Group items tagged

Highlighted throughout this wire piece is the principal idea that the collaboration of online political supporters of the Obama campaign did not happen randomly, rather as Benko (2008) notes there was a "clear vision" behind the strategies used to empower, encourage and promote this activism. While this article takes a more statistical approach the vast success that the campaign had in translating online collaboration into an offline political movement is demonstrated as over 150,000 campaign related events were organized through online communities, and in the last week of the campaign online volunteers were asked to make over a million phone calls encouraging others to vote. A key strength of this source is the lack of political ideology or motive present. As a news piece it offers factual and well supported observations and comparisons as to how this online collaboration evolved. This is documented when noting the crucial role that this organized campaign played in generating financial muscle for the candidate, Obama himself noting "that it was the working men and women" who helped to obtain over $600 million most of which was donated online. The Obama campaign employed the right people in Rospars, Hughes an Goldstein (2009) to exploit the potential Youth, grassroots and hard - to-reach voters with an online political strategy they helped to not only involve them in this revolutionary online collaboration but to also give them a feeling of political empowerment. This reliable source is therefore key in documenting how the Obama campaign skillfully executed an online strategy to maximize group collaboration. Offering not only a balanced and factual observation as to how the internet empowered and mobilized the ordinary citizen thus revolutionizing the political scene of the western world, but also crucially that with this campaign there was a clear bridge that activism online can result in political involvement and ultimately change offline. Refer

It is important to remember that, although Obama cleverly attached the Internet to his campaign, a combination of factors contributed to his 52 per cent (Stirland, 2008) majority: A compelling and humanising personal narrative, stellar oratory skills, and that "the moment was perfect for his message of 'change'" (Norquay, 2007). Obama's candidacy was a consciously planned and executed national movement that "lent itself to mass mobilisation among that very portion of the population that is the most new media friendly and tech-savvy, the younger demographic" (Norquay, 2007). The youth not only engaged in the web pages and online action groups produced by the Obama campaign, they took it upon themselves to create their own media content; such as the 'Yes We Can' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjXyqcx-mYY, 2008) celebrity-driven music video which reached Youtube notoriety, or the portrait graphic a supporter produced later going on to be assimilated into the official promotion. This content-creation parallels my topic on Middle East revolutions, through activist's construction of uniform slogans, signs and imagery (McHugh, 2011). This article concludes with the prediction that Obama's "rise to the presidency will be studied for years to come as the textbook example of a new kind of electioneering driven by people and technology" (Stirland, 2008), and- to a less successful extent- this was realised in the Kevin07 campaign, in which "Kevin Rudd launched his campaign to online publicity buzz- turning to blogging, Youtube and Facebook" (Best, 2007). The Obama Campaign speaks volumes on trends towards the democratic possibilities of technology; but dystopian thought suggests that "people go online to find out more about a subject, not to be politically transformed" (Lievrouw & Livingstone, 2002). Even though a 2000 ULCA study (Kahn & Keller, 2004) showed only 29.7% of users felt the internet led to people having greater pow

Although often overlooking the role of politicians in organizing online political collaboration, Sanson documents the crucial role that facebook played in galvanizing and motivating the millennial generation of voters to participate and engage in political debate throughout the 2008 election. There is an underlying theme throughout this paper that it was a case of peer -to-peer relationships that caused this revolutionary collaboration of young voters. Further highlighted is the ease with regards to facebook being an organizing tool, with social actions within the site being reflective of a ground based campaign and helping to form a new kind of politics(Sanson, 2008). Sanson ponders why it is that the youth vote has suddenly became more engaged in the political spectrum, considering factors outside of the political world; noting that both circumstance(BBC News,2008 ) and the timing of incidents over the last decade may well have instigated this youth movement. Yet it is crucially noted that the internet and particularly Facebook became a catalyst for this millennial collaboration, based not solely on political presence online but also the wealth of information and the free-flowing style of messages combined with the vast number of users(Facebook, 2011) and the ultimate chain reaction of a peer-to-peer connection. Noted throughout is the fact that this social network was used for more than just organization and a spear head of this political collaboration - highlighted is how it was used for financial muscle, as well as a tool for micro-targeting and the education of a younger generation on both the candidates and the political process. Throughout this academic paper a thorough explanation is offered as to the triggers of this millennial political collaboration which has led to a new dialogue being opened between the politicians and the voters, there can be no question that Facebook has revolutionized the way that political collaborations are conducte

The Internet has presented a medium for people to carry out 'liberal individualist' transactions with government agencies. In 2001, Microsoft announced that the internet will empower citizens "to set their own political agendas, establish government priorities and help implement policies" (Katz & Rice, 2002) and, as Angela Sanson's chapter explains, the 2007/8 United States elections rang this prediction true. Campaign finance was "just one of the many ways Obama's IT and social networking approaches revolutionised citizen participation" (Norquay, 2007): Evidence of internet incensed political dialogue, such as discussion forums, sites indicating support/non-support for parties and leadership (for example, President Obama's 1.7 million friends at the time), videos, art and news combine to create an increasingly potent role for the internet user. Obama endeavoured to "define his campaign by 'conversations' with the American people" (Westling, 2007), and in doing so, formed genuine connections which later translated into votes. As Westling recognises, Facebook is an ultimate campaign tool as it combines the "best features of local bulletin-boards, newspaper, and town hall meetings and places them in one location that is available at any time in practically any location" (2007). Many scholars have likened the transformative role of the Internet in political propaganda to that of television in the 1966 U.S. Election. The impact of the internet, however, far surpasses television because of the vast potential for individual empowerment. Instead of simply voting for themselves, citizens had the opportunity to actively contribute to political change in their peers. From the public's perspective, Facebook "gives amateur activists an easy way to connect with other citizens around the globe and helps them push their collective concerns to the top of political agendas" (Sanson, 2008). This same online influence was successfully em

This paper does a great job in critically analysing how Flash Mobs, a new socio-cultural phenomenon, are in fact final products born from a complex human collaboration and use of the technological revolution that is the Internet. It clearly explains their specificity as being totally socially mediated on, by and through online digital tools (blogs, social media, forums, instant messaging) that are used as collaborative spaces to virtually organise and create a real-life upcoming interaction between people (Nicholson, 2005). What's more, the paper brings some ideas about how the Internet can also be used to "hijack" and reverse the original essence of Flash Mob philosophy, thereby turning its main assets - instantaneity, virtual proximity, massive audience reach, networks, costless operation - into potential factors for bringing chaos, as when Philadelphia experienced a very violent wave of riots (Wagner & Buzi, 2010), or when a political protest flash mob was organised in Belarus in 2006 (Peterson, 2009). Garland demonstrates the importance of cooperation and participation between network users for Flash Mobs and cites Rheingold's thesis, with which I strongly agree, that states that they are "a type of social engagement that may be created and organised by interacting with the technology of shared networks or the technologies that allow the shared networks to interact [within an event program]" (2002). Yet, this reading highlights the differences between Flash Mobs and Smart Mobs even though both can be considered as the technology itself and the use of that technology (Rheingold, 2002). In the end, The History of Flash Mobs raises larger concepts from which this phenomenon grew out of, such as communication, social or cultural studies, thus emphasising the importance of Internet as a new way for human beings to interact and collaborate in real life. REFERENCES Buzi, J. & Wagner, A. (2010) Flash Mobs: A New Social Phenomenon Philadelphia N

REFERENCES (continue): Buzi, J. & Wagner, A. (2010) Flash Mobs: A New Social Phenomenon Philadelphia Neighbors. sct.temple.edu. Accessible from http://sct.temple.edu/blogs/murl/2010/03/30/flash-mobs-a-new-socialphenomenon/ (accessed on 11th April, 2011) Nicholson, J. A. (2005) 'Flash! Mobs in the Age of Mobile Connectivity' The Fibreculture Journal, Iss.6 December. Accessible from http://six.fibreculturejournal.org/fcj-030-flash-mobs-in-the-age-of-mobile-connectivity/print/ (accessed on 11th April, 2011) Peterson, N. (2009) Flash Mobs - The New Political Dissent. Accessible from http://www.neilpeterson.com/index.php/2009/11/flash-mobs-the-new-political-dissent (accessed on 12th April, 2011) Rheingold, H. (2002) Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution. New-York: Basic Books.

In this article, West argues that the field of education is falling behind and missing out the opportunities that online collaboration can bring to students. He states that "with the ease that misguided youth can organize themselves into a mob; professionals can organize themselves into supportive learning communities." (2010). In particular West discusses Twitter, the use of certain hash tags relevant to his field in music education. West also discusses groups available on Facebook, and how Skype has been used to bring a field expert into the classroom and have a composer watch and ensemble from the other side of the world in order to provide commentary and feedback. West mentions that prior to social networking and other online tools, the only real way to collaborate with those in your field of interest or profession was to attend conferences or conventions held for that specific purpose. But now with the availability of online collaboration tools and the wide spread accessibility, there is a "new universe" (2010) of collaboration and information. West employs that the classroom no longer need to be 4 walls, 1 teacher and 20 odd students, and that the classroom has "at it's disposal a rapidly growing cornucopia of tools, information and services online…" that could bring so much more to students and educators alike. References: West, T. (2010). The Antithesis of Flash Mobs - How Professional Learning Communities Are Changing Education. Retrieved from http://www.thomasjwestmusic.com/apps/blog/show/3327014-the-antithesis-of-flash-mobs-how-professional-learning-communities-are-changing-education

The interesting part of this post that relates to my topic is when West describes Flash Mobs as a springboard for violent events in Philadelphia. According to several papers I have read regarding Flash Mob studies, West is obviously right when he talks about the "ease with which youth can organise themselves into a mob" (Rheingold, 2002). He is also right when he states that they have demonstrated the power of online collaboration because Flash Mobs Mobs simply emerge when communication and computing technologies amplify human talents for cooperation. They are products created from humans' interactions on and with digital mobile communication devices (Nicholson, 2005). But he is wrong, I believe, when he talks about Flash Mobs in general as being an abuse of social networks. Flash Mobs are just one of the many possibilities of how Internet can be used to transform virtual online collaboration between a large number of people into real, concrete offline happenings. Clay Shirky though does a great job of describing the position of Internet in our always changing social interactions and organisation (2008). He notably argues that how tools get used depends on the political environment, and if the Philadelphia riots were actually adopting the same organisational process as Flash Mobs, they did not have anything to do with Flash Mobs (Callari, 2010). As one of the first mob organisers, Bill Wasik, says: "the mobs started as a playful social experiment" (Ubrina, 2010). If Flash Mobs can be used as protest tools, especially in low freedom environments, they were themselves peaceful - almost artistic - interventions. One example used by Howard Rheingold, and which he called a "Smart Mob", is the Ice Cream Flash Mob in Belarus where people ate ice cream to protest against the authoritarian government (Rheingold, 2002). Mobs should be distinguished in nature and by definition, from riots, even though these had been partly organised through Internet.

This article by Chris Brogan demonstrates the enormous potentials of adopting a virtual office using communication and collaboration tools. Brogan, owner of a small-business education and growth company believes that doing business without the traditional trappings means equipping employees with the right platforms. The author breaks down the tools he used for his virtual office. The first list was the tools used for communication which comprised of: - Skype: Used as a de facto office phone - Adium and Trillian: An instant messaging tool. - Yammer: An internal organisational version of twitter. As their online collaboration tool, company used various free virtual tools: - Google Docs (docs.google.com): sharing information back and forth. Google Docs is one of the more popular tools for sharing and editing documents in real time online. - Linoit (en.linoit.com): A virtual cork board for sticky notes. - Dropbox (dropbox.com) - Real time file sharing. At one time, the office was a physical place, and communicating with colleagues meant visiting their cubicles to discuss ideas or ask questions. Online media, however, have expanded the office to virtual environments in which one regularly interacts with co-workers from different cultures and countries (Amant, 2003). A virtual office removes time and place for an organisation. Reference: Brogran, C. (2011). Virtually there: Facilitating communication and collaboration at a virtual office using software tools. Entrepreneur, 39(1), 1. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=dc3fa996-00f5-4ad2-994b-3393f25aad18%40sessionmgr114&vid=2&hid=108 Amant, K. S. (2003). Making contact in international virtual offices: an application of symbolic interactionism to online workplace discourse. Institute of Technology & Sci. Communication, 46(3), 4. Retrieved from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=1227596

Appropriate tools are prerequisite to the successful execution of a job. Organisations understand knowledge is important to business running. However, efficient method of applying knowledge in daily working procedure is necessary for organisations. Human, policy and collaboration tool are essential elements for implement knowledge sharing system. The article expressed collaboration tools is the 'wheel' of knowledge sharing. The article also gives me a message that I should choose collaboration tools carefully if I work as information management professional. The article evaluated several knowledge collaboration tools. Appropriate collaboration tools have been helping several organisations improve their performance whether public or private sectors (Hedgebeth, 2007). It proved collaboration tools is helpful for knowledge sharing. However, we should not avoid the importance of choosing collaboration tools. Hedgebeth evaluated four collaborations tools only in the research paper; nevertheless, there are lots of collaboration tools in the market. All vendors advertise their tools are the best. Therefore my opinion is the first step is understanding how to choose the tool rather than using the tool. Organisations should compare more than four tools. Moreover, organisations should aware add on module of each tools. Although organisations need to spend more money on purchasing add on services, but add on services may enhance the performance of sharing knowledge. Reference Hedgebeth, D. (2007). Making use of knowledge sharing technologies. VINE, 37(1), 49. Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/pqdweb?index=0&did=1247959181&SrchMode=2&sid=1&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1302856540&clientId=22212&cfc=1