connection to the image.

METADATA

• Data that describes data.
• Audio, text, images etc.
• For location by browsing or searching.
• Eg: Title, date, author, day it was created, PROPERTIES.

TAXONOMY

• Scientific taxonomies
• Folk Taxonomies
• A scientific practice of classification.
• Traditional taxonomy: the tree structure.
  • Start with a spider, leads to species, leads to characteristics etc.
  • An order of a parent and child relationship between a type of information and sub types of information.
  • Structural relationships between parent and child.
  • Form of organistation of knowledge. Comes with it’s own rules and restrictions.
  • Parent is always at the top, is the root of the information.

FOLK TAXONOMIES

• Employs the tree like structure for the organisation of knowledge.
• But connects to a specific culture/ specific place in time.

FOLK/ FOLKSONOMY

• No parent/ child relationship in a Folksonomy
• No strict rules in the ordering and tagging of information
• It doesn’t refer to any specific class, and talks about purely online activity.
• For the regular user.
• The ordering and labelling of knowledge is something that everyone does unconsciously.
• Surowieki Wisdom of Crowds 2004 examins aggregation of information by groups. The collective aggregation of the information by users is better, more exhaustive and more useful than what governments can achieve BUT has limitations.

LIMITATIONS

·        Lack of controlled vocabulary

·        People who enjoy the social aspect of the system will gravitate to the more popular tags, or can use the obscure tags.

·        Rely on trust

·        Depend on the user tagging accurately and widely

·        The user must navigate themselves.

·        Structure less. (The Flickr cloud)

·        A horseless carriage: the means of transportation without defining the system.

“The wisdom of crowds used to organise stuff”

Commercial Radio Code of Ethics

One of the career fields that I am interested in is commercial radio. 

The Commercial Radio Codes and Guidlines was published in 2004 and is administered by Broadcasting Australia. It consists of a guidline that predominantly looks at the practices, but not so much the ethics of the profession.  

• Programs unsuitable for Broadcast. All programs aired must reflect the community standards and community attitudes- but who determines what community standards and attitudes are? Programs that are unsuitable for broadcast are listed here:

(a) is likely to incite, encourage or present for its own sake violence or brutality;

(b) simulate news or events in such a way as to mislead or alarm listeners;

(c) present as desirable:

(i) the misuse of alcoholic liquor; or

(ii) the use of illegal drugs, narcotics or tobacco.

(d) depicts suicide favourably or presents suicide as a means of achieving a desired result; or

(e) is likely to incite or perpetuate hatred against or vilify any person or group on the basis of age, ethnicity, nationality, race, gender, sexual preference, religion or physical or mental disability.

 This covers the ethical guidlines on what can be aired and what can’t be aired, regulated by Broadcasting Australia.

The internet allows the user to access a network that consists of countless communication platforms. These platforms are made of blogs, social networking sites, videos, image commenting and many more that portray Web 2.0 as the Web of interaction. This was discussed in the first lecture and seminar to provide the basis of the weeks to come; that being blogs and social networking sites. Through the interactive and participatory nature of Web 2.0, various social and ethical issues have risen because of the sudden upturn of power- from the mass media to that of a participating user. These points have all been discussed in the seminars over the past four weeks.

In the first lecture, an exploration of the differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 was discussed. G. Cormode and B. Krishnamurthy say in their report “Key Differences between Web1.0 and Web2.0[1]” that the key separations between Web 1.0 (the old web) and Web 2.0 are technological (allowing user interaction etc.), structural (formation and function of the site) and sociological (friends and groups).

Web2.0 uses these factors in a more advanced, popular form where users can become more comfortable browsing the web and participating in the creation process. This is another point that G. Cormode and B. Krishnamurthy put forth in their report- that the amount of contributing creators in Web1.0 was small and limited, with the majority of users being consumers of information- not providers.  This meant that the Web did not expand and reach its full potential within this restrictive network, and the information users could never create the participatory nature of Web 2.0 because they were simply consumers of information. The lack of web creators meant the global networks could not expand to their full potential, and could not reach the number of users that the Internet has today.

Web 2.0 was only introduced in 2003/04 and contains a majority of advancements that primarily focus on a better communication network. These communication and participatory networks also provide a greater expansion on information and learning via the internet. B. Alexander describes Web 2.0 as a plane for interpersonal communication, and defines social software as a major component of Web2.0. In his article “Web 2.0: A New Wave of Innovation for Teaching and Learning?[2]” B. Alexander says the connection of people within the network advances the user’s ability to access information and learn. He describes Web2.0 over the last few years as becoming even more connective, its social software drawing a majority of its users. This can be seen through blogs, wikis, podcasting, videoblogs and social networking sites such as Mypsace and Facebook.

The communication process was discussed in the lecture, looking at the mediation of communication. This particular mediation can be seen in Web2.0 through blogs, wikis and social networks. Through these social platforms a digital environment is produced, transforming characteristics of the communication process. For example, time and place becomes a variable in the digital world as an “allowance for connection without presence” (Wk 2 Lecture Slides) is accepted, supporting the existence of another virtual world separate from the user’s.

These virtual worlds have a downfall; however, as the virtual communication process between two users becomes less “real”. It was discussed in the lecture how every step that is taken away from face to face communication is seen as secondary and that users must see the privilege in face to face communication (Wk 2 Lecture Slides) - a social problem rising in the face of the internet.

The social controversy of digital divide was also looked at as the expansion in the internet across Western countries continues to grow rapidly. Large lapses of internet connection and usage can be seen throughout entire countries. M. Castells describes the lapses of internet across countries as a defining line between the information rich and information poor (Castells, 2004, Week 2 Lecture Slide). The internet is a resource for users to have an interactive and more powerful stance as a user, equal to that of the media. If poorer countries do not have access to this democratized network, then they do not have access to a technology that is a tool for social and cultural reproduction (Week 2 Lecture Slides). P.Norris shares the possibilities of a world wide internet connection in her book; “Digital Divide[3]”. She says that if an internet connection can be established in poorer societies, then the internet may “provide them with socioeconomic and democratic development.” (P.Norris, Digital Divide, pg. 6).

In week 3 the lecture and seminar discussed the expanding notion of “blogging” and what a blog is. Looking at online diary writing, and discussing how masculine diary writing has been masculinised more so and is the opposite of female diary writing. As a personal written reflection of daily events or news reporting, image posting or fan updating, blogging has many different social spheres and directions with a presumed audience.

Blogs have a broader and more interactive audience than a physically written diary. The audience can participate and use your information in a variety of ways, such as giving feedback through comments or feeding it into other blogs, you can bookmark, tag or follow them and audiences can subscribe to a user’s blog. These interactive features of blogging are what’s making blogging so significant: it’s more direct connection with the audience.

R. Godwin Jones reflects on the ability blogging has in educating audiences in his article “Emerging Technologies: Blogs and Wikis: Environments for Online Collaboration[4]” Jones is amazed at the interactive capability of these blogs and the participatory nature of the audience. Jones then goes onto describe the phenomenon of blogs being tools for students and being used as online journals for students.

This is the same in the DIGC101 course, where all students have created blogs to reflect on their seminars, lectures and their online personalities. In using blogs students are able to connect with each other outside University, commenting and participating in each other’s blogs and enhancing their capacity to learn from not only inside the seminars but at home as well.

Using Tumblr, Word Press, TwitWall or Blogger has broadened the student’s awareness of the capabilities of blogging and the ways in which the user can connect with millions of other bloggers connected to the same network. Students can also use images, hypelinks, videos and mp3 files in their blogs to share with each other information from research and to contribute to their online identity.

Social Networking is another central component of Web2.0 where users create online profiles that shares information with vast networks of friends and strangers. It has grown substantially over the last few years with websites like Myspace and Facebook holding millions of profiles. This was discussed in the Week 4 Lecture seminars, looking at social networking habits and the way profiles are used on these websites. Users post their information, photos, personal details and videos on their profiles and this has lead to a concerning privacy debate. A report was written in by R. Gross and A. Aquisiti titled “Information Revelation and Privacy in Online Social Network[5]s” exposes how carefree and unobservant users are with their personal information on the profiles when connected to many people that they could hardly call friends. With personal social networking experience, it can be seen that many users are more concerned with getting a large amount of friends or followers rather than thinking about the risks they run in exposing their personal information to strangers, for example: identity fraud.

Despite the privacy risks social networks have, the popularity of such sites has not hindered users. It remains a popular source of connectivity, communication, entertainment and information. Users can post images, videos, music, comments and can participate in online games, competing with other friends in their network. The increasing popularity of such websites will continue to grow rapidly as internet users become even more adapted to networks, using the internet for the communicative aspects. Interactive qualities have been introduced in the majority of websites today, giving users the ability to comment and provide feedback on written pieces, photos, videos, mp3 files and more.

Over the last four weeks DIGC101 has explored the workings of the internet, the social and participatory nature that the internet holds today along with social issues that come with this.  Understanding the networks, software and differences between Web1.0 and Web2.0 has been essential before learning about internet content. As students, the participation in Web Blogs, social networking sites, Tumblr, Delicious, Twitter and Twitwall has enabled us to increase our participation in online activity between users. Gaining a wider understanding of online connectivity and the consequences of large social movements within social networks has been another part of the course that has broadened the student’s awareness of privacy issues.

[1] G. Cormode and B. Krishnamurthy, 2008, “Key Differences between Web1.0 and Web2.0”, AT&T Labs–Research, http://66.102.1.104/scholar?q=cache:CK84Jq997-AJ:scholar.google.com/+web+1.0&hl=en, Accessed 26 Aug 2009.

[2] Alexander, B.A (2007), “Web 2.0: A New Wave of Innovation for Teaching and Learning?”, E-learning (Oxford, England), Vol. 41, Iss. 2, pg. 32, https://www.middlebury.edu/NR/rdonlyres/2C9EFFFC-00B4-46E9-9CE5-32D63A0FE9B5/0/UNBOUND_02_02_Web2.pdf, Accessed 26 Aug 2009

[3] Norris, P.N (2003), “Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide” CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS, USA

[4] Godwin Jones, (2003), “Emerging Technologies: Blogs and Wikis: Environments for Online Collaboration”, Language Learning and Technology, Volume 7, Number 2, pg 12-16, http://cursa.ihmc.us/rid=1131480053328_1801720929_4296/godwin.pdf, accessed 26 Aug, 2009

[5] R. Gross and A. Aquisiti, (2005), “Information Revelation and Privacy in Online Social Networks”, Workshop on the Privacy in the Electronic Society (WPES)

 Many claim in today’s new media world that the internet is killing the Music Industry. This is a hot topic across web forums, blogs and websites as well as official and industrial websites as the internet continues to expand at a rapid pace, leaving law and economics behind.

In a simple Google search with key words “Music Industry Internet” 2, 810, 000  search results were received, all discussing the pressing subject of peer to peer downloading and the lack of law enforcement that surrounds such an increasing trend.

The first result was an article from The Age entitled: “Music industry v internet: the fat lady has sung” by G. Barker dated August 30, 2003. It discusses the move of the Industry into the Internet as it begins to embrace the Internet as an online store. It is clear this article was written at least 5 years ago, but continues to have the most hits today. In 2003, iTunes Music Store was only accessible in North America and was a relatively new addition. It can be seen here how quickly the Music Industry is adapting to the Internet as a source for output, even if it is a decade or so late.

A more recent article from The Sydney Morning Herald dated May 27, 2009 looks into illegal downloading and the Australian market for illegal downloading sites.  Asher Moses in his article “Illegal downloads soar as hard times bite” says that hundreds of thousands more Australians have turned to downloading music illegally to save money in our current financial crisis. Downloading sites such as Minova and The Pirate Bay have had a massive increase in hits by 33%, and this doesn’t include peer to peer programs such as Limewire.

Moses then goes on to explain how the Music and Film industry is continuing to battle on as legal downloading sites such as iTunes still aren’t covering the physical disc sale drop. This in turn puts more pressure on the governments and legislature to do more to prevent online privacy.

Music is a popular topic on blog forums, with over 300 million hits on Search Engines Google, Bing, Yahoo and Ask Jeeves. However, only a small amount of these blogs delve into the discussion of the Music Industry’s future with the Internet. Music blog site “Music Think Tank” hosts hundreds of blogs discussing the Music Industry, online music behavior and industry announcements.  The blogs also update readers with statistics from the digital music industry;  “Last year, U.S. consumers purchased 844 million individual songs, according to Nielsen SoundScan. By contrast, they bought only 50 million digital albums. Most of these transactions took place on iTunes” Insight into the deteriorating Music Market and the slow changes that the Music Industry is making. In another blog, “P2P BLOG.COM” one blog discusses Limewire’s recent change to include a music store, replicating that of the iTunes music store with singles at a price of 99c. The general feedback from this was that it was a good move for independent artists, however a bad move by Limewire as it’s essential use is to share files illegally.

The general feedback is that the online community is not entirely fussed with the Music Industry; they acknowledge the trials that they are undergoing but are more interested in their own free access to music. There is a general consensus that the Music Industry has acted too late and is moving too slowly to rectify the situation, and that the internet is the blame for this sudden upheaval.

 G. Barker, “Music industry v internet: the fat lady has sung”, The Age, August 30, 2003, Accessed 20 August, 2009, http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/29/1062050669379.html

A. Moses, “Illegal downloads soar as hard times bite”, The Sydney Morning Herald, May 27, 2009, Accessed 20 August, 2009, http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/illegal-downloads-soar-as-hard-times-bite/2009/05/27/1243103577467.html

*No Author*, 2008, “Digital Music Sales Trends”, Accessed 20 August, 2009, http://www.musicthinktank.com/mtt-stats/digital-music-sales-trends.html

Roettgoers, 2008, “Limewire Launches Music Download Store”, Accessed 20 August 2009, http://www.p2p-blog.com/item-552.html

http://blogs.smh.com.au/newsblog/

http://blogs.smh.com.au/newsblog/archives/freedom_of_information/index.html

http://blogs.smh.com.au/newsblog/archives/annabel_crabb/

http://www.brainsluice.com/weblog/

http://www.techdirt.com/

http://windsofchange.net/

http://www.opensewer.com/

http://dear_raed.blogspot.com/

What sort of online presence do Barry Wellman, danah boyd and Howard Rheingold have using Google?

BARRY WELLMAN

On first “Googling” Barry Wellman, the first entry that came up was his University webpage, displaying his About Me.

“Professor Barry Wellman studies networks: community, communication, computer, and social. His research examines virtual community, the virtual workplace, social support, community, kinship, friendship, and social network theory and methods. Based at the University of Toronto, he directs NetLab, is the S.D. Clark Professor at the Department of Sociology, does research at the Centre for Urban and Community Studies, the Knowledge Media Design Institute, and the Bell University Laboratories’ Collaborative Effectiveness Lab, and is a cross-appointed member of the Faculty of Information Studies.”

This beginning section of Barry’s About Me sets him up as a Professor and professional immediately. This makes his presence uninviting and purely professional. He states what he does and what he has studied. Barry does not have any social networking site links, blogs or any interactive media on his site.

Barry does, however, have a twitter page further down the Google site and participates in updating his twitter frequently.

In conclusion, Barry’s web presence is strictly professional on his University site. This is probably because the site is regulated by the University. Through this, Barry doesn’t seem to have a personality whatsoever. His academic profile is shown, achievements and papers displayed, but there lacks personal touch to the entire site. Barry’s twitter profile however brings forth the academic personality; “

DANAH BOYD