Theme 6: Analyzing the wiki-concept

The beauty of sites like Twitter and Facebook being invented is that they give us a chance to expand upon our social networking skills by allowing the technology to do most of the work and us to just decipher it. Some benefits include it allowing people to multi-task and not have to devote time to getting to know a person in a physical sense. However, the consequences include us learning the surface of what makes up a person’s personality, and not necessarily getting a deep understanding of who they are. You cannot see their facial expressions through an IM, and all you’re doing through out your cyber contacting is making an educated guess as to who you think they are. Social networking sites and the Internet overall, since their creation, have slowly began to control the thoughts of the individuals reading into them. They have made people more likely to scan blurbs, listen quickly to sound bytes, and Facebook-stalk a person in order to learn about their likes and dislikes. These advents have encouraged their audience to become lazy, because they do most of the work for us, and we don’t need to utilize those inquisitive parts of our brains anymore.

Wikipedia is another example of our now trained-to-be-impatient mindset. This website is a host of information on various topics that may or may not be accurate. Wikipedia allows users like you and I to log on and update whatever is on their site. There is minimal moderation, which means that although everyone has a chance to put their thoughts on, there’s a good chance that what you’re reading is not from an expert. What you have instead is the community’s view, and at times, the community can be warped and biased because of outside influences.

Television shows have the same community views associated with them when there is a successful series. Take for example True Blood, a show about vampires (which already had a community fan base because of Twilight). Followers of the show would update their Twitter and Facebook statuses respectively and post on forums all catering to those interested in the show. They have a chance to put their opinions on the screens of every fans’ computers. Some problems that might have stemmed from that is with instant posts popping up, the readers don’t really give the show a chance to grow on them. If someone gives away an upcoming scene and speaks about it negatively, the other viewers might not want to give it the time of day. It’s like reading reviews that pre-judged all of the time.

Other issues with this kind of crowd-sourcing is that it has pitfalls such as there being difficulty with coming up with a general conclusion that everyone agrees upon, as well as there being written contracts and disclosure agreements. This community of informants make their lives and thoughts less private and more publicly exposed – and from this, they can be accepted or ignored. These specialized online groups have a chance to exchange thoughts in a safe forum, and spread their knowledge to others. There is a sense of an online family or community built because of what they all have in common.

Text without Context Response

1. This society has become accustomed to instantaneous answers which is shown with the growing popularity of Twitter and YouTube. These fairly new media bring in audiences because they are more willing to cut to the chase with their content. People now prefer to tune into information that is immediately available, rather than something that is analyzed, and carefully thought out. For example, instead of reading an entire news story a person is now more likely to look for a sound clip, sound bite, or short blurb. This makes it harder for individuals to develop an opinion on their own. When watching a play or movie, people will text or tweet, and they won’t give the show a chance to win them over. This pre-judging then enters the cyber world for others to adopt as their own opinions. Even scholars are guilty of falling prey to this simplified way of researching. Instead of sifting through stacks of literature, they might only search online.

2. The term “cyberkalnization” refers to the division in the World Wide Web into subgroups. People now can subscribe to only receive the specialized news that they like to hear about, and exclude everything else from getting to them. With automatically updated feeds, people are avoiding having any serendipitous encounters that might infiltrate their thoughts on what they are already use to. I am also somewhat guilty of this myself. I follow only those with opinions that I already have myself on Twitter. I know personally of people who receive Yahoo news feeds that focus only on entertainment news or sports news because they aren’t concerned with any other news. In a way, this specifically engineered filtering is beneficial for you if you only want what you’re use to. It bypasses all the extra news so that you don’t have to sift through it yourself.


3. These trends might take away from the audience that usually tuned into authors, composers, and filmmakers because if people can get a concise yet entertaining piece of their work, they won’t be inclined to look for more. The re-produced work, to them, is just as good as the original work and possibly better because you can get it in smaller portions and have it include the parts you like. These creators of original works will have their thoughts recycled, and even though it’ll be works without context, the truth is that people aren’t craving context anymore.


4. Appropriation art means giving credit to any part of a piece that was inspired by something else. This is a way to copyright, in some ways, an artist’s idea and to make sure that credit is given to a creator. The author argues that everything, especially words are owned by “owned by our entire culture,” and with a little revision and slight credit, it is okay to duplicate this. As Journalism major, I partially agree with this because I know I would not want my ideas to be copied in any way, unless full credit was being given to me. However, I think that when it comes to other forms of art, outside of written works, it gets more difficult to give credit.


5. The idea of an audience is described as archaic because we live in a time when the audience’s opinion doesn’t seem to matter. In a 2005 issue of Wired magazine the information we are given is described as “an endless, recombinant, and fundamentally social process generated by countless hours of creative product.” What the audience is receiving is a “mash up” of the same ideas from years worth of fandom that are just repackaged. Our online media is a culture of reaction from other thoughts without any new actions of our own. Most online responses are driven by the sphere of old media.

Thoughts on Twitter

Twitter Response Questions

Twitter is enduring because of its accessibility (it’s mobile, and right there at your fingertips) and because it allows you to know miniscule things about your friends that you never thought you’d care about. More importantly, if you’re following someone who actually has vital information, their tweets can be accompanied by useful links. Twitter is what you make of it – if you choose to follow someone whose tweets won’t contribute anything to your life, then you won’t see the good in Twitter. The act of “tweeting” something is easy, and you may begin to forget how quickly your thoughts are being broadcasted. What you will be comfortable in knowing is that whatever information you might be putting out – useless or otherwise – there is someone reading it.

This particular form of online social networking connects you to information that you might not have ever had access to. For example, if you’re following one of your favorite entertainers and they happen to be in the area you live in, they may tweet about a free concert that only their followers would be aware of. This is just one of the advantages to opening up and allowing yourself to be immersed in the world of Twitter.