Connecting the People
By Erin Brady and Riley Forrester
[Directions from Instructor: Please read the blog post below. If you did not write this post, you must respond at least once directly to the post, and then respond at least once to someone else's response. If you did write the post, you need only respond at least once to the initial responses from your peers.]
Wikipedia
Wikipedia
How did blogging impact future companies on a larger scale?
After the burst of the dot-com bubble, blogging served as the transition of publishing to the digital arena. Websites like Pitchfork allowed previously unknown writers to gain credibility by pushing the best content to the top. Through blogging, users were motivated to create their own content using websites like Napster, where MP3s created communities of shared interest. Websites like Slashdot and Flickr further promoted this idea, with communities debating articles and sharing photo albums, respectively. TechCrunch and Digg.com both had the ability to increase traffic with just their reviews - a powerful tool at the time.
The social aspect of the internet created a collaborative effort of users to develop content together through open-source projects. Ward Cunningham took advantage of this collective organization with WikiWikiWeb, a series of pages that could be edited by any user.
Jimmy Wales, a dot-com entrepreneur, dreamed of compiling an infinite online encyclopedia with his website, Nupedia; however, his impossible peer review standards saw less than 24 articles published the first year. Wales then installed a wiki software on Nupedia’s server to speed up the submission process, but was surprised when the new Wikipedia overtook the previous website in quantity and quality.
 |
No other encyclopedia could compete with
the breadth of topics Wikipedia covered.
|
How do you think Wales reacted to having Wikipedia run by everyday people, not experts?
Youtube
With these new ideas came Chad Hurley, Steve Chen, and Jawed Karim. They wondered why it was more difficult to post a video than a picture, and so established an easy way to upload and share videos that manifested in YouTube. The founders decided to step back and let people post what they wanted, a feat that was possible with broadband Internet, consumer cameras, and the new concept of WiFi.
 |
| By 2008, YouTube was streaming 4.3 billion videos per month, forcing any opposition aside in their domination of the field. |
Google later bought the company, their infrastructure being equipped to handle the massive scale of YouTube. Automated systems could quickly and efficiently take down videos with copyright issues, helping Google avoid liability problems. Google also monetized videos with their targeted ad system, and even offered Hollywood’s rights holders a share of the revenue.
What do you think the repercussions may have been if Hollywood had pushed back against Google?
Social Networking
With the rise of Web 2.0, AOL released their instant messaging program as AIM, a stand-alone web client allowing people to stay in touch with AOL friends. AIM functioned as a social map of online relationships and others were quick to jump on the social network train when AOL lost relevance. The first modern social networks - SixDegrees.com and Friendster - were decidedly ahead of their time in their idea of creating real personal connections. Copycats quickly emerged to replicate this idea in better ways.
 |
| Social networking was about creating real person connections between users to interact with one another. |
Myspace, owned by eUniverse, was founded by Tom Anderson and Chris DeWolfe for users to post pictures, share interests, link to friends profiles as well as play games, read horoscopes, and share music. With a Laissez-faire attitude, users could redesign their pages, use pseudonyms, and even post racy content. Intermix (formerly eUniverse) sold Myspace to News Corp., where it continued to thrive and joined an advertising partnership with Google, until its eventual fall to another Friendster copycat - Facebook.
Overall, Web 2.0 served as a new era for putting up your own content. People went to the web not just to “surf” content, but to participate in its creation. Where Web 1.0 was about connecting all computers in the world, Web 2.0 connected all people together via computers.
What would the world be like without social networking? Would SMS texting be efficient enough to keep up with the people around you?
I think that Wales would be disappointed if he saw that Wikipedia can be edited by anybody today. I think this defeats the entire credibility aspect that Wikipedia could have if it was run solely by experts. He'd definitely be disappointed to see the lack of credibility that Wikipedia has today.
ReplyDeleteWikipedia is incredible reliable today because of the intense reference standards. What I understand is that you need to have a source for everything which can make Wikipedia almost like a compilation of sources in which you could find numerous credible sources.
DeleteBuilding on what Aakash said, Wikipedia is very reliable despite allowing anybody to edit it. When you go onto Wikipedia, any unsourced information has a warning that tells you not to trust it. Using Wikipedia as your only source is not smart, but it provides a plethora of sources about a single topic. It may not be exactly what Wales had in mind, but I think he may understand the evolution of his Wikipedia.
DeleteI think Wales was a bit nervous at first to trust everyday people to edit wikipedia, but he probably noticed that it was much more efficient, and the majority of the people editing the pages were pretty knowledgable in what they were writing about. However, if he could have seen how everyday editors impact Wikipedia's credibility nowadays, I think he would be disheartened and regretful.
ReplyDeleteDo you think Wikipedia lacks credibility these days? as opposed to when it was first started?
DeleteI see your point that he could have realized it was more efficient, however most information was probably wrong. Therefore, I agree that if he saw Wikipedia's credibility nowadays, and the fact that most teachers don't let their students use it as a source, he would definitely be disappointed and regretful.
DeleteI agree with this, I think he would definitely be disheartened to see the reputation that Wikipedia has today.
DeleteI definitely agree with Ava's comment about Wales being disappointed that teachers are skeptical of using Wikipedia as a reliable source, with some saying it cannot be cited as a source at all. This was the opposite of Wales' intentions so I think he would definitely be disheartened about that.
DeleteI, personally, have no issue with Wikipedia and do often use it. However, I think society has deemed it as lacking credibility. Middle school teachers practically drill that Wikipedia is never to be used, and paint it to be the Devil's work
DeleteWikipedia's extremely reliable most of the time, as long as you make sure that it makes sense/has credible sources. I don't see the real issue with using it as a source, especially for specific subjects, and have always had a problem with people being adamant about no use of Wikipedia.
DeleteDanielle - I'm surprised to see this still goes on. Granted, when Wikipedia first started, teachers were wary, but I thought the vast majority of us now recognize the value of Wikipedia and just teach kids how to confirm sources. I use it all the time!
DeleteMaybe it has changed, but the last people who explicitly talked about Wikipedia to me was my middle school teachers. Others since have brought it up and said we could use it, but to be cautious and fact check. I think some teachers have just heard too many bad things and would rather play it safe, even if it's unnecessary.
DeleteFair enough. It's been a good decade since I've taught an English based class, and even then I think we were pretty OK with it at CHS, but middle school is a different animal!!
DeleteThe world would probably be a lot more bleak without social networking. Texting doesn't maintain the same sense of connectivity and also the ability to meet to people and find new interests. With social networking you can find someone's account and maybe they really like a band that you've never heard of and you develop a series of interests from that one encounter. Without social networking, we would not have moments like those and texting is definitely not the same.
ReplyDeleteYou've pretty much paraphrased what Mark Z. said about starting Facebook (a good thing).
DeleteI agree with you that social networking can bring people together so in many different ways that simple text messaging could never do.
DeleteI agree...social networking also has so many benefits that people don't typically think about. I know a lot of families that plan family reunions through Facebook, or students graduating that use Facebook to meet people that they'll be going to college with. It has a lot of benefits that help us connect with people outside of our close social circle.
DeleteYou make a good point. Social networking is huge in that sense. It is one thing to talk to someone through social networking, but social networking can be an outlet to gain more knowledge and find things that you would not have discovered otherwise.
DeleteWales was probably a little frustrated that everyday people were using Wikipedia, and not just academic officials. Common people would probably give wrong information, making the site un-credible. It created more work for Wales, to make sure his program is accurate. Without social networking, SMS texting would not be efficient enough to keep up with the people around you, as social networking paved the way for future communication.
ReplyDeleteDo you think a social networking system would be created eventually if we only had SMS texting?
DeleteTo Hannah- yeah. I think it was Hayden that said in our last discussion that humans aren't as original as we like to think we are. Someone would've had the idea eventually, it might've just come along a bit later.
DeleteBlogging allowed companies to learn about their consumers as well as introduce new artists through the use of Myspace (the artists sharing their MP3s and stuff). I think Wales at first was opposed to the idea, but on seeing how average people could provide accurate information better than Nupedia, he gradually accepted this new development. If Hollywood had pushed back against Google I don't think Youtube would have worked, but they still had the search engine to fall back on. Without social networking I think it would be harder to meet new people, because with email you can only talk to people you know. I think people would have to work a lot harder at tracking people down in person.
ReplyDeleteUp until recently, you had to meet people and create a friend group "in real life". Now, like you say, we can meet all kinds of new people. Do you think our new relationships made with technology are as deep and lasting as the old school way?
DeleteI do! Mostly because I've found that the people I now choose to talk to I have deeper relationships with because I have a choice in who I contact. So I think that this mindset also applies to who you choose to talk to over the Internet because it's a choice whereas you don't always have a choice when it's in person.
Deletei kinda feel like the relationships aren't as deep because, depending on the person, you might rely on technology too much to keep conversations going. but on the other hand youre able to connect with people you wouldnt normally be able to on a daily basis
DeleteI think the depth of the relationship depends on the person. I think there are some people who really benefit from forming friendships with people. through social networking, and they are able to maintain and strengthen those bonds. And then there's other people, like me, who prefer to be able to see people and talk and have a harder time trusting friendships made online. So I think it comes down to the individual.
DeleteSocial networking is one of the things that keeps the internet up to date. SMS has been the same for almost its entire lifespan while internet based social services could be updated with the latest technologies and services at any time. I feel that a lack of social networking would slow down the progress of the internet because there would be no reason to use the internet other than work or doing something in solidarity which most people don't want to do.
ReplyDeleteI agree that social networking would not be the same as texting because it also provides things like hashtags, retweeting, or sharing that you wouldn't get with 1 on 1 texting. I also agree that the internet would be so much less enjoyable without social network to entertain us.
DeleteI really like your point about the role social networking plays in keeping the internet up to date. People definitely use the internet more because of social networking, and all the ideas produced through social networking help push the internet into the future
DeleteI think Wales was probably super reluctant to let anybody edit Wikipedia, because he believed that they would not know facts. If Hollywood had pushed back against Google, I believe it would have been very much as they expected, with them ending up like the music industry had because of their problems with Napster. Without social networking, there would be many issues in the world. I believe that SMS would not be enough communication between people because you can only make text conversations with it, without many images or video.
ReplyDeleteThe comparison between the music industry and Hollywood make a lot of sense and I agree that a similar thing would have happened.
DeleteBlogging was important to creating future companies because it allowed users to make their own content leading to user established websites. This meant that people on the web were more likely to find content that interested them because it was made by other Internet users. I think Wales would have been upset because he would have been worried that the information was inaccurate. I think that Google would have won the case because they were doing something to stop copyright issues. I think it would have been a lot harder to connect with people without social networking and we would not be able to connect with people with such ease. I don't think it would be sufficient because a lot of our communication is done through texting and we need constant updates to the system.
ReplyDeleteBlogging was very important to continued growth. This is because websites were relying on user-created content. This content was directly what users wanted and established a connection between people who likely would not know each other otherwise. I thinks Wales would have not liked to see Wikipedia being edited by the everyday person. His goal was to strive for extreme accuracy and Wikipedia brought uncertainty. I think Google would have come on top against Hollywood because they were creating algorithms to filter content. It also would have been large publicity which could help Google. Social networking is such a huge part in our culture today. It is how people find jobs and answer questions in a casual way and creates connections. I do not think SMS would be helpful today because social networking became a strong force and it did not seem to change as the internet was constantly changing.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that user created content established a connection with the users. I feel like it made more of a community. I also think that Google's algorithms would have won them the case. They definitely needed changes to SMS.
Deletei think he would originally be skeptical about non experts creating on his site but in the end everyone is contributing to his vision of the largest encyclopedia in the world
ReplyDeleteI think Google was and is just more powerful than Hollywood. The Hollywood industry has a lot of power, but people tend to underestimate the power of the internet.
ReplyDeleteWithout networking, the world would be a lot different. With all communication platforms, making connections is a natural part of the flow of the internet. It allows for connection on a level that is different than in-person interaction. You can find out a lot from a person by just viewing their profile; in real life, you don't have that luxury.