Texting is something that to me and most people my age, is completely natural. Ever since I have had a cell phone it has been part of my communication to others. However it is now common with everyone who has a cell phone--which is literally almost everyone. My mom and dad are even texting now! I love it. However, there are some down sides to texting.
Texting while driving is something that is becoming a very big issue. More and more accidents are due to texting while driving. People say that it is equivilent, if not worse, than driving drunk. In California, my home state, it is illegal. You can't text or talk on the phone while you drive unless you have a Bluetooth. Personally, I think this is a great rule. I am one of the many people that have been involved in a texting accident. Last November I totalled my car because I was texting and didn't stop intime and hit the car in front of me that was basically completely stopped. It was awful. I was luckily not injured and neither was anyone else, but most people usually aren't so lucky. In an article by Lisajoyce Vergara entitled Texting While Driving: A Major No-No! she says "Cell phones are the number one cause of distracted driving accidents in California. And accidents by drivers using handheld cell phones outnumber those driving hands-free by a ratio of something like 15 to one. The difference between hand-held and hands-free is the difference between life and death".
Another harmful thing that comes from texting is Sexting which is when people send nude or semi nude picture messages to other people. This is becoming more and more common and almost 1 in 5 people have sent these before. In some places they are even considering it to be illegal and a form of child pornography. This is definitely an instance where texting can be taken too far and is not appropriate. Here is a news clip of Sexting.
Although those are some of the harmful effects, there are many good things coming from texting. Texting is an easy and fast way of sending messages to people. We can communicate faster and in any situation. If you are in a meeting where you can't step out to make a call, just text someone. This is giving us another chance to communicate with one another and is enhancing our interpersonal relationships. We are able to communicate more often with people and see how people are doing. You can text people even if you aren't that great of friends and build a relationship upon texting conversations. It is still important to have that face to face interaction, but I think texting can be a comfortable way for people to begin the communication process. Also, you can maintain friendships through texting. If a friend is out of state or far away, rather than spending hours talking on the phone to catch up, you can text more often and get updates from them on how they are doing or what's new in their life. Communication is easier and I believe texting has helped interpersonal relationships for the better.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Monday, April 6, 2009
Digital Divide.
What is the digital divide? The digital divide in many minds is accessibility and people who don't have hardware or software to experience technology. However Warschauer sees it less as "have" or "have not" and more of a problem of social inclusion. As we have seen, giving someone a computer doesn't bridge the gap if they are a poverty stricken country. They still have no idea how to use it. You need to realize the context of the situation and what technological level the people we are providing the hardware/software too are at. This term of "digital divide" sometimes can be considered problematic because of these two meanings--accessibilty or social inclusion.
I think the social inclusion problem needs to be addressed, but the problem is how to address it. There are so many layers that are part of this problem, and all need to be considered. In Warschauer's article, we learn that many times people in poverty are given technology that is not in their language, given no training on how to operate the computer, are using a dial up connection, not even given proper software or hardware, etc. In the New Dehli, India incident they were given 5 computers set up in kiosks but only given a joystick to operate them with. The computer was all in English, which they don't speak. Essentially all they could do with the computer was mess around with Word and Paint or change the background wallpaper of the screen. This is riduculous in my opinion. If they have a computer, they need to be given proper hardware, such as a keyboard, to use it. They need to be able to use it to their full potential. A training session should be given, languages should be changed, etc.
In an article I found by Jide Awe published in Digital Divide Network, he says that "digital concepts are important because the ICT driven world is our reality. If we want to operate at our best in today’s knowledge economy we must exploit the digital environment." This is true. Further in the article, he talks about potention training sessions in Ajuja and Nigeria that could potentially be done. This is a huge step in the right direction as far as closing the digital divide and social EXCLUSION to make it social inclusion.
The technology exists--so why shouldn't everyone be able to benefit from it? This is the direction the entire world is going in and the countries being left out are going to fail if they don't start learning and using the technology we have.
Now relating this to my theme which is interpersonal relationships. If the people in the poor areas of the world were given the opportunity to use technology to it's full potential they could use email, MMOG's, and social networking sites to communicate with other people around the world. They would have the same benefits that all of us have through these technologies. Their interpersonal relationships would grow and be easily maintained through things like this. A potential down side that I do see, however, is that since this is such a contrast to how they were living before, I'm sure the older people living in the same communities as them would be very against it and feel that they are neglecting the people that are around them physically. In Warshcauer's article he also talks about how mothers of children who started playing on the kiosk computers in New Dehli were starting to slack on their school work and it worried them how much time they were wasting on the computers. At that time they were doing such limited activities...if they were using computers to their full potential it is sure to scare the mothers and fathers.
I think the social inclusion problem needs to be addressed, but the problem is how to address it. There are so many layers that are part of this problem, and all need to be considered. In Warschauer's article, we learn that many times people in poverty are given technology that is not in their language, given no training on how to operate the computer, are using a dial up connection, not even given proper software or hardware, etc. In the New Dehli, India incident they were given 5 computers set up in kiosks but only given a joystick to operate them with. The computer was all in English, which they don't speak. Essentially all they could do with the computer was mess around with Word and Paint or change the background wallpaper of the screen. This is riduculous in my opinion. If they have a computer, they need to be given proper hardware, such as a keyboard, to use it. They need to be able to use it to their full potential. A training session should be given, languages should be changed, etc.
In an article I found by Jide Awe published in Digital Divide Network, he says that "digital concepts are important because the ICT driven world is our reality. If we want to operate at our best in today’s knowledge economy we must exploit the digital environment." This is true. Further in the article, he talks about potention training sessions in Ajuja and Nigeria that could potentially be done. This is a huge step in the right direction as far as closing the digital divide and social EXCLUSION to make it social inclusion.
The technology exists--so why shouldn't everyone be able to benefit from it? This is the direction the entire world is going in and the countries being left out are going to fail if they don't start learning and using the technology we have.
Now relating this to my theme which is interpersonal relationships. If the people in the poor areas of the world were given the opportunity to use technology to it's full potential they could use email, MMOG's, and social networking sites to communicate with other people around the world. They would have the same benefits that all of us have through these technologies. Their interpersonal relationships would grow and be easily maintained through things like this. A potential down side that I do see, however, is that since this is such a contrast to how they were living before, I'm sure the older people living in the same communities as them would be very against it and feel that they are neglecting the people that are around them physically. In Warshcauer's article he also talks about how mothers of children who started playing on the kiosk computers in New Dehli were starting to slack on their school work and it worried them how much time they were wasting on the computers. At that time they were doing such limited activities...if they were using computers to their full potential it is sure to scare the mothers and fathers.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Technology and Disabilities.
In class we briefly learned about how people with disabilities can still use technology and how technology can help them and improve their quality of life. Since we didn't really get very detailed in the class discussion, I wanted to do a little bit of research on my own to find out more about it.
I think this topic is particularly interesting because it something that is actually using technology to better the world. Most of the technology we have looked at with new media is just something to benefit our lives, make things more convenient, and save time. However, this is an idea that actually helps others. It's unfair to just let the internet, email, games, social networking, etc. be just for people who were gifted and blessed in their abilities. This is something that, if possible, should be given to everyone, regardless of your physical condition. Another reason I am interested in this topic is because I am amazed that it is even possible for us to create technology that has the ability to do these things and help disabled people. It is hard for me to fathom. I am always amazed by technology and what we have been able to do with it, but this takes the cake for sure. The final reason is because this is something that impacts interpersonal relationships very heavily for disabled people, so this ties in very nicely to my overall theme of my blog.
In Tech Talk 4, we learned a little about Section 508 which was "enacted to eliminate barriers in information technology, to make available new opportunities for people with disabilities, and to encourage development of technologies that will help achieve these goals" (Wikipedia.com).
Essentially Section 508 enables disabled people to interpret and use public websites, chats, emails, etc. It does not require private websites to do so, but all public ones need to follow to guidelines. It can be given the "Bobby" test to see if it is accessable meets the guidelines. I think this is great. Sheryl Burgstahler from the University of Washington wrote in an article Working Together: People with Disabilities and Computer Technology "People with disabilities meet barriers of all types. However, technology is helping to lower many of these barriers. By using computing technology for tasks such as reading and writing documents, communicating with others, and searching for information on the Internet, students and employees with disabilities are capable of handling a wider range of activities independently. Still, people with disabilities face a variety of barriers to computer use. These barriers can be grouped into three functional categories: barriers to providing computer input, interpreting output, and reading supporting documentation. Hardware and software tools (known as adaptive or assistive technologies) have been developed to provide functional alternatives to these standard operations."It includes people with disabilities rather than excluding them, which we so often do. This is something that can and has dramatically changed people's lives and has especially changed their ability to communicate, have a social life, and interpersonal relationships in general. I can honestly say that I see basically no down sides to helping the disabled communities use this technology. The only problem is cost. Much of the supplies and programs needed to operate these things is very expensive.
Now--what exactly does it do? There are several different types of software you can get. It can be adapted in so many ways to accomodate different disabilities. You can use only your mouth, only your feet, your hands (without reaching), or even your eyes. The adaptive technology can be used by blind, deaf, speech impaired, mobile impaired, or even disabilities such as dyslexia. The technology is unbelievable. Some of the programs that are pretty common, especially in schools, are JAWS, Dragon Naturally Speaking, ZoomText, OpenBook and Kurzweil Reader.
The use of these technologies can also be related to Jenkins article of convergence. With these adaptive softwares and hardwares, we can see many different technologies converging for one thing. Through different media convergences we are able to see the technology grow and build on each other to create something new and easier.
I know I have said it many times before, but this adaptive technology is amazing for anyone with a disability. Through the ability to communicate online they can have more of a social life than they do in the physical world. They can chat with groups of people, email, maintain an online social networking site, etc. They can even find groups on Facebook or other sites of people with similar problems and they can talk to each other and relate. It is great progress to be making and is something that is going to change interpersonal relationships for the better, I believe. Hopefully in future generations we will find a way to make the technology programs cheaper and more available to the disabled community.
I think this topic is particularly interesting because it something that is actually using technology to better the world. Most of the technology we have looked at with new media is just something to benefit our lives, make things more convenient, and save time. However, this is an idea that actually helps others. It's unfair to just let the internet, email, games, social networking, etc. be just for people who were gifted and blessed in their abilities. This is something that, if possible, should be given to everyone, regardless of your physical condition. Another reason I am interested in this topic is because I am amazed that it is even possible for us to create technology that has the ability to do these things and help disabled people. It is hard for me to fathom. I am always amazed by technology and what we have been able to do with it, but this takes the cake for sure. The final reason is because this is something that impacts interpersonal relationships very heavily for disabled people, so this ties in very nicely to my overall theme of my blog.
In Tech Talk 4, we learned a little about Section 508 which was "enacted to eliminate barriers in information technology, to make available new opportunities for people with disabilities, and to encourage development of technologies that will help achieve these goals" (Wikipedia.com).
Essentially Section 508 enables disabled people to interpret and use public websites, chats, emails, etc. It does not require private websites to do so, but all public ones need to follow to guidelines. It can be given the "Bobby" test to see if it is accessable meets the guidelines. I think this is great. Sheryl Burgstahler from the University of Washington wrote in an article Working Together: People with Disabilities and Computer Technology "People with disabilities meet barriers of all types. However, technology is helping to lower many of these barriers. By using computing technology for tasks such as reading and writing documents, communicating with others, and searching for information on the Internet, students and employees with disabilities are capable of handling a wider range of activities independently. Still, people with disabilities face a variety of barriers to computer use. These barriers can be grouped into three functional categories: barriers to providing computer input, interpreting output, and reading supporting documentation. Hardware and software tools (known as adaptive or assistive technologies) have been developed to provide functional alternatives to these standard operations."It includes people with disabilities rather than excluding them, which we so often do. This is something that can and has dramatically changed people's lives and has especially changed their ability to communicate, have a social life, and interpersonal relationships in general. I can honestly say that I see basically no down sides to helping the disabled communities use this technology. The only problem is cost. Much of the supplies and programs needed to operate these things is very expensive. Now--what exactly does it do? There are several different types of software you can get. It can be adapted in so many ways to accomodate different disabilities. You can use only your mouth, only your feet, your hands (without reaching), or even your eyes. The adaptive technology can be used by blind, deaf, speech impaired, mobile impaired, or even disabilities such as dyslexia. The technology is unbelievable. Some of the programs that are pretty common, especially in schools, are JAWS, Dragon Naturally Speaking, ZoomText, OpenBook and Kurzweil Reader.
The use of these technologies can also be related to Jenkins article of convergence. With these adaptive softwares and hardwares, we can see many different technologies converging for one thing. Through different media convergences we are able to see the technology grow and build on each other to create something new and easier.
I know I have said it many times before, but this adaptive technology is amazing for anyone with a disability. Through the ability to communicate online they can have more of a social life than they do in the physical world. They can chat with groups of people, email, maintain an online social networking site, etc. They can even find groups on Facebook or other sites of people with similar problems and they can talk to each other and relate. It is great progress to be making and is something that is going to change interpersonal relationships for the better, I believe. Hopefully in future generations we will find a way to make the technology programs cheaper and more available to the disabled community.
Facebook.
In the last few years, Facebook has become a very popular social networking site. It is growing very rapidly and people all over the world use it now. In class we discussed several effects that Facebook has had on society. I personally think that there are positive things and negative things about facebook.
First of all, it effects our identity. The way people view us is something almost everyone cares about. On your facebook, you can choose which picture is your default or your information says what you want it to say. However, you cannot change what other people write on your page, pictures they post of you, or any other material they put online. Even if you untag yourself, it is still there. This changes so much about other aspects of our lives--applying for jobs, people running for public office, etc. When you apply for a job, almost all people hiring will look you up on google and/or facebook. If you have inappropriate things on your page, they will judge you for it. An article entitled "Social Networking Goes Proffessional" published in the Wall Street Journal says, "Millions of professionals already turn to broad-based networking sites like LinkedIn to swap job details and contact information, often for recruiting purposes. Business executives also have turned to online forums, email lists and message boards to sound off on information related to their industries". Many questions they want to ask you, but cannot because it is illegal, can be answered by them looking at your facebook page. If you run for public office in twenty years it is almost guaranteed that Facebook will be to thank when someone happens to find a picture of you from your more wild days. Also when talking about identity, Bugeja brings up a point of whether or not our identity is divided between physical and online. Bugeja believes that the blurring of identity occurs when technology places an individual in two or more places at ones. When identity and time are blurred, so is our sense of place. Does this cause us to have "dual consciousness"? Personally, I do think we are in "two places at once". Cyberspace is not a tangible place, however when I am online, even when I am very emerged in whatever I am doing, I am still aware of what is going on in my physical environment. I can be involved in something on my computer during class and still be paying attention to what my teacher is talking about (contrary to most teacher's beliefs...). I believe this goes back to how technology in general is affecting our lives. Children today get impatient with tasks and want to be multitasking at all times. We think everything needs to be done in seconds and can't stand it when our internet takes more than 5 seconds, literally, to open.
The next point that is important to discuss when talking about Facebook, or any other social networking sites is the change of interpersonal relationships. You can meet people online, become better friends with your acquaintances, stay in touch with older friends, and have a "social life" online. It is crazy. Okay, first of all meeting people online. I have always been very not okay with meeting people online and think that it is generally a very creepy thing. I still think that it is generally very creepy. However, I have realized also that there are some instances when meeting people online is okay. If you are moving to another area and are involved in a group or organization, then you could meet someone from that organization online and when you move there you will know someone. If you are looking for a job and find someone online that has a connection to someone that is also beneficial. Basically, any form of networking is great. I just don't think you can meet someone online and then become great friends. You need to have physical interaction, in my opinion, to be friends. If you never meet, you have no idea whether this person is making up everything they say to you and lieing to you all the time, or if they are telling the truth. Some people think that it doesn't matter, but if they are being a "fake" person online, then the relationship you have with this fake person is not real because they do not actually exist. It sounds complicated and weird, but bottom line is that I do not think being strictly online friends is legit. Secondly, people socialize with their friends through Facebook. I think this is fine as long as people are not basing their entire relationship with people on their online interaction. When your online social life becomes your main social life, you have a problem. It is hard to draw a line where that is, but that is my philosophy. I think it is great for people who are out of the country, or have moved away from friends to be able to quickly stay in touch with their friends without having to call them all the time. People nowadays are determining everything by Facebook, and I feel like it is not for the better. If people are in a relationship it doesn't matter until it is on Facebook, then it becomes real. If someone writes on your wall and says "Last night was so fun! I'm glad we went to that party together!" but you told your other friends you had to stay home and do homework, then you are screwed. If a girl writes on a guys wall and the guy's girlfriend see's it, she will most likely get mad. All of these interpersonal problems could be avoided if Facebook didn't exist.
We depend on it to make us feel satisfied with our lives. If we don't have comments on our wall, pokes, etc. we feel like no one cares about us. In the article "The Benefits of Facebook Friends" they talk about how many people use Facebook as a means of boosting their self-esteem. More people on Facebook are self-concious with low self-esteems than not. We pick our best pictures for our profile, untag ugly ones, put witty things in our status or about me, etc. Everything we put on our profile we do to make us look good and show how we want to be seen. This video shows how we let social networking consume our lives. We forget what it's like to actually be part of the real world.
I have had a facebook since my senior year of high school. I was really into it when I first got it, as well as my freshman year. At the end of my freshman year I deleted my account for about a month. It was amazing the relief I felt. I had SO much more free time! I initially did it because of the time factor. It was finals week and I wanted to be able to study without a distraction. It worked. I got it back about a month later and didn't really care about it when I got it back. It seemed boring to me and a waste of time. This is when I realized all the problems that Facebook was creating for people. I do still have my facebook and I use it, however I am not nearly as into it as I was before I had my break from it. I think everyone should delete theirs for a while and see how it changes their life--more time, more real socializing, and real communication. The way things are going, in 10 years people can be "in a relationship" and have never met...it will all be online. Mull over that one.
First of all, it effects our identity. The way people view us is something almost everyone cares about. On your facebook, you can choose which picture is your default or your information says what you want it to say. However, you cannot change what other people write on your page, pictures they post of you, or any other material they put online. Even if you untag yourself, it is still there. This changes so much about other aspects of our lives--applying for jobs, people running for public office, etc. When you apply for a job, almost all people hiring will look you up on google and/or facebook. If you have inappropriate things on your page, they will judge you for it. An article entitled "Social Networking Goes Proffessional" published in the Wall Street Journal says, "Millions of professionals already turn to broad-based networking sites like LinkedIn to swap job details and contact information, often for recruiting purposes. Business executives also have turned to online forums, email lists and message boards to sound off on information related to their industries". Many questions they want to ask you, but cannot because it is illegal, can be answered by them looking at your facebook page. If you run for public office in twenty years it is almost guaranteed that Facebook will be to thank when someone happens to find a picture of you from your more wild days. Also when talking about identity, Bugeja brings up a point of whether or not our identity is divided between physical and online. Bugeja believes that the blurring of identity occurs when technology places an individual in two or more places at ones. When identity and time are blurred, so is our sense of place. Does this cause us to have "dual consciousness"? Personally, I do think we are in "two places at once". Cyberspace is not a tangible place, however when I am online, even when I am very emerged in whatever I am doing, I am still aware of what is going on in my physical environment. I can be involved in something on my computer during class and still be paying attention to what my teacher is talking about (contrary to most teacher's beliefs...). I believe this goes back to how technology in general is affecting our lives. Children today get impatient with tasks and want to be multitasking at all times. We think everything needs to be done in seconds and can't stand it when our internet takes more than 5 seconds, literally, to open.
The next point that is important to discuss when talking about Facebook, or any other social networking sites is the change of interpersonal relationships. You can meet people online, become better friends with your acquaintances, stay in touch with older friends, and have a "social life" online. It is crazy. Okay, first of all meeting people online. I have always been very not okay with meeting people online and think that it is generally a very creepy thing. I still think that it is generally very creepy. However, I have realized also that there are some instances when meeting people online is okay. If you are moving to another area and are involved in a group or organization, then you could meet someone from that organization online and when you move there you will know someone. If you are looking for a job and find someone online that has a connection to someone that is also beneficial. Basically, any form of networking is great. I just don't think you can meet someone online and then become great friends. You need to have physical interaction, in my opinion, to be friends. If you never meet, you have no idea whether this person is making up everything they say to you and lieing to you all the time, or if they are telling the truth. Some people think that it doesn't matter, but if they are being a "fake" person online, then the relationship you have with this fake person is not real because they do not actually exist. It sounds complicated and weird, but bottom line is that I do not think being strictly online friends is legit. Secondly, people socialize with their friends through Facebook. I think this is fine as long as people are not basing their entire relationship with people on their online interaction. When your online social life becomes your main social life, you have a problem. It is hard to draw a line where that is, but that is my philosophy. I think it is great for people who are out of the country, or have moved away from friends to be able to quickly stay in touch with their friends without having to call them all the time. People nowadays are determining everything by Facebook, and I feel like it is not for the better. If people are in a relationship it doesn't matter until it is on Facebook, then it becomes real. If someone writes on your wall and says "Last night was so fun! I'm glad we went to that party together!" but you told your other friends you had to stay home and do homework, then you are screwed. If a girl writes on a guys wall and the guy's girlfriend see's it, she will most likely get mad. All of these interpersonal problems could be avoided if Facebook didn't exist.
We depend on it to make us feel satisfied with our lives. If we don't have comments on our wall, pokes, etc. we feel like no one cares about us. In the article "The Benefits of Facebook Friends" they talk about how many people use Facebook as a means of boosting their self-esteem. More people on Facebook are self-concious with low self-esteems than not. We pick our best pictures for our profile, untag ugly ones, put witty things in our status or about me, etc. Everything we put on our profile we do to make us look good and show how we want to be seen. This video shows how we let social networking consume our lives. We forget what it's like to actually be part of the real world.
I have had a facebook since my senior year of high school. I was really into it when I first got it, as well as my freshman year. At the end of my freshman year I deleted my account for about a month. It was amazing the relief I felt. I had SO much more free time! I initially did it because of the time factor. It was finals week and I wanted to be able to study without a distraction. It worked. I got it back about a month later and didn't really care about it when I got it back. It seemed boring to me and a waste of time. This is when I realized all the problems that Facebook was creating for people. I do still have my facebook and I use it, however I am not nearly as into it as I was before I had my break from it. I think everyone should delete theirs for a while and see how it changes their life--more time, more real socializing, and real communication. The way things are going, in 10 years people can be "in a relationship" and have never met...it will all be online. Mull over that one.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Gold Farming.
Gold farming is basically buying virtual money, armor, weapons, etc. for your online gaming. This is obviously a really great idea and is great for making money or getting ahead in your game if you are an intense gamer. It is crazy how virtual graphics can be worth a real dollar amount. People will pay to receive something that is not even tangible. However, I do not think this is the best idea for a couple reasons. It is cheating, confuses the gamer using it if they aren't experienced, should be illegal, and are a type of sweatshop.
First, I believe it is cheating. This is unfair to users who legitimately spend their time trying to earn the exact same things while others just buy their way through the game. I understand that people cheat in games, I have before. When I used to play Sims I knew some of the cheat codes so that I could get thousands and thousands of dollars so that I could just buy anything I wanted. It was fun when you create the house you live in and stuff like that, but it essentially defeats the purpose of the game. If you cheat your way through like that, there is nothing to work for. When I had all that money on my Sims account, it was useless for me to try and get my characters better jobs and things like that. Everything was worthless.
Here is a clip from BBC News about Goldfarming and cheating.
The second point I wanted to make was that when you use these people to get ahead, more in Power Level rather than gold farming, you get so far ahead in the game by not doing anything that when you get the game account back and are suddenly at a much higher level, you don't have the practice and experience that is needed for you to be at that level and don't know how to do the things you need to do. Part of going through games and different challenges is that you gain experience and find little tricks along the way to help you in the future and to prepare you. This makes it so you get there and aren't ready for the challenges they set up. This, too, defeats the purpose of levels and essentially the game. I know that most people in this class will disagree with me, but I don't think it is fair at all. If you are a gamer, then I think you should DO YOUR OWN GAMING. Even if it is just tedious work that you just don't want to spend the time doing, then that shouldn't be a reason for you to cheat your way through. If the game companies, like Blizzard, say that it is goes against their terms of agreement then I think gamers should respect that. It isn't fair the the companies creating the game.
Finally, the controversy on the working environment. Many of the places that gold farmers work can be considered sweat shops. In an article by James Lee on 1up.com says, "It isn't too difficult from there to make the leap into creating your own sweatshop. All you need is the ability to write game macros or the money to purchase them. That's right, if you know where to look, they are on the open market. A macro that uses a teleportation exploit in WOW is currently going for $3,000. Then just hire cheap labor to monitor the bots". The people working there are in close quarters, dark areas, long shifts, and paid very low wages. However you also have to consider that the people working there would probably be getting paid the same low wage at any other place they would work. Also, they are choosing to work there. Some of them had law degrees and have graduated from Universities, but they still choose to work as a Gold Farmer. They love what they do. They are provided with a place to live and food. Also, when they are off from their shift they are STILL playing the game. So is it a sweatshop? From first glance, yes. However these people are okay with it. They don't mind how they are working.
In my opinion Gold Farming is not something that benefits interpersonal relationships. Although MMOG's can be a benfefit, and enhance your ability to communicate with people around the world, I don't think Gold Farming is one of them, especially for the farmers. Since they are just gathering coins or boosting someone's levels all day and all night they are not really communicating with other people. They are working, not playing, so they have no time to waste on communication with others. When they make transactions with other players who buy their gold, they are not communicating with them either. They hand off the gold and go their separate ways. You can purchase it on a website collect the coins from someone and the whole thing is over with no communication. So again, this is not benefiting interpersonal relationships with others at all.
First, I believe it is cheating. This is unfair to users who legitimately spend their time trying to earn the exact same things while others just buy their way through the game. I understand that people cheat in games, I have before. When I used to play Sims I knew some of the cheat codes so that I could get thousands and thousands of dollars so that I could just buy anything I wanted. It was fun when you create the house you live in and stuff like that, but it essentially defeats the purpose of the game. If you cheat your way through like that, there is nothing to work for. When I had all that money on my Sims account, it was useless for me to try and get my characters better jobs and things like that. Everything was worthless.
Here is a clip from BBC News about Goldfarming and cheating.
The second point I wanted to make was that when you use these people to get ahead, more in Power Level rather than gold farming, you get so far ahead in the game by not doing anything that when you get the game account back and are suddenly at a much higher level, you don't have the practice and experience that is needed for you to be at that level and don't know how to do the things you need to do. Part of going through games and different challenges is that you gain experience and find little tricks along the way to help you in the future and to prepare you. This makes it so you get there and aren't ready for the challenges they set up. This, too, defeats the purpose of levels and essentially the game. I know that most people in this class will disagree with me, but I don't think it is fair at all. If you are a gamer, then I think you should DO YOUR OWN GAMING. Even if it is just tedious work that you just don't want to spend the time doing, then that shouldn't be a reason for you to cheat your way through. If the game companies, like Blizzard, say that it is goes against their terms of agreement then I think gamers should respect that. It isn't fair the the companies creating the game.
Finally, the controversy on the working environment. Many of the places that gold farmers work can be considered sweat shops. In an article by James Lee on 1up.com says, "It isn't too difficult from there to make the leap into creating your own sweatshop. All you need is the ability to write game macros or the money to purchase them. That's right, if you know where to look, they are on the open market. A macro that uses a teleportation exploit in WOW is currently going for $3,000. Then just hire cheap labor to monitor the bots". The people working there are in close quarters, dark areas, long shifts, and paid very low wages. However you also have to consider that the people working there would probably be getting paid the same low wage at any other place they would work. Also, they are choosing to work there. Some of them had law degrees and have graduated from Universities, but they still choose to work as a Gold Farmer. They love what they do. They are provided with a place to live and food. Also, when they are off from their shift they are STILL playing the game. So is it a sweatshop? From first glance, yes. However these people are okay with it. They don't mind how they are working.
In my opinion Gold Farming is not something that benefits interpersonal relationships. Although MMOG's can be a benfefit, and enhance your ability to communicate with people around the world, I don't think Gold Farming is one of them, especially for the farmers. Since they are just gathering coins or boosting someone's levels all day and all night they are not really communicating with other people. They are working, not playing, so they have no time to waste on communication with others. When they make transactions with other players who buy their gold, they are not communicating with them either. They hand off the gold and go their separate ways. You can purchase it on a website collect the coins from someone and the whole thing is over with no communication. So again, this is not benefiting interpersonal relationships with others at all.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Crowdsourcing.
What is crowdsourcing? "Crowdsourcing is an online, distributed problem-solving and production model...Some examples include Threadless, iStockphoto, InnoCentive, the Goldcorp Challenge, and user-generated advertising contests" (Brabham 1). Many of us have been introduced to at least a couple different examples of crowdsourcing, but have most likely never thought much of it. Until reading this article I never thought of what it really was--a cheap and easy way for a company to have the public solve their problems while still making a gigantic profit. When you see the Doritos Crash the Superbowl commercial contest, you think it is just a fun way to have people make their own commercials. This saves Doritos time and money. You can also look at something like Threadless--they do not have to design any shirts AND they know that people will like the shirts and buy them because they have so many people rating each tshirt. This idea is a phenomenal one, especially from a business standpoint. There are a few things that especially spark my interest though; how the public knows the answers, motivation, and future effects this could have.
Okay, so the question of how the public knows the answers to the questions that companies propose, is also known as "Crowd Wisdom". The majority of the people who solve the problems are not experts in the topic. How is it that they can solve a problem that an expert has spent so much time trying to solve and still cannot? A great example of this is InnoCentive, a place where R&D questions are posted. These are generally science related questions, that people have been working to answer for a couple years+ and cannot figure out. When released to the public through InnoCentive, it could be a physics related question but the person who figures it out will most likely not be a physics specialist. They could be a biologist, chemist, etc. In Brabhams article, he quotes, "The web provides a perfect technology capable of aggregating millions of disparate, independent ideas in the way markets and intelligent voting systems do, without the dangers of ‘too much communication’ and compromise (Surowiecki, 2004: xix)." When people work in groups, there can be too much communication, compromise, and loss of a simple answer. Sometimes working with a team of experts, people will get too critical and complicate a problem, so someone looking from the outside can have a more clear perspective on it. This idea is hard for me to understand completely, but the more I think about it, the more it makes sense. It is a miraculous idea and it is amazing that it actually works.
Second is motivation. Why do these people solve these problems that are worth millions for a just a very small fraction of the money? What is motivating them to do this? Even though you clearly do not make the money you deserve, the majority of people do this to make money. It is often a side "job" and just to get extra money somehow. Most people probably also see this as a hobby and something fun to do. Personally, when I read about Threadless I was immediately intrigued. I explored the website and made an account right away. I know that you don't make a lot of money, but it is still that chance that you could make some extra money. I love art and design so it is something I would like to do as a hobby to design shirts and see if people like them and if they are cool then potentially make money. It also reminds me of when Cha-Cha started getting bigger. It is not crowdsourcing, but while working for Cha-Cha you only make between 10 and 20 cents per answer you give. This is hardly anything, but when I heard about it I wanted to work for them so bad because I am always on my computer and I thought I might as well make some money while I am just sitting at my comp. For people who have a desk job, and are getting paid to do nothing at their computer, this is an excellent way to stay busy and make even more money. If you answered questions all day long, you could definitely make some extra spending cash. So even though profit from iStockphoto, Threadless, etc. may not be enough to live from, they are great for people who already have jobs and who would enjoy doing the extra work. Other main reasons, are for portfolios, reputaions, and building skills. It is good practice to start working with crowdsourcing to gain experience which is also why people turn to sites like these.
My third concern, to go with my theme, is how will this affect people in the future? Since you can go on Threadless and design shirts straight out of high school and make money, or take random pictures on iStockphoto that happen to be popular, you could make tons of money potentially. This is diminishing the value of higher education. It worries me to think that people feel like with current technology they do not need a college degree anymore. It is possible to make money from these sites, especially if you had the idea to create the site, but the chances of that happening are pretty rare. Most people do not make enough money to live from. I see this having a very strong impact on future generations, especially with technology improving all the time. The next generation will have much different values on different things than what most of us today value. It is a scary thought to me.
An example of crowdsourcing would be that recently Facebook announced that anything put onto Facebook would become the property of Facebook. This is definitely something that bothered a lot of people and outraged the public. For people who are pursuing something like photography, this would be awful because they want to be able to say it is their work, but then Facebook could also claim that it is their property. In order to solve this problem Facebook decided to make their process more involved with the public's opinion. They are asking for feedback on the policies they make and are making it more of a democratic style. You can vote on what you like and don't like about the policies they make and be a part of the decision making, essentially. This is a form of crowdsourcing--they have a problem, are opening it to the public, and then using the best answer to solve the problem.
In conclusion, crowdsourcing is an amazing business model with great potential in my opinion. I think Brabham's idea of using crowdsourcing for non-profit fundraising and donor involvements, etc. are great. However, I am confused on the difference between non-profit crowdsourcing and open sourcing--to me the only difference is that open source involves mainly/only software problems rather than design, education, etc. Crowdsourcing is a model that I can see having a much larger effect in the future.
Okay, so the question of how the public knows the answers to the questions that companies propose, is also known as "Crowd Wisdom". The majority of the people who solve the problems are not experts in the topic. How is it that they can solve a problem that an expert has spent so much time trying to solve and still cannot? A great example of this is InnoCentive, a place where R&D questions are posted. These are generally science related questions, that people have been working to answer for a couple years+ and cannot figure out. When released to the public through InnoCentive, it could be a physics related question but the person who figures it out will most likely not be a physics specialist. They could be a biologist, chemist, etc. In Brabhams article, he quotes, "The web provides a perfect technology capable of aggregating millions of disparate, independent ideas in the way markets and intelligent voting systems do, without the dangers of ‘too much communication’ and compromise (Surowiecki, 2004: xix)." When people work in groups, there can be too much communication, compromise, and loss of a simple answer. Sometimes working with a team of experts, people will get too critical and complicate a problem, so someone looking from the outside can have a more clear perspective on it. This idea is hard for me to understand completely, but the more I think about it, the more it makes sense. It is a miraculous idea and it is amazing that it actually works.
Second is motivation. Why do these people solve these problems that are worth millions for a just a very small fraction of the money? What is motivating them to do this? Even though you clearly do not make the money you deserve, the majority of people do this to make money. It is often a side "job" and just to get extra money somehow. Most people probably also see this as a hobby and something fun to do. Personally, when I read about Threadless I was immediately intrigued. I explored the website and made an account right away. I know that you don't make a lot of money, but it is still that chance that you could make some extra money. I love art and design so it is something I would like to do as a hobby to design shirts and see if people like them and if they are cool then potentially make money. It also reminds me of when Cha-Cha started getting bigger. It is not crowdsourcing, but while working for Cha-Cha you only make between 10 and 20 cents per answer you give. This is hardly anything, but when I heard about it I wanted to work for them so bad because I am always on my computer and I thought I might as well make some money while I am just sitting at my comp. For people who have a desk job, and are getting paid to do nothing at their computer, this is an excellent way to stay busy and make even more money. If you answered questions all day long, you could definitely make some extra spending cash. So even though profit from iStockphoto, Threadless, etc. may not be enough to live from, they are great for people who already have jobs and who would enjoy doing the extra work. Other main reasons, are for portfolios, reputaions, and building skills. It is good practice to start working with crowdsourcing to gain experience which is also why people turn to sites like these.
My third concern, to go with my theme, is how will this affect people in the future? Since you can go on Threadless and design shirts straight out of high school and make money, or take random pictures on iStockphoto that happen to be popular, you could make tons of money potentially. This is diminishing the value of higher education. It worries me to think that people feel like with current technology they do not need a college degree anymore. It is possible to make money from these sites, especially if you had the idea to create the site, but the chances of that happening are pretty rare. Most people do not make enough money to live from. I see this having a very strong impact on future generations, especially with technology improving all the time. The next generation will have much different values on different things than what most of us today value. It is a scary thought to me.
An example of crowdsourcing would be that recently Facebook announced that anything put onto Facebook would become the property of Facebook. This is definitely something that bothered a lot of people and outraged the public. For people who are pursuing something like photography, this would be awful because they want to be able to say it is their work, but then Facebook could also claim that it is their property. In order to solve this problem Facebook decided to make their process more involved with the public's opinion. They are asking for feedback on the policies they make and are making it more of a democratic style. You can vote on what you like and don't like about the policies they make and be a part of the decision making, essentially. This is a form of crowdsourcing--they have a problem, are opening it to the public, and then using the best answer to solve the problem.
In conclusion, crowdsourcing is an amazing business model with great potential in my opinion. I think Brabham's idea of using crowdsourcing for non-profit fundraising and donor involvements, etc. are great. However, I am confused on the difference between non-profit crowdsourcing and open sourcing--to me the only difference is that open source involves mainly/only software problems rather than design, education, etc. Crowdsourcing is a model that I can see having a much larger effect in the future.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Convergence.
Until last week's class period about Media Convergence, I had not really thought about the topic. I also had never heard of mash-ups, but after learning about it, I realize I have been seeing them, using them, and subconsciously knowing about them all along.
Media Convergence is three things: Creation, Distribution, and Consumption. You create different media outlets, distribute material to them such as videos, text, internet, etc, and then people consume that material. The convergence is that you take material from different outlets and convert them to be in multiple outlets.
After reading and discussing the topic of Media Convergence, I have found I have some opinions of my own. To an extent, I love the idea, but only to an extent. When I think about different types of media converging to have all the same abilities through them, I don't necessarily like it. I feel like it is an over-load and completely unnecessary. I not normally a person who thinks technology is an over-load and too much to handle, I love everything about all my technological devices and have grown to be dependent of them. Being able to watch TV episodes on my computer is VERY convenient, and in return makes it so I rarely use my TV unless I am watching movies, which sometimes doesn't even cause me to use my TV because I have an 20 inch screen. I love emailing from my phone, or going on the internet. I love doing all of the above on my iPod touch plus listen to any movies and play endless amounts of games. All of these converging medias are great. However, I feel like it is fine how they are. If they were to converge more, it will begin to feel like we are on overload. TV's do not need internet--I feel like being able to go online through TiVo and things like that is pretty much useless...My family has it and my dad thinks it is the coolest thing ever, but he only uses it when he is trying to show people how cool it is, not when he actually needs to go on the internet. Jenkins says "Consumers are learning how to use these different media technologies to bring the flow of media more fully under their control and to interact with other users" (p. 37). This is true, and is something that makes convergence great. We get to participate more in the media, and not just have it handed to us. This blog, for example, is me being in control of a very small portion, but a portion nonetheless of media.
Jenkins also said, "...new forms of cummunity are emerging. These new communities are defined through voluntary temporary and tactical affiliations, are reaffirmed through common intellectual enterprises and emotional investments and are held together through the mutual production and reciprocal exchange of knowledge" (p. 35). This shows that through our online communites--blogs, facebook, twittr, youtube, wikipedia, etc--we can voice our knowledge and let other people know what we know. We learn from these communities and share with each other. Aside from knowledge benefits from online communities, we can stay in touch with friends and family, which is a huge reason many of us are involved in them. We maintain relationships with people that we never see anymore. On the other hand, there are many people who meet people online and become friends by talking and getting to know eachother. Does this benefit our lives? I would argue that it does. Many people who struggle to find someone to understand them or are shy in public or something along those lines are able to be themselves and meet someone just like them through the internet. This is also something that can mess people up psychologically. They may have an alternate personality online and are not actually being themselves. This way they feel they have two lives and maybe their "dream life" online by pretending to be someone they are not. Sorry for that slight tangent.
In closing, I believe that what we have today through media convergence is enough. I think what we have is all we need and more. To expand on what we have would just be a chance for us to say that we did it, but I would bet most of it would go unused. There is a point where technology becomes unnecessary, and I believe this is one of those times. Maybe I will change my mind when something amazing comes out that I realize I will use every day and can't live without, but for now, that is how I feel.
Media Convergence is three things: Creation, Distribution, and Consumption. You create different media outlets, distribute material to them such as videos, text, internet, etc, and then people consume that material. The convergence is that you take material from different outlets and convert them to be in multiple outlets.
After reading and discussing the topic of Media Convergence, I have found I have some opinions of my own. To an extent, I love the idea, but only to an extent. When I think about different types of media converging to have all the same abilities through them, I don't necessarily like it. I feel like it is an over-load and completely unnecessary. I not normally a person who thinks technology is an over-load and too much to handle, I love everything about all my technological devices and have grown to be dependent of them. Being able to watch TV episodes on my computer is VERY convenient, and in return makes it so I rarely use my TV unless I am watching movies, which sometimes doesn't even cause me to use my TV because I have an 20 inch screen. I love emailing from my phone, or going on the internet. I love doing all of the above on my iPod touch plus listen to any movies and play endless amounts of games. All of these converging medias are great. However, I feel like it is fine how they are. If they were to converge more, it will begin to feel like we are on overload. TV's do not need internet--I feel like being able to go online through TiVo and things like that is pretty much useless...My family has it and my dad thinks it is the coolest thing ever, but he only uses it when he is trying to show people how cool it is, not when he actually needs to go on the internet. Jenkins says "Consumers are learning how to use these different media technologies to bring the flow of media more fully under their control and to interact with other users" (p. 37). This is true, and is something that makes convergence great. We get to participate more in the media, and not just have it handed to us. This blog, for example, is me being in control of a very small portion, but a portion nonetheless of media.
Jenkins also said, "...new forms of cummunity are emerging. These new communities are defined through voluntary temporary and tactical affiliations, are reaffirmed through common intellectual enterprises and emotional investments and are held together through the mutual production and reciprocal exchange of knowledge" (p. 35). This shows that through our online communites--blogs, facebook, twittr, youtube, wikipedia, etc--we can voice our knowledge and let other people know what we know. We learn from these communities and share with each other. Aside from knowledge benefits from online communities, we can stay in touch with friends and family, which is a huge reason many of us are involved in them. We maintain relationships with people that we never see anymore. On the other hand, there are many people who meet people online and become friends by talking and getting to know eachother. Does this benefit our lives? I would argue that it does. Many people who struggle to find someone to understand them or are shy in public or something along those lines are able to be themselves and meet someone just like them through the internet. This is also something that can mess people up psychologically. They may have an alternate personality online and are not actually being themselves. This way they feel they have two lives and maybe their "dream life" online by pretending to be someone they are not. Sorry for that slight tangent.
In closing, I believe that what we have today through media convergence is enough. I think what we have is all we need and more. To expand on what we have would just be a chance for us to say that we did it, but I would bet most of it would go unused. There is a point where technology becomes unnecessary, and I believe this is one of those times. Maybe I will change my mind when something amazing comes out that I realize I will use every day and can't live without, but for now, that is how I feel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)