AMANDA ....

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)