Tagging and Folksonomies...Useful?

If I've gone on a big day or night out with my friends and taken lots of photos, the first thing I will do when I return is upload them to Facebook and tag all my friends in them. By doing this my photos will now appear on their pages, and all my other Facebook 'friends' can see who I was out this. Until now it's safe to say I've never actually thought about what I was doing, I've always just done it. This photo is an example of how easy it is to tag someone in a photo or even a comment on Facebook.

But I think the idea of the lecture was to look at how we find information, tagging enables us to do this. For example on search engines such as Google all we really need to do is type in one key word, and a whole range of search results will show up. This links me to the word 'Meta-Data,' which is basically a key word which is typed into a search engine such as Google or Yahoo and will give you all results linked with your word.
So, tagging like Meta-Data,

allows a user to add categories to different things.


http://www.spicynodes.org/blog/2010/09/13/thomas-vander-wal-when-folksonomies-transplant-taxonomies/?gclid=CJrNl63Z9LYCFabLtAodyh8A9A This blog is about Thomas Vander Wal and the term Folksonomies. Which, I'll be honest, have never heard of until todays lecture. Foksonomy is the activity of sorting information into categories derived from the consensus of the information users. My question is...Is it useful? I think there are pros and cons, and the blog I posted earlier will help define these for you. For me it probably isn't as difficult as all this, I simply tag my friends in photos or comments and that's as far as I take it.
But a point was made during the lecture that made me think, with our ability to tag everything, have all these words lost their meaning on the internet? Have all of these words simply been categorised and that's it, it's certainly something to think about. Maybe we are taking Folksonomies too far, and categorising too much.
In terms of tagging and folksonomies, I would say they are more useful than not, and make our life on the internet far easier.

Our friend 'Alice'

With the progression of technology comes the question of technology in education. Education has always been about reading books and learning to write, but with the increase of digital cultures should we look to be changing this somewhat 'old fashioned' way of learning. In my opinion, reading and writing will always be the foundations of an education and technology shouldn't be brought in until later in a childs education. But thats not to say we should ignore it completley, as it could be extremley effective.
In this weeks lecture we looked specifically into Digital literature and the idea that the National Cirriculum could begin to involve online ways of learning. In particular we were advised to look at a website called 'Inanimate Alice.' http://www.inanimatealice.com/ This link to the website will tell you all you need to know about the project. Inanimate Alice has been "created as a reading-from-the-screen experience." It tells the story of a young girl, and as a reader you follow the girl as she grows up and go through the story with her, watching the video, reading the words, listening to the sounds and looking at the pictures.
The argument is, should this be included in the National Cirriculum? For me, there is alot of benefits to this project. It uses a range of multimedia which could be beneficial to some learners who get bored with simply reading words on a page. It also allows the reader to go at a pace which suits them best, stopping and starting as they wish. Therefore to some extent it could be quite a useful and a new way of teaching and keeping children interacted. At the same time it is fairly simple, and so i think that aiming for teenagers might be slightly too old as it isnt very taxing, and some brighter students could grow out of it very quickly.
Therefore it does clearly have benefits and drawbacks, and I think whether you think it is a good idea or a bad idea will all depend on the person and the type of learner you are. People who are very against multimedia and computing will not agree that it should be included in the National Cirriculum, yet those whoe enjoy aesthetics, collaborations and multimedia might think the opposite.
Whether you think Inanimate Alice is good or bad there is no denying that projects like this are being produced because of how rapidly technologies are developing. And clearly there is a gap in education for things like this website to develop, as alot of children these days do focus on computing and social websites. I think maybe it is time to accept that a new wave of teaching and education could be on its way as a consequence of new technologies.

Digitally Cultural

My blog has been purely based around Digital Culture and commentary on the ideas and technologies presented during the course of this unit. Whilst doing this it has made me realise just how important it is to think about the internet, just how much we do use it and what it is used for. Not only that but it seems important to remember where it came from, how it was made and how it has been so widely accepted in our society.
The importance of this has only hit me now, previously I was that person who used the internet an uncountable amount of times a day without actually even realising. Constantly quickly glancing at my facebook or twitter, sending a quick message or making a phonecall. Because in effect our mobile phones are actually computers in todays society.
By doing this blog it has made me appreciate the internet and computers in a new light, and has encouraged me to think about them and where they come from.
And in my opinion the way technology is growing, were not nearly finished yet.

Why's Wiki so wrong?

Don't use Wikipedia. A phrase used commonly throughout my education, but why? Wikipedia has become something of a bogey word in terms of education, it was always drilled into us how unreliable a source it is and how we shouldn't use it as a reference. To me nothing is ever going to be a hundred percent accurate or reliable, take newspapers. Half of what we read everyday is not actually true, yet the majority of us will still go out daily and buy a newspaper. So what's different with us using wikipedia?
In my opinion Wikipedia isn't actually a site I would use for information, purely because of how easy it is for anybody to add information to a page. When I realise this, I ask myself why I don't add any information myself if it's that easy? Then I decided to ask some others if they had ever added or edited any wikipedia pages... the answer was no. Obviously there is no technical issue here, as we all have the technical ability to do it if we wanted. My thought, for myself anyway, is that I have been brought up to think of Wikipedia as a site not to be trusted. Therfore why would I want to add any valuable information to it, only for it not to be taken seriously.
During my research into wikipedia I actually looked at the website in depth, something i've never actually done. Doing this, I realised i've never actually read a whole wikipedia page. Usually I look specifially for a piece of information, name or date and thats as far as it goes.
But Wikipedia actually offers you a great deal more than that. It is so easy to look back to when it was created, every change that has been made to the page with a date and name, so maybe we should give it slightly more credit than we do.

What is Open Access?

When learning about Digital culture,the progression of media and the internet it seems important to consider open access and its advantages alongside its drawbacks. Open access means taking advantage of the global reach and internet publishing to make peer-reviewed scholarly materials freely available. From a university students point of view I might be slightly biased in favour of open access, why should we pay when it can be openly accessed on the web?
http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/01/we-need-more-than-releasing-articles-to-make-open-access-work/
During my research I came across this blog written by, Dan Cohen which seems to highlight both advantages and disadvantges of open access from varying points of view. He brings up the point that "an open access system can never work on the demand side." Which is true, as long as people can access books and knowledge for free there will be no need to go and out and purchase.
This topic is one that interested me more than I would have thought, if it works and it is easier then why isn't everybody doing it? It seems only some people agree whilst the others are still strongly against.
Open Access brings greater visibility and impact, in todays' society it is far easier for someone to quickly look online for an article or book than it is for them to go a library or book store. Open Access will also help to progress research, it will help to enable better managment and assesment of research. Not only that but it also provides long term document availabilty, if it is put on the internet surley we will always be able to access it?
However some reservations about open access have been brought up, there are certainly reservations amongst some about the quality control and the authenticity. If things are put up on the web, does this mean it is easier for people to change it making the work less reliable? But, for me, the main reservations, particularly for the authors and publishers is the financial issue. With open access the demand decreases, decreasing any profits that could have been made.
In my opinion, after actually looking at the advantages and disadvantages, a part of it must be that our society simply doesn't like change and they are not willing to accept Open Access. But I think open access has to be the future, it will make work available to the world wide web, which will make it fair. Open Access will mean everybody all around the world will have the same access to the same information. I think people should be embracing the idea not turning it down.

Cyberspace is a dangerous game...

It is without argument that the internet brings a huge amount of benefits, but it is easy to forget how dangerous it can be as well. The impact of Cyberstalking is massive and alot of people dont take the time or think it is necessary to protect themselves properly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMZzyRi1YaM
This video shows just how dangerous cyberspace can be, and shows that everytime we post even a little information about ourselves we are putting ourselves at risk.
During a recent lecture we were lucky enough to be spoke to about recent research that has been taken about cyberstalking. Cyberstalking is generally considered to be harassment that originates online, it isn't a new problem, it is an old problem through new media.
There are many different types of attack, some considered less sevre than others, they can range from posting fake profiles, direct threats, identity theft and even contsructing websites targetting the victim. During the lecture we were told some astonshing facts about cyberstalking and the effects it can have. 54% of victims met their attacker offline, 58% of people experienced three or more modes of cyberstalking and that 68% of all victims were female.
Along with the facts it seems we get myths as well. The greatest myth that is associated with cyberstalking is that it doesn't really do any damage. Back this up with the fact that 72% of women murdered by their attacker were stalked by them in the 12 months before the murder, I think we should re-evaluate that myth. Clearly cyberstalking can do far more damage than we might think.
The lecture itself taught me alot about just how extreme cyberstalking can get, and that in reality it happens to far more people than we might think. It is true that this new digital culture we are being brought up in has alot of benefits, but it is clearly important to remember the negatives of it. The internet and cyberspace can be a very dangerous place and we shouldn't be naive enough to think that just because we are behind a computer screen we can't be harmed.

Our Internet Identity.

For many the internet allows you to create a whole new identity, to present yourself as something totally different to what you are actually like. This can become a dangerous tool.

Identity is rooted in many things, its rooted in our families, our communties, our gender, class, political ideas, beliefs and even rooted in out commen interests, but cyberspace can help us to change this and allow us to maintain a completley false identity. Do we change our identity according to the website we use? For example my age group grew up using sites like 'Bebo' and 'Myspace' and then eventually we grew out of those and moved onto the likes of 'Facebook' and 'Twitter,' or at least that was the case for myself.

In my research for this particular blog I looked into my "Self-presentation", how I have presented myself to others through the use of social media. With the tools on facebook I have been able to annalyse my usage on the site. It was obvious my usage on the website has decreased alot, or so i might think. Although I no longer regularly post photos and status' I am still using Facebook to browse just as much. Now Facebook is easily available on my phone, I can click on the app a hundred times a day to look without even realising. It is also clear that as I have grown up I have started to 'unlike' things I once was interested in, possibly to save the embarrassment of my former self. Therfore as the years go past I constantly adapt my Facebook to present myself how I would want people to view me.
Social sites such as Facebook and Twitter are an outlet for personal expression and therefore your idnetity is determined by your Twitter and Facebook pages, but that isnt your real identity? It is simply a form of self-presentation, in effect your telling people how to view you and what to think of you.

Together we can!

In one of my previous blogs, "Stop ignoring the important stuff" I spoke about our ability to sign up to things without actually reading the terms and conditions. I was trying to prove how stupid a thing to do that is, we wouldnt buy a car or a house without reading the terms and conditions would we? So why do we sign up to all these online websites like Facebook and Twitter without actually knowing what we are signing up to? When writing that blog I actually ended up frightening myself, how could I be so stupid to sign away rights to my photos status' and everything about my life without even realising it? I dont know, but we all seem happy enough to do it.
Well what if I suggested starting a campaign, a campaign in which we created new polocies, polocies that suited us and not them. Together we can make a start to changing the way in which these internet sites work! Sure we all want to use Facebook and Twitter by should we use them at the expense of our safety and at the expense of things that we should own?
http://www.nyccounsel.com/business-blogs-websites/who-owns-photos-and-videos-posted-on-facebook-or-twitter/
If reading that doesn't worry you, Im not sure what will! It is clear to me that changes need to be made, but where and when will they start?
Polocies for social websites should amost certainly be changed. When signing up we shouldnt have to sign our rights away, and in my opinion the way to make this change is to campaign. If the awareness for what we have actually agreed to becomes greater then the ability to want to change these polocies should increase. Although we are partially to blame for accepting these polocies, they are also very good at tricking us, and its time we put a stop to it and campaign against giving away our rights.

Stop Ignoring The Important Stuff

In an earlier blog I brought up the question of us not really knowing our privacy rights with sites such as Twitter and Facebook. So when we agree to their terms and conditions without actually reading them, what are we actually signing up to?
I'll happily admit that I signed up to Facebook because all my friends had started using it and it was the cool thing to do... but i'll also admit there is no way I actually read all the terms and conditions that I agreed to before I created my account, and i'd almost bet my life that half the people using Facebook, like me, didn't read the terms and conditions. So when were posting all our photos and status' about what were doing, how do we know we are in control? We dont.
http://www.facebook.com/legal/terms
Above is the link to the terms and conditions that everyone has to agree to before their account is created. Some of them, to me, are quite disturbing and has certainly made me think twice about what I post and upload because in effect anything we do upload Facebook then owns.
"When you publish content or information using the Public setting, it means that you are allowing everyone, including people off of Facebook, to access and use that information, and to associate it with you (i.e., your name and profile picture)." This is just one of the terms and conditions that we agree to, so not only do we allow Facebook to use our information and pictures we also allow people off of Facebook to do the same.
I found a video which puts into perspective the full terms and conditions to facebook, and it shows that maybe we should be a tad more apprehensive about Facebook and similar sites. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfY_HTzd_4U
I think maybe its time to do something about what we have all agreed to. What would happen if we all deleted our accounts until the terms and conditions were changed so that we could really trust Facebook? They would surley have no choice but to make some changes to get users back. It certainly seems that it is something people should be thinking about, to protect themselves and all their information that we naively publish.

The Machine is using us...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gmP4nk0EOE This video brings up important and thought provoking points about the internet and Web 2.0. I'll be honest, before i begun looking in depth into the world wide web and the internet, it was just a piece of technology and software that was there for me to use, i used it every single day, possibly every hour, but i never really thought about how it worked or what i was actually doing on it. Kevin kelly believes that we are the ones teaching the Web, he believes we live inside Web 2.0. By saying this he means we are writing the software for the internet, everytime we tag a photo or search for something we are teaching the web what to do. Our questions programme the machine to answer the questions. Therefore Kevin Kellys theory that the machine is using us seems to be a sensible one, we are giving the answers to the machine.
The Web is an unusual yet wonderful thing, a thing that people dismissed when it first came about, nobody visualised that it would become as big as it is or that we would use it religiously, as we do. Since then the Web has changed and progressed massivley to socities needs, which is why today we now have Web 2.0. Web 2.0 is all about connecting people, whereas Web 1.0 was about connecting computers and technology. Todays society uses Web 2.0 for social needs, for social sites such as Facebook and Twitter. Gradually we have transformed the web to fullfill our needs and change what the web is there for. Although there seems to be dangers that surround web 2.0 we are using it more frequently than ever. Issues of ubiquity, privacy, property and politics all seem to an issue Web 2.l0 faces. In terms of privacy we seem to post our lives on sites such as Twitter and Facebook, but how do we actually know that what we are posting on there is private? Maybe this is a debate for a future post...

Our Digital Voice

It's easy enough to think about the digital body and the digital mind, but what about the voice...computer-mediated communication. By looking at the digital voice it can then help us look into how the web works today, looking into topics such as cyberstalking, identity and our own internet representation.
The digital voice and communication is not a new idea, and when researching it you realise that communication and the ability to transmit messages occured long before digital culture begun. I looked at the book "When Old technology was new," by Carolyn Marvin to help me understand these ideas. Communication was previously transmitted by runners, riders, beacons and eventually by telegraph.
Before long the printing press was invented, which gave society the ability to print books and newspapers, this helped move messages forward it was a progression for the digital voice. Shortly after in the mid 19th Century society underwent the Industrail Revolution. Revealing the birth of the steam train, this along with the printing press meant the birth of journalism.
So when digital culture began to take form, the ideas were not new ones, it was not unique because the ability to transmit messages exsisted long before this. The progression is unbelievable, from telegraphs to emails digital culture has progressed the ability to transmit messages uncontrolably.

Humans vs Robots

The idea that robots could take over our jobs, our world and us is a scary one. How can we expect a piece of machinery to fullfil the roles that we play? In my eyes this seems ridiculous and something that we would never buy into...except we are. To me it seems we are putting so much money, effort and time into creating robots purley out of curiosity, how far can we really take it and how human like can we really make these machines? https://inlportal.inl.gov/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=536&parentname=CommunityPage&parentid=7&mode=2&in_hi_userid=3338&cached=true
This link shows what we seem to be expecting of these robots and it begins to give an explanation of what they might do and why we might want them... seems to me that humans lazyness is to blame for this fascination.
To me a robot is simply a servant or a slave, a way to get something else to complete the jobs that we do not want to do, a "Reprogrammable multifunctional manipulator." Behind every great idea there is always the potential of a threat, by creating these robots surley we are preparing ourselves for the possibility of creating a creature far more intelligent than us, and in my opinion this poses a huge threat to our world and us.
David Hanson is a prime example of a man who seems somewhat obssessed with the idea of Robots being as intelligent and capable as humans. He said, "I see an amazing future relationship between Humans and Robots. We’re going to make our robots more like animals and people. We’re going to give them advanced cognitive capabilities. We see so many technology trends moving in this direction – from machine perception, which allows us to understand speech and see faces and see gestures. We’ve seen great strides forward. We’re really in the infancy of these kinds of machine intelligence technologies." This comes from and interview by EarthSky, to see the full interview look at http://earthsky.org/human-world/david-hanson-creates-robots-with-human-faces. This shows just how amitious some people are in wanting to create humanoid robots, but what is really the point? The world is massivley over populated as it is, so what real benefits will robots bring to us? Robots should remain doing the jobs that humans are unable to do and we shouldnt be attamepting to make them more intelligent than ourselves.
Robots in effect are simply computers that we are attempting to make more human like, but they surley will never really be like us. They will never have the capability to feel or show true emotion like we can, so how will they ever be one of us? We can make them look and sound as human like as possible, but they will never truly be human, and therefore it seems our curiosity to create these things is spiralling out of control and we should save the money and time we are wasting. But thats just my opinion, on the other hand Rodney Brookes, chairman and chief technical officer for Rethink Robotics, would say that "within 10 years we're going to see humanoid Robots," it seems we had better watch out.

History and our internet dependancy.

The Internet is an invention which astounds me more than anything else. A concept which can link the world together with a click of the mouse. A concept which holds and shows millions of different websites, images, blogs and videos for people all over the world to use. The Internet seems to be a forever evolving concept, getting bigger and bigger everytime it is used. But how did it really come about? We use it now for social media, to keep in contact with friends, to advertise and to buy, but what was the orignal purpose?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZSPWDMn730

This video shows how the internet has been transformed over the last 40 years (and progressed even further since then) and how it first began. The war, in my opinion, seems to be the starting point behind the internet being born, the US military wanted to learn how to control weapons and by beginning to create a computer, this allowed that to happen, which in turn allowed progress for the internet to be made. This youtube clip clearly highlights key points in the History of the internet. It clearly shows that as the internet has developed we have developed our needs to it, we are now dependant on the internet. If the internet was taken away from us would we be able to survive? It seems in todays culture and society the internet is like our food and water, we are depenadant upon it. It is obviously important to recognise the history of the internet, how it started and what it was orignially used for because then we can truly realise how it has affected our relationship with technology today. By looking at the history we are all able to see how the internet has changed from a military weapon and government use to a worldwide social media platform. It is now used on a daily basis by billions of people making it a necessity within our lives. http://createbusinessgrowth.com/marketing/have-we-become-too-internet-dependent I came across this blog which sums up our dependancy on the internet, it shows a useful example of how many time we actually come into contact with the itnernet, sometimes without even realising! Will the wonders of the internet cease to grow bigger and bigger and ever became less of a necessity within our lives? Who knows.

Google Glasses- One step too far.

Google Glasses are the latest crazed invention which are attempting to take computing to the next level, whether they are ridiculous or genius is yet to be decided. Splitting the tech world into frenzy as to whether or not these strange glasses are a good idea, or whether they are simply taking technology one step too far. The concept of the glasses is Googles attempt to create a computer which you wear all the time, by tilting your head in deifferent directions you will have full control of the glasses and what you see.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9c6W4CCU9M4#!

This link is to a video which better explains the general idea of the glasses, and how they will work whilst your wearing them. The glasses seem to be like a wearable smart phone, they allow you to take pictures, send messages along side many other fucntions. However, it seems to me that these glasses with 'augmented reality' are showing us just how addicted to technology our society has become. It isn't enough that we can get out our smart phone and take a photo or make a phone call, society is becoming so lazy because of the increased need to create a better technology than the one gone before. Google Glasses represent societys need for something better, but for me this isn't a good thing, it is simply taking us further away from reality and making us more dependant on technology. Will it ever stop?