NET11 Topic 2.2: Wikis

Wikis are a fantastic collaborative tool.  Essentially a database-driven series of webpages that are hypertextually linked, each page can be edited by anyone with permission.  Open wikis such as the massive online encyclopedia Wikipedia.org  allow anyone to edit and save content to any page.  In this way the knowledge of everyone who uses it can become available to everyone.  Users can correct mistakes in others' information.  Business is increasingly harnessing the power of wikis for collaborative projects.  Unlike email, which spreads information across each user's inbox, the wiki can be edited by all, and viewed by all at the same time.  Changes can be logged and accessed to see where addition and subtractions have been made.  Links which create new pages allow the wiki to grow organically, as users see fit.  Links to existing pages allow paths to be followed to related information.

Activity 1.
We were instructed to read through the Wikipedia editing tutorial and practice writing and formatting in the 'sandbox'. By a short description you can log the change you made, which records either your username or your IP address.  Each page of content has a corresponding permanent record of all the changes that has been made to that page.  There is also a discussion page 'behind' each page of content where editor can discuss potential or existing changes to the content.

Activity 2.
Go to Wikipedia and locate a topic that you know something about.  Find something that you believe is missing from the article or that you think should be changed.
Make the change and/or addition. (Don't forget to log the change you have made)
Return to the page later in the week to see how the community has responded to your input.

I made a small addition to the page about kitesurfing.  Changes were logged here. 


READINGS

danah boyd's article 'Wikipedia, academia and Seigenthaler' on the group blog Many 2 Many highlights an argument that was raging in 2005 between academics and 'pro-Wikipedians'; academics believed it was full of mistakes and a blight on our schools, whilst those on the other side of the fence believed it to be 'the essential collection of knowledge, meant to replace school books and other refereed knowledge containers'.  boyd points out Jimmy Wales' point that Wikipedia was originally created (and remains) an encyclopedia.  boyd states 'it should be the first source of information, not the last'. 

NET12 Topic 1.4: Games: At Work, No One Knows I am a Wizard.

Q: Discuss in the tutorial your personal experience of games. It may be difficult to give a really full account, but try to remember the games you played as a child on the street, in your home. Include all sorts of games (e.g. cards, tic tac toe, hopscotch). Were there people that you tended to play with? What about nowadays, what type of game player would you classify yourself? An enthusiast, casual or occasional gamer? Why do you play games, if you do, and what part do they play in your daily life?

One of my earliest memories of group games was 'Catch and Kiss'! In kindergarten we played this nearly every day. There were few or no rules; you chased, you caught, and if you were then brave enough, you planted a quick peck on your captive's cheek. This was a fairly non-exclusive group. Any kindy kids could play. The next couple of years of school saw the evolution of role-playing games such as 'Baddies and Goodies'. The complicated system of rules eludes my memory today but I remember that the blance of power was always shifting, I related each day's play in great detail to my family each night (probably to their dismay), and once you had been inducted into one of the groups (Baddies vs Goodies) you could never change. Again, most kids were invited to play. Physical games we played in the playgroung tended to change as fads swept the school; such as Elastics (which seemed to be a girls-only game), where two people stand at either end of a large loop of elastic, holding it taut, while a third jumped in and out of the loop trying not to trip; marbles; British Bulldog (or bullrush) where you ran as fast as you could across the playground while the person who was 'It' tried to tip you. These games were a fun way to burn off energy at lunchtime and socialise with the other kids in your year mostly. The older I got, the smaller the group of kids I played with got. As we developed 'groups' of friends, you tended to play only when them, I suppose this strengthened our social ties and solidified our friendships.

As I grew up I was often given board games as gifts, which I played at home with my parents or with close friends when they came to my house. These included Monopoly, Trivial Pursuit and Scrabble. From an early age I was also instinctively drawn to any type of electronic, and then computer, games. I owned an Atari, on which simple graphical platform games were the go. I can't remember the order that I owned and played them, but I remember loving Frogger and Pitfall. I've got them now on a retro collection for my PSP. At the age of five I was given a Commodore 64. It used tapes and I remember spending many happy hours playing Summer and Winter Olympics. My dad and I played some sort of simple car racing game together. Computer gaming was something I predominately did by myself though.

As a teenager I discovered SimCity. This was perhaps my favourite game of all. I believe iscovering simulation-based games cemented my future as a gamer. I played this constantly for a few years, fascinated by the way that it all interacted. I also loved role-playing games like Kings Quest & the hilarious Leisure Suit Larry (though perhaps I was a little young to be playing that one!). A similar game now would be Myst. The graphics were gorgeous and I was fascinated by the multi-dimensional world that you could explore. This was a very solitary pursuit; I do remember not really telling many people that I was into computer gaming because it was seen as geeky and I didn't know any other girls who did it.

Getting into sport distracted me for a few years and there was a 3 or 4 year hiatus where I didn't play much at all, living and travelling around Australia and the world riding horses and often not having a computer or gaming console. In my early twenties (7 or 8 years ago) I bought a Playstation and rediscovered gaming as a hobby (Gran Turismo was one six-month obsession). These were played at home with a couple of friends, housemates or by myself. Over the last few years I have continued gaming on a Playstation, the Wii and tried to get into Second Life. I loved the concept of Second Life, going back I suppose to the old fascination with multi-dimensional worlds to explore, and with the addition of other players to interact with. I didn't really spend enough time playing to develop a group of friends within the game though. Asynchronous games like Scrabulous suit my lifestyle at present; I don't really have a lot of spare time to devote to gaming now with work and study commitments. I play the odd game on my iPhone (Peggle, Bejewelled, Scramble) and occasionally social applications like Farmville and Bejewelled Blitz. You can pick them up and put them down, they are a distraction that you can play for a few moments before getting back to study or work. In my house we have a Nintendo Wii, which I usually only play with other people. Tennis, snowboarding and Mario Kart are current favourites.

I'd call myself a casual gamer. With more time on my hands I think I could easily become more heavily into lots of games! I have tended to keep away from Second Life, WoW & other MMORPG's because I feel like I could become addicted, and I would feel guilty that I was not spending more time in pursuits that 'achieve' something!

What are the implications of the rise of casual and social games for online gaming and everyday life?

I think social gaming and the readily available casual games like Bejewelled are getting more people into the pastime and there is a type of game to suit everyone's personality and the amount of spare time he or she has. It's becoming more accessible to everyone. With the rise in popularity of social networking, people can see what games others play and this can act as a recommendation to try a particular game. I discovered Bejewelled through seeing an update on a friend's Facebook page. Like Hyatt, I believe casual and social gaming is changing society's perception of computer gaming from a geek pursuit into something more mainstream and acceptable.

Is it fair to say online gaming is more a part of everyday life in Korea than, say, Australia? Discuss reasons for the unique aspects of Korea's gaming. Classify the reasons presented by others in both the comments and the blogs, e.g. technological infrastructure, cultural, etc.

Certainly from Brooks' article it appears gaming is widely and publicly accepted in Korea. The stadium-gaming style one-on-one match complete with commentator and crowd of spectators is unlike anything I have ever heard of in Australia. Big Al's comment about young Korean couples often living with their parents, therefore not having the home environment to hang out in and to use for gaming, is interesting though because if the gaming was being carried out in private then perhaps it would not have been so widely adopted and accepted. I believe that the more mainstream an activity such as gaming becomes, automatically the more acceptable and 'everyday' it becomes. It's almost a 'chicken and the egg' scenario. Certainly if gaming is more public, then even to those who don't participate themselves it is still an entertainment option that they are seeing around them (in the PC Bangs and on the street) so it must seem an 'everyday' activity. In Australia, you don't see groups of people in shopfronts everywhere playing WoW. Unless you pay attention to online trends or are interested in gaming you could be forgiven for not even knowing it exists. It would certainly not be considered 'everyday' to my parents.

NET12 Topic 1.3 Health: What My Doctor Didn't Tell Me! Activities

Select a particular health topic that interests you for any reason (it could be a friend or relative's medical condition, for instance).  Find out more about the topic using the Internet. While you are doing this, note down the main ways you'll begin looking and your process of selecting useful sites.  What are the criteria by which you'd select sites?

 

OK, I've selected breast cancer.  I will start my search by googling for a national Australian non-profit organisation.  I'm already pretty sure there is one. The reason I am looking for an Australian organisation is that I feel it will have the most relevant information to sufferers in Australia.  I'm looking for a large organisation with credibility, a respected reputation, the backing of respected medical institutions and one who conducts independent research programs (to further the search for a cure) because I want to find out about the cutting-edge of treatments for the condition.  I'm also looking for government organisations because I feel they would be long-standing, well-funded and likely to have a lot of credible information and statistics.

I've come across www.nbcf.org.au , the National Breast Cancer Foundation.  Looking through their corporate information and FAQ shows .

I've also found a government-funded organisation's site, the National Breast and Ovarian Cancer Centre (NBOCC), which is "Australia’s national authority and source of evidence-based information on breast and ovarian cancer" according to the site.  These are sites I would trust, not only for the reasons above, but because their websites have comprehensive information about the personnel involved, contact information, their mission statements and goals; they appear to cover all the bases.  Not to mention the massive online reserve of information, downloadable resources and fact sheets, and links to other more specialised resources.  There are signs and symptoms, without being super-specific, encouraging women (or men) who experience the symptoms to see a doctor.

How would you say your knowledge of the topic has changed in the course of this research?


I had no idea such a massive amount of information about this condition was available online.  It's incredibly detailed and covers the full spectrum of the disease from symptoms and diagnosis, treatment, the effects on your life and your family, and outcomes.  Not to mention all the fundraising, research and support.  The sites I chose after doing a few different searches ended up being the top-listed ones in a Google search; the most popular and relevant? The disease I chose was not really one that lends itself to online or self-diagnosis and self-treatment so I did not really find any sites that offered this; I think it's well accepted that you need to see a professional when you have any type of cancer!  There is lots of 'apomediary' information available, from support groups, to sufferers sharing knowledge around too.

NET12 - Health: What my doctor didn't tell me.

How many people here have gone into the doctor and said 'I looked up my symptoms online, and I'm pretty sure I have x, I read that y is the best treatment, so could you please prescribe me some of that?'

I've actually been guilty of this, a couple of times. It can be very hard to get a doctor's appointment in the small town I live in, and there is often a wait of two weeks for non-serious complaints.  I suppose you could call me a bit of a hypochondriac when I feel sick, I always worry it's always something serious! So, considering myself a fairly adept researcher, I have searched online to get an idea of what might be wrong.  In the first instance the doctor agreed with me, and on the second he didn't.  He said that it can be a double-edged sword, trying to self diagnose yourself, because all of the factors (for example, symptoms, family history, general health) need to be considered in relation to each other to achieve a likely diagnosis.  Health professionals are just that, professionals who have studied and learnt a great deal and are considered experts.  Doctors are human though; they can make mistakes. I have been to a couple of dodgy medical centres in my time when unable to get an appointment with my regular doctor.  One particularly terrible experience ended up with me in hospital, after a doctor (who ended up not being particularly knowledgeable about a specific condition) switched my medication to another type without the proper withdrawal periods being observed.  In the end I found that information readily available on the pharmacological information sheets available on the internet. He just hadn't read it, through lack of time or perhaps innattention, I will never know.  So my conclusion is that you need to let professionals do their jobs and place a fair amount of trust in what they say being reliable; but it doesn't hurt to make attempts to educate yourself where possible and to be sure you are on the right track treatment-wise.

I would say I actually trust other, ordinary people in a similar situation more than an expert, but what does everyone else think?

People suffering a particular condition who may have spoken to a number of doctors, pharmacists and other health professionals are going to have a range of sources to call on when you talk to them about that condition.  Perhaps they have made judgements on some of those opinions and consider them 'right' or 'wrong'. It's hard to say definitely one way or another whether they would be more or less knowledgeable (or possessing of correct information anyway) than your average doctor who has had to learn about many many conditions and would probably follow accepted industry standards as to how to diagnose each condition.  In some cases maybe the individual sufferer/ordinary person who has educated themselves about their condition from a range of sources might be more trustworthy to me.

Do you use apomediaries when you research your health?
I haven't in the past; but having learnt about the types of apomediaries that are out there during the studying of this unit I probably would in the future.  One example is the thyroid sufferer and apomediary Mary Shoman.

I'm also curious to hear what people think about the privacy issues raised in Eysenbach. Do you have qualms about openly discussing health matters online and having them come back to haunt you?
I think it depends on the health problem! Some types of health issues are considered taboo in most public conversations; if you had a particularly nasty STI you probably wouldn't discuss it at work or on the bus, would you?! and if you are identifying yourself in any way online there is a chance (perhaps only remote) of people finding out that you otherwise wouldn't want people to know.  So I wouldn't discuss that sort of thing openly online.  I might discuss more 'socially acceptable' health issues, that I would otherwise not mind everyone knowing about.

NET12 Topic 1.2 - Music: I Want My MP3 - Activities

1. What role does music play in your life and does it mesh with any of the practices and meanings described in the readings?
I seem to go through phases where I listen to a LOT of music and really get into learning about new artists and finding less common types of music to explore.  I always enjoy listening to music when I do it, it's like I get out of the habit of doing so sometimes though.  I'm sure it's a time thing.  When I was single, I had more time to organise music, make sure my iPod had all my favourites on it or what I was currently listening to, and there was more time at home where I simply had music playing in the background (I don't really watch much TV).  It seems as half of a couple you only have your choice half the time and in my current coupled-situation he would rather watch sport on TV!  Of course when single I went out more with friends too and that usually involved listening to music, in bars or pubs.  I also went to more music festivals.  Right now i'm listening to the radio during the day in my workplace, and that tends to be a popular commercial station that the most people are happy with, and I listen to music of my choice at home whilst studying.  Sometimes we might put on music whilst entertaining friends or having dinner.  My tastes are fairly unexciting! I like a lot of music that you would call pop.  I have a few Australian rock music favourites, and the odd few bands that you would not expect thrown in there as well.

Are your tastes shared with other people or groups that you are in contact with?
I have some friends who are heavily into what i'd call 'alternative' music, and a couple that are into all things country, but broadly i'd say that most of my friends are into similar music to me.  Different age groups seem to have different tastes, like your parents and their friends don't usually like the same music that you do.  My partner is heavily into black afro-american soul music from the 60s/70s.

How do you usually 'pick up' a musician/band or song?
I go to music festivals and listen to the radio, then search out the band's music online to hear a sample before usually purchasing online.  I don't buy physical CDs.  I sometimes buy an old vinyl record from a second hand store.

Do you download music, watch videos with music, reveal your tastes in online profiles and applications?
Yes to all of the above! Downloading is by far my primary means of sourcing and getting music.  For a couple of reasons; it's faster than physically going out and buying it, it's cheaper, and more portable across different devices and places to listen to.  I will sometimes watch a music DVD or have a music video playing on the TV as background at a party or doing the housework! I don't personally buy them though. I do reveal my tastes online, in a limited way by becoming a Facebook fan of bands i like, or RSVPing to an event for a band on Facebook.

2.  We were asked to explore MySpace.  MySpace is a social networking website.  MySpace became the most popular social networking site in the United States in June 2006 according to Mashup.  MySpace was overtaken internationally by its main competitor, Facebook, in April 2008, based on monthly unique visitors (ComScore 2008) Originally destined to be a similar type of social networking vehicle to Facebook, MySpace is more customisable but does not include the third party applications and games that has made Facebook so popular.

NET11 Topic 2.1 - Into The Blogosphere - Activities

The first activity for this topic was to discuss the following questions on the discussion board.

1. The early days of blogging were extremely optimistic about the potential of blogs to give everyone who wanted one a voice and a venue to publish.  Now that blogging is over a decade old, to what extent have these early predictions come true?
   
   
   
2. Rettberg talks about blogs facilitating ‘distributed conversations’ and even ‘distributed communities’; what do you understand these terms to mean?

The second activity was to select a method of receiving RSS feeds, either via a desktop RSS reader or an online news aggregator.  I have chosen both, with the desktop reader (NetNewsWire) synching with my online aggregator (Google Reader).  Over the course of the week we were to choose six or more blogs that we were interested in reading and to subscribe to them.  I have subscribed to the following blogs:

• Apartment Therapy
• The Life of Luxury
• Mashable
• Apophenia
  
• Perez Hilton
• Rebecca's Pocket
  

NET11 Readings - Topic 2.1 : Into the Blogosphere

I found the two set readings for this topic really interesting.  An excerpt of Rebecca Blood's Rebecca's Pocket provided a history and predictions for the future of blogging, from the year 2000.  The emergence of blogging as an accessible tool for the general internet user was just beginning to take effect.  The most common types of blog were changing.  Blood comments interestingly on the effects of blogging on the blogger; making him/her more confident and able to express his thoughts and ideas articulately. A 'community of 100 or 20 or 3 people may spring up around the public record of his thoughts'.  Blood talks about the consequences of this phenomenon; met with friendly voices in response, the blogger begins to trust his/her own opinions and instinctively becomes more reflective as opposed to reactive, and consider his/her own ideas more worthy of attention.  He/she will grow 'impatient with waiting to see what others think before he decides, and will begin to act in accordance with his inner voice instead'.  Thus blogging is a pathway to self-development and a way to make sense of the cacophony of information that constantly assaults us in this media age.  Blogs empower individuals.

In 'Blogging' by Jill Walker Rettberg 2008 (ch. 3 p57-83), Rettberg explores the phenomenon of social networking. She asserts blogging is a sort of 'free-form' type of social networking, through the way bloggers tend to read other blogs, and link to them; this way communities form. The theory of 'weak ties' (Mark Granovetter 1973) is explored; what this attempts to explain is that weak ties (or less strong friendships) between individuals are more important in the dissemination of information than strong ties.  The theory is that people with strong ties, or strong friendships, are more likely to possess the sa,e or similar information.  Acquaintances, or people with whom you have 'weak ties' are more likely to possess different information to that which you possess.  In the social network, a single person or 'node' may have strong ties to you but weak ties to another completely different network.  In this way new information can be introduced into your network.  Rettberg provides definition to the terms 'synchronous-' and 'asynchronous-conversations', such as a face to face chat (synchronous) and posts in a discussion on a forum (asynchronous).

The concept of publicly articulated conversations is simple.  Social networking conversations on the web, through blogs or sites like Facebook,  are persistent (meaning they exist after the conversation has actually taken place, perhaps even permanently with archiving of content taking place).  They are searchable, meaning that those outside of the intended participants in the conversation can find the details of it long after it occurred.  These interactions are being carried out in the public sphere.  Two other fundamental characteristics Rettberg identifies of the concept are reblicability (photos, conversation, videos etc can be copied and modified do there is no way of telling them apart from the original) and invisible audiences (you don't know who is reading your page or your blog; it could be your friends, your mother or your boss).

The concept of colliding networks is also simple; groups or networks in your social circle that once would have remained quite seperate and happily so (for example, your friends and your family, or your bosses at work) are now starting to be visible to each other.  There are some ways to restrict visibility of parts of your profile or some of your posts online (depending on the site you use), but this is cumbersome to navigate.

Finally Rettberg talks about the emerging nature of social networks.  It is an evolving phenomenon, and perhaps in the future it will be obvious that we are only at the very inception of what it will one day evolve into.