Week 2 Participation

This week I completed the following tasks for class participation:

• Completed all week two assigned readings.
• Posted three blog entries (this makes four).
• Read all my classmates' blogs and the official class blog.
• Read discussion board content.
• Researched flash mobs, viral communication, and watched some fun, related YouTube videos.
• Searched for information on "pro-ana/mia" communities (as was referenced in Shirky) and other pro-self-harm social communities.
• Looked into Diigo and what it does. Although I know more, I'm still not entirely clear on how to use it, or pronounce it.

For those interested in learning more about Diigo, try checking out this slideshare presentation that provides some background. This web site also provides many related videos such as a "Diigo tutorial" and "Diigo in Education."

It was difficult for me to keep up this week because I spent 5 days in airports and hotels where I was asked to pay $15+ per day for Internet which my budget does not allow. Next week I hope to be overall less research-oriented and more interactive.

Solving Social Dilemmas

Chapter 8 of Here Comes Everybody titled “Solving Social Dilemmas” especially struck a chord with me this week. From the reading, I felt that Shirky was making the point that Web 2.0 facilitates connectedness among social groups that normally would in some way be ostracized or forced to overcome barriers to prosper. Case in point: the list on page 197 citing 6,757 witches and 1,339 vampires. (Who knew there were so many vampires out there?!)

Putting the supernatural aside, I wanted to look into the positive and negative sides of these kinds of online communities and websites linking social groups that would otherwise be underground due to the nature of their interest and content. Through Google searching, it was rather disturbing to find how many explanatory web sites and message boards exist that aid young women in losing weight, promoting anorexia/bulimia, and posting “thinspiration.” As I delved further into these deviant communities, I also found web sites that provided guides for self-mutilation (e.g., cutting, burning, etc.), and even sites that list recommended methods for attempting suicide based on effectiveness, pain threshold, and more. From what I understand, the powers that be will not shut down these kinds of sites because it infringes on the right to free speech. (In Shirky’s YM example, I’m guessing they were able to shut down their message board because they were a private company.) In my personal opinion however, I cannot help but wonder what good could possibly come from these sites that promote self-harm.

On the other side of the spectrum, there are positive outlets to connect these same groups of people. For those who are looking for self-help to overcome anorexia, self-mutilation, and suicidal ideation there are websites which serve as online support groups. In particular, via Dr. Phil’s blog I was linked to the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline Gallery. This is a website where visitors pick a self-representative avatar and then record their own personal story to be posted on the site. People visit this website to share and listen to stories of hope and recovery. I was impressed that this website allows people to reach out and feel connected but still maintain a level of anonymity. In this example, those with mental illness and their family and friends can overcome stigma and open up a dialogue that may not always be acceptable in real life social settings.

This information serves to reinforce the belief that there are positive and negative sides to every coin and the Internet can be a very dangerous tool in the wrong hands.

Empowerment through Web 2.0

When people talk about Web 2.0, many immediately associate it with social networking web sites like Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, Flickr, blogs, etc., but do not link it with a concrete instrumental purpose. Because of this, I found it especially fascinating in this week’s assigned reading that many oppressed regions and groups have been using Web 2.0 communications to empower their communities.

One particular point of interest is flash mobs. For any readers out there who aren’t already aware, a flash mob is “a large group of people who assemble suddenly in a public place, perform an act for a brief time, and then disperse.” (Thank you, Wikipedia for that fine definition.) In countries that have strict, repressive communication policies such as Internet monitoring, secret police, and so forth it can be very difficult for citizens to exercise free speech or peacefully protest against government. This is where new communication technology such as text messaging and mobile applications comes into play. These applications allow masses to assemble very quickly with little “tracked” planning efforts and allow citizens to participate in protests.

These flash mob protests lead me to examine protesting in the past and potential for the future. It is likely that previous rights movements, such as for women’s rights or civil rights, would have advanced much more quickly with the organizational tools that are available today. Even in the introduction scenario of the Shirky text regarding the crusade to get back a lost cell phone demonstrates how information can now “go viral,” whereas in the past everything was dependent on word of mouth. I can only imagine the innovative ways in which groups will take advantage of this technology in the future, and adversely, the measures government will take to combat it.

And just for fun, take a look at this YouTube video of a flash mob of more than 200 dancers in the Central Station of Antwerp Belgium. If you read the caption, you will learn that this was a promotional stunt for a Belgian television program. How would you have reacted if you had been there?

Week 2 Prompt Response

In the words of Bruns, produsage "breaks down the boundaries between producers and consumers and instead enables all participants to be users as well as producers of information and knowledge." Based on this definition, I would not call myself a produser, although I am definitely a consumer of produsage.

When I think of produsage, I think of many people all contributing to a product, project, effort or initiative. Thus far, my Web 2.0 experience has not included this kind of contribution, although I certainly capitalize on these outlets for my own personal use. For example, I do not have a Flickr account, but I have used Flickr images multiple times (with permission) for work or school. I've never edited a Wikipedia article, but I frequently use Wikipedia for lay information, such as a synopsis of the last "LOST" episode. I don't share files on Napster, but I have downloaded music files in the past, especially before this service was regulated.

Typically, the content that I do produse on the web is not the kind that can be added-to or edited. Most of my Web 2.0 exploits have been through social networking sites like Facebook where I broadcast to a very specific audience, usually family and friends, about non-consequential life topics. I guess this kind of posting could very broadly be considered produsage, although it is primarily one-way communication. Why is it that I haven't further engaged in produsage? Personally, I haven't felt the need, and professionally there hasn't been much of an opportunity.

Despite my rather amateur experience with produsage, I think it could have great value in the workplace. Specifically, I like the idea of beginning a document, perhaps through Google Docs, and then having multiple colleagues add to it. This seems like a great way to collaborate with partners in a casual, no-pressure atmosphere unlimited by distance. The concept of produsage has definitely shed light on new ways to work on projects and problem-solve in the future.