COMMENT in response to Matthew Randall's Blog

The following is a response to a post by fellow blogger Matthew Randall entitled YouTube Political Parody and Satire Videos, that was published to his blog on Friday, May 2, 2008:

I love YouTube. It becomes blatantly obvious if you look over my blog. I’m also a fan of political satire. So I enjoyed reading your post Matthew, thanks.

It was great to see someone go beyond the concepts that Bruns has presented us with this semester. Your discussion of the public sphere, for example, was well supported with relevant quotes from your references (although hyperlinking your references would have been helpful) and demonstrates critical engagement with the information rather than simple regurgitation of unit content. I believe your argument would have been more sophisticated if you had provided actual examples of political parody/satire videos from YouTube. They’re not hard to find! I find Unleashed: Sledge (aka abcaustralia) a great place to start, otherwise the trusty YouTube search function rarely fails to produce something worthwhile.

I must admit however that I was disappointed you did not even mention citizen journalism. Not only does citizen journalism receive considerable treatment on YouTube, but it plays a pivotal part in the contemporary political sphere [Bruns 2008]. Your vague referrals to produsage and produsers don’t quite cut it for me when considering that a hefty amount of the political satire on YouTube (and elsewhere on the internet) comes from citizen journalists. Fellow KCB201 bloggers Brendan, Nat, and Kate all use YouTube examples to support their arguments on citizen journalism and politics. I recommend clicking the hyperlinks and checking them out!

I’m so glad Bangeman’s [2006] concern that YouTube’s rapid success after its introduction in 2005 wouldn’t last has so far proved to be unfounded. Of course this is probably due to the fact YouTube is now corporately supported since Google bought it out in 2006 [Bylund 2006; Sandoval 2006], but I’m not complaining: as long as YouTube produsers are able to upload, view, and respond to posts without restrictive limitations then I am content. Even if these users are politicians, I believe they have just as much right to promote themselves and their campaigns through YouTube. I don’t think this is exploiting YouTube as a medium for the people – it is still the peoples’ choice as to what they watch.

REFERENCES

Bangeman, E. 2006. YouTube's Future (or lack thereof).
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061003-7892.html (accessed May 12, 2008).

Bruns, A. 2008. KCB201 Virtual Cultures: Week Ten Podcast. http://www.slideshare.net/Snurb/kcb201-week-10-slidecast-citizen-journalism?src=embed (accessed May 9, 2008).

Bylund, A. 2006. Google Buys YouTube. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061009-7942.html?rel (accessed May 12, 2008).

Sandoval, G. 2006. Is YouTube a flash in the pan?. http://business2-cnet.com.com/Is+YouTube+a+flash+in+the+pan/2100-1025_3-6089886.html (accessed May 12, 2008).

We are the gatekeepers

Truth.

What is it? How do you define it? Does it even exist in the first place?

I believe truth is whatever you want it to be. It is what you make of it, as simple as what you yourself believe to be true. The real challenges lies in figuring out what we believe in. This is what I see as the outstanding benefit of citizen journalism.

Citizen journalism is not a new phenomenon. Predating even the photocopier and the printing press, it has risen in profile over the last decade thanks to new and emerging technologies, and more specifically; the internet [Bruns 2008]. Citizen journalists finally have a medium where there is an open inflow and outflow of information in which they can freely engage as produsers. The impartiality, neutrality, and non-discriminatory nature of the internet has also reinstated the democracy of media and encouraged us to shake free of traditional closed news processes [Jenkins 2008; Bruns 2008].

Citizen journalists are defined as average, ordinary people, without professional journalistic training, who are using new media technologies as tools to create and distribute material and content that is often alternative to main stream media representations [Glaser 2006; Bruns 2008]. The need for space to host and promote the prodused material of citizen journalists has pushed the global development of independent media centres and popularity of sites like Slashdot, PlasticsNews, Current_TV, OhmyNews, and even YouTube [Bruns 2008]. Much to the despair of professional journalists and traditional news producers [see Farmer 2006], this is clear evidence that humanity is craving a greater level of diversity and independence than media gateways are providing.

Bruns [2005; 2008] calls citizen journalists “gatewatchers”; describing the behaviour of citizen journalists as monitoring the output “gateways” of news publications, media outlets, and other information sources (including government and NGOs). It is from this watching that Bruns [2005; 2008] suggests information is drawn with the intention of re-evaluating, reinterpreting and/or re-contextualising it to produce new media and content that is alternative or corrective to the mainstream. However I believe many people engaging in citizen journalism today are surpassing their roles as gatewatchers, instead becoming gatekeepers.

Citizen journalists, or more specifically investigative journalists, are actively seeking new information, information not made available through traditional media gateways. Pursuits like that of Peter Joseph (see Zeitgeist) or Jeremy Scahill (see the shadow of citizen journalism) are opening new gateways to information otherwise kept under lock and key. The internet facilitates the open publishing of this information, allowing it to be communally evaluated, responded to, and built on in a palimpsestic process [Bruns 2008].

The best part about all of this? Anyone can pursue their own zeitgeist, with the knowledge that they will have the means of legitimately reporting their findings as a citizen journalist in a context in which they can be heard [Katz 1997; Bowman and Willis 2003]. We are in an incredibly privileged position to take charge of our own lives, and discuss and reflect on what is happening around us. We have the means to search for new information, and open new gateways whenever necessary.

We have a right to our opinion, and we have the right to be informed. We also have the right to choose. The right to choose between what we are told is true, and what we actually believe to be true. We hold the keys to make this choice. We are the gatekeepers.

REFERENCES

Bowman, S. and C. Willis. 2003. We Media: How Audiences are Shaping the Future of News and Information. In American Press Institute: The Media Centre, ed. J. D. Lasica. http://www.hypergene.net/wemedia/weblog.php (accessed May 13, 2008).

Bruns, A. 2005. Chapter Two: Gatewatching. In Gatewatching: Collaborative Online News Production, A. Bruns, 11-30. New York: Peter Lang.

Bruns, A. 2008. News Blogs and Citizen Journalism: Perpetual Collaboration in Evaluating the News. In Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage, A. Bruns, 69-100. New York: Peter Lang.

Farmer, J. 2006. Citizen Journalism Sucks. In The Age. http://blogs.theage.com.au/media/archives/2006/10/citizen_journal.html (accessed May 11, 2008).

Flew, T. 2005. New Media: An Introduction. New York: Oxford.

Glaser, M. 2006. Digging Deeper: Your Guide to Citizen Journalism. In PBS: Media Shift, M. Glaser. http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2006/09/digging_deeperyour_guide_to_ci.html (accessed May 11, 2008).

Katz, J. 1997. Birth of a Digital Nation. In Wired, Iss. 5.04. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/5.04/netizen.html (accessed May 11, 2008).

Jenkins, H. 2007. Videoblogging, Citizen Journalism, and Credibility. In The Official Weblog of Henry Jenkins, H. Jenkins. http://henryjenkins.org/2007/03/videoblogging.html (accessed May 13, 2008).

Jenkins, H. 2008. From Production to Produsage: Interview with Axel Bruns. In The Official Weblog of Henry Jenkins, H. Jenkins. http://henryjenkins.org/ (accessed May 13, 2008).

An argument for putting produsage in the dictionary

After reading the first installment of Henry Jenkin’s interview with Axel Bruns I believe I have finally gotten my head around the concept of produsage. More importantly however I now understand why it is useful to have a term that encapsulates a wealth of concepts that essentially embody the same (or very similar) ideas. Let me try and share some of this understanding.

We are witnessing the dawning of a new age, where produsage is being born. Yet many of us remain obliviously ignorant. It amazes me that people still cling avidly to traditional business and communication models when there is such a dominant consensus that humanity is moving beyond the previously separate forms of producer, distributor, and user/receiver/consumer [Flew 2005; Bruns 2007]. The emergence and adoption of technologies like open source software (see also OSI) and Web 2.0 are enabling each of us to realise our potential as involved, interactive, and intelligent participatory beings [Jenkins 2002; Bruns 2008]. Slowly, we are becoming consciously aware of our new reality.

In short, for those of you who don’t know (or have never heard of) what produsage is, it is an umbrella term coined by Axel Bruns that describes the overarching new trend of user-led content creation/production. Common examples of produsage include wikis (particularly Wikipedia), open source software (like FireFox and Linux), citizen journalism, and online gaming communities (see Second Life and/or The Sims and/or W.O.W). Produsage.org defines produsage as the act of produsers (a hybrid of the words production and user), and has identified four key principles that are prevalent in all produsage environments:

• open participation and communal evaluation
• fluid heterarchy and ad-hoc meritocracy
• unfinished artifacts and continuing processes
• common property and individual rewards

For greater depth and exploration of these principles please see Produsage.org or Bruns’s companion book Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life and Beyond: From Production to Produsage.

Jenkins [2008] has described the term produsage as “somewhat awkward” while others (myself previously included) have wondered whether it is just another industry related buzz word that will fizzle into nothing. Either way this lack in eloquence does not diminish the need for an alternative way to express the resurgence of commons-based approaches to production and use that is occurring [Bruns 2007; Produsage.org]. Perhaps it is this awkwardness, or because we are slow in adapting to change, that produsage (the word) has not (yet) taken off. This semester I have been increasingly convinced that “produsage” and “produser” have in fact earned their place our dictionaries, and our vocabularies.

Oxymoronically the shift in the information age towards digitisation, convergence, and participatory culture (reflected most significantly in the differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0) has been gradual [Bruns 2008; Jenkins 2008]. Lacking a revolutionary upheaval, we have tried to fit these changes and new developments into our pre-existing conceptual frameworks [Dwyer 2005; Venturelli 2005; Bruns 2008]. Unfortunately this practice is largely counterproductive, particularly in an era where innovation is a necessary part of the evolutionary process [Dwyer 2005; Venturelli 2005]. Bruns [2008] insists that “if we continue to use the old models, the old language to describe the new, we lose a level of definition and clarity which can ultimately lead us to misunderstand our new reality”.

Although many of us may not even realise we are taking part in produsage, we all (well, those of us comfortably sitting on this side of the digital divide anyway) have the potential to do so. It is our willingness to share content and intellectual property that makes this “iterative, ongoing, evolutionary process” of produsage work [Bruns 2008]. Our ability to remix, repurpose, and recontextualise available information, as well as contribute our own, is the real power behind the palimpsest of knowledge that is the World Wide Web [Bruns 2008].

Bruns [2008] imparts that “it doesn’t matter so much what we call it in the end, but a term like ‘produsage’ provides a blank slate which we can collectively inscribe with new meanings, new shared understandings of the environments we now find ourselves in”. If understanding our world and the environment in which we operate is generally considered a crucial component in securing a future that we can be optimistic about then I say let’s take the term produsage and run with it. What better time to expand our understanding than now?

Other Bloggers with insightful posts on this topic:

Bre

Brendan

Cassie

Daniel K

Daniel Y

Emma S

Kate

Kato

Lucy

Please also see my COMMENT in response to Megallagher's blog

REFERENCES

Bruns, A. 2007. The Future Is User-Led: The Path towards Widespread Produsage. http://produsage.org/files/The%20Future%20Is%20User-Led%20(PerthDAC%202007).pdf (accessed April 25, 2008).

Bruns, A. 2008. Chapter One: Introduction. In Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage, A. Bruns, 1-7. New York: Peter Lang.

Bruns, A. 2008. KCB201 Virtual Cultures: Week Eight Podcast. http://www.slideshare.net/Snurb/kcb201-week-8-slidecast-produsage?src=embed (accessed April 25, 2008).

Dwyer, J. 2005. Communication Foundations. In Communication in Business: Strategies and Skills, 3^rd ed., J. Dwyer, 3-97. Sydney: Pearson.

Flew, T. 2005. Creative Industries. In New Media: An Introduction, 2^nd ed., T. Flew, 115-138. Melbourne: Oxford.

Jenkins, H. 2002. Interactive audiences. In The New Media Book, D. Harries, 157-170. London: BFI Publishing.

Jenkins, H. 2008. From Production to Produsage: Interview with Axel Bruns. In The Official Weblog of Henry Jenkins, H. Jenkins. http://henryjenkins.org/ (accessed May 11, 2008).

Produsage.org. 2008. From Production to Produsage: Research into User-Led Content Creation. http://produsage.org/ (accessed May 11, 2008).

Venturelli, S. 2005. Culture and the Creative Economy in the Information Age. In Creative Industries, ed. J. Hartley, 391-398. Oxford: Blackwell.

COMMENT in response to Megallagher's Blog

The following is a response to a post by fellow blogger Megallagher entitled Produsage, Generation 'C', and the PR powers that be, that was published to her blog on Thursday, May 1, 2008:

Meg, I admit I was initially drawn to your blog because you are studying the same degree as me and we are both majoring in public relations! I also have a passion for drama, play netball, and love travelling! It’s always nice to find a kindred spirit online.

After reading your post on Produsage, Generation ‘C’ and the PR powers that be I have to say that your concise statement of the difference between produsers and producers is the best explanation I have read to date. It will be taken out of context by reiterating it here but I can’t help it:

“Simply put, producers have a finished product with a tangible name on it, produsers have a developing product which is transient.”

Axel Bruns could not have said it better himself. From this moment of brilliance I am loathe to disparage anything! However I have some minor criticism to make that I will leave for you to decide whether or not to you will take them on board.

Firstly your post would benefit enormously if you hyperlink relevant text. This is a very simple measure, and makes it easier for readers wanting to access the same information as you, or pursue a better understanding of a particular term or concept with the effortless click of a button [Problogger.net]. Here for example you could have linked Bruns to his site Produsage.org, and the pages relating to the key principles of produsage, and produsage as a working definition. The same could have been done for Trendwatching.com.

Secondly I would have loved to have heard your own opinion on produsage a little more. Your post is an excellent summary of produsage from the perspective of Axel Bruns, but does not fully engage with the content. Perhaps with wider reading you could have developed your own argument, as well as integrating your PR focus throughout the post, instead of tacking it on to your conclusion. I suggest any of the work by Yochai Benkler (specifically The Wealth of Networks), Michel Bauwens (see the P2P Foundation), and Henry Jenkins (who were all mentioned in the Week 8 podcast) as well as Charles Leadbeater (particularly Living on Thin Air), Simon Cottle’s News, Public Relations and Power, and the rest of Terry Flew’s book New Media.

Finally, if you are interested in how the changing media landscape is affecting the PR industry I suggest you spend some time exploring PRinfluences.com and/or odwyerpr.com. I have also found the following useful:

Search Engine Lowdown: the search industry queries new media

Top Rank Online Marketing: Online Marketing Blog

Clikz: Creative New Media PR 101

These sources may help you find more relevant and PR specific examples for your blog, as well as expand your knowledge base to give your argument greater complexity.

How Do Communities Evaluate Quality?

Citizen journalism is similar in nature to a peer assessment. Whereby, the quality of content is evaluated by individuals over time who then critique and build upon the existing information, in a snowball like effect. The more attention a post attracts (eg through comments or rating systems) the more credible and transparent a source becomes. It is through this peer assessment process that the reputation of a citizen journalist is built and the quality of the information produced is improved.

As humans it is in our nature to analyse and critique the information we receive. For example, Wikipedia, depsite being disputed as a credible source, studies have found that the information presented is generally accurate and of a reasonable standard (see here). Open participation allows a post to be freely and immediately evaluated by anyone. This may result in either positive or negative feedback, in effect rating the quality of the post. This process is constantly evolving, overlapping and interwoven. As Bruns (2008, 79) states, "citizen journalism is a clear example of fluid heterarchy, ad hoc meritocracy; a fundamental principle of produsage... The community governs itself through a constant process of mutual evaluation through peer commentary and criticism."

By Ella, Nat and Emma.

Reference

Bruns, A. 2008. News Blogs and Citizen Journalism: Perpetual Collaboration in Evaluating the News in Bruns, A. Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage, New York: Peter Lang, 69-100.

COMMENT in response to Brendam's Blog

The following is a response to a post by fellow blogger Brendan Yates entitled Online communities, and the offline hype, that he published to his blog on Thursday, May 1, 2008:

Brendan, while I found your post online communities and the offline hype reasonably well-informed and engaging to read, you made some remarks that I was compelled to comment on.

You question the validity of virtual links and whether these relationships are actual relationships. I believe that virtual links are valid and that the relationships established in online communities are no less “real” than those occurring offline. While there may be a greater capacity for deception online [Sclove 1995; Bruns 2008], this should not detract from the significance and value of relationships built online, especially those built from mutual respect and honesty. While Flew [2005] is a very credible source, your post would have benefited from a wider reading into what elements are conducive to forming a prosperous community. I would suggest Peck’s The Different Drum [1987] and Rheingold’s The Virtual Community [2000]. You may also find my post shaking the stigma stuck to life online relevant.

I also seriously disagree with your statement that “by using the internet to expose ourselves social, we are really hiding behind the digital projection of ourselves, and can end up shutting out real-world physical relationships”. I am not contesting the inability of online relationships to embody a physical connection, or suggesting online communities should usurp offline relationships. However using the internet as a communication tool and medium for social interaction does not mutually exclude what you call “real-world” relationships (for a well reasoned discussion on this see Wellman and Gulia’s article Virtual Communities as Communities).

What is wrong with a person who finds the most enjoyment in life from playing xbox live or second life (see my post why we fear the influences of electronic games), or uploading videos onto YouTube (see my post a revelation of the “real” value in YouTube), or simply hanging out in internet chat rooms? How are these activities any different from (or lesser than) the activities we participate in offline? In online environments there is a much greater scope to explore who we are as people, and find our niche in the pursuit of acceptance and self-satisfaction [Cobcroft 2008; Bruns 2008]. While online communities might not be a “cure” for our social inadequacies they are certainly not “corrupting to people’s lives”. Perhaps read Smith and Kollock’s Communities in Cyberspace [1999], or reread Flew [2005] if you are still wondering on this matter.

REFERENCES

Bruns, A. 2008. KCB201 Virtual Cultures: Week Six Podcast. http://www.slideshare.net/Snurb/kcb201-week-6-slidecast-online-communities?src=embed (accessed April 10, 2008).

Cobcroft, R. 2008. KCB201 Virtual Cultures: Week Six Lecture. Public Lecture, Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology. April 10, 2008.

Flew, T. 2005. Virtual Cultures. In New Media: An Introduction, by T. Flew, 61-82. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Peck, M. S. 1987. The Different Drum: Community Making and Peace. 2^nd ed. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Rheingold, H. 2000. The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Sclove, R. 1995. Technology and Democracy. New York: Guilford.

Smith, M. A. and P. Kollock. eds. 1999. Communities in Cyberspace. New York: Routledge.

Wellman, B. and M. Gulia. 1999. Virtual Communities as Communities: Net Surfers don’t Ride Alone. In Communities in Cyberspace, ed. M. A. Smith and P. Kollock, 167-194. New York: Routledge.

PLEASE NOTE

Due to technical difficulties this comment was unable to be posted directly to Brendam’s Blog and the post online communities and the offline hype. As an alternative I emailed this comment to Brendan for his reference.

The power to change

After listening over the KCB201 Week 6 podcast again in preparation for blogging and our Virtual Cultures assessment, I picked up on the significance of Axel's conclusion to his speil on online communities. It goes something like this:

The true power of community is that if there are enough people that come together who agree on certain things, and agree that certain changes need to be made, then they have the power to change our environment.

I simply wanted to post something about it because something about that statement really hit home with me.

Maybe I'm just being sentimental, but the way I see it is this:

If we can crawl out of the dark pessimistic holes that so many of us are hiding in, and actually do something about the things in this world that need to change, then together we can build a brighter future!

I'm going to continue my love affair with YouTube by posting a video from crossmack who shares my enthusiam about this topic.



Unfortunately he is suffering from from the same dilemma as me - where do I go from here? If you need some inspiration, this is a good place to start.



Viva La Revolution!

How is open source different from commercial production?

In open source the source code is freely and openly available for everyone to view, edit and use, within a limited-rights licence. For example: FireFox and Linux. In the closed source, commercial model, source code remains confidential and must be bought by the end user. For example, the average user cannot access the source code for Windows Internet Explorer; only the in-house software developers are allowed access. The business model for open source software is to provide services to the commmunity, where as closed source's aim is to sell a finished product. The success of open source hinges on the active contribution and interest of users. In contrast, the motivations for the success of closed source production is the fiscal benefit to the commercial production team.

Open source is an example of produsage. Axel Bruns has idenitified three fundamental principles that define the term produsage:

1. Open participation and communal evaluation. Open source software is an example of this because the project is open for anybody to make contributions and evaluate and test its usability, a key feature of web 2.0. The software is continually updated through collaborative participation and new updates are available almost everyday (Bruns, 2008, p42). In contrast, closed source epitomises web 1.0 where users had no ability to contribute to software development. The availability of new closed source software is stagnant and relies on set release dates for 'new editions'.

2. Fluid Heterarchy, ad hoc meritocracy. In open source contributors grow in the community through their esteem and influence on the project. There is no set dictator for the duration of the project. Leaders are fluid and ever changing according to their abilities and the merit of their contributions. In closed source the production development team is subject to traditional hierarchical structures. There is an appointed leader for the duration of the project and each employee has set individual tasks to complete.

3. Unfinished artefacts, continuing process. In open source the project is always under development, continually evolving with no set end date. Whereas commercial production aims at delivering a complete package to meet a set deadline.

By Emma, Ella and Nat.


Reference

Bruns, A. 2008. Open Source Software Development: Probabilistic Eyeballs in Bruns, A. Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage, New York: Peter Lang, pp.37-68.

Re: KCB201 Asmnt2 Criterion Matrix Query

To all my fellow KCB201ers - during tutorials today we had some discussions about the criterion matrix for assignment two - specifically the "evidence of participation in online social networks and critical interaction with peers" section. Below is my email correspondence with Axel:

"Hi Axel,

During my tutorial today there has been considerable debate about interpreting section four of the criterion matrix for assignment two.

It seems to be the understanding of myself and my peers that "evidence of participation in online social networks and critical interaction with peers" related to your comments on other blogs and does not apply to your actual blog entries. Our tutor Thomas has interpreted this section of the criteria as relating to your comments as well as how you link out to other resources in your blog and comment on these resources in the text of your blog.

Could you please clarify this?

Thanks, it’s appreciated by me and my peers!

Ella"

And very prompt response:

"G'day Ella !

Thanks for getting in touch about this. Please also have a look at the way the required standard for this criterion is described for each grade, which might help explain it further:

* at the very basic level, we expect you to engage with your peers via comments on their blogs (and responses to their comments on yours, where appropriate) - what we're looking for here, and what will be seen as evidence of more sophisticated engagement, are constructive and insightful comments and intelligent and respectful discussion: in other words, a mere "I agree" or off-topic remarks won't rate as well as thoughtful responses which promote further discussion between you and with others

* at a more sophisticated level, you'll find that bloggers also often conduct discussion and debate not simply by commenting on one another's blogs, but by posting substantial responses on their own blog which pick up on topics explored by others (these could be your fellow students, or outside bloggers and others authors whose work you have found online) and add significant further original thought - we would see this as evidence of a higher level of social networking and interaction with peers

So, put simply: if you see interesting ideas on someone else's blog and add a comment there, then that's a start (and the more insightful and constructive the comment, the better you'll do as we mark you on this criterion).

If you see someone else's post or article, and this inspires you to publish an original blog post of your own in which you link to and engage in substantial dialogue with their ideas (perhaps even getting a real back-and-forth conversation going), then that's an even more sophisticated way of engaging in critical interaction with your peers.

I hope that helps ?"

And I hope this helps some of you! All the best with everyone’s assessments!

Convergence culture and related technologies

Remembering its a lazy Sunday afternoon, the weather today has been wonderful, but its heated this house like a sweat box and I needed SOMETHING to take my mind of it! So before I really get started on this blog I figure it is probably a good idea to revisit some of the ideas already address in our virtual cultures unit. A thankyou in advance to fellow students, my team mates, Emma and Nat and Bre who helped contribute to this post that is essentially an adaptation and expansion on what we have already disclosed on the KCB201 blackboard discussion board.

Lets begin by discussing a buzz word of the twenty-first century: convergence. In short convergence has had (and continues to have) a huge impact on cultures and societies around the world. Henry Jenkins (2006), debatably the key scholar in this area, has outlined three principle ideas relating to the concept of convergence.

1. MEDIA CONVERGENCE
I’m sure to many people in society (like my parents) the introduction of television does not seem like that long ago. These days tv is spread across not only a traditional television set, but also on your mobile, your computer, your pda, and a variety of other formats. This simple example demonstrates how media content is now spread across multiple platforms.
Much media convergence has been driven by consumer demand to have single devices with multiple functions. This is not to say that we will end up with one all-encompassing device that we can do everything from/with, something that Jenkins (2006) heavily emphasises. Jenkins (2006) notes that the increase in multi-platformed fully integrated devices not being the ultimate technological solution is evident in that the majority of consumers who own multi-function products (eg: a mobile phone) don’t actually use all (or even many) of the other capabilities of the technology. I know for me personally my phone is a reasonably up market model, but there are functions on it I don’t think I’ve even heard of! For me my phone is a way to text and call people, and occasionally take photos with, but that is about it. In contrast, my twin brother uses his phone not just in the way I do but also as an mp3 player, access to the internet, an alarm clock, an organisers… just to name a few!
The circulation of media content across these different platforms depends heavily on user-led active participation and engagement with the content and the platforms it is available from. Perhaps this links back to Jenkins (2006) who argues that there are two different forces behind convergence - consumer led convergence (cultural shifts of consumers seeking new information) and technological convergence (where new technologies become intertwined and we are forced to use multi-function singular devices, rather then multiple single function devices).
2. PARTICIPATORY CULTURE
It is now common knowledge that forces like globalisation have caused a significant increase in international networking and cultures are now beginning to overlap and intertwine as we become increasingly involved in the lives of others (on a local, national, and international scale). Technologies like the internet have encouraged behaviours that promote engagement and interaction with media of all forms, as well as people of all kinds. The barriers to communication have been beaten down, opening our ability to access and connect with the world around us and the people in it.
We are encouraged to source our own information and then share it with others. We are able to evaluate this information and twist it to our own purpose. From this process we are creating new information and building an active knowledge base. Because of participatory culture there is a cyclical process of information that is being enrichened and developed as it is constantly evolving. Users are becoming more active and connected with media. Social networking and interactivity is a key to being involved and simply living. Our participation is changing our culture/s, and we are becoming noisy and very public as a result.
3. COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE
Flowing on from participatory culture is the notion of collective intelligence. There is widespread sharing and collaboration of information, which then turns into knowledge through sharing this information with others. If we look at it from a very basic mathematical perspective, collective intelligence comes down to if we know "A" and share it with another person who knows "B", we now know "A&B". Collective intelligence would not be viable without convergence and culture is very much centred around this collective and shared body of information and knowledge. Convergence is making culture more intelligent, involved, and intertwined.

So where does technology fit into all of this (other than being a tool from which waves of change like convergence are crafted)? We’ve had it hit home by Axel Bruns in his KCB201 lectures over the past couple of weeks: simply, technology is not just a device, or the functions a device, but it is how we use this device and its functions for our own purpose/s that makes technology significant. By being active and using technology to meet our own means we can extend the original functions of the technology and make it our own. This is not to say that the intangible design/concept/idea/philosophy behind the technology (material/physical object) is not important (of course it is!), but the real importance lies in how technology becomes part of our society/culture. If we consider technologies from this perspective it is easier to consider technologies as cultural technologies that are socially constructed and dependent on the user, instead of the traditional philosophy.

I should probably be referencing all those sentences. OK you want more academia, I’ll give it ago. Flew (2005) explores the fact that culture comprises of several different tiers and his book New Media explores in depth the notion that technology is increasingly becoming more than an impacting component on culture, and it is becoming ingrained as a part of cultural forms and development. Flew (2005) states that on a rudimentary level culture is built from physical objects/tools/artefacts and our tangible presence here on earth. Technology, and new technologies, is/are part of this. On this level content and information is produced and distributed through these mediums. From this dispersion of content culture begins to coalesce and form around recipients of this information. This is becoming what Bruns (2008) would call a palimpsestical process! After the cultural foundations are built (which, for the record, are not necessarily static or stagnant bases) our systems of knowledge and the meaning that is socially construed from the culture/s we are immersed in determine the further development and projection of any given culture. Here we can see how technology moves from being on the outside of cultural foundations to being engrained in every level of cultural development.

With that said, if man maketh the technology can technology maketh the man? I don’t think so! We are not defined by the technologies around us because we have the ability to choose how we use these technologies. Sure we may be limited by the technologies abilities, and our own abilities to know how to use a particular function, but this is where the importance of creativity and innovation comes in. Without creativity and innovation in our culture/s and societies around the world we are lost.

REFERENCES

Bruns, A. 2008. KCB201: Virtual Cultures. Queensland University of Technology. Weekly Lecture/Podcast, March 6 - April 3.

Flew, T. 2005. New Media: An Introduction. Melbourne: OUP.

Jenkins, H. 2006. Introduction: “Worship at the Altar of Convergence” in Jenkins, H., Convergence Culture: When New and Old Media Collide, New York: New York University, 1-24.

Some thoughts on Virtual Cultures

Wow ok so I've never blogged before and am doing this for a QUT Creative Industries KCB201 assessment piece.
I'd say most of my blogging to come are going to be long winded and wordy because its what I do. Hopefully something substantial will be able to be extracted out eventually...
So hello and welcome to all you fellow bloggers and especially any KCB201ers out there!

Alright this is not an official post so I'm not going to make a big thing about being scholarly or academic, but I thought I'd post some of my thoughts on KCB201 aka Virtual Cultures content so far this semester. So coming into my third year of studying media and communications some of this stuff has become so familiar to me that I just assume everybody has thought about it, knows about it, wouldn't be confused by it. Apparently not. My parents are both intelligent beings, always open to discussion about life the universe and everything, but I try and talk to them about things like DIKW, convergence, niche markets and hyperlocal(ism?), even something so seemingly simple as the social networking trend, and they look at me like I'm speaking a different language...

Maybe its just my generation, and the new generations coming, we take these things for granted. Things like computers and the internet for example. I mean wow, I can remember the day we got our first family computer. This old clunky grey box with a screen so rounded the picture would be warped from any direction you were looking unless you were sitting directly infront. I remember playing games like commander keen and pod racer. I remember clicking that space bar so hard from jumping and firing that eventually it would rattle if you so much as brushed your fingers against it! I remember the load up screen (with what was it, MSdos or something? Please excuse my technical illiteracy!) and when the technology was so slow but nobody cared waiting for the load up because it was just such an amazing thing. These days I get frustrated when programs dont open instantly, or if it takes more then about 10 seconds to load a new page. Where did my patience go?

I take things like the internet for granted. Its so easy to forget the huge technological divide that our world teters on the edge of. I can understand that if you never have something, never experience it in the first place, then you don't know what you're missing out on to miss it in the first place. But does that make it ok? Will the rest of the world ever catch up? This is not to say they necessarily want to, but in my personal opinion I think that the good that has come from technology such as the internet outweighs any potential harm it may have. Sure people can misuse technology for their own gain and to the detriment of others, but I honestly think the majority of people have atleast a primitive level of moral development that goes beyond that. Atleast I would like to believe that. Maybe I'm too naive or optimistic, but I'd rather have a world full of optimists then pessimists any day.

OK I'll admit this post is really not going anywhere worthwhile, but I'll wrap on regardless - I want to be part of this new participatory culture! I think networks should be encouraged and I think we should all do our bit to contribute to that mass of information continually building out there in the world. So maybe this particular post isn't going to do that, but who knows what is to come. Hopefully next time I log on I will have something profound or insightful to comment on. I'm waiting on some more inspiration.

Or it could be I just like the 'clack-clack' of my typing and the sound of my own voice (in my head ofcourse, dictating to my little fingers tapping away on the keyboard), whether I have something worthwhile to put up here or not...