Chapter 2 "Blogging in Society"

Today I was assigned to read the chapter "The Blogs in Society," which is extracted from Aaron Barlow's book Blogging America. In this chapter Barlow speaks about the negative depictions of blogging on the Internet. As we all know by now, almost anyone with Internet access can begin blogging whatever they want and whenever they want. This means that bloggers can be defined as authors of their own work and that they allow others to view the work that hey have made. Barlow states that bloggers tend to create lies, rumors, and make errors within their blogs. He states, "Without editors, administrators, or regulators to monitor what is being posted, we have no one to vouch for the reliability or credibility of the content we read and see."(p. 36) This is very important because readers have no idea if an author's specific story is credible or truthful. It may tend to make the viewers believe something that is not actually true. These bloggers may do this accidentally or intentionally. Another negative aspect of blogging that Barlow speaks about occurs within the area of threats. Bloggers who tend to voice opinions on certain topics may attract people who oppose their thoughts. These viewers comment on their blogs in hurtful threats that may negatively affect the blogger in various ways. Although the viewers who oppose the blog may not want to actually hurt the blogger, they are mainly getting their point across that they totally disagree with what the blogger has to say.

I believe that the negative depictions of blogging in which Barlow states is the most important part of this chapter. I totally agree that without an administrator, the information is not credible. If a user follows the rules, makes no mistakes, correctly cites, and doesn't make false stories for the sole purpose of entertainment, then blogging can be credible.


Barlow, Aaron. Blogging America. (2008). The Blogs in Society (Chapter 2).

Searching and Determining Quality of Information

The emergence of Web 2.0 has given users many different ways in order to retrieve wanted information. Over the past couple of days I have used three different search engines in order to find background information on Youtube. The search engines I used were Google, Askjeeves, and EBSCO host. Since Youtube is a large database that contains millions of videos and files, i needed to use various keywords in order to eliminate having them displayed in my search results. Tim O'Reilley's reading "What is Web 2.0" gives a very good definitive answer regarding search engines and key words. He states "Subject categories help users narrow their search terms and strategies, and advanced searching capabilities increase the chances of a more relevant results list."(O'Reilly, 2005) This is exactly what I needed to do in order to find information of relevancy and validity.

The first search engine I used was Google. I immediately searched a broad keyword that gave me loads of information regarding the background of Youtube. The keyword I used was "Origin of Youtube." This keyword gave me exactly what I was looking for in Google's page ranking system. The first entry result was actually listed as "The Origin of Youtube" from worldhistorysite.com. This website provided me with the Youtube creator's name and his story of it's creation. In order to test the relevancy and validity of this source, I then searched the Youtube creators name, "Jawed Karim." The results I obtained were perfect and proved the previous article as a credible source. Searching the creators name not only proved the previous article as credible but also provided me with more background information on Youtube. The first two entries I found were from Wikipedia and Jawed Karim's own website, Jawed.com. Finding the creators own website I believe was very key in obtaining additional information on Youtube for my final paper. I would not have been able to find it without my first keyword search of "Origin of Youtube." Based on my search process I have found that keywords eventually led to more keywords because new information was retrieved as the process went on. After searching the creators name, I went back to my results of the keyword "Origin of Youtube" because of the vast amount of information retrieved. The second displayed entry was actually a video from netgaum.com that showed how the creator of this website came up with the idea. This is different in the area that it is more of a visual way to obtain information. Its composition basically proves the emergence of Web 2.0 technology. Another source of information that I found with the keyword "Origin of Youtube" comes from a website called Originof.com. I believe this is a great source of information because it includes a brief historical background on Youtube that I may be able to use in my introduction or conclusion for my final essay. This website also contains other Web 2.0 applications that I believe others students will use for their topics such as Facebook, Myspace, and Napster. I would not be surprised if this was a highly used website.

After I used the popular search engine Google, I then gave Askjeeves a try. I have never really used Askjeeves before so I decided to use it after hearing about it during class. I figured, based on its name that you search in a question type fashion. So my first search included the question "Why was Youtube created." One entry headline that quickly caught my attention was listed as "Who created Youtube and Why?" from funadvice.com. This website didn't include the information I thought it would have. It was a forum type website where a user created a thread listed as "Why was Youtube created and Why?" This was the first source that I found that I would definitely not use in my final essay because it is not credible information. It just includes random peoples own information. I also shouldn't have even bothered clicking on it's link based on the websites name, "FunAdvice.com." While on AskJeeves I decided to disregard my search through the use of question type keywords. I needed to find more information regarding its financial situation. I decided to just use the keyword "Youtube Inc." I found exactly what I was looking for and actually learned that Google bought Youtube. I aquired this information from the website infoworld.com. This website included an article regarding Google's deal to buy Youtube. This is a very good article that I will most definitely use in my final essay. Since I found this very useful source with the keyword "Youtube Inc," I decided to continue finding sources under it. I came across an entry that was from TheWashingtonPost.com. As soon as I saw this I knew it was going to contain a large amount of information. When I clicked the Askjeeves entry link, it brought me to a page that contained all of the Washington Post news articles written on Youtube. Some articles included information on business briefing, marketing, and data releases. Using the keyword Youtube Inc, provided more financial information rather than historical information regarding Youtube.

The last search engine I used was EBSCOhost. Since this is a library source, I decided to just search the word "Youtube" because of the possibility of a small amount of sources. EBSCOhost provided me with a large amount of information. There wasn't too much on its history but I came across an article by Michael Learmonth from the source "Advertising Age." It was about John McCain's use of Youtube for his political campaign. I thought that including politics in my essay would help the overall diversity of topic discussion. I also came across an Anti-Youtube article from the source "BusinessWeek." This article could be also used in my essay to state the negative effects Youtube is pushing on other companies such as Best Buy. The last article that I found very helpful under EBSCOhost was another political one. "Online Parody Videos, Intertextuality, and Political Participation" provides information on the effects youtube can have on political participation. Overall EBSCOhost in comparison to Google and askjeeves provide more scholarly and credible sources that I can incorporate in my final essay. I also found that using a broader keyword was more helpful in this search engine than the others.

Michael Zimmer states that the Internet is a remarkable resource for research and is a huge national library.(Zimmer, 2008) This statement has been proven to me after my use of two common search engines and our school library search engine. I found that each search engine with different keywords generate various amount of information of all areas, Financial, historical, and even political. I found that google is the most usefull, askjeeves is the most confusing and EBSCOhost is the most valid. In the end, Zimmerman's statement that the Internet is a huge national library stands true.



O'Reilly, Tim (2005. What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Retrieved August 21, 2008 from http://oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web.html.

Whitaker, Jason. (2002). The Internet: The Basics (Chapter 1). New York: Routledge.

Learmonth, Michael. (2008). Advertising Age 00018899, 10/6/2008, Vol 79, Issue 37.

Tryon, Chuck. (2008) Pop Politics: Online Parody Videos, Intertextuality, and Political Participation. Popular Communication. Vol. 6 Issue 4, p209-213, 5p

Lowry, Tom. (2008). The Anti-Youtube is Starting to Click. Business Week. 10/6/2008 Issue 4102, p52-52, 1p, 1 color.

Searching - Issues of Privacy

Today I was assigned the reading "The externalities of search 2.0: The emerging privacy threats when the drive for the perfect search engine meets web 2.0" by Michael Zimmer. This article's main focus falls upon the downside of Web 2.0's quest for the "Perfect search engine." This downside as stated by Zimmer, can be illustrated as Search 2.0's ability to "Accumulate personal information and build personal profiles of its users in order to satisfy their needs and wants for their future searches."

Zimmer states that "The perfect search engine" generates pin-point results to users based on the websites they have visited and keywords they have used in their past searches. These pin-point results are mainly due to what Zimmer states as, "The perfect reach" and "The perfect recall." "The perfect reach," as I have previously stated, generates results due to the user's history on the web. For example; If I were to shop on an online website for Nike sneakers, Web 2.0 will be able to accumulate this information about myself. It will know I have purchased, searched, and was even interested in Nike sneakers. This results in what Zimmer states as "The perfect recall." Web 2.0 is able to recall that I may prefer the brand Nike for my choice of sneakers. This collection of information about myself may come in handy on a future search for sneakers or the brand Nike.

Zimmer also talks about advertising towards a certain person's interests based on the information Web 2.0 is able to accumulate. I have viewed this first hand on the Web 2.0 application, Facebook. Facebook is composed of personal profiles which lists their interests. If I listed that one my interests was "Weightlifting," I would receive many ads on my Facebook about available gyms in my location, tips on strength gain, and exercise equipment for low prices. This is all due to the emergence of Web 2.0's ability to accumulate personal information and create profiles on its users. It knows what you have searched, your interests, and what you have purchased.

Although the "Perfect search engine" generates perfect search results that relate to the users needs and wants, it still accumulates a lot of the user's personal information. I have previously stated that this is the downside to the development of "The perfect search engine." I still agree with this statement because as the title even states, it is still a "Privacy threat." Zimmer makes a very good statement that "The fear that a users personal information may fall in the governments lap"(p. 6, para. 4.) may occur. Having the web know too much about us may be dangerous in areas of scam and fraud, which is actually occuring in our present day.

Zimmer, Michael. (2008). The externalities of search 2.0: The emerging privacy threats when the drive for the perfect search engine meets Web 2.0. First Monday, 13. Retrieved August 21, 2008 from http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2136/1944.

What is Web 2.0

Today I was instructed to read "What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. This reading was retrieved August 21, 2008 from http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html. This article illustrates the evolutional difference between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. Which is that we have moved from an era of using platform devices such as packaged software applications to the use of web applications.

O'Reilly gives various examples of differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 regarding this. But the most important and easy to understand is his use of Netscape and Google. He states that Netscape "Framed the web as a platform and was the flagship product of the web browser"(O'Reilly) This was Web 1.0, the basis of the web before it evolved from software to using web applications. These web applications, as stated by O'Reilly, "Include Google which was never sold or packaged, but delivered as a service."(O'Reilly) These delivered services emerged Web 2.0 into what it is today. Giving users access to millions of websites with the use of one web application. This is known as Chris Anderson's "Long Tail." The Long Tail refers to the "Collective power of small sites that make up the bulk of the web's content."(Anderson) This statement just proves how much more evolved Web 2.0 is than Web 1.0. The Internet is massive in size and is still growing. Web applications like Google are able to provide more for its user than the old platform because it is able to "Reach to the far distances of the Internet, not just the center."(O'Reilly)

This article mostly consisted of how web applications changed "The platform," which was the old use of software. O'Reilly used many examples such as Double click vs. Overture, Akamai vs. Bitorrent, and mp3.com vs. Napster, and Netscape vs. Google. I believe that Netscape vs. Google is the benchmark for this whole Web 2.0 emergence because of the vast amount of information Google can obtain from the Internet. O'Reilly provides very good examples in describing Google. Such as using Chris Anderson's "Long Tail." I thought the use of it was very key in this article and helped illustrate the importance of not just Google but web applications overall. These have changed the way we use the web now and it has evolved Web 1.0.

O'Reilly, Tim. (2005). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Retrieved August 21, 2008 from http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html.

Cops 2.0 IRC Chat (Essay 2)

Over the past couple of weeks, I have observed a specific Internet Relay Chat. An IRC is a social medium that allows users to chat amongst each other synchronously. Although there are many IRC's available on the Internet, I chose to observe one that I am very familiar with and have a strong interest in. This IRC is known as "Cops 2.0." This social medium works in congruence with the television show "Cops" on G4TV. At the bottom of this television show is a box that contains information regarding what is occurring in the episode. It asks a variety of questions that allows users in the IRC to answer. When the user answers the questions pertaining to the episode, the host then chooses these specific answers randomly to display in the information box at the bottom of the television show. From what I have observed, I have seen many users act as "Free riders" who answering questions in a spamming fashion. These "Free riders" are taking away the enjoyment and interests of those who want to use the IRC correctly, and for those who want to discuss the police activity occurring on the episode.

The reading "Managing the Virtual Commons: Cooperation and Conflict in Computer Communities" by Peter Kollock and Marc Smith gives a very good description of what a "Free rider" does in these social media. Kollock and Smith both state that "Free riders" contribute useless information to the social media in order to obtain a public good. A public good, as stated by Kollock and Smith, "Is a resource from which all may benefit."(p.110) In the Cops 2.0 channel, the free riders answer questions in a jokingly spamming fashion in order to get their answers up on the information box on the television show. In other words, they are trying to get their humorous answer displayed on television by overriding many other's answers. The free riding that occurs in this situation, is the consistent spamming of idiotic answers and the public good that they are trying to obtain is their displayed answer on television. The problem here is that the questions that are being asked are relating to the police activity that is occurring in the episode of Cops. I have seen this occur in all five of my observation days. For example in my first day of observation on Septemeber 16th, the question "How would you clear a room?" was asked. This was asked because during the episode the Police needed to vacate a room where a crime has occurred. So I expected people to answer that question with answers like "Call in the K-9 Unit" or "Call for backup to vacate the premises." Instead you saw answers like "I'd call Arnold," "Throw a gas bomb," and "With my mutt." All these answers were displayed on television because they were constantly spammed, so the host randomly selected them because of the vast amount answered in the chat. During my final day of observation on September 23rd, I decided to answer a question in regard to what was occurring in the episode in a non-spamming fashion. The question "How would you handle this situation?" was asked. I stated, "I would call my superior, tell him my situation, and follow his orders." As i posted this answer, it was quickly overrun by the idiot spammers and was not displayed on television. This is very similar to Professor Stromer-Galley's blog post, titled "Experimenting with IRC." She stated that during the experimentation, users were not discussing anything, but just random things were being posted. She stated that she tried asking questions in order to refocus the discussion, but she was mostly overridden by the free riders who were posting nonsense. This is very similar to my answer being overridden by the free riders for a spot on television.

Although the reading by Kollock and Smith did not provide examples of free riders existing in Internet Relay Chats, my observations are still comparabe to what had occurred in Usenet. Kollock and Smith both state that "No central Authority manages Usenet"(p.111) Kollock and Smith had mentioned that Usenet free riders would post long articles and meaningless off topic spam in order to obtain the public good. During my observations, specifically the first, I noticed a lot of users getting booted from the channel when they answered the questions with curse words. This is the only central authority I saw within the channel. It still allowed users to spam meaningless information just like Usenet. I also found in my observations that there were no regular users who try and regulate the conduct displayed in the chat. As stated by Kollock and Smith, this is something that Usenet has in order to try and eliminate the free riders. They mention "Each contribution is passed throughout the system of interconnected hosts."(p.111)

Although this problem may not exist in other IRC channels, or may be declining as time progresses, but from my observations I have found that the Cops 2.0 IRC channel contains a majority of these free riders. These free riders ruin the channel for the people who want to use it correctly, in their own selfishness. It is very hard participate in the IRC channel when people aren't answering questions in regard to what the episode is portraying. I believe that these free riders give the channel a bad name and may discontinue users who want to use it correctly.

Blibliography

Kollock, P. and Smith, M. (1996). Managing the virtual commons: Cooperation and conflict in computer communities. In S. C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives (p. 109-129). Philidelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

http://www.g4tv.com/cops.chat.html

http://com430z.blogspot.com/
Stromer-Galley, J. (2008). Experimenting with IRC

Observation Day 5

Last night was my final day of observing the Cops 2.0 IRC chat. This observation contained all the similar aspects that I have been talking about in my past blog entries. Once again a question was asked that related to what was occurring in the episode. The question was "How would you handle this situation?" Many users then began spamming idiotic answers like "Use my sword," and "Shoot everyone in the room, point blank in the head." These users are anwering this way for the sole purpose of trying to be funny. But once again, it had nothing to do with police activity or answering the questions correctly. This observation, once again contained nothing but spammers and free riders. This time I decided to answer correct answers that related to the activity displayed on the episode in a non spamming fashion. I answered the question of "How would you handle this situation?" with, "I would call my superior, tell him my situation and follow his advice." As I posted this, it was overrun by the idiot spammers and it never displayed on television.

Observation Day 4

Last night I viewed the 9:00 PM showing of Cops 2.0. The IRC chat was very similar to the 3 other days of obvservation. So this time I decided to compare the amount of female to male users. Although these were alot of neutral names that could go either way, I was still able to find some females in this chat. Some user names include: "Michelle112", "Roxxy14pl", "Instagirl", and "msladymaz." Although these are feminine names, it doesnt provide enough evidence of their gender. There were also some users with masculine names. Some include: "Steveklj", "KidPoker", and "BatmanDNight." This also does not provide enough evidence of their gender. Many users like myself also had neutral names like, "Kardian24." This user names consists of my last name and my favorite number. It could be any type of gender. I only focused on these things during this observation, and will go more into depth on it in my final essay.