Posts Tagged: global

My view of WikiLeaks has changed.  Before, I thought it was a sketchy site that was only interested in digging up controversy and saw Julian Assange, the face of WikiLeaks, as a dangerous trouble maker.  I was unclear about their sources and how they acquired the information that has put the spotlight on this site in recently.  Basically, I saw WikiLeaks as a site that was trying to take down journalism.

Clearly, WikiLeaks is a whistle blowing site.  But isn’t that what the purpose of the Internet was intended for?  Although it is a complex phenomenon, WikiLeaks represents the evolution of the Internet and journalism.  It has become a platform that citizens are comfortable using to spread global issues and concerns while protecting themselves and remaining anonymous.  Journalism as an institute has come under fire in terms of trustworthiness in recent years and WikiLeaks is the global community response.  It is the modern day example of a true “free press”

WikiLeaks gives me the sense that we now have the power to watch “big brother” instead of the other way around.  Thanks to technology, people are gaining more of an individual voice and have media platforms that suit their needs to get their message out.  Never before have ordinary citizens had the opportunity to change the world in such a dynamic way.  It has given power to the people that was normally reserved for media agenda setters.  A topic may not be deemed newsworthy by a team of journalists, but they will sooner or later pick up on the story if there is enough buzz in the global digital community.

So will WikiLeaks take the place of journalism?  I think not.  A site like WikiLeaks can’t solve all of the world’s problems or cover everything that may need special attention.  That’s why we have investigative reporters.  Journalism can adopt some of the techniques and tricks that WikiLeaks has pioneered in relation to digital information gathering.  However, if journalism wants to compete they need to get on the bandwagon quickly and not let this opportunity pass them by yet again.  Journalism can survive if it embraces the new digital culture of the new millennium.

Where as I thought WikiLeaks was scum only a few days ago, now I have respect for the site and it’s mission.  This proves that we need to better understand our evolving surroundings and advancing tools to better serve our communities.  WikiLeaks took this step and created controversy along the way.  But we have to keep in mind that times are changing and radical ideas are bound to shake our everyday lives simply because they’re different than what we’re used to from the past.  We may not agree with them at first because it alters our view of what is deemed correct.  As we evolve our technology and information outlets, we need to evolve our minds and societies as a direct correlation.  Otherwise we will never see progress.

Week 10: Privacy and Information Ethics

Social Network Sites: Public, Private, or What?
– Boyd
1.  Online social networks have changed the world we know today.  What are some of these changes and are they more of a positive or negative effect on society?

2.  The article mentions how educators are requiring more help from their students than ever before when learning about new technologies and the Internet.  Of the educators that see social networks and our new online world as an evil, do they actually have enough background understanding to make this type of negative assumption?

3.  Social network sites are the latest generation of ‘mediated publics’ – environments where people can gather publicly through mediating technology.  Unmediated public spaces are like malls, cafes, and parks.  This article says, “public spaces have many purposes in social life – they allow people to make sense of the social norms that regulate society, they let people learn to express themselves and learn from the reactions of others”.  Can social networks correctly be classified as public spaces (mediated or not) even though most people’s social network personalities don’t accurately represent the real person?

Facebook privacy settings: Who cares?
– Boyd and Hargittai

1.  Is it possible that because younger generations that currently don’t care about the privacy setting controversies on Facebook haven’t had as many real-life situations (professional careers, marriage relationships, long term community reputations, etc) will change their minds when the effects of Facebook postings begin effecting their lives on a grander scale as they grow older?

2.  Is the flow of information on the Internet too free?  Has it gotten to the point that we need to enforce identity and privacy issues similar to those that outline most forms of information outlets?  Why has the Internet been branded the untouchable free information source if it has negatively effected out global community in so many ways?

WikiLeaks
1. Will WikiLeaks dominate this online niche or will we see new sites popping up that provide the same (or similar) service in the future?

2. Should WikiLeaks be allowed to continue?  Although the service exposes issues in our world society, should this type of detective work be left to watchdog journalism?

I have always had a lot of questions about Wikipedia and how it goes against typical business models and information collaboration we have learned to trust through the centuries.  This week’s readings and discussions in regard to the rise of networks helped clear some of this blurriness.  It seems that Wikipeida turned everything upside down in terms of company existence and economic rational.  It is the epitome of collaborative production in our new digital age.  Anyone can now share what they want, when they want, and with whomever they want.  With Wikipedia, groups come together to create something new that cannot be made by one single person to the same degree successfully.  Today we have new tools that allow larger groups to collaborate.  But is this effective?  Yes, because it takes advantage of non-financial motivations and allows for different levels of contributions.

Wikipedia began in 1995 under the idea of becoming a user-edited site.  It was intended for small groups of like-minded individuals that trust each other.  Now it has transformed into a collection of millions of contributors on a global scale.  However, it brings up the question: does this type of information gathering need manager oversight?  In our new world, we have adapted to a spontaneous divisions of labor among groups.  Someone starts a thread and others fill in and edit content as it is added.  The page is never completed because it can always have more information added or taken away by anyone.

But what about the accuracy of this information?  Won’t people post irrelevant or false information (intentionally or unintentionally).  Of course errors will appear.  However, those dedicated to the information will weed out the bad and leave the good.  If there is ever a dispute about content that was added or taken away from a page, anyone can look up the history and even pinpoint the specific user in the backlog.  The reputation of contributors is created from this digital history.

Wikipedia now rivals traditional encyclopedias.  In fact, the amount of information on the site is 25 times larger than that found in encyclopedias.  Plus, users need to wait an entire year to have an updated version of the printed encyclopedia.  Wikipedia is always up to date, is free, and constantly growing.  Although I don’t know who is in charge of information gather for encyclopedias or how this process works, the online community is responsibly for the content of Wikipedia and we are all working together for free to create the largest collection of information.

In terms of economic rational, company existence in the first place is now in doubt.  We can go online and create content whenever and wherever suits us best.  It will be interesting to see how companies evolve as we move toward a new economic approach and move away from an accepted and historic approach to business.