New technologies has always brought with them fear, mainly to authorities who passes it on to the people. Church, government and others who has something to gain on having control, has in all times feared new technology. Not because technology is bad, but it with the information people can spread with it. Information can be very, very dangerous for someone who has a subjective standpoint, which, more or less everyone has. “Wrong” information can be passed on to others more effectively and people could be fooled to be believed in false statements. What authorities often seem to forget though is that technology can be used to spread “true” information as well. It all comes down to which side you are on.
I would like to argue that new technologies encourage democracy and that Web 2.0 is a splendid example of it. Powerful media personas worries about the so called “citizen journalism”, people without journalistic education who blogs, broadcasts and publish information about events, political issues or other news. What they seem to forget is the fact that the media is the most powerful tool to control information and that with all “citizen journalists” we have a much wider variety, perspectives and views of things which, in my opinion, must lead to a more reliable truth than when listen to a few voices, how professional and educated this people might be.
The new possibilities of distributing information are therefore a key to let us see more than one side of a story and to prevent censoring and manipulation of important information. Having this in mind, it is interesting how we slowly are letting this opportunity out of our hands. Multinational companies, such as Google who buys up the rights to control our information. Censoring, selectiveness with information is already practised by them such as happens on Google China.
News like the one I mentioned earlier in the blog, about Wikipedia creating a search engine brings hopes. Wikipedia already is one of the few sources online that could be seen as non-profit, democratic and objective (collective views should, as mentioned before, provide the most trustworthy information) and a search engine created on the same criteria’s is exactly what we need now.
Howard Rheingold writes in Smart Mobs about how new technologies provide people new tools too more efficiently spread information as well as becoming an extension of themselves, when mobilizing for a political cause. The causes, or the fact of people demonstrating or revolting against something, are old as man and do not come with the technology. But the collectiveness of information, the difficulties of controlling it and the larger amounts (as more and more people get the technology) does. As I mentioned before, the “bad” side could as well do it, but if they can, the “good” side can as well. The harder it is for the authorities to control a technology, the more democratic it is, because that simple means it is easier for people to speak their mind, to get access to information and to have more sides of the story. Yes, our authorities today are just as afraid today of new ways of spreading information as church was in the 15th century. Our new technologies, mobile phones, internet and so on are no more dangerous to man than the book print. Only that hopefully, authorities will not be able to control this new technology as they could control books and that is what I would say is the true essence of technological progress.
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Speaking about Wikipedia...
Today DN wrote about Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales new project; a search engine wiki-style. You can find the article here (in Swedish).
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Wikipedia vs. Traditional Encyclopaedias
Wikipedia and Columbia Encyclopaedia are similar in the sense of both being encyclopaedias but they differs in the way and the purpose of how they are used. When I started to browse for articles to compare between Wikipedia and Columbia Encyclopaedia I soon established the fact that neither more recent phenomena nor things regarding popular culture, was likely to be found in the Columbia Encyclopaedia. In Wikipedia on the other hand I could found all of the subjects I browsed for, even lesser known things were to be find, things that were in Columbia Encyclopaedia.
The first thing to notice while comparing the articles is the language. Columbia Encyclopaedia uses an academic tone with short and concise sentences while Wikipedia uses a less formal style. The layout of the articles also differs widely; Columbia Encyclopaedia looks exactly as I imagine it looks in the printed version, in a rather small, space saving font and without paragraphs. Wikipedia divides its articles into sections and has a typical website approach, user friendly and easy to read even when there us large amounts of text.
To compare the content I decided to use articles about the city Uppsala. Although the main points are mentioned in both, the focus on what is to be more important differs. Columbia Encyclopaedia focuses mainly on economical aspects such as manufacturers and important institutions as well as important historical events. Wikipedia on the other hand has its main focus on history, geography and sites of interest, while leaving economy only a few lines.
Wikipedias way of linking to sites within Wikipedia as well as outside it, if the user wants to know more about something, is giving the user an unique opportunity of getting a wider perspective on the subject and also to introduce s/he to related subjects. Being collaboratively written, open for anyone to create and to edit, Wikipedia is an endless source of knowledge compared to a traditional encyclopaedias that, despite being created by scholars, never can compete with the collective knowledge of thousands and yet thousand of writers. Surely, Wkipedia always has the possibility of being incorrect, at least for a while before anyone notices and edits it but that is only human. Mistakes happen and even though the guidelines in Wikipedia try to ensure correctness everything has always two sides. All sources should be cross-referenced and so should definitely Wikipedia be. Wikipedia might not be what we, at least not yet, see as appropriate as a reference in an academic enviroment but when you want to know something without looking it up in a stiff encyclopaedia who might only state static facts, Wikipedia is just right. In the same way as you might turn to your friend to ask something you are thinking about, you can turn to Wikipedia. Only that the risk of someone using Wikipedia not knowing it is much smaller than that your friend does not.
Wikipedia do not only work as a source of information, it is also a place for those who edit articles to discuss, argue and learn new things about their topic of concern. It is a social experience where people share and educate each other on a much less hierarchal way than compared to offline life, where age, sex and education is only a few of many things that matters when commenting on a subject, rather than how much you actually know about it. Wikipedia supports and rely on a belief in people, in their knowledge and trustworthiness. It is a system that does not favour the solely individual, but the community.
Wikipedia vs. traditional encyclopaedias also brings up the question about volunteer based work versions commercial work. Instead of being created for, they are created by and some might argue that without economical interest, people would not feel forced to state accurate facts but I do not agree, I think that derives from a lack of trust in people. There are, of course, plenty of mistakes made in Wikipedia, people might sometimes be too lazy to double-check their information and there will always be people who sabotage. But traditional encyclopaedias are not always 100% accurate despite being written by professionals and they lack the fast editing possibilities as Wikipedia has, if something new would come up regarding a topic. The traditional encyclopaedias are on the other hand acknowledged as a trustworthy source and of course, edited by professionals. None of them are perfect but both fills important functions; what is important is to be aware of the reason of why we use them and how we do it.
About the quote Encyclopaedia Britannica’s entry on encyclopedia:
"A great encyclopedia is inevitably a sign of national maturity and, as such, will pay tribute to the ideals of its country and its times"
Applying that to Wikipediais easily done; exchange encyclopaedia with “wiki’s”, put “world” instead of country and “international” instead of “national” and you will have a sentence that neatly describes how our view of knowledge and information is changing in these times. Collaborative work is gaining respect and how what previous was national matters becomes global. Technology takes down boundaries and the world is today as near (or far) us as the nation used to be.
"A great Wiki is inevitably a sign of international maturity and, as such, will pay tribute to the ideals of the world and its times"
The first thing to notice while comparing the articles is the language. Columbia Encyclopaedia uses an academic tone with short and concise sentences while Wikipedia uses a less formal style. The layout of the articles also differs widely; Columbia Encyclopaedia looks exactly as I imagine it looks in the printed version, in a rather small, space saving font and without paragraphs. Wikipedia divides its articles into sections and has a typical website approach, user friendly and easy to read even when there us large amounts of text.
To compare the content I decided to use articles about the city Uppsala. Although the main points are mentioned in both, the focus on what is to be more important differs. Columbia Encyclopaedia focuses mainly on economical aspects such as manufacturers and important institutions as well as important historical events. Wikipedia on the other hand has its main focus on history, geography and sites of interest, while leaving economy only a few lines.
Wikipedias way of linking to sites within Wikipedia as well as outside it, if the user wants to know more about something, is giving the user an unique opportunity of getting a wider perspective on the subject and also to introduce s/he to related subjects. Being collaboratively written, open for anyone to create and to edit, Wikipedia is an endless source of knowledge compared to a traditional encyclopaedias that, despite being created by scholars, never can compete with the collective knowledge of thousands and yet thousand of writers. Surely, Wkipedia always has the possibility of being incorrect, at least for a while before anyone notices and edits it but that is only human. Mistakes happen and even though the guidelines in Wikipedia try to ensure correctness everything has always two sides. All sources should be cross-referenced and so should definitely Wikipedia be. Wikipedia might not be what we, at least not yet, see as appropriate as a reference in an academic enviroment but when you want to know something without looking it up in a stiff encyclopaedia who might only state static facts, Wikipedia is just right. In the same way as you might turn to your friend to ask something you are thinking about, you can turn to Wikipedia. Only that the risk of someone using Wikipedia not knowing it is much smaller than that your friend does not.
Wikipedia do not only work as a source of information, it is also a place for those who edit articles to discuss, argue and learn new things about their topic of concern. It is a social experience where people share and educate each other on a much less hierarchal way than compared to offline life, where age, sex and education is only a few of many things that matters when commenting on a subject, rather than how much you actually know about it. Wikipedia supports and rely on a belief in people, in their knowledge and trustworthiness. It is a system that does not favour the solely individual, but the community.
Wikipedia vs. traditional encyclopaedias also brings up the question about volunteer based work versions commercial work. Instead of being created for, they are created by and some might argue that without economical interest, people would not feel forced to state accurate facts but I do not agree, I think that derives from a lack of trust in people. There are, of course, plenty of mistakes made in Wikipedia, people might sometimes be too lazy to double-check their information and there will always be people who sabotage. But traditional encyclopaedias are not always 100% accurate despite being written by professionals and they lack the fast editing possibilities as Wikipedia has, if something new would come up regarding a topic. The traditional encyclopaedias are on the other hand acknowledged as a trustworthy source and of course, edited by professionals. None of them are perfect but both fills important functions; what is important is to be aware of the reason of why we use them and how we do it.
About the quote Encyclopaedia Britannica’s entry on encyclopedia:
"A great encyclopedia is inevitably a sign of national maturity and, as such, will pay tribute to the ideals of its country and its times"
Applying that to Wikipediais easily done; exchange encyclopaedia with “wiki’s”, put “world” instead of country and “international” instead of “national” and you will have a sentence that neatly describes how our view of knowledge and information is changing in these times. Collaborative work is gaining respect and how what previous was national matters becomes global. Technology takes down boundaries and the world is today as near (or far) us as the nation used to be.
"A great Wiki is inevitably a sign of international maturity and, as such, will pay tribute to the ideals of the world and its times"
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
With blinding criticism
With tears in their eyes,
a blinding smile
and a cool fairy tale
Cynics serve his country.
American Idol-haters mockery
Tragic heroic coverup
Cncredible criticism for a 17-year-old.
week after week you demonstrate.
cute american teenage race, your power is blinding us.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Digital Art and Literature
Artport Withney supports, according to their "about" information, net art and digital arts. They encourage innovativeness and originality. In comparison, Rhizome.org supports more traditional art but that is using new technologies. The support preservation of contemporary art that is using new technologies rather than encouraging new ideas as Artport Whitney does. The artwork at Artport Whitnay appeals more to me, they are exploring and stretching boundaries of traditional arts while the works on Rhizome seem more static and held back. I do not argue that the cultural quality of the works on either site would be better, only that the works at Artport Whotney makes me start thinking and makes me more involved in what is taking place.
Artport Withnay stated that they support “net art and digital arts”. Netart is according to Wikipedia defined as art that “uses the internet as its primary medium”, while they define Digital Art as “art created on a computer in digital form”. Rhizome is more interested in new technologies and New Media, which Wikipedia describes as “media that can only be created or used with the aid of modern computer processing”. Rhimzome seems to focus on remediation, repeating old forms of media, traditional ways of art, but with a new medium. Artport Whitney on the other hand might end up remediating things but do not have that as goal, rather they are trying to create something as unique as possible.
Ilovebees is an alternate reality game where players participate in story. The story takes place in real time and is affected in how the players respond to it. The story is basically a mystery that needs to be solved, in the Ilovebees case, the players tries to find out what happened to the ilovebees.com website.
Implementation is a collaborative novel. Every piece was printed on a sticker and handed out to different persons that was instructed to place the sticker somewhere in a public space. I would describe that work as collaborative literature, but simultaneously art, like street art but also in a sense new media art since the stickers directed the user the homepage where the project was explained further.
What you can see in Digital art, net art, New Media, ARGs and in novels like the one above, is the importance of collaboration. All of these things have some element of collaboration involved, some more than others, like the novel. Maybe we have reached a new era where cultural works are not anymore mainly to be seen as a one man creation, but rather as a participatory, collaborative group process.
Artport Withnay stated that they support “net art and digital arts”. Netart is according to Wikipedia defined as art that “uses the internet as its primary medium”, while they define Digital Art as “art created on a computer in digital form”. Rhizome is more interested in new technologies and New Media, which Wikipedia describes as “media that can only be created or used with the aid of modern computer processing”. Rhimzome seems to focus on remediation, repeating old forms of media, traditional ways of art, but with a new medium. Artport Whitney on the other hand might end up remediating things but do not have that as goal, rather they are trying to create something as unique as possible.
Ilovebees is an alternate reality game where players participate in story. The story takes place in real time and is affected in how the players respond to it. The story is basically a mystery that needs to be solved, in the Ilovebees case, the players tries to find out what happened to the ilovebees.com website.
Implementation is a collaborative novel. Every piece was printed on a sticker and handed out to different persons that was instructed to place the sticker somewhere in a public space. I would describe that work as collaborative literature, but simultaneously art, like street art but also in a sense new media art since the stickers directed the user the homepage where the project was explained further.
What you can see in Digital art, net art, New Media, ARGs and in novels like the one above, is the importance of collaboration. All of these things have some element of collaboration involved, some more than others, like the novel. Maybe we have reached a new era where cultural works are not anymore mainly to be seen as a one man creation, but rather as a participatory, collaborative group process.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Sunday, April 15, 2007
SL in the news
Recently about SL in the news:
Barncancerfonden holds the first Swedish benefitconcert in Second Life.
About Media in Second Life. www.sr.se chose SR1, show "Medierna"
Barncancerfonden holds the first Swedish benefitconcert in Second Life.
About Media in Second Life. www.sr.se chose SR1, show "Medierna"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
