Cognitive Surplus - Response 8

High School.  I can confidently say that those two words simultaneously bring about feelings of both love and hate.  I have never loved hating something in my entire life, but then again, who doesn’t love to hate high school?  There’s so much to say about this place I once referred to as ‘hell,’ but as a more mature version of myself, I can honestly say I am grateful for the experience, which in turn helped me grow out of my prepubescent ‘know-it-all’ stage.

It was here that I had many of my “firsts.”  The first time I tried alcohol.  The first time I developed a real crush.  The first time I got a C on a paper.  The first time I rebelled against my parents.  And the first time I obsessed about a television show. 

Around the time I entered High School as a measly freshman, The O.C. had quickly become the highest rated show on television, peaking with 9.7 million viewers.  The show skyrocketed into stardom within months of the shows airing in 2003, generating a loyal following of groupies, due in large part because of its references to pop culture.  In short, the show was relatable.  This is not to say that producers didn’t take the plot too far, but in terms of music, film and even comic books, there was something every highschooler could connect with.  Fridays at school were designated for OC discussions about the episode that aired the night before.  My friends and I would sit around the lunch table discussing Marissa’s latest drug overdose, or Seth and Summer’s first kiss, even Ryan’s brooding personality. 

I’ll openly admit, I spent a lot of my free time in High School watching the show, not to mention I watched a whole lot of reruns.  But in the book Cognitive Surplus, author Clay Shirky points out that as Americans, it is our duty to spend our free time watching television.  I stupidly chose to watch The O.C. but that’s beside the point. 

“TV quickly took up the largest chunk of our free time: an average of over twenty hours a week, worldwide.  In the history of media, only radio has been as omnipresent, and much radio listening accompanies other activities, like work or travel.  For most people of the time, watching TV is the activity.”

As a result of the emphasis placed on television, we have morphed into a visually dominated and isolated society.  A majority of the population consciously spends the largest chunk of time consuming this visual stimulus, resulting in a decline in social interaction.  We spend less quality time with family and friends, and thus stress the importance of material satisfaction.  Shirky takes this further and describes the effects as “under-investing in relational activities.”

Shirky shifts our attention to help us evaluate how we allocate our free time.  For example, take Wikipedia as an entire unit, where a unit is equivalent to the totally amount of time spent using the site.  According to Shirky, Wikipedia therefore represents about one hundred million hours of thought.  This immediately seems like an insane amount of time to have spent in one place.  However, he compares that amount of thought time to the thought time allocated to watching television.  We watch about two hundred billion hours of TV each year.  According to Shirky, this excess time is considered a surplus.  This enormous amount of free time devoted to TV watching is a surplus that we as humans don’t know what to do with.  Yet, as technology changes, our allocation of time has evolved as well.

“But now for the first time in the history of television, some cohorts of young people are watching TV less than their elders.  Several population studies – of high school students, broadband users, YouTube users – have noticed the change, and their basic observation is always the same: young populations with access to fast, interactive media are shifting their behavior away from media that presupposes pure consumption.”

Today, people would rather spend their free time interactively online, where commenting, sharing, outsourcing, rating, and discussing are all available.  According to Shirky, it is our human nature to share and collaborate ideas, stories, and information.  We have instincts to be heard, to tell a story even if no ones listening. It is from this idea, that Websites such as Wikipedia were successful. 

I will definitely admit to allocating my time differently now than I did in high school.  Thank god I don’t spend my Thursday nights watching The O.C. live (or better yet thank god that show is not on television anymore).  Nowadays, I usually watch the TV shows I like online, giving me the ability to participate interactively if I choose.  Clay Shirky describes this as architecture of participation.

Wikipedia is based on this idea of architectures of participation, where consumers have the ability to edit any page at any moment in time.  This user-generated index is free, and thus can be accessed by anyone.  Wikipedia encourages sharing and teamwork, and ultimately the site promotes a collaborative tomorrow.  Other sites built interactively, make it possible for us to collectively make a difference and create/develop ideas together.  Shirky thinks, and Ill end with this just as he did…

“The world’s people, and the connections among us, provide the raw material for cognitive surplus.  The technology will continue to improve, and the population will continue to grow, but change in the direction of more participation has already happened.  What matters most now is our imaginations.  The opportunity before us, individually and collectively, is enormous; what we do with it will be determined largely by how well we are able to imagine and reward public creativity, participation, and sharing.”

You Are Not A Gadget - Response 7

Graduation is quickly approaching and the pressure to find a job is intensifying.  I have focused all my time and energy on getting an entry-level position in the social media arena and am hoping to pursue a career working for a progressive Internet company.  The way I see it, the Internet has positively changed business transactions, customer service, and the way we, as ‘users,’ develop and foster relationships.  I see the Web as a world of interconnectivity, yet author Jaron Lanier is telling me otherwise.  After reading his book You Are Not A Gadget, I feel as though everything I once thought and believed was thrown out the window.  He criticizes the Internet and its effects on humanism entirely.

As someone who’s fascinated with the development of the Internet and beyond intrigued with the idea of Web 2.0 and the transition into a web-based society, I thought the book was difficult to read as Lanier criticized the new digital era and everything I once thought was positively revolutionizing.  According to Lanier, people have completely abandoned humanism and adopted robotic-like personality traits, where digital powerhouses mold our likes, wants and needs.  He feels that the introduction of the Internet has encouraged individuals to conform to the online environment that was created, thus forcing society to behave mob-like.

“When people are told that a computer is intelligent, they become prone to changing themselves in order to make the computer appear to work better, instead of demanding that the computer be changed to become more useful.   People already tend to defer to computers, blaming themselves when a digital gadget or service is hard to use.”

Lanier claims that we as humans are not giving ourselves enough credit, and that we rely on the system, the gadget, also known as the Internet, too much.  He thinks that the computer “under values humans,” claiming that as computers become more and more rich of information, that people will become more and more obsolete.  In sum, technology changes people.

Search Engines such as Google and Wikipedia give people the ability to access an unlimited amount of information.  Ideally, we could filter these search engines to only produce information of worth and value, but unfortunately that is not always the case.  According to Lanier, artificial intelligence does not exist, thus it is impossible to create a computer to think exactly like a human would.  Therefore, we dumb ourselves down to accommodate what Lanier refers to as pseudo engines (Google, Wikipedia, Amazon etc).

Lanier later points out that an informationally-free world may sound good at first, but if you look more closely you may find that having everything immediately accessible creates a "mediocre mush."  People lose their identities.

“It is astonishing how much of the chatter online is driven by fan responses to expression that was originally created within the sphere of old media and that is now being destroyed by the net.  Comments about TV shows, major movies, commercial music releases, and video games must be responsible for almost as much bit traffic as porn.  There is certainly nothing wrong with that, but since the web is killing the old media, we face a situation in which culture is effectively eating its own seed stick.”

According to Lanier, America is losing their creative middle class.  He thinks that our online culture is STILL fixated on the world as we once had it before and that we’ve resorted to crowd-sourcing.

As I previously mentioned, I don’t necessarily agree with the claims he’s making, I believe quite the opposite in fact.  As far as I’m concerned, the Internet has opened up society to a world of endless possibilities in terms of creativity.  We have the ability to expose ourselves to a myriad of cultural phenomenons and the way I see it, we can benefit from those that came before us.  On the contrary, Lanier thinks the Internet has hindered the ability to be original.

“Some of the youngest brightest minds have been trapped in a 1970s intellectual framework because they are hypnotized into accepting old software designs as if they were in fact of nature.”

I can’t help but think of my parents when reading Lanier’s book.  My mom, fascinated by social media on one hand, is equally as agitated by it on the other.  She grew up in the pre-digital generation, before computers, before the Internet, and never acclimated herself appropriately.  It’s like trying to teach a child how to read.  My mom, proud of how she grew up without the crutch of the computer, might agree with Lamier out of pure spite.  Who knows.  All I know is that, greatness has in fact stemmed from the Web, despite what Lanier may believe.

 

I did in general like Lanier’s book.  It definitely made me think.  It stretched my mind.  And more importantly it required me to use more analytical thinking with regards to the digital online world.  I do realize that the Internet is not perfect and that there are MANY hindrances in fact, not to mention dangers as result of limitless accessibility.  However, I can’t help but see the positives out weigh the negatives.   

Taking on the System- Response 6

MTV, which originally stood for Music Television, was once the powerhouse of the music industry, popularized in the 80’s as a network strictly devoted to playing music videos.  They introduced some of the biggest names on the music scene, including Justin Timberlake, Nirvana, and Men at Work.  After a decade or so, MTV eventually exploded and developed into something much more than an outlet for solely videos, incorporating conventional television into their prime time segments.  This decline in music videos and rise in reality TV is directly correlated to the rise of the Internet, which acted as a trouble-free outlet for viewing and listening to the music videos that were once featured on the MTV network.

Taking on the System, by author and blogger extraordinaire Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, is based on the evolutionary idea that technological change and more specifically the introduction of the Internet, is breaking down societal barriers.  We as citizens, and active members of society, are participating in this never-ending conversation we call the Internet and must bypass traditional barriers of mass communication.  These barriers refer to new medias devoid of gatekeepers.  YouTube, blogs, and podcasts, are all user-friendly and user-generated medias that allow the average citizen to set the agenda for the news.  In order to bring about change, one must learn to adopt these revolutionizing ideas and embrace this new informational age.  

“Technology has unlocked the doors and facilitated a genuine democratization of our culture.  No longer content to sit on the sidelines as spectators, a new generation of participants is taking an active role in our culture and democracy.  This has left the original gatekeepers and the elites they guard with few choices.  Some are embracing this democratization, welcoming the new participants.  Others are simply tolerating the interlopers, acknowledging the process as an inevitable evolution in our culture.  Then there are those digging in their heels, and fighting a losing battle to protect their domain.”

Now more than ever, user-generated content is driving big business.  In terms of entertainment, music, fashion and politics, the average citizen has the ability to facilitate the conversations taking place.  In the past, powerhouse networks and fortune 500 companies were the only ones setting the news agenda.  We, the public, now have the ability to generate the news ourselves. 

Take MTV for example.  As previously mentioned, MTV was the gatekeeper for the music industry, and we as consumers relied on this network to tell us what to listen to and when to listen to what. There was once a time when a band or artist could expect their CD sales to rise and their concerts and tours to be sold out, if they were featured on an MTV segment.  I for one am guilty of watching MTV when I wanted new music, and I’m talking about old school MTV when there were still music video reels.  In short, MTV was in charge of the dissemination of music. 

Now, years later, in the middle of the technological age, we have the ability to introduce music ourselves.  No longer is MTV the gatekeeper.  Outlets such as YouTube, and MySpace allow average citizens to contribute their own examples of musical excellence.  Take Rebecca Black or Justin Beiber (yes, I know the amount of times we’ve talked about these two people in this class is absurd, but then again, they are the perfect examples.)  Anyway, both these two artists (if you will) were discovered via the Internet, more specifically YouTube.  MTV took no part in popularizing these two individuals and thus, MTV did not act as a gatekeeper.  This barrier was broken. 

“And its not just music.  These new empowering technologies are allowing “amateur” filmmaker to use inexpensive video and editing equipment to create content, then post it on sites like YouTube for free and instant worldwide distribution.”

The afore mentioned passage applies specifically to Rebecca Black.  As far as I am concerned the girl’s mother rented out an inexpensive recording studio, filmed the video for dirt cheap and voila… uploaded it to YouTube, only to receive instantaneous recognition.  Now a billionaire from advertisements on YouTube alone, Rebecca Black was able bypass the gatekeepers of the music industry entirely.  Believe it or not, (and by no means did I mean to upset or offend anybody with what I am about to tell them) I did in fact hear “Friday” on the radio earlier this week.  This is even more of an indication that as technology changes, we must adapt with it in order to contribute to the never-ending conversation on the Internet. 

In the book, Markos Moulitsas Zuniga talks about MySpace rather than YouTube with regards to the music industry, and how artists such as Radiohead and the Arctic Monkeys exploded on the music scene due to a fan’s MySpace page.  Zuniga describes in his book how a fan of the group the Arctic Monkeys uploaded all their music to his MySpace page.  This fans entire social network thus had access to the uploaded music.  In theory, the music was passed from consumer to consumer and so on, until it got into the hands of a production company which wanted to help promote Arctic Monkeys as a group.  Here, MTV and other gatekeepers in the music industry such as VH1, were cut out of the equation.  The musical group was popularized by an innocent fan’s online profile. 

Today, MTV is still associated with musical talent, however it will never be the musical powerhouse it once was.  Sure MTV is still the proud sponsor of the VMA’s and creator of Unplugged, but today, media outlets such as YouTube and MySpace hold the greatest power of all.  The steps taken to achieve success have been rerouted, which can most likely be attributed to the development of technology and the new digital age.

Made to Stick- Response 5

So the assignment this week was to read Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die, and in typical fashion, I opened the book, kicked my feet up high on the couch, brewed some coffee and began to diligently read.  However it didn’t take long before I lifted my head from the bestseller, adorned in orange, chuckling to myself after a mere one page.  It’s funny.  Made to Stick authors Chip and Dan Heath, decided to start their bestseller with what I believe is the “stickiest” story of them all; the kidney thief hoax.  I had ironically heard the same story not too long ago, at a family dinner in early December and to no surprise, the story has since resonated with me to this day. 

My sister Emily, the accounting major, has recently been on a Nip/Tuck frenzy, where her fascination for blood and deception has consumed her.  I always told her to go pre-med, but my convincing failed miserably.  I thought for someone so intrigued with surgery, accounting might not be her forte.  Regardless, the FX hit series follows the lives of plastic surgeons Christian Troy and Sean McNamara, as they fulfill the desire to be beautiful.  This summer, my sister started season one, and was hooked.  Before I knew it, she had run through just about every episode in the series.  Personally, I used to be a Nip/Tuck fan, until the storyline took a turn for the worst, and developed some of the most outrageous plots I have ever seen on television. 

Fast-forward to December break, it was Christmas Eve, and my family although Jewish, had dinner together.  My sister, flat out obsessed with the show at this point, sat at the dinner table surrounded by my 10 cousins, trying to convince the group to give Nip/Tuck a chance.  Sharing storyline after storyline and describing character after character, my sister had turned into a broken record and I was determined to do anything to shut her up.  Then out of nowhere my interest peaked.  It just so happens she brought up a storyline of interest; the kidney thief hoax.  Although a slightly different variation than the Heath brother’s, the point was the same.  Liz, the practices anesthesiologist, wants liposuction, which just so happens to go against everything she once stood for; natural beauty.  Long story short, Liz goes in for surgery, wakes up sans lipo, and with only one kidney.

I vividly remember sitting at that dinner table ready to knock my sister over the head, but the kidney thief story for some reason grasped my attention and I resisted any temptation to change the subject.  I was flat out intrigued.  *Please do not repeat this to my sister, but later that night I 100 percent went home to watch season 4, and the only reason I am admitting this is because it proves the Heath brothers point that the kidney story was in fact sticky.

This idea of being sticky was taken from Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point, “which examined the forces that cause social phenomena to ‘tip,’ or make the leap from small groups to big groups.”  Chip Heath and Dan Heath take this examination further and dissect what exactly it means to be sticky.  They came up with six characteristics.  To be sticky and thus a successful idea, it must be a simple, unexpected, concrete, credible, emotional story.  However, it is important to make note that not every idea needs to possess all six characteristics in order to be successful.

“It is like discussing attributes of a great basketball player.  You can be pretty sure that any great player has some subset of traits like height, speed, agility, power, and court sense.  But you don’t need all of these traits in order to be great.  Some great guards are five feet ten and scrawny.  And having all the traits doesn’t guarantee greatness: No doubt there are plenty of slow, clumsy seven-footers.”

The Heath brothers use the basketball player story to stress the importance of these six characteristics, while at the same time illustrating their leniency.  Throughout the books entirety, the Heath brothers use a checklist, or as they refer to it as a scorecard, to keep track of different messages and their measure of stickiness. 

Lets backtrack for a second, and highlight the Heath brother’s kidney hoax opener once again.  What characteristics does this story possess?  Well, for starters it is simple.  Although it is not a sentence long, the story is in fact short and to the point.  What could have been a book in itself, was covered in only a single page in the 311-page book. 

The kidney story is also unexpected.  According to the Heath brothers ‘surprise’ is the key to gaining an audiences attention.  The kidney story uses the surprise factor to its advantage.  By not sharing the punch line until the end of the story, the storyteller develops suspense and thus gains the audiences attention.  When you hear a man who innocently had a drink at an airport bar, wakes up in a tub of ice, kidney theft is the furthest thing from your mind.  Here in lies much of why this story is sticky; it is unexpected. 

The next characteristic that the kidney story possesses is concreteness.  There are specific, concrete details in the story for the audience to remember and recall.  The ice-filled bathtub, the tube sticking out of the man’s back, and the note are all vivid images that the audience can make sense of. 

Credibility. That is the fourth principle that the Heath brothers recognize as a characteristic of something sticky.  However, the kidney story lacks credibility, which is exactly why it is a hoax.  It is important to remember that not every idea needs to encompass all six characteristics. 

The kidney story is also emotional.  According to the Heath brothers it is important to make your audience ‘feel.’  Whether your idea generates emotions of hate, discomfort, love, or sadness, any of the above will lead to an emotional tie to the idea, good or bad.  “We are wired to feel things for people, not for abstractions.”  Hearing that a man was robbed of his kidney, knowing he endured both emotional and physical pain, will cause the audience to care about the idea, story, or cause at hand.

The last characteristic of a successful sticky idea is that it is story-like. No explanation needed here.  The kidney story was in fact presented in story form.  

The Tipping Point- Response 4

ATTENTION:  To whom it may concern - the content below may contain information involving Justin Bieber.  Please continue with caution…

I woke up one rainy Monday morning, looked outside my window to see a painfully drab Bethlehem skyline.  My head was aching, my throat was sore from the whopping cough that kept me awake the night before, my nose was running, and my eyes were so swollen they could pop.  Not to mention I had a fever of 102.  If you hadn’t guessed it by now, I had the flu, to say the least, and as hard as I tried, I could not muster up enough strength to get out of bed that rainy morning to attend class (and trust me it was in everyone’s best interest that I was not there).  However, I did both understand and respect the unexcused absence policy so I took the proper measures to avoid being penalized, and so I spent most of that week in bed surrounded by tissues and soup.  My mom was right when she said; chicken soup is the cure for everything. 

I couldn’t help but think about a virus in its simplest form.  A virus is a parasitic agent that gets passed along from host to host, usually causing an unfortunate outbreak or epidemic (in this case the virus was the flu).  Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point epitomizes this theory.  He explains how ideas, trends and products get passed along, just as an uncontrollable virus would spread. By the time I personally recovered from the flu, more than half the student body was out due to illness.  A mini-epidemic was in fact created on Lehigh’s campus.  People were dropping like flies.  One by one, my roommates contracted the virus, and who knows who they may have passed it on to themselves. 

“The tipping point is the biography of an idea, and the idea is very simple.  It is that the best way to understand the emergence of fashion trends, the ebb and the flow of crime waves, or, for that matter, the transformation of unknown books into best sellers, or the rise of teenage smoking, or the phenomena of word or mouth, or any number of the other mysterious changes that mark everyday life is to think of them as epidemics.  Ideas and products and messages and behaviors spread just like viruses do.”

Gladwell uses the word “contagious” to better explain his theory.  Just as people catch a cold, people catch onto ideas, onto fashion, crime, and so on.  In essence, epidemics are contagious.  They are transmittable.  They are spread from one person to another.  According to Gladwell, epidemics are the backbone to his tipping point theory, which refers to the moment when everything changes, the moment in an epidemic where there is a climax. 

In the afore mentioned paragraphs the example I chose to exemplify an epidemic was the flu, but as I clearly explained, epidemics can take on any form.  Bieber Fever has become an epidemic and the musical pop star, Justin Bieber, has maintained a loyal following (yes, I had to mention Bieber once in my paper, and I really hope this does not result in an F) and if I’m understanding Gladwell’s theory correctly, the tipping point was when Usher took Bieber’s already viral YouTube videos and turned him into a musical sensation. 

To better understand the concept of a tipping point however, you must understand the three characteristics of an epidemic.  Gladwell’s book in its entirety is based on three central rules all of which are key concepts in this viral phenomenon; the Law of the Few, the Stickiness Factor, and the Power of Context.   Go back to the ‘Beiber’ example mentioned earlier (just go with it, please I beg of you).  Although I do not know the specifics of how this individual went from prepubescent-teen to pop-star sensation, I do know however, that Gladwell and his Law of the Few, played a vital role in Bieber’s going viral. 

With regards to the Law of the Few, in my opinion, Usher simultaneously acted as the connector, the maven and the salesman.  Gladwell said it perfectly, “What Mavens and Connectors and Salesman do to an idea in order to make it contagious is to alter it in such a way that extraneous details are dropped and others are exaggerated is that the message itself comes to acquire a deeper meaning.”  Usher acted as the connector by introducing him to the right people, helping him to build relationships and network in the music industry.  He acted as the maven, by helping him to make informed decisions, guiding him and acting as a mentor.  And to no surprise, Usher acted as the salesman as well, persuading the masses to give Bieber’s music a chance. 

Gladwell’s second rule of epidemics, also helping ‘the biebs’ attain unimaginable popularity is the Stickiness Factor.  Bieber’s music, famed hair, and adorable personality “stuck” in the minds of the mass public, helping him to gain an undeniably positive reputation.  His unusual story and journey to stardom has left a lasting impression, particularly in about 99 percent of 15-year-old girls.  Long story short, he was memorable.

Power of Context.  This is Gladwell’s third rule of epidemics, the rule that pushes the epidemic over its tipping point, institutionalizing change.  According to Gladwell, the context of the epidemic needs to be conducive to change, otherwise the change will not occur.  Bieber’s fame exploded during the era of the Internet, giving him access to a multitude of environmental factors that would help to push his fame over the edge.  Because of the Internet, his intimate fan base exceeded Gladwell’s lucky number of 150 and he was able to expand his reach. 

So, like a virus, Justin Bieber turned into a cultural phenomenon.  Malcolm Gladwell was adamant that ideas get spread rapidly, and through the three afore mentioned characteristics of an epidemic, the Biebs went viral.

DISCLAIMER: For those like do not like Justin Bieber (I will not name names) I want you to know I do not judge.  I used his story to better express my understanding of Gladwell’s Tipping Point Theory.  

Here Comes Everybody - Response 3

What is a revolution?  According to Clay Shirky, author of the eye-opening book “Here Comes Everybody,” a revolution can be described as a change in society that dictates the way we think, act and behave.  Specifically, the development and integration of new media technologies into society, has spearheaded some of the greatest revolutions in our history.  This can be seen through the introduction of the Internet, which has jumpstarted a digital revolution within our own generation. 

The printing press, the telephone, and broadcast also pioneered revolutions of their own kind, but according to Shirky, it was the Internet has afforded us the opportunity to access a multimedia forum, holding the contents of previous revolutions in one communal place.  It is here that people can consume and distribute media including music, movies and conversations, all in one location, unlike any other medium in society.

“For the first time, young people are watching less television than their elders. They’re substituting computers, mobile phones and other internet-enabled devices, and generating media instead of just consuming it.” (Clay Shirky, The Globalist)

Shirky claims the Internet has caused what he calls, the largest increase in human expressive capability in history, rivaling the introduction of the printing press and telephone. Among the different media revolutions, the Internet is the first to naturally promote group-forming, which is the foundation of this digitally-revolutionizing book.  The Internet moves us into a world of two-way groups, where consumers are producers and producers are consumers.  According to Shirky, collaboration is the backbone to this social transformation.

“Collaborative production, where people have to coordinate with one another to get anything done, is considerably harder than simple sharing, but the results can be more profound.  New tools allow large groups to collaborate, by taking advantage of nonfinancial motivations and by allowing for wildly differing levels of contribution.”

Collaboration requires the synchronization of individuals within a group to successfully build a multimedia platform.  Wikipedia is one such example, showing collaboration at its finest, but since we have already had an in depth discussion about Wikipedia and as not to deviate too much from Shirky, I will spare you the Wikipedia shpeel, but please consider the importance in terms of collaboration.

Now shift your attention to another facet of the revolution; sharing. Where do I begin?  According to Shirky a shift has occurred in society with regards to the exchange of information.  Prior to this idea of “group-forming,” people would congregate together in an effort to share information, but the Internet has in essence flipped this relationship and given us forums to share information first.  Now, people can share, and then aggregate.  Essentially, the Internet has allowed you to discover who you have things in common with, and therefore has made the sharing process, a platform for coordination.  Web sites such as Flickr, Facebook, and Youtube, promote this kind of reversed-sharing and have thus lowered the barriers of entry.

“Flickr is the source of sharing.  What it did instead was to let the users label (or tag) their photos as a way of arranging them.  When two or more photos adopted the same tag, those photos were automatically linked.  The users were linked as well; the shared tag became a potential stepping stone from one user to another, adding a social dimension to the simple act of viewing.”  (pg 33)

Flickr is just one of many group-sharing Web sites that promotes a broad public interest, allowing people to aggregate themselves among one another.  It   essentially engages groups.

Not too long ago, I came face-to-face (or should I say screen-to-screen) with the idea Shirky refers to as reverse-sharing.  I was fortunate enough to have been given the opportunity to spend a semester in Barcelona, Spain and prior to my departure, I stumbled onto a Facebook group called “Barcelona Spring 2010.”  It was through this forum that I connected with a multitude of people in the same position as myself: anxious, excited, and petrified of the unknowns.  This Facebook page, allowed the collective group to post photographs, articles, YouTube videos and comments and concerns, about a common interest.  In this case, the commonality was Barcelona.  This is Shirky’s idea of sharing at its finest.  The posting on Facebook came first, and connecting under a common interest came second. 

Everything mentioned thus far has been centered around the sole idea that cooperation among a group is essential in successfully using the Internet as a tool of communication, and it is through this idea that collective action was born.  Collective action is the cooperation of a group to collectively produce change.

“Information sharing produces shared awareness among the participants, and collaborative production relies on shared creation, but collective action creates shared responsibility, by tying the users identity to the identity of the group.” (pg 51)

Facebook promotes collective action, as seen through its many targeted pages.  If you choose to “like” something, you are given updates and access to information you otherwise would not receive.  You can essentially communicate with people of similar interests on these targeted pages, and through this communication you can develop a “shared vision strong enough to bind the group together.”

Collective action is thus the culmination of Shirky’s ideas, as it begins with a technological revolution and ends with a social one. 

We the Media- Response 2

          Imagine a world without user participation on the Web.  A world where public input was rare and ideas had dead ends.  Predating the fast-paced Web-obsessed society we so commonly now know, there was once a world where the Web was static and lacked unrestricted contributions.  Within the first 25 pages of We the Media, author Dan Gillmor suggests, “the Web needs to be writeable, not just readable.”   To our generation, that is all that we know: a writeable, readable, participatory forum cultivating a multitude of ideas ready to expand and grow. 

          The Web has defined us and encompasses almost all components of our world, as we know it today.  Users have access to everything from the news, to entertainment, to travel, to business, even style, and have the ability to contribute to the published content.  Whether through Facebook, Twitter, or personal blogs, we have all morphed into both creators and consumers of content.  This concept of Web creation within our technological generation is commonly referred to as Web 2.0, which came about through the introduction of customizability and interconnectivity.  Web 2.0, or as I like to call it, creation through collaboration, has resonated and stuck with me since taking Comm100, my first media class at Lehigh.  As seen throughout We the Media, Gillmor is an advocate for real-time publication by the consumer, and thus supports Web 2.0.

          The Web has enabled society to communicate globally, at an enhanced speed and with extreme ease.  Ultimately, it has created a large-scale community, linking different publics from different locations into one social, global unit.  Take Wikipedia for example.  Wikipedia is currently one of the most valued reference sites on the Web, where the public has the ability to contribute and publish works that are accessible throughout the world.  A student in New York can essentially be reading the same information as a student in England.  Gillmor thoroughly describes this media phenomenon as a collaborative free-forum encyclopedia where interconnectivity is the key to its success.

“Wikipedia is one of the most fascinating developments of the Digital Age.  In just over three years of existence it has become a valuable resource and an example of how the grassroots in today’s interconnected world can do extraordinary things.  It is a model of participatory media quite unlike any other, and is a natural extension of the Web’s capabilities in the context of journalism.” (Gillmor, p.148)

As an avid user of Wikipedia, I value the information posted and published by the public.  Of course, I am always conscious about the possibility of vandalism, yet Gillmor reassures my doubts through his explanation of the “broken window” syndrome described on page 149, which states that “if a neighborhood allows broken windows to stay that way, and fails to replace them, the neighborhood will deteriorate because vandals and other unsavory people will assume no one cares.”  The same thing applies to Wikipedia.  Although the information may be trusted, vandalism on a participatory site is inevitable.  When it occurs however, almost always, a noble consumer corrects the falsified information in due time, making the vandal seem insignificant. 

          Continuing this idea of consumer participation, I will proudly admit that the first place I heard about the shootings in Tucson was on Twitter.  Yes.  I actually received this incredibly devastating information while en route to my grandma's house, from a 16 year-old-girl I do not know.  Yet, this wasn't weird to me.  I couldn't help but go deeper and deeper into my twitter feed to find out more information, by clicking posted links and following live tweeters.  Ironically, that was enough for me.  Essentially, I eliminated the middleman, the journalist, and trusted my valued followers and followees on Twitter to give me the information I was searching for.  I think this is exactly what Gillmor is talking about when he says "the people formerly called the audience, are now the participants."

          Although I am intrigued by the shift from the static Web to Web 2.0 and the social-media-boom, as an aspiring journalist, I fear that reporting will no longer be in demand as the Web continues to evolve and transform.  For a majority of my college career, I have found myself strictly studying print journalism and initially assumed post-graduation I would pursue a career in the afore mentioned field.  Yet what I have recently come to realize is that the industry is shifting into a digital medium.  Books like We the Media and The Cluetrain Manifesto, have opened my eyes to endless possibilities about online reporting.  As a senior in my last semester, the culmination of my college career is right around the corner.  Most recently, I have pursued opportunities in the digital world where my interests would be tailored to the time in which we live, something I never initially intended.  I have had several interviews at fashion related companies that have exceeded my expectations, in their social media departments.  My responsibilities would include blogging, tweeting, and other associated tasks to promote the brands and the company in its entirety.  

          According to Gillmor, “businesses have joined the conversation because blogs fill a gap.”  He shared his opinion about the shift in journalism, specifically in terms of business and blogging.

“To the extent that even a business blog can bring information to the audience – internal or external – with more style than we tend to see on business web sites, enterprises will benefit.  But what brings people back to personal weblogs is their individualized perspective.” (Gillmor, p.30)

Blogs offer a voice that most corporate letters and mailings cannot give the consumer.  In my opinion, THAT is why blogging has been such a large success.  Blogs add a sense of personality and voice, as we discussed in our first J325 session, while eliminating the corporate jargon we are so tired of hearing.  According to New York University’s Jay Rosen, “blogs are an extremely democratic form of journalism.”

          We the Media is seen through a journalistic perspective, contrasting The Cluetrain Manifesto, which mirrors the business world.  Although, shaped around different communities, both exemplify the importance of the Web on consumerism and express through difference means how the Web is going to change our society forever.