Category: Jordan Thorndyke

1. How will different categories of “free” change how we use the Internet?

2. Will most of the Internet continue to operate under third-party systems, freemiums and nonmonetary markets? Or will they converge to create some other form of “free”?

3. How do the new notions of “free” affect things like open source software, piracy, and file sharing?

4. How will the new systems of “free” change or affect the old systems?

I’m going to start my response this week with a discussion of “The Social Network,” the Facebook movie that was released last weekend. In my framing questions, I asked how copyright will change how future generations will consume and use media. The movie calls into question issues of fair use and intellectual property. Supposedly, Mark Zucherberg was approached by twin brothers, Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss, to create a dating site for Harvard. Mark took this idea and created Facebook, giving no credit to the guys who originally had the idea.

The question isn’t whether Mark Zucherberg’s actions were unethical, but whether the Winklevoss’ had a claim to Facebook. NO. They did not. You cannot copyright an idea! They brought it to Zucherberg and he put his own twist on it and coded and created the most influential social networking tool of a generation. In relating “The Social Network” to Lessig’s Remix, I am reminded of our discussion about respect for laws. Although Zucherberg didn’t break the law, our culture has promoted a system that encourages the sharing and taking of ideas to create content and technology.

I also asked about how we can revamp the copyright system in a way that is beneficial to both the creators and the users. The answer is that I don’t know if we can. As a student, I am all for fair use and information existing in the public domain. As an artist, I am more adept to believe that we should protect the creators of content. It’s a double edged sword. I don’t necessarily think we should decriminalize file sharing and copyright as Lessig suggests. We should just improve the system by making what is protected and what isn’t a little looser. The best comparison I can give is that to the “war on drugs.” Yes, heroin and crack cocaine should be illegal. But marijuana probably shouldn’t be illegal. Likewise, taking part of a book and reselling it as your own work should be illegal. Pulling a photo from a website and using it on your blog should not.

Case in point: the photo I used in this post. Is it copyrighted? Probably. Is Facebook going to come after me and smite me? I hope not! Do a quick search of “The Social Network movie” on Google and this image appears dozens of times. The frequency of appearance and popularity should  mean that this photo is in the public domain. Maybe I’m just not completely clear on all of the copyright laws and maybe I didn’t violate any rules by using the photo in this post– but even if I did, we need to consider that I’m using it for educational purposes to illustrate a point. That makes it fair use, right? This is what Lessig is arguing for– we need a more clear cut system to make sure that users and creators are protected. Until that time, our culture is kind of in limbo– as a student I don’t know what I can use and as a creator I don’t know what is protected. The need for revision is there; now it’s up to lawmakers and creators to take the next step and improve the system.

1. Lessig is explicit about the need to revamp the copyright system in this country in order to win the “copyright war”. What can we do in order to protect creators and protect users of copyrighted material?

2. How does the remix culture affect the way that we view copyright and fair use? Does using images/audio/text/video from other sources and combining them together in a new way create a case for fair use?

3. What are the ways in which the copyright war will change how future generations consume and use media? Will the punishments enforced on copyright offenders hinder creativity? Or will loosening the rules have an effect people’s desire to create in the first place?

This week, I asked about how the current system of doing things affects the future of technology. I wondered how we can avoid being “locked-in” to certain systems and structures of technology. The answer, according to Lanier, is that we can’t. We have already built too much on top of what was already created. To go back and unlock the system would mean that we’d have to rebuild the Internet, and even then, we would just lock ourselves into other ways of doing things.

Lanier uses the example of MIDI in his text. He says that Dave Smith created MIDI “casually” as a way to “represent notes.” Now it is the very foundation that music in software is built on. This was never Dave Smith’s intention– he was only creating something for his specific use and purpose; but the system stuck, and in order to get rid of it we’d have to recreate all of the software that uses the system– a feat that would be nearly impossible.

I also asked about whether the mob wisdom we discussed last week can co-exist with the individual wisdom Lanier favors. According to Lanier, no it cannot. However, I don’t know that I necessarily believe Lanier’s extreme side of the argument. Lanier believes that the collective culture will eventually make information seem like it belongs to one big book. He says that creativity and knowledge is better shared by an individual who does not have to prescribe to preconceived structures like a Facebook page or Wikipedia article. I, however, believe that the truly creative and intelligent will break free of these molds and make something that doesn’t fit into the standard notions of what a Web page should look like or what information an article should contain. Whereas Lanier believes that mob wisdom is the death of creative culture, I believe that it is only a bump in the road– and that great minds will overcome.

Finally, I wondered about Jenkins’ theories of media convergence and participatory culture in relation to the consumption and creation of media. Jenkins believes that pop culture has largely replaced folk culture and that fans are applying age-old responses to pop culture. Thanks to the birth of the Internet fans have a medium full of endless possibilities. It is important to be able to have fair use of content in order to be able to foster creativity. Participatory culture makes fans, the biggest consumers, want to comment on their favorite media. Commentary breeds creativity and the cycle continues. These are obviously very important elements in the creative process and may be the kinds of actions we need in order to stay away from the inevitable death of creativity for which Lanier argues.

1. Lanier believes that some of the ways in which program and use computers today could be updated. How can we do this without changing the foundation that the modern Internet was built on? By changing one feature of programming, how would other features/websites/technologies change?

2. How are mob wisdom and individual wisdom at odds as Lanier suggests? Can the two co-exist? For example, can we retain the power of the individual even with sites like Twitter and Wikipedia?

3. How do media convergence and participatory culture affect the way we view and create media? Jenkins is arguing that they are somehow related to the Star Wars phenomenon in that we are able to create commentary, spoofs and satire relating to the film. How does this cross over into other genres and examples?

My questions this week focused on how Shirky and Benkler differentiate in their arguments. I asked how, under Shirky’s theory of the power of the group, we are able to police and remain accountable for the information available to us. I think the example we discussed in class today is the best answer to this question. Although with a group effort there is little accountability, there is also little error. Today we discussed Wikipedia vs. Britannica in class. Wikipedia is a site where anyone can post or share or edit. Britannica is a medium that can only be edited by “experts.” It’s almost hard to believe that the two are comparable when it comes to errors of fact. However, Wikipedia can be changed within seconds whereas Britannica takes until the next edition is available.

This means that the group polices the group. An interesting concept. I was wrong in my original overview in thinking that Benkler had more of a focus on the individual. I am able to answer my own question now that I realize that Benkler and Shirky’s arguments coexist not in contradiction to each other, but in cooperation.They obviously take slightly different approaches in their writing styles and formality, but I think they are both trying to make the point that it takes a village to run a website. We are all editors and experts and policemen when it comes to making sure the information available to us is accurate, relevant, and informative.

From discussion and reading I realize that Benkler’s argument was just as group focused as Shirky’s. Both used relevant examples to illustrate how important the group is in the advancement of technology. The opening anecdote in Shirky’s book is the story of a girl who lost her cell phone and was aided by friends, strangers, and the government in an effort to retrieve it. Similarly, Benkler in chapter 10 talks about how contacts and relationships can be strengthened with the advancement of the Internet. If the concern over Internet content is accuracy, we should feel confident that someone somewhere will correct the mistake. The Internet has such a great potential for information, relationships, and networking, all of which relate directly to this group mentality that Shirky and Benkler are pushing for.

I also wondered how the setup of Benkler’s book affected its content. He is for this idea of open source and software sharing. Therefore, he created a book that can be downloaded for free. I think he did this to further illustrate his point and the importance of fueling creativity with creativity. I think someone in class brought up the analogy that “you have to have money to make money.” Likewise, you have to have creativity and information to make creativity and information. The setup of Benkler’s book is a great example of this. People being able to download, forward, and make corrections and edits to his book is precisely the type of marketplace of information we could hope for. And the Internet is the perfect (and maybe one of the only) medium for this to happen.

Here Comes Everybody and the Wealth of Networks

1. Shirky seems to believe that resources on the Internet are fueled and supported by a collective effort of “the group”. But how does this affect accountability? If it is the responsibility of “the group” to police the Web and make sure the content is accurate, who do we go to when it isn’t?

2. My next question has to do more with the concept behind Benkler’s book than the actual content of it. He offers it as a free online download, complete with wiki, reviews and blogs about his work. How does this alter the content of his work? Does it help to illustrate his arguments?

3. Benker seems to focus on the individualist whereas Shirky argues more about the group. How do these ideas support and contradict each other? Are the authors making separate points, or do they coexist but take a different approach to the subject?

Proposed Title: A Comparison of Interactivity in Nonprofit and Government Web Sites

Motivations

For my capstone project, I want to incorporate my design skills into helping a nonprofit/government entity to create a web site. I was thinking specifically of contacting the Orange County Animal Shelter to determine their interest in having me redo their site. Currently their web site is really elementary and simple. I think it could benefit greatly from some interactive features.
The Animal Shelter is an interesting organization because it is funded by the government but has more of a nonprofit feel to it because of its mission to help place animals in homes. It employees county employees but also requires help from community volunteers, much like a nonprofit organization. Because of this blurring of the organizational lines, I feel that I should research which kind of interactive site I should use to model my capstone after. Would it be more effective to use the government model or the nonprofit model? This is assuming that interactivity is different on government sites than on nonprofit sites.
In order to create an effective web site, I first need to research to see how other nonprofits and government agencies are using interactivity on their sites. It is important to analyze and critique other sites so that I can use the best features available.

Theory and Literature Review

One popular theory that seems to reoccur in my review of the current literature on the subject is the idea that nonprofits should use their websites as a marketing or public relations tool. This brings up the question of awareness and education; how aware is the audience of the organization and how educated are they about its cause?
My project might be a little different, since I am dealing with an organization that most people are aware of already. I would think that the Orange County Animal Shelter’s main purpose online would be to get more animals into loving homes, rather than simply to educate the public about their mission.
In reviewing literature about government agencies and interactivity, the theory of e-government appears repeatedly. The general consensus is that users are frustrated with their e-government experiences and that government entities are not utilizing the web in the best way. Recent articles discuss the opportunity to improve transparency via the web.
The theory of the digital divide is also one that could be analyzed in a study such as this. The digital divide says that people of different income levels, age, and race have an effect on how people are able to use technology. Usually, middle class, white Internet users have more familiarity and accessibility to technology than lower-class minority users. This brings up the question of how easy or involved the interactivity on a site should be?

Method

Originally, I thought that in order to complete this research project, I would need to do a content analysis of several government and nonprofit agencies. However, after receiving feedback from Dr. Lackaff, I think I will need to read the previous research on the topics and come up with my own theoretical framework for the type of site I want to build. Dr. Lackaff said that I can “rely on previous empirical research to develop your argument about these quasi-governmental sites.”
From examining previous research, I think that government agencies will need to use simple features because one of the main complaints is that their sites are difficult to use. Therefore making sure that the interactive features on government sites are easy-to-use and understand should be the priority. Nonprofits need to use interactivity in order to communicate its mission to their audience. The features included should present one clear, concise message to the user.
It is also important to measure how users perceive sites. Therefore I would like to hold a focus group to gauge which types of interactivity people find most useful on sites. This will allow me to develop new theories and ideas about how to incorporate interactivity into government/nonprofit sites.

Outcomes
As previously stated, since the animal shelter is a kind of quasi-nonprofit organization, the research that is conducted here will allow organizations of similar structure to create effective, useful, and efficient web sites. Research already exists about e-government and interactivity in nonprofits, however by comparing and merging the effective features from each one, my project will allow for organizations to create interactivity that is efficient, useful, creative and strategic on their web sites.