I just finished and submitted my final paper for this class to the drop box. I'm definitely a little burnt out from writing over the past couple days so excuse me if I'm not as fluent in this blog post. I want to talk a little bit about the process that I followed for tackling this paper. Although it isn't too much different from how I write my other papers, this one requires a blog!
So I started out by picking a topic (duh!). I chose Made To Break because having worked in a retail technology field for a long time, I was interested in the ideas of planned obsolescence. After having decided my topic, I scoured the web for relevant sources that would compliment Slade's book. A few of the sources were mentioned in my previous blog, but I also managed to find a couple more including an article about the cost of recycling computers and a short write up about planned obsolescence from a perspective other than Slade's.
When actually writing the paper, I developed 5 subtitles so that I included everything that I wanted to discuss as well as everything what was included in the prompt. The subtitles are largely split up based on what sources the information in that section came from, but the more I started writing the more overlap developed. While my paper discusses alot of the social and economical aspects of planned obsolescence and environmentalism, it also has a brief summary of the history of going green as well as some observations on the development of green IT.
Overall, I like to think that I created a pretty well rounded paper based on the topics that were presented so I am satisfied.
I think that is it...
Yeah, it is.
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Friday, December 17, 2010
Blogging for Fun
I thought I would take some time off from writing my paper to catch up on some miscellaneous blog entries. Since we are required to have a total of 20 blogs entries, I will do two of these and one more about the final. (Maybe it could make up a little bit for the one technopoly blog I missed)
So I thought it would be fun to blog about a website that has become kind of my ultimate pass-time. The website is called Reddit (Reddit.com) and is essentially an online community that allows for users to create their own pseudo-message board type webpages based on pretty much whatever topic they feel like sharing. Alot of the site has become subject to spreading memes (unfortunately) or posting rehashed internet images and videos. What keep me coming back is though is the original content forums (or subreddits as they are referred to on the site.)
Some of the ones I read on a daily basis are AskReddit, AMA, Today I Learned, and a few others which are a little less popular. AskReddit allows users to ask this large internet community pretty much anything they want. Some people come with problems at work or school that they need some advice for and others just ask some ridiculous question to see what people think. Alot of the time I find that there are questions on their that I have often asked myself, so its really cool to read how other people sometimes engage in the same thought process.
IAMA is a concept that was totally new to me upon first discovering it. It is a page where people say who they are, or some other unique thing about them and let other users ask them anything (AMA = Ask Me Anything... or I Am A something or other...) The people on there range from has been rock stars to albino people. You really can never expect who to find on there.
I'd really recommend checking this site out if you ever need to kill time on the internet. It's up there with some of the best. (Also, it might be worth noting that it is significantly more SFW then 4chan.org)
So I thought it would be fun to blog about a website that has become kind of my ultimate pass-time. The website is called Reddit (Reddit.com) and is essentially an online community that allows for users to create their own pseudo-message board type webpages based on pretty much whatever topic they feel like sharing. Alot of the site has become subject to spreading memes (unfortunately) or posting rehashed internet images and videos. What keep me coming back is though is the original content forums (or subreddits as they are referred to on the site.)
Some of the ones I read on a daily basis are AskReddit, AMA, Today I Learned, and a few others which are a little less popular. AskReddit allows users to ask this large internet community pretty much anything they want. Some people come with problems at work or school that they need some advice for and others just ask some ridiculous question to see what people think. Alot of the time I find that there are questions on their that I have often asked myself, so its really cool to read how other people sometimes engage in the same thought process.
IAMA is a concept that was totally new to me upon first discovering it. It is a page where people say who they are, or some other unique thing about them and let other users ask them anything (AMA = Ask Me Anything... or I Am A something or other...) The people on there range from has been rock stars to albino people. You really can never expect who to find on there.
I'd really recommend checking this site out if you ever need to kill time on the internet. It's up there with some of the best. (Also, it might be worth noting that it is significantly more SFW then 4chan.org)
Getting There!
So I am making pretty decent progress on my final paper (as I should be the day before its due!!!). I want to use this blog entry to talk about some of the sources I am using other than Slade's book.
The first one I found was from WebEcoist.com and is essentially a description of the history of the 'Green' movement. I believe that a brief history is required in order for me to effectively convey the message of this paper. This article discusses how today's idea of the green movement is actually a culmination of something that has existed for over 40 years. The aspect I like most about this article, which really made me want to include it in my paper, was that is claimed to debunk some of the false information that is generally associated with the green movement. I understand that going green is a big ethics issue and it can be really easy for people to simply write about their opinions, especially in the the cyber-world. This article, I feel will give a nice, objective look at the green movement and will compliment Made to Break nicely.
The next source I am using is called Harnessing Green IT and I found it on the IEEE library database. This is an academic journal entry about efforts put forth in order to make technology a little bit greener. The article acknowledges the points made in Slade's book and offers different approaches for combating this problem. I feel like this source will be a great way to tie the two topics together and provide some sort of conclusion.
I also want to note that you will see Wikipedia in my works cited page. I believe that after completing the midterm project that I have developed practical methods for using information from Wikipedia so I wanted to use it.
At this point I am about 5+ pages into the paper and still have a section and the conclusion to go. I will probably do another blog entry after I finish the paper, which will hopefully be tonight.
The first one I found was from WebEcoist.com and is essentially a description of the history of the 'Green' movement. I believe that a brief history is required in order for me to effectively convey the message of this paper. This article discusses how today's idea of the green movement is actually a culmination of something that has existed for over 40 years. The aspect I like most about this article, which really made me want to include it in my paper, was that is claimed to debunk some of the false information that is generally associated with the green movement. I understand that going green is a big ethics issue and it can be really easy for people to simply write about their opinions, especially in the the cyber-world. This article, I feel will give a nice, objective look at the green movement and will compliment Made to Break nicely.
The next source I am using is called Harnessing Green IT and I found it on the IEEE library database. This is an academic journal entry about efforts put forth in order to make technology a little bit greener. The article acknowledges the points made in Slade's book and offers different approaches for combating this problem. I feel like this source will be a great way to tie the two topics together and provide some sort of conclusion.
I also want to note that you will see Wikipedia in my works cited page. I believe that after completing the midterm project that I have developed practical methods for using information from Wikipedia so I wanted to use it.
At this point I am about 5+ pages into the paper and still have a section and the conclusion to go. I will probably do another blog entry after I finish the paper, which will hopefully be tonight.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Facebook III
The last few chapters of the book focus mainly on some of the financial and social aspects of Facebook. They discuss in detail how Facebook was on its way to become a billion dollar company and how the site was starting to integrate itself into the everyday lives of people across the world. For this blog post I would like to focus more on the social aspects of Facebook, especially that which has only come to light in the past year or so.
There was one quote in the last section of the book that really stood out and got me thinking about how much it probably affected a current Facebook trend. The quote was when Mark Zuckerberg asked Larry Page, google's co-founder, if he used Facebook. Page responded saying that the site just was not geared to him. This must have got something rolling in Zuckerberg's head because the next year the influx of adult Facebooker users was astronomical.
Parents and other adult humans seem like the final frontier for new Facebookers and it is certainly taking its toll on how younger users perceive the social network. Speaking from personal experience, in previous years (circa 2003-2004, when I was a young teenager) it wasn't too difficult to keep attitude towards your friends separate from your attitude towards your parents. I looked at it more so as a respect thing. I was still going to be a kid and do really stupid stuff, but I was good enough to do right by my parents and never really get into serious trouble. Facebook is now eliminating that distance that kids try to put between their parents, which is not really a thing, unless you are impervious to embarrassment and invulnerable to groundings. The more I use the Internet, the more I agree that it is a pretty decent tool for emotional outputting, but could get real weird, real fast.
I'm sure most people have seen this site, but it puts into perspective the idea of what I am talking about, here it is. My Parents Joined Facebook
The front page has a flowchart, and while it is meant to be humorous, it has an amount of truth to it.
There was one quote in the last section of the book that really stood out and got me thinking about how much it probably affected a current Facebook trend. The quote was when Mark Zuckerberg asked Larry Page, google's co-founder, if he used Facebook. Page responded saying that the site just was not geared to him. This must have got something rolling in Zuckerberg's head because the next year the influx of adult Facebooker users was astronomical.
Parents and other adult humans seem like the final frontier for new Facebookers and it is certainly taking its toll on how younger users perceive the social network. Speaking from personal experience, in previous years (circa 2003-2004, when I was a young teenager) it wasn't too difficult to keep attitude towards your friends separate from your attitude towards your parents. I looked at it more so as a respect thing. I was still going to be a kid and do really stupid stuff, but I was good enough to do right by my parents and never really get into serious trouble. Facebook is now eliminating that distance that kids try to put between their parents, which is not really a thing, unless you are impervious to embarrassment and invulnerable to groundings. The more I use the Internet, the more I agree that it is a pretty decent tool for emotional outputting, but could get real weird, real fast.
I'm sure most people have seen this site, but it puts into perspective the idea of what I am talking about, here it is. My Parents Joined Facebook
The front page has a flowchart, and while it is meant to be humorous, it has an amount of truth to it.
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Final Phase I
So today I started thinking about the Final paper for this class and have decided that I want to write about the second topic involving Giles Slade's book, Made To Break. In general I thought that book was a better read than Postman and my decision was made solely on the basis that if forced to choose, I'd rather read Made To Break again.
After analyzing the topic question a little more, I really got to thinking about the underlying hypocrisy that has potential to exist in a society that disposes such a high amount of usable goods while at the same time claims to be environmentally conscious. I hope to find out some really interesting facts about this once I start delving a little more into the topic.
While tackling the project, I want to focus on a few key points. Oddly enough, I'm not exactly sure what they are yet. I know I'd like to discuss the technology movement and the 'green' movement independent of each other first. I always believe that its important to provide descriptions of two things you are comparing before you actually compare them, especially in a research paper. This way it doesn't leave the reader in the dark when you start making arguments. I havn't really started research for this paper yet, but I plan to the middle of this weekend. I'll post back with another update then.
After analyzing the topic question a little more, I really got to thinking about the underlying hypocrisy that has potential to exist in a society that disposes such a high amount of usable goods while at the same time claims to be environmentally conscious. I hope to find out some really interesting facts about this once I start delving a little more into the topic.
While tackling the project, I want to focus on a few key points. Oddly enough, I'm not exactly sure what they are yet. I know I'd like to discuss the technology movement and the 'green' movement independent of each other first. I always believe that its important to provide descriptions of two things you are comparing before you actually compare them, especially in a research paper. This way it doesn't leave the reader in the dark when you start making arguments. I havn't really started research for this paper yet, but I plan to the middle of this weekend. I'll post back with another update then.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
The Facebook Effect II
In this installment of the Facebook Effect three part blog mini-series we start to the see how Facebook is transforming from a dorm room project to a billion dollar company. The first part in this section of the book discusses investors, specifically that of the Washington Post. Thefacebook (at the time the 'the' was still in there) was ready to take the next big plunge into corporatism. They allready had some investors that Sean Parker, formerly of Napster, had dug up, but this one seemed like a big deal. Kirkpatrick emphasizes the positive vibes that Zuckerberg and Don Graham, leader of the Washington Post, were bouncing off each other during their meeting. While Kirkpatrick still hardly remains objective when discussing Mark Zuckerberg I can realize that this moment is a big one for the company.
By this time, it is clear that Zuckerberg is hardly a business man. He has a set of ideas derived from psychoanalyzing average college students that he and other people know have the ability to make a lot of money. However, advertising is how you make money on websites and this is something he has expressed a strong disinterest in. I feel like the introduction of investors as large as the Post would eventually lead to the increase in advertising that we experience on Facebook today.
Throughout the next couple years, due to the help of major investors, Facebook started incorporating new applications into their website. The photo app became one of its biggest successes as well as the ability to plan events and invite people to them. By 2006, Facebook was in a good place and had just implemented its newest addition to keep people up-to-date on what their friends were doing. This idea was the 'News Feed'. The algorithms involved behind what shows up on the News Feed were pretty interesting and lend themselves to a lot of the data mining accusations made against Facebook. The News Feed apparently analyzes your Facebook habits and bases what you will see on the your frontpage on that. Recently the same thing has been done with the Facebook Ads. They cater to your claimed interests and then request feedback on whether or not you thought the ad was helpful. As far as advertising goes, its still annoying, but at least its better than looking at stuff you have absolutely no interest in.
By this time, it is clear that Zuckerberg is hardly a business man. He has a set of ideas derived from psychoanalyzing average college students that he and other people know have the ability to make a lot of money. However, advertising is how you make money on websites and this is something he has expressed a strong disinterest in. I feel like the introduction of investors as large as the Post would eventually lead to the increase in advertising that we experience on Facebook today.
Throughout the next couple years, due to the help of major investors, Facebook started incorporating new applications into their website. The photo app became one of its biggest successes as well as the ability to plan events and invite people to them. By 2006, Facebook was in a good place and had just implemented its newest addition to keep people up-to-date on what their friends were doing. This idea was the 'News Feed'. The algorithms involved behind what shows up on the News Feed were pretty interesting and lend themselves to a lot of the data mining accusations made against Facebook. The News Feed apparently analyzes your Facebook habits and bases what you will see on the your frontpage on that. Recently the same thing has been done with the Facebook Ads. They cater to your claimed interests and then request feedback on whether or not you thought the ad was helpful. As far as advertising goes, its still annoying, but at least its better than looking at stuff you have absolutely no interest in.
The Social Network Extra Credit
I went to see this movie about a month ago, but wanted to write about it now while I was in the midst of reading the Facebook Effect. For this blog entry I want to give a short summary of the plot, provide my own criticisms, and then finish with a comparison of the movie to the story that we are reading about in Kirkpatrick's book.
While attending Harvard University, young programmer Mark Zuckerberg, creates a website called 'FaceMash' that takes pictures of girls on campus and allows other students to compare their looks or 'hotness' to each other. The website creates such a stir that Zuckerberg instantly becomes well known and is sought after by a group of frat brothers attempting to make a Harvard exclusive social networking site. Zuckerberg agrees to do it, but then takes their core idea (which is that users must have a harvard.edu email address to use it) and applies to his own website that he called 'thefacebook'. Zuckerberg brings his roommate, Eduardo Saverin, into the project by having him supply the start-up capitol to get the site going, but then once the site escalates to a certain point, Saverin's shares are dropped well below 1%.
From here on out, the bulk of the movie takes places during the trial where Mark Zuckerberg is being sued by Eduardo Saverin as well as the frat brothers. As each person involved in the case makes their statements, and we see flashbacks of how actions unfolded.
The first thing worth noting is that this movie uses the real names of most people involved and is more or less telling a story of events that actually happened. This is not new to movies, but I thought that it was pretty neat they did it this way instead of making a movie about some arbitrary social network and having the plot loosely based on Facebook's story. It felt more real to me and at the same time gave audiences a pretty decent crash course on how Facebook came to be so popular (although its almost guaranteed that some aspects of the movie were inflated for entertainment purposes). The best part of the movie, for me, was the dialog. It was consistently witty and creative while paced appropriately such that there were hardly any moments that allowed for an absence of attention. They did this and still managed to keep the plot easy to follow which is impressive considering the movie clocks in at just about 2 hours. While not be a huge fan of the actors involved in the movie (i.e. Justin Timberlake and the Fake Michael Cera kid) I thought they a good job creating a dramatic interpretation of this real life story.
After reading more than half of the Facebook Effect and watching this movie, it was nice to see the story from two seperate angles. Kirkpatrick really made you feel like Zuckerberg was a revolutionary while The Social Network gave off this vibe that he was a kind of a self-centered backstabber. This put me in good spirits to know that the reality of the situation probably fell somewhere in the middle. It's so difficult sometimes to determine when the people that wrote these stories are trying to give you facts or entertain you, but I suppose thats the magic of the media.
While attending Harvard University, young programmer Mark Zuckerberg, creates a website called 'FaceMash' that takes pictures of girls on campus and allows other students to compare their looks or 'hotness' to each other. The website creates such a stir that Zuckerberg instantly becomes well known and is sought after by a group of frat brothers attempting to make a Harvard exclusive social networking site. Zuckerberg agrees to do it, but then takes their core idea (which is that users must have a harvard.edu email address to use it) and applies to his own website that he called 'thefacebook'. Zuckerberg brings his roommate, Eduardo Saverin, into the project by having him supply the start-up capitol to get the site going, but then once the site escalates to a certain point, Saverin's shares are dropped well below 1%.
From here on out, the bulk of the movie takes places during the trial where Mark Zuckerberg is being sued by Eduardo Saverin as well as the frat brothers. As each person involved in the case makes their statements, and we see flashbacks of how actions unfolded.
The first thing worth noting is that this movie uses the real names of most people involved and is more or less telling a story of events that actually happened. This is not new to movies, but I thought that it was pretty neat they did it this way instead of making a movie about some arbitrary social network and having the plot loosely based on Facebook's story. It felt more real to me and at the same time gave audiences a pretty decent crash course on how Facebook came to be so popular (although its almost guaranteed that some aspects of the movie were inflated for entertainment purposes). The best part of the movie, for me, was the dialog. It was consistently witty and creative while paced appropriately such that there were hardly any moments that allowed for an absence of attention. They did this and still managed to keep the plot easy to follow which is impressive considering the movie clocks in at just about 2 hours. While not be a huge fan of the actors involved in the movie (i.e. Justin Timberlake and the Fake Michael Cera kid) I thought they a good job creating a dramatic interpretation of this real life story.
After reading more than half of the Facebook Effect and watching this movie, it was nice to see the story from two seperate angles. Kirkpatrick really made you feel like Zuckerberg was a revolutionary while The Social Network gave off this vibe that he was a kind of a self-centered backstabber. This put me in good spirits to know that the reality of the situation probably fell somewhere in the middle. It's so difficult sometimes to determine when the people that wrote these stories are trying to give you facts or entertain you, but I suppose thats the magic of the media.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Wikipedia Audit
For this class our midterm was to audit a Wikipedia entry and present on our results. This is only the second time that I have dealt with some of the back-end procedures of Wikipedia. (The first time was creating/editing my own Wiki for another class.) Auditting was a truly next-level experience and I could honestly admit that at some points I noticed myself sort of enjoying it. Our topic was Polygamy in North America and as soon as this topic came to light I knew there was going to be some sort of bias involved with its resources. It's almost impossible to have a topic that is closely related to a major/controversial religion and not have bias information. Needlessly to say, we, as a group, were confident that we would dig up something interesting to present.
A little about our process:
We first thought about splitting up the article into sections and tackling the assignment that way with each person focusing on a different section. Someone had the thought that it was possible for other sections to touch on each other and kind of tie the whole article together. For example, if there was something that could be considered 'missing' in one section, it was likely to be addressed in the next since the section titles were only loosely descriptive. This would cause more work than necessary to be done in the long run. Ultimately we decided to independently read the article and contrive our own thoughts about it then meet up and use what we agreed on as the premise for our project. It seemed to work out well because at the meeting we were all ready on track for determining bias and non-credible sources.
What we found:
After examining all of the sources cited in the Wiki article we found a considerable amount of information that was from Mormon websites. These articles and web references were mostly in support of Polygamy as a lifestyle dictated by religious practice. While there was nothing outlandish in most of the article's claims, just the nature of where they came from was suspect. Tom also noticed that there were four citations on one statistic that had little to do with the topic of the articles. We concluded that the Wiki got so diluted by users editing it that whatever statement was originally made got transformed into a small factoid.
Our Topic was Polygamy in NORTH AMERICA and we were surprised with the lack of information regarding Canada and Mexico. After a small amount of google-ing we noticed that there is a TON of information out there about polygamy in Mexico and Canada, but none of it was included in the Wiki. Max, in my opinion, did a great job at pulling out some of the most crucial of this information.
After working on this project I am a little hesitant about using Wikipedia. The information is written with such confidence that its sometimes really tough to figure out what is true and what is not. I feel like from now on I will be more interested in reading the sources from Wikipedia articles rather than just trusting them right off the bat. I think like more people should audit Wikis in order to fully understand the websites purpose.
A little about our process:
We first thought about splitting up the article into sections and tackling the assignment that way with each person focusing on a different section. Someone had the thought that it was possible for other sections to touch on each other and kind of tie the whole article together. For example, if there was something that could be considered 'missing' in one section, it was likely to be addressed in the next since the section titles were only loosely descriptive. This would cause more work than necessary to be done in the long run. Ultimately we decided to independently read the article and contrive our own thoughts about it then meet up and use what we agreed on as the premise for our project. It seemed to work out well because at the meeting we were all ready on track for determining bias and non-credible sources.
What we found:
After examining all of the sources cited in the Wiki article we found a considerable amount of information that was from Mormon websites. These articles and web references were mostly in support of Polygamy as a lifestyle dictated by religious practice. While there was nothing outlandish in most of the article's claims, just the nature of where they came from was suspect. Tom also noticed that there were four citations on one statistic that had little to do with the topic of the articles. We concluded that the Wiki got so diluted by users editing it that whatever statement was originally made got transformed into a small factoid.
Our Topic was Polygamy in NORTH AMERICA and we were surprised with the lack of information regarding Canada and Mexico. After a small amount of google-ing we noticed that there is a TON of information out there about polygamy in Mexico and Canada, but none of it was included in the Wiki. Max, in my opinion, did a great job at pulling out some of the most crucial of this information.
After working on this project I am a little hesitant about using Wikipedia. The information is written with such confidence that its sometimes really tough to figure out what is true and what is not. I feel like from now on I will be more interested in reading the sources from Wikipedia articles rather than just trusting them right off the bat. I think like more people should audit Wikis in order to fully understand the websites purpose.
Facebook Effect I
So Facebook... yeah. This social networking site has gone BEYOND being just a popular Internet outlet for people wishing to connect with friends. For some it has become a part of a lifestyle, for others it is life and for even more people is has become a second life. It is much more than your plain old social networking site. Never in my life have I seen something that makes people hate it so much and yet still use it... almost religiously. A friend of mine has deleted his Facebook three times now, always rebounding after about a week or so with some lame excuse like he doesn't know what events are happening when anymore. I find it really funny when people discuss things like how Facebook is so great, but dont understand how they can make money of the idea and keep doing all this stuff. You know that saying 'If you cant tell who the sucker is... than its YOU'? Well it works in this case too. If you cant figure out the product Facebook is selling, than its YOU!
So there's this website where you post all your personal information with a privacy policy that changes every two weeks that has been known to distribute the aforementioned personal info to advertising companies and government agencies. Try explaining that to someone thats never used to Facebook then convince them to join. I'm not too thrilled with the overwhelming popularity of Facebook and often wish that people would just let it go. By having most friends only communicate through this medium it has kept me on so far. Although I AM a Facebook user, I feel that at least I am not in denial about what it actually is and try to keep as little about myself on there as possible. This is has kind of been my personal outlook on Facebook and like most opinions could probably be totally argued against, but since no one comments on my blog I feel like I'm safe saying whatever I want. Let's move to the book.
The first section of The Facebook Effect by David Kirkpatrick tells the story of young Mark Zuckerberg as an undergrad student at Harvard who slowly developed one of the most influential pieces of Web 2.0. The first chapter is all about glorifying Zuckerberg as this greater-than-you, super academic mega-nerd that gets all the babes and loves his white board. This is the first problem I ran into while reading this book. It is SO apparent that Kirkpatrick loves Facebook. He's describing Zuckerberg as a hero of his time claiming that he's so creative and such a hard-worker and a 'deliberate' thinker. That having a conversation with the guy is a mind-opening experience. If you read any other objective writing about Zuckerberg, it kind of says the same sort of things, but he comes off as a huge jerk. As I am NOT a fan of Facebook, I all ready can tell that this book is gonna have some 'come on.... REALLY?!' moments in it.
My interpretation of the M.Zuck story would be more or less about how this privileged kid pissed off all his roommates by not cleaning up his garbage (its ok, he had a nanny when he was growing up!), then created some killer pieces of software that everyone loved. Proceeded to get his roommates involved with the creative process, thus gaining their friendship and then stole all their ideas and made a billion dollars. Definitely sounds like TIME's person of the year material to me. I suppose when the rest of the competition consists of people like LeBron James and Lady GaGa there isn't much hope left anyway. (TIME's Person of the Year 2010 Poll Results)
disclaimer: For those that couldn't really tell, this blog entry was sort of an experiment for me to be as bias on the opposite side of Kirkpatrick as possible and show that without objectivity it is difficult to create valid resources. Over the course of the hundred of so pages, Kirkpatrick makes some good points about the evolution of social networks and the technology behind it. I was just so struck by how he portrayed Mark Zuckerberg that all I wanted to do was write about how much he sucks. IRL I am much more willing to see both the positive and negative in any topic or situation , I assure you.
So there's this website where you post all your personal information with a privacy policy that changes every two weeks that has been known to distribute the aforementioned personal info to advertising companies and government agencies. Try explaining that to someone thats never used to Facebook then convince them to join. I'm not too thrilled with the overwhelming popularity of Facebook and often wish that people would just let it go. By having most friends only communicate through this medium it has kept me on so far. Although I AM a Facebook user, I feel that at least I am not in denial about what it actually is and try to keep as little about myself on there as possible. This is has kind of been my personal outlook on Facebook and like most opinions could probably be totally argued against, but since no one comments on my blog I feel like I'm safe saying whatever I want. Let's move to the book.
The first section of The Facebook Effect by David Kirkpatrick tells the story of young Mark Zuckerberg as an undergrad student at Harvard who slowly developed one of the most influential pieces of Web 2.0. The first chapter is all about glorifying Zuckerberg as this greater-than-you, super academic mega-nerd that gets all the babes and loves his white board. This is the first problem I ran into while reading this book. It is SO apparent that Kirkpatrick loves Facebook. He's describing Zuckerberg as a hero of his time claiming that he's so creative and such a hard-worker and a 'deliberate' thinker. That having a conversation with the guy is a mind-opening experience. If you read any other objective writing about Zuckerberg, it kind of says the same sort of things, but he comes off as a huge jerk. As I am NOT a fan of Facebook, I all ready can tell that this book is gonna have some 'come on.... REALLY?!' moments in it.
My interpretation of the M.Zuck story would be more or less about how this privileged kid pissed off all his roommates by not cleaning up his garbage (its ok, he had a nanny when he was growing up!), then created some killer pieces of software that everyone loved. Proceeded to get his roommates involved with the creative process, thus gaining their friendship and then stole all their ideas and made a billion dollars. Definitely sounds like TIME's person of the year material to me. I suppose when the rest of the competition consists of people like LeBron James and Lady GaGa there isn't much hope left anyway. (TIME's Person of the Year 2010 Poll Results)
disclaimer: For those that couldn't really tell, this blog entry was sort of an experiment for me to be as bias on the opposite side of Kirkpatrick as possible and show that without objectivity it is difficult to create valid resources. Over the course of the hundred of so pages, Kirkpatrick makes some good points about the evolution of social networks and the technology behind it. I was just so struck by how he portrayed Mark Zuckerberg that all I wanted to do was write about how much he sucks. IRL I am much more willing to see both the positive and negative in any topic or situation , I assure you.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Obsolescence III
In this third installment of my interpretation of Giles Slade's book Made to Break I would like to focus specifically on a chapter titled 'Weaponizing Planned Obsolescence'. Right off the bat, this chapter title grabbed my attention. I was hoping that it would ultimately be where Slade gets into the nitty-gritty of how planned obsolescence is used as a weapon by companies against its consumers (cause that would be some interesting stuff!). To my slight dismay it focused much more on how planned obsolescence affected the evolution of actual weapons, which is still pretty cool, I guess.
The chapter starts out comparing the evolution of technology in the US to that of the Soviet Union. I feel like this is worth mentioning mostly because it directly relates to a previous blog entry that I wrote about the importance of the integrated circuitry. Apparently the USSR was about 10 years behind technologically than the US and this put us at a HUGE advantage when it came to weapons manufacturing. So I feel that its fair to update that not only has the integrated circuit allowed for a huge boom in technology at the time of its creation, it also had a large contribution to the sociopolitical efforts of the time.
Things start to get interesting when the USSR, in desperate need of this new technology (US embargo is preventing them from receiving it at this time), resort to espionage to acquire it. This is where the whole idea of planned obsolescence starts coming into play. Gus Weiss, a security adviser at the time, came up with the idea to let the Soviets get a hold of the technology, but plan for it to be obsolete shortly thereafter. They sold the Soviets chips that appeared to be normal, but would eventually cause 'catastrophic malfunctions'. As dirty and deceitful as this was, it was also brilliant. This forced me to take a different perspective on the idea of planned obsolescence. I cannot shake my initial feeling that its wrong, but at least now I believe I have a more objective look at the topic, having the ability to see both the positive and the negative.
I want to bring up, as a final point another statement that was mentioned in this chapter that really stood out to me.
"When people are persuaded, advertised, propagandized, and victimized into throwing away their cars every three years, their clothes twice yearly... then we may consider most other things fully obsolete." (Slade pg. 228)
This quote pretty much sums up what I believe is wrong with planned obsolescence. Especially where we stand today technologically. Don't you think we owe it to ourselves to just slow down for a minute? I guess that is just not the nature of our society though. On the plus side, if it bailed us out of a recession once, perhaps it will work again.
The chapter starts out comparing the evolution of technology in the US to that of the Soviet Union. I feel like this is worth mentioning mostly because it directly relates to a previous blog entry that I wrote about the importance of the integrated circuitry. Apparently the USSR was about 10 years behind technologically than the US and this put us at a HUGE advantage when it came to weapons manufacturing. So I feel that its fair to update that not only has the integrated circuit allowed for a huge boom in technology at the time of its creation, it also had a large contribution to the sociopolitical efforts of the time.
Things start to get interesting when the USSR, in desperate need of this new technology (US embargo is preventing them from receiving it at this time), resort to espionage to acquire it. This is where the whole idea of planned obsolescence starts coming into play. Gus Weiss, a security adviser at the time, came up with the idea to let the Soviets get a hold of the technology, but plan for it to be obsolete shortly thereafter. They sold the Soviets chips that appeared to be normal, but would eventually cause 'catastrophic malfunctions'. As dirty and deceitful as this was, it was also brilliant. This forced me to take a different perspective on the idea of planned obsolescence. I cannot shake my initial feeling that its wrong, but at least now I believe I have a more objective look at the topic, having the ability to see both the positive and the negative.
I want to bring up, as a final point another statement that was mentioned in this chapter that really stood out to me.
"When people are persuaded, advertised, propagandized, and victimized into throwing away their cars every three years, their clothes twice yearly... then we may consider most other things fully obsolete." (Slade pg. 228)
This quote pretty much sums up what I believe is wrong with planned obsolescence. Especially where we stand today technologically. Don't you think we owe it to ourselves to just slow down for a minute? I guess that is just not the nature of our society though. On the plus side, if it bailed us out of a recession once, perhaps it will work again.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Obsolescence II
In my first blog post about this topic, I started mentioning how planned obsolescence was making its way into the consumer market. The middle chapters of Made to Break provide an in depth look at how consumer products were affected by this from the early twentieth century up until the 1960's. Some of the topics that are touched upon are radios and radio wave technology, raw material manufacturing, automobiles, and household appliances. Aside from simply describing the evolution of these technologies, Slade also makes a strong effort to inform readers of the cultural nuances of the time that caused this the boom in planned obsolescence.
In chapter 4, Slade provides readers with a brief, yet very informative, introduction to the history of communication in America. He touches on all the big names in radio, focusing mostly on Edwin Armstrong who was the the leading pioneer in FM-radio technology. Right around the the time that FM radio was getting big, David Sarnoff, a friend of Armstrongs and leader of RCA, had planned for the television to be the invention that would make radios obsolete. This is one of the first instances where a major corporation, despite having a brand new technology, allready planned on inventing something that would replace it in a few years. Sarnoff referred to this as his 'supplantive theory' of business, which was very much related to the concept of planned obsolescence, a term which would be defined many years later. (Slade pg. 91)
Fast-forward to the 1950's, with Motorola's invention of the pocket radio. The pocket radio was revolutionary in the fact that its production had an enormous range of quality control. Motorola developed an automated soldering process that allowed for tiny transistor radios to be built very fast and very cheap. The problem with the radios was that they were not able to be repaired, so if they broke consumers would have to buy another one. This started a trend in miniature electronics that would continue for decades.
Slade makes reference to a periodical that describes three separate types of obsolescence. The first one is Obsolescence of funtion and what this term means is that a product performs the same function as another product, but with updated features or different craftsmanship. This technique is very much associated with the type of obsolescence used in retail personal computer market. The second term is obsolescence of quality. This means that the quality of a product is intentionally designed to degrade. Think of the pocket radio mentioned in the previous paragraph. The last form of obsolescence is obsolescence of desirability which refers specifically to style trends. Once a product is out of 'style' it is considered obsolete despite still performing its original function or not.
In chapter 4, Slade provides readers with a brief, yet very informative, introduction to the history of communication in America. He touches on all the big names in radio, focusing mostly on Edwin Armstrong who was the the leading pioneer in FM-radio technology. Right around the the time that FM radio was getting big, David Sarnoff, a friend of Armstrongs and leader of RCA, had planned for the television to be the invention that would make radios obsolete. This is one of the first instances where a major corporation, despite having a brand new technology, allready planned on inventing something that would replace it in a few years. Sarnoff referred to this as his 'supplantive theory' of business, which was very much related to the concept of planned obsolescence, a term which would be defined many years later. (Slade pg. 91)
Fast-forward to the 1950's, with Motorola's invention of the pocket radio. The pocket radio was revolutionary in the fact that its production had an enormous range of quality control. Motorola developed an automated soldering process that allowed for tiny transistor radios to be built very fast and very cheap. The problem with the radios was that they were not able to be repaired, so if they broke consumers would have to buy another one. This started a trend in miniature electronics that would continue for decades.
Slade makes reference to a periodical that describes three separate types of obsolescence. The first one is Obsolescence of funtion and what this term means is that a product performs the same function as another product, but with updated features or different craftsmanship. This technique is very much associated with the type of obsolescence used in retail personal computer market. The second term is obsolescence of quality. This means that the quality of a product is intentionally designed to degrade. Think of the pocket radio mentioned in the previous paragraph. The last form of obsolescence is obsolescence of desirability which refers specifically to style trends. Once a product is out of 'style' it is considered obsolete despite still performing its original function or not.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Obsolescence in America I
As a technology major, the idea of planned obsolescence is something that always struck my interest. From one perspective, it is a truly brilliant marketing scheme. Take technology, something that is all ready growing at an immense pace, and build devices that can only keep up for so long. This forces pressure on consumers to be in constant need of an upgrade, thus spending more money and allowing technology companies to flourish. I believe most users are aware of some of the growth trends of technology. I mean, why else would they be buying new computers every couple of months if they didn't realize this (I hope that not everyone simply takes what Microsoft and Hewlett Packard says as gospel). However, I do not think they realize how badly they are being suckered by these manufactures.
This is the point at which I admit that I worked in retail selling computers for four years and was more or less convincing people every day that their relatively recent computers were totally obsolete. At the same time I had a desktop computer that was five years old then (and close to 8 years now, I still use it) running fine with only a few small upgrades to the RAM and sound card. This ultimately took a huge toll on my conscience and I just couldn't do it anymore. It was probably the push to sell uselessly expensive warranties based on a pitch of lies that really put me over the edge. That which has no soul, surely should pursue a career in sales. So that's kind of a summation of my personal experience with planned obsolescence. With that being said, there were some things mentioned in Giles Slade's book Made to Break that just didn't even cross my mind.
Early in the book, Slade discusses a few points about early product marketing and development that led up to the idea of planned obsolescence. The first topic mentioned was the over the top branding that companies started utilizing. One of Slade's examples is Swinger sewing machines. They didn't want people to refer to their product as their 'sewing machine' but rather their 'Swinger'. So they slapped a huge logo of their name across the top. Soon every manufacture was creating clever ways to design or package their product to catch the eyes of consumers. This not only made their products nice and pretty, but started a new trend of brand loyalty where consumers developed trust that they would get the same quality product from a company no matter where the product was purchased.
At this point, companies that created expendable goods such as food products, soaps, and things alike were benefiting greatly. People had bought into their product and since these things run out, chances were they would buy them again the next time. But what about products that aren't expendable? With proper maintenance there are some things that could last a lifetime. The previously mentioned sewing machine for example. Well this is where the idea of annual model changes and probably the very first instance of planned obsolescence comes into play. Companies started creating a new line of products every year claiming to have more than last years model. Needless to say, people got hooked. These companies convinced consumers that it was important to stay ahead of the curve and own all the latest products. So back to the sewing machine example. You could purchase one sewing machine and probably keep it throughout several generations of upgraded sewing machines before your actually NEED another one, but the desire to have something new is an overwhelming sensation for some.
This idea carried over well into the age of computers, were obsolescence became a key marketing strategy. Somewhere along the lines there was someone that decided people were getting wise to the fact that they did not need a new product every year. Companies were losing money due to unsuccessful product 'improvements' that just were not as good as the previous generations. The solution was to start creating products that were made to only last a certain amount of time. This is undoubtedly where the title of Slade's book came from.
A Note on Ethics:
The idea of planned obsolescence is surrounded by a nasty air of deteriorating ethical standards. Major technology companies are kind of playing their consumers for saps by telling them that the products they put so much confidence in previously are no longer good now that the consumer all ready owns it and a new product is available. I get that these companies need to make money and I also get that new products need to come out in order for technology to advance, but there is a limit and I feel that more often than not this limit is tested. On a final note, Slade also mentions how the discarding of obsolete technology is having a negative effect on the environment. Of the millions of technology devices that get thrown out each year, and incredibly small percentage of them get recycled, Most end up eating away at the earth in dumps. Just another thing to think about.
This is the point at which I admit that I worked in retail selling computers for four years and was more or less convincing people every day that their relatively recent computers were totally obsolete. At the same time I had a desktop computer that was five years old then (and close to 8 years now, I still use it) running fine with only a few small upgrades to the RAM and sound card. This ultimately took a huge toll on my conscience and I just couldn't do it anymore. It was probably the push to sell uselessly expensive warranties based on a pitch of lies that really put me over the edge. That which has no soul, surely should pursue a career in sales. So that's kind of a summation of my personal experience with planned obsolescence. With that being said, there were some things mentioned in Giles Slade's book Made to Break that just didn't even cross my mind.
Early in the book, Slade discusses a few points about early product marketing and development that led up to the idea of planned obsolescence. The first topic mentioned was the over the top branding that companies started utilizing. One of Slade's examples is Swinger sewing machines. They didn't want people to refer to their product as their 'sewing machine' but rather their 'Swinger'. So they slapped a huge logo of their name across the top. Soon every manufacture was creating clever ways to design or package their product to catch the eyes of consumers. This not only made their products nice and pretty, but started a new trend of brand loyalty where consumers developed trust that they would get the same quality product from a company no matter where the product was purchased.
At this point, companies that created expendable goods such as food products, soaps, and things alike were benefiting greatly. People had bought into their product and since these things run out, chances were they would buy them again the next time. But what about products that aren't expendable? With proper maintenance there are some things that could last a lifetime. The previously mentioned sewing machine for example. Well this is where the idea of annual model changes and probably the very first instance of planned obsolescence comes into play. Companies started creating a new line of products every year claiming to have more than last years model. Needless to say, people got hooked. These companies convinced consumers that it was important to stay ahead of the curve and own all the latest products. So back to the sewing machine example. You could purchase one sewing machine and probably keep it throughout several generations of upgraded sewing machines before your actually NEED another one, but the desire to have something new is an overwhelming sensation for some.
This idea carried over well into the age of computers, were obsolescence became a key marketing strategy. Somewhere along the lines there was someone that decided people were getting wise to the fact that they did not need a new product every year. Companies were losing money due to unsuccessful product 'improvements' that just were not as good as the previous generations. The solution was to start creating products that were made to only last a certain amount of time. This is undoubtedly where the title of Slade's book came from.
A Note on Ethics:
The idea of planned obsolescence is surrounded by a nasty air of deteriorating ethical standards. Major technology companies are kind of playing their consumers for saps by telling them that the products they put so much confidence in previously are no longer good now that the consumer all ready owns it and a new product is available. I get that these companies need to make money and I also get that new products need to come out in order for technology to advance, but there is a limit and I feel that more often than not this limit is tested. On a final note, Slade also mentions how the discarding of obsolete technology is having a negative effect on the environment. Of the millions of technology devices that get thrown out each year, and incredibly small percentage of them get recycled, Most end up eating away at the earth in dumps. Just another thing to think about.
Current Events BLOG
The current events article that I spoke briefly about on Monday was titled Your Next Facebook 'Friend' Could Be A Federal Agent and it discussed the concern that government presence is starting to make its way on to social networking websites. The article suggests that federal agents will try to befriend people to investigate cases involving them. I always assumed that our private information on the web could magically be accessed by the government at at time so the fact that there is a need to 'befriend' someone came across as a little odd to me. Regardless, they claim that because having more friends may signify higher web status, people are willing to accept requests from users the do not know just to add another number on their friend list. I thought for sure that this fad of accepting strange friend requests went out of style along with MySpace, but apparently people have not quit seeking to be the one with the most friends... real or not. Sooner or later this will be back to bite them, I guess.
This article claims that the Facebook Feds are using the site to "reveal personal communications, establish motives and personal relationships, provide location information, prove and disprove alibis, and establish crime or criminal enterprises," which in my opinion is a little crazy. These sites were created for entertainment purposes and are, especially in the past year or two, getting a lot of people into trouble that could have been avoided if they hadn't been posting on Facebook like it was their private journal. The scariest part about this article is that it references playing Facebook detective as a new form of undercover policing where the government would have no problem pretending to be one of the friends of family members. Although its totally creepy for someone, even a federal agent, to go study what you say about yourself in order to build a profile, I could live knowing that it happens and just make sure I'm careful with what I say on there. For someone to pose as someone I know to extract information out of me sounds more like fraud than investigation and is not acceptable on ANY level.
I suppose that there are some positive aspects having government presence on the web. Assuming you aren't doing anything illegal, there's really nothing to worry about. There have also been examples of Facebook evidence proving people innocent. Rodney Bradford, for instance, updated his status to read "Where's my pancakes" at approximately the same time that a crime he was being charged for was committed. The courts checked the information from Facebook and came to the conclusion that Rodney was not their man, and he was let go. So while, I am an advocate for web privacy, I am not blind to the benefits of the government monitoring Facebook. My suggestion, however, is to ALWAYS think before you act... even on the web. Oh, and also update your status with inane comments frequently to provide a solid alibi.
Here's a LINK to the article.
This article claims that the Facebook Feds are using the site to "reveal personal communications, establish motives and personal relationships, provide location information, prove and disprove alibis, and establish crime or criminal enterprises," which in my opinion is a little crazy. These sites were created for entertainment purposes and are, especially in the past year or two, getting a lot of people into trouble that could have been avoided if they hadn't been posting on Facebook like it was their private journal. The scariest part about this article is that it references playing Facebook detective as a new form of undercover policing where the government would have no problem pretending to be one of the friends of family members. Although its totally creepy for someone, even a federal agent, to go study what you say about yourself in order to build a profile, I could live knowing that it happens and just make sure I'm careful with what I say on there. For someone to pose as someone I know to extract information out of me sounds more like fraud than investigation and is not acceptable on ANY level.
I suppose that there are some positive aspects having government presence on the web. Assuming you aren't doing anything illegal, there's really nothing to worry about. There have also been examples of Facebook evidence proving people innocent. Rodney Bradford, for instance, updated his status to read "Where's my pancakes" at approximately the same time that a crime he was being charged for was committed. The courts checked the information from Facebook and came to the conclusion that Rodney was not their man, and he was let go. So while, I am an advocate for web privacy, I am not blind to the benefits of the government monitoring Facebook. My suggestion, however, is to ALWAYS think before you act... even on the web. Oh, and also update your status with inane comments frequently to provide a solid alibi.
Here's a LINK to the article.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Wikipedia II
So I realized that my last entry about Wikipedia was pretty long. I am going to do my best to keep this one short and sweet; discussing briefly some of the trust issues associated with Wikipedia and its users. As we all ready established, most of the accuracy concerns with Wikipedia's content stem from the fact that it is mostly user generated. Dalby explains how there is no way of really knowing who is making edits or what motives they have for doing so. This also poses a problem when it comes to topics that little information is known about. In chapter 7, Dalby references an argument between two members of British Government about the age of famous painter, Titian. He mentions that the wiki article for Titian has provided several separate birthdays including some claims that the information is unknown. The article was edited and reedited quite a bit which made both of sides of the argument valid at one point or the other. It would have been pretty simple for one of those guys to go there, edit the article to favor his claim, and then show the other guy. Now think about this; two guys were having a dispute over the age of if Titian and one of them changes the Wikipedia entry to say he was born in 1490 to satisfy his claim. At the same time, someone researching the painter goes to Wikipedia for some basic knowledge and copies down the birthday into his notes. Although that information may or may not be correct, other people aside from the two disputing are constantly accessing it. This is why it is a difficult resource to trust.
Despite knowing that there is always the possibility of snagging some bum information from Wikipedia it is still one of (if not the) most trafficked reference site on the web. It's all about accessibility and Wikipedia has played that card so well. Not only is Wikipedia a given when it comes to getting any results from a search engine, but a wiki search bar has been implemented into the corner of many popular web browsers. Wikipedia is available is 262 languages with somewhere in the vicinity of 16 million articles that span across these editions. I mentioned in my last entry how in the past 3 or 4 years the people working at Wikipedia headquarters have dedicated a lot of time to preventing Wikipedia accuracy problems. They are at the point now where they feel Wikipedia is becoming a much more reliable source and are sure they can win the trust back of anyone that has been burned before.
Despite knowing that there is always the possibility of snagging some bum information from Wikipedia it is still one of (if not the) most trafficked reference site on the web. It's all about accessibility and Wikipedia has played that card so well. Not only is Wikipedia a given when it comes to getting any results from a search engine, but a wiki search bar has been implemented into the corner of many popular web browsers. Wikipedia is available is 262 languages with somewhere in the vicinity of 16 million articles that span across these editions. I mentioned in my last entry how in the past 3 or 4 years the people working at Wikipedia headquarters have dedicated a lot of time to preventing Wikipedia accuracy problems. They are at the point now where they feel Wikipedia is becoming a much more reliable source and are sure they can win the trust back of anyone that has been burned before.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Wikipedia I
In recent years, Wikipedia has become such a staple in the life of an everyday computer user. I myself consult it frequently on just about every topic I need to get some quick information on. It's a perfect place to start research due it's broad coverage of most topics as well as its citations section where scholarly articles are often listed as references. It's popularity keeps it so high in search return priority that almost no matter what query you type into google (or any search engine for that matter), a Wiki page will more than likely show up in the results. It was only a matter of time before someone decided to write a book about the history of this influential display of web 2.0ism.
The World and Wikipedia, by Andrew Dalby, explains the driving force as to how and why Wikipedia came to exist. Dalby traces its roots all the way back to ancient times and relates the formation of Wikis to how early encyclopedias were developed and a distributed. In the first half of the book, other than the history of the encyclopedia, Dalby focuses on two main points which are summed up with the chapter titles "Why 'They' Hate It" and "Why You Use It". 'It' obviously referring to Wikipedia while the terms 'they' and 'you' remain pretty ambiguous.
So who are 'they' and why do they hate Wikipedia? Well, according to this book and some of my own knowledge on the topic, they are authors and editors of traditional encyclopedias, scholarly journals, or other academic referential resources. They hate Wikipedia because it can be, and most often is, edited by your everyday Internet user. According to them, this leaves a much higher margin for error due to people not thoroughly researching topics or just haphazardly posting hearsay on the site. This claim has led to the complete dismissal of Wikipedia as a scholarly reference even though recent statistics have shown that Wikipedia's error rate of about 3.86 errors per page is not far off from the Encyclopedia Britannica's which is roughly 2.92 errors per page (see Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica).
Other criticisms of the site include the level of coherence to which the articles are written. Dalby makes a bold move and references a few Nicholas Carr statements about the idea that Wikipedia articles are nothing more than a "hodgepodge of dubious factoids." In my opinion, the presentation style of Wikipedia articles as critiqued by Carr and Dalby actually make it very easy to extract information from the site. Blurbs that are short and to the point give the ability to get a whole lot of information from simply browsing the article. This is nice if you are trying to get a quick overview of the topic or if you have many topics that need to be addressed. Whether or not a person finds the information to be relevant is subjective. They, like anyone else, have the power to update the site with clearer information if they so choose.
If these smart people frown upon Wikipedia then why do we use it?
There are actually quite a few reasons why we use Wikipedia. The first one, that has been mentioned periodically in this entry one way or another, is its convenience. It has a very easy to read layout, with loads of facts on some less traditional topics that you just wont find in a regular encyclopedia. The fact that user's can contribute to the page is also a huge reason why its so popular. People like to have presence, especially on the web. Wikipedia articles are easy to create/update and make regular people feel like pseudo-historians. Which apparently does wonders for someones well-being. I knew a few people that contribute to Wikipedia semi-regularly and have described this strange feeling of importance when they see their information available for other to learn from.
Google actually has a lot to do with the success of Wikipedia also. Google has been putting Wiki sites in their database since 2001 and making them available for searchers to access. Two things necessary to be popular on the Internet are accessibility and findability. Google provided both to the budding reference site. So yeah, we use Wikipedia because its a interesting site, but more than that we use Wikipedia because we've been force fed it with every search request for quite some time now.
Wikipedia really upped the ante in 2007 when it decided to make it a point to have all aspects of the site monitored and fact checked by a hired staff. This left the site looking really sharp and even more legitimate, which started to become a huge issue in schools. Students were using Wikipedia because it was a lot easier than reading books and displayed information similar to the type they would get from something like a sparknotes book (i.e. it was usually much easier to understand). Teachers would notice student responses that seemed slightly off and found that they were all using Wiki entries as their source. Wikipedia's founder, Jimmy Wales, was quoted in an interview with Businessweek saying "No, I don't think people should cite it [Wikipedia]... People shouldn't be citing encyclopedias in the first place. Wikipedia and other encyclopedias should be solid enough to give good, solid background information to inform your studies for a deeper level." (for the full interview see Wikipedia: A Work in Progress) I think this is a point that should be mentioned to middle school and high school students. Wikipedia shouldn't be the forbidden fruit of the reference world, it just needs to be used in the right context and taken with a grain of salt.
Just for fun: Check out some of the "Bad Jokes and other Deleted Nonsense" wiki pages
Still more best of: BJAODN
The World and Wikipedia, by Andrew Dalby, explains the driving force as to how and why Wikipedia came to exist. Dalby traces its roots all the way back to ancient times and relates the formation of Wikis to how early encyclopedias were developed and a distributed. In the first half of the book, other than the history of the encyclopedia, Dalby focuses on two main points which are summed up with the chapter titles "Why 'They' Hate It" and "Why You Use It". 'It' obviously referring to Wikipedia while the terms 'they' and 'you' remain pretty ambiguous.
So who are 'they' and why do they hate Wikipedia? Well, according to this book and some of my own knowledge on the topic, they are authors and editors of traditional encyclopedias, scholarly journals, or other academic referential resources. They hate Wikipedia because it can be, and most often is, edited by your everyday Internet user. According to them, this leaves a much higher margin for error due to people not thoroughly researching topics or just haphazardly posting hearsay on the site. This claim has led to the complete dismissal of Wikipedia as a scholarly reference even though recent statistics have shown that Wikipedia's error rate of about 3.86 errors per page is not far off from the Encyclopedia Britannica's which is roughly 2.92 errors per page (see Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica).
Other criticisms of the site include the level of coherence to which the articles are written. Dalby makes a bold move and references a few Nicholas Carr statements about the idea that Wikipedia articles are nothing more than a "hodgepodge of dubious factoids." In my opinion, the presentation style of Wikipedia articles as critiqued by Carr and Dalby actually make it very easy to extract information from the site. Blurbs that are short and to the point give the ability to get a whole lot of information from simply browsing the article. This is nice if you are trying to get a quick overview of the topic or if you have many topics that need to be addressed. Whether or not a person finds the information to be relevant is subjective. They, like anyone else, have the power to update the site with clearer information if they so choose.
If these smart people frown upon Wikipedia then why do we use it?
There are actually quite a few reasons why we use Wikipedia. The first one, that has been mentioned periodically in this entry one way or another, is its convenience. It has a very easy to read layout, with loads of facts on some less traditional topics that you just wont find in a regular encyclopedia. The fact that user's can contribute to the page is also a huge reason why its so popular. People like to have presence, especially on the web. Wikipedia articles are easy to create/update and make regular people feel like pseudo-historians. Which apparently does wonders for someones well-being. I knew a few people that contribute to Wikipedia semi-regularly and have described this strange feeling of importance when they see their information available for other to learn from.
Google actually has a lot to do with the success of Wikipedia also. Google has been putting Wiki sites in their database since 2001 and making them available for searchers to access. Two things necessary to be popular on the Internet are accessibility and findability. Google provided both to the budding reference site. So yeah, we use Wikipedia because its a interesting site, but more than that we use Wikipedia because we've been force fed it with every search request for quite some time now.
Wikipedia really upped the ante in 2007 when it decided to make it a point to have all aspects of the site monitored and fact checked by a hired staff. This left the site looking really sharp and even more legitimate, which started to become a huge issue in schools. Students were using Wikipedia because it was a lot easier than reading books and displayed information similar to the type they would get from something like a sparknotes book (i.e. it was usually much easier to understand). Teachers would notice student responses that seemed slightly off and found that they were all using Wiki entries as their source. Wikipedia's founder, Jimmy Wales, was quoted in an interview with Businessweek saying "No, I don't think people should cite it [Wikipedia]... People shouldn't be citing encyclopedias in the first place. Wikipedia and other encyclopedias should be solid enough to give good, solid background information to inform your studies for a deeper level." (for the full interview see Wikipedia: A Work in Progress) I think this is a point that should be mentioned to middle school and high school students. Wikipedia shouldn't be the forbidden fruit of the reference world, it just needs to be used in the right context and taken with a grain of salt.
Just for fun: Check out some of the "Bad Jokes and other Deleted Nonsense" wiki pages
Still more best of: BJAODN
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Story of Technology Pt. 2
As I had predicted in my previous blog post, the second half of 'The Life Story of Technology' is all about how personal computing has made its way into the lives of everyday people. There are so many contributing factors to how computers evolved to what they are today. Rather than discussing the importance of the computer hardware involved with getting to this point (like in my last post), I will be using this blog to discuss some of the social implications that technology brought with it. Chapter 7 brings forth some really important issues that were created in light of the presence of personal computers and the Internet.
A huge issue, starting in the mid 1990's, is the Digital Divide. The Digital Divide is essentially the split between people that have access to technology and people who are not using or cannot afford technology. The issue was emphasized the most in schools. The claim was that students who had access to information technologies (such as the Internet) at home had an advantage over students who did not. Also, that schools which had computer facilities were tracked to produce more graduates seeking further education than schools without computers. Here in lies the controversy behind the Digital Divide. Yes, computers and Internet access are amazing tools that, when used to their fullest potential, can produce an incredibly efficient learning experience. The fact of the matter is that there are a few things standing in the way of that. The first thing most people bring up is that computers are as much of a distraction as they are a tool for education. Many of us have some experience in this claim. Right now, for instance, I'm doing a bunch of other things while periodically coming back to this blog. I've been working on it for an hour (and counting) and I am only this far in. It is really amazing that I could have 6 tabs open at once, each allowing me to do something different, but there is a time where multitasking increases to a point where productivity actually goes down. We also have to take into consideration the learning curve associated with computing. You cant just stick a computer in front of a kid that has never seen one and expect them to be able to extract information from it. It takes time, effort, and willingness to learn. The last topic ill address regarding this issue is information overload.
Information overload is a pretty strange idea. It's very similar to walking into a huge library with millions of books and walking out not finding the information you were looking for. The difference now is that people who probably wouldn't go to a library are still likely to have a computer and are even more likely to use it for information gathering. Many people, including myself run into a problem with information overload and it can be a truly nerve-wracking experience. It is not that the information doesn't exist, it is just that there is so much of it and its often very difficult to find a starting point. Practicing web searching skills is best way to combat information overload, but like learning anything it takes some effort.
So now, at the end of the first decade in the new millennium, we can start to see a shrinkage in the digital divide. Personal computers have now become so inexpensive that most anyone can afford them and everything in society is starting to digitize. Yet, for some reason we are not all geniuses. More and more people are going to college, but that's because of the pressure put on them by society claiming that they are unlikely to succeed otherwise. I am personally torn between the two sides of the Digital Divide controversy. In theory it makes so much sense that someone with a computer has an advantage over someone that does not in a learning environment. Like the one guy that forgets to bring his calculator to a math exam. At the same time, however, now that computers are on their way to standardization, it doesn't seem like they are making a drastic difference in peoples willingness to learn and I feel that this was an issue often over looked in the earlier years of the Digital Divide.
A huge issue, starting in the mid 1990's, is the Digital Divide. The Digital Divide is essentially the split between people that have access to technology and people who are not using or cannot afford technology. The issue was emphasized the most in schools. The claim was that students who had access to information technologies (such as the Internet) at home had an advantage over students who did not. Also, that schools which had computer facilities were tracked to produce more graduates seeking further education than schools without computers. Here in lies the controversy behind the Digital Divide. Yes, computers and Internet access are amazing tools that, when used to their fullest potential, can produce an incredibly efficient learning experience. The fact of the matter is that there are a few things standing in the way of that. The first thing most people bring up is that computers are as much of a distraction as they are a tool for education. Many of us have some experience in this claim. Right now, for instance, I'm doing a bunch of other things while periodically coming back to this blog. I've been working on it for an hour (and counting) and I am only this far in. It is really amazing that I could have 6 tabs open at once, each allowing me to do something different, but there is a time where multitasking increases to a point where productivity actually goes down. We also have to take into consideration the learning curve associated with computing. You cant just stick a computer in front of a kid that has never seen one and expect them to be able to extract information from it. It takes time, effort, and willingness to learn. The last topic ill address regarding this issue is information overload.
Information overload is a pretty strange idea. It's very similar to walking into a huge library with millions of books and walking out not finding the information you were looking for. The difference now is that people who probably wouldn't go to a library are still likely to have a computer and are even more likely to use it for information gathering. Many people, including myself run into a problem with information overload and it can be a truly nerve-wracking experience. It is not that the information doesn't exist, it is just that there is so much of it and its often very difficult to find a starting point. Practicing web searching skills is best way to combat information overload, but like learning anything it takes some effort.
So now, at the end of the first decade in the new millennium, we can start to see a shrinkage in the digital divide. Personal computers have now become so inexpensive that most anyone can afford them and everything in society is starting to digitize. Yet, for some reason we are not all geniuses. More and more people are going to college, but that's because of the pressure put on them by society claiming that they are unlikely to succeed otherwise. I am personally torn between the two sides of the Digital Divide controversy. In theory it makes so much sense that someone with a computer has an advantage over someone that does not in a learning environment. Like the one guy that forgets to bring his calculator to a math exam. At the same time, however, now that computers are on their way to standardization, it doesn't seem like they are making a drastic difference in peoples willingness to learn and I feel that this was an issue often over looked in the earlier years of the Digital Divide.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Technopoly pt. 1
Technopoly: the Surrender of Culture to Technology... Judging by the severity of the title, I expected the author of this book to have a very one-sided approach to how technology has influenced society. I have heard the arguments about how technology, while as its own entity is progressing rapidly, is causing its users to be less self-reliant and more focused on doing things the easy way. My opinion on this matter stands that everyone in this world thinks differently and if someone wants to use technology as an outlet for their laziness than so be it. I'm not usually one to judge, however, to say that technology is making all (or even most) people lazy, I feel is a misguided statement. Plenty of people are using technology to be productive in their own ways. I was really hoping that this book wasn't going to be a 230 page claim that culture in society is suffering at the hands technology and I was actually pretty relieved after reading the first few pages to discover that it was not, or at least not exactly.
Neil Postman provides an objective look at the evolution of technology claiming that every technology has its pros, as well as its cons and how one technology has a direct effect another. He actually uses the analogy of a technological ecosystem to support his claims which is an interesting a unique way to do it. Thinking about this concept for a second makes understanding how we have arrived at this point in technology a little easier to stomach.
So onto the technopoly, which I think is a word that Neil Postman made up to convey his point of view in this book. Postman talks about three cultural standpoints of technology; tool-using cultures, technocracies, and technopolies. Tool-using cultures are the utilitarians here. They had physical needs that needed to be satisfied so they built tools to help them along the way. So much was able to be done with these tools that they found there way to be a staple in the culture. When this culture started to becoming overwhelming, someone came up with the thought of technocracy.
Technocracy is all about how too much importance was put on tools or technology and the ideas traditions and politics were getting lost. People during this time period thought they could build something that would drastically change the world in a second. They were inventing things just to claim that progress was being made. Postman describes the term technopoly as 'totalitarian technocracy'. Technopoly essentially is all culture consumed by technology. Postman declares the personal computer as the ultimately device of technopoly. It was an invention so good that it has defined an entire generation.
Neil Postman provides an objective look at the evolution of technology claiming that every technology has its pros, as well as its cons and how one technology has a direct effect another. He actually uses the analogy of a technological ecosystem to support his claims which is an interesting a unique way to do it. Thinking about this concept for a second makes understanding how we have arrived at this point in technology a little easier to stomach.
So onto the technopoly, which I think is a word that Neil Postman made up to convey his point of view in this book. Postman talks about three cultural standpoints of technology; tool-using cultures, technocracies, and technopolies. Tool-using cultures are the utilitarians here. They had physical needs that needed to be satisfied so they built tools to help them along the way. So much was able to be done with these tools that they found there way to be a staple in the culture. When this culture started to becoming overwhelming, someone came up with the thought of technocracy.
Technocracy is all about how too much importance was put on tools or technology and the ideas traditions and politics were getting lost. People during this time period thought they could build something that would drastically change the world in a second. They were inventing things just to claim that progress was being made. Postman describes the term technopoly as 'totalitarian technocracy'. Technopoly essentially is all culture consumed by technology. Postman declares the personal computer as the ultimately device of technopoly. It was an invention so good that it has defined an entire generation.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Story of Technology Pt.1
What Eric Sweden and David Ferro have here in their book, Computers: The Life Story of Technology, is a great collection of computer history that, I feel, is often overlooked by most users today. If for nothing else, it is really neat learning about what it was like before computers ruled the world and how early development in electronics lead to the huge boom of computer technology that we have had in the past fifteen years or so. (Which my foresight tells me is going to be largely included in the second half of the book) As an ITI major and a general technology enthusiast, I definitely have a deep interest in learning about this kind of stuff. I also think electronics are unbelievably cool, especially guitar pedals. That’s a different blog all together though.
So the first 85 pages of this book have A LOT of content on all sorts pivotal development points for computers and computing systems. Rather than making a poor attempt to touch base on everything, I’d rather like to discuss something Sweden and Ferro wrote about that really changed the world of computing as we know it. What I’m talking about here is the invention of the integrated circuit. The integrated circuit and the micro sizing of computer components are largely responsible for the exponential growth associated with computer technology. The initial benefits of these circuits according to the authors were that they grouped semiconductors into a single component and were easily duplicated with a high rate of consistency. The idea of this just screams consumerism and in fact, that is what some of the early integrated circuits were designed for. In 1967, Jack Kilby, one of the inventors of the integrated circuit*, created the first handheld calculator for Texas Instruments. The invention sparked a billion dollar business for the production and sales of small and cheap calculators. (Sweden and Ferro) This, however, was only the beginning. As more developers starting using microchips (same thing as integrated circuits) they began to be able to increase their density while decreasing their size. At the time, the potential for microchips could not be for seen. One technologist predicted that the density, and therefore, capability of microchips would increase by two every year. (Sweden and Ferro, 68) As we know from the progression of time, technology has been advancing pretty much on schedule to this prediction, which is amazing. This rate of growth is almost directly proportional to the increase in computer power and it doesn't seem to be coming to a screeching halt anytime soon.
I feel that, at the time, these scientists really had no idea what they were actually inventing. Sure, they created a way to have electrical parts arranged in such a way on a semi-conductive board that it would eliminate the need for slow, rather unreliable, wiring. And I'm not trying to downplay the importance of elegance and efficiency in electrical engineering, but what these guys really invented was the future of computing. Without that one really... really tiny invention, life would be way different. I mean waaaaaaay different. Think about it for a second... and try not to cry.
*In the late 60’s Jack Kilby and Robert Noyce were working independently on similar ideas of a monolithic electronic circuit. After battling over patents they agreed to split the rights evenly.
That's all for now.
So the first 85 pages of this book have A LOT of content on all sorts pivotal development points for computers and computing systems. Rather than making a poor attempt to touch base on everything, I’d rather like to discuss something Sweden and Ferro wrote about that really changed the world of computing as we know it. What I’m talking about here is the invention of the integrated circuit. The integrated circuit and the micro sizing of computer components are largely responsible for the exponential growth associated with computer technology. The initial benefits of these circuits according to the authors were that they grouped semiconductors into a single component and were easily duplicated with a high rate of consistency. The idea of this just screams consumerism and in fact, that is what some of the early integrated circuits were designed for. In 1967, Jack Kilby, one of the inventors of the integrated circuit*, created the first handheld calculator for Texas Instruments. The invention sparked a billion dollar business for the production and sales of small and cheap calculators. (Sweden and Ferro) This, however, was only the beginning. As more developers starting using microchips (same thing as integrated circuits) they began to be able to increase their density while decreasing their size. At the time, the potential for microchips could not be for seen. One technologist predicted that the density, and therefore, capability of microchips would increase by two every year. (Sweden and Ferro, 68) As we know from the progression of time, technology has been advancing pretty much on schedule to this prediction, which is amazing. This rate of growth is almost directly proportional to the increase in computer power and it doesn't seem to be coming to a screeching halt anytime soon.
I feel that, at the time, these scientists really had no idea what they were actually inventing. Sure, they created a way to have electrical parts arranged in such a way on a semi-conductive board that it would eliminate the need for slow, rather unreliable, wiring. And I'm not trying to downplay the importance of elegance and efficiency in electrical engineering, but what these guys really invented was the future of computing. Without that one really... really tiny invention, life would be way different. I mean waaaaaaay different. Think about it for a second... and try not to cry.
*In the late 60’s Jack Kilby and Robert Noyce were working independently on similar ideas of a monolithic electronic circuit. After battling over patents they agreed to split the rights evenly.
That's all for now.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
What it means to be Phil + the first assignment.
Since this is the first post on my Technology and Culture in America blog I thought I would talk a little about myself and then go on to analyze some of my Internet usage as required in the first assignment. I want to mention that this is the fourth blog that I have created in my life. For those who know me, this might come as a surprise and with that I'll let you determine the success of my previous explorations in the world of blogging. Anyway, I'm in my fourth year here at Rutgers and hope to finish in May with a degree in Information Technology and Informatics... you know, like computers and stuff. I'm also an American Studies minor so taking this course seemed like a pretty appropriate decision for me. I work for the Office of Information Technology here at Rutgers where I am a consultant in the computer labs on the College Ave campus. It's a pretty great job and I'd definitely recommend it to anyone looking for on-campus work. When I'm not working or going to class I'm pretty much always tinkering around with guitars and other musical instruments. I play in a couple bands and am an avid supporter of the independent music scene here in New Brunswick.
So now that I've said a little about a myself allow me to talk more about myself in terms of Internet usage. I kept a log of how much I interacted with the web from Thursday 9/9 to Saturday 9/11 and I was actually quite surprised with my results. For someone that has such a life built around technology my web usage was pretty minimal. I had work on Thursday at the computer lab in Records Hall so that forced my to be on the computer for 3 hours during my shift. I spent most of my time there emailing with a professor about getting a special permission number and trying to finalize my schedule on the last day to drop classes. Needlessly to say, it was pretty nerve wracking. I managed to secure a place in the class so after work I gladly walked over to attend it. I had off on Friday so I spent the morning watching Netflix, then I helped clean my basement and enjoyed the cool weather. On Saturday I was out of the house most of the day and was hardly on the web. I logged on to check my email just make sure I wouldn't be late for a work meeting today.
I feel like my Internet usage will rise quite a bit when I start getting deeper into my classes this semester. Not just because the classes themselves will require me to be doing work on the Internet, but also that they will force me to sit at a computer where the urge to procrastinate will surely get the best of me.
Thats all.
-Phil
So now that I've said a little about a myself allow me to talk more about myself in terms of Internet usage. I kept a log of how much I interacted with the web from Thursday 9/9 to Saturday 9/11 and I was actually quite surprised with my results. For someone that has such a life built around technology my web usage was pretty minimal. I had work on Thursday at the computer lab in Records Hall so that forced my to be on the computer for 3 hours during my shift. I spent most of my time there emailing with a professor about getting a special permission number and trying to finalize my schedule on the last day to drop classes. Needlessly to say, it was pretty nerve wracking. I managed to secure a place in the class so after work I gladly walked over to attend it. I had off on Friday so I spent the morning watching Netflix, then I helped clean my basement and enjoyed the cool weather. On Saturday I was out of the house most of the day and was hardly on the web. I logged on to check my email just make sure I wouldn't be late for a work meeting today.
I feel like my Internet usage will rise quite a bit when I start getting deeper into my classes this semester. Not just because the classes themselves will require me to be doing work on the Internet, but also that they will force me to sit at a computer where the urge to procrastinate will surely get the best of me.
Thats all.
-Phil
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)