Group items tagged

This article examines on various factors of uses and gratification on why people utilise media in Youtube. First factor is motivation, where the writers believe that the media behaviour is goal directed and purposive. This motivation is part of the central concept in acquiring media within online space. Youtube technology enable the user to satisfy interpersonal needs and communicate their opinion to others thus creating social bond between users. Secondly, the activity factor explained that Youtube provides a medium to facilitate activities to audience before, during and after media exposure. This activity can influence how audience perceive certain (media exposure) through social interaction. Last factor, which is affinity, described how Youtube enable users to select various channel of media for their own interest. For example, active users tend to create their own video and share with the public, while the less active users may only need to find information or entertainment. These factors relates well with the reading by Wasko (2005), which examine why online users voluntarily contribute knowledge and ideas to help others in online environment.  Following the factors above, the writer also includes the study on user background characteristics that shape their activity on Youtube. This characteristics including: social activities and interpersonal interaction, locus of control where belief is reflected to control events, sensation seeking and innovativeness. The study is based on the quantitative research to support their hypothesis. 

To conclude the article, there was an argument that previously, researchers believed the Internet would blur the lines between mass and interpersonal communication. Through the analytical data that were included, the writer argued that the new social networking sites would blend the mass and interpersonal communication.

The link above only provide first page free sample. For complete version of this reading please access through Curtin Library catalogue Source: Haridakis, P. & Hanson, G. (2009) 'Social interaction and co-viewing with Youtube: blending mass communication reception and social connection'. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, June 2009, 53(2), p.317 (19) available online through Curtin Catalogue. Additional reference: Wasko, M. M. & Faraj, S. (2005), 'Why Should I Share? Examining Social Capital and Knowledge Contribution in Electronic Networks of Practice', MIS Quarterly, 29(1), p. 35-57.

Hasan, H., & Pfaff, C.C. (2006). The wiki: an environment to revolutionise employees' interaction with corporate knowledge. OZCHI. 11(24-26). Pp377-380. Retrieved 19th March 2012 from http://www.ozchi.org/proceedings/2006/sessions/short-papers/social/hasan-p377.pdf This article focuses on collaborative social software, such as wikis, being used by members to communicate and collaborate electronically within corporate organisations. The authors use the term Knowledge Management (KM) to describe the ways in which wikis can be used within these organisations to share knowledge, create content, distribute documents and edit files. The advantages of using wikis within corporate organisations are that knowledge can be shared quickly and efficiently, allowing editing of pages to be recorded and information to be kept up-to-date. New pages are able to be created and old ones deleted. Editing of pages and knowledge contribution is relatively easy when employing a wiki, even for the novice user. Overall the "wiki takes advantage of the collaborative efforts of all members of the organisation to create an effective library of knowledge" (p.378). Major corporations such as IBM, the Disney Corporation, and British Telecommunications, are three major organisations that have been noted to employ wikis to assist with KM amongst workers. However, some corporate organisations choose not to employ wikis to organise KM for a number of reasons. Wikis may appear to change the organisational structure within companies such that "senior executives may be reluctant to share power with their subordinates" (p.379). There are issues surrounding intellectual property and quality control of information. Privacy concerns also come into play, and conflict may arise if workers are contributing more information or less information to the wiki than other employees. However the authors note that through offering corporate incentives, implementing revision control, and employing u

Corporate knowledge pertains to the inside information that companies need to operate. Internal wikis allow companies to coordinate and collaborate their internal information to streamline the normal business processes. This also allows businesses to spread their business network across many areas and still work cohesively on a common task. Wikipedia can be considered one enormous organization that serves the single purpose of supplying information to the entire globe through the detailed and yet at the same time brief articles. Global networks like this are true representations of collaboration and how steps can be taken in an effort to allow and access the knowledge of crowds. The knowledge of crowds is an idea that there is a bank of information that can be attained by taking the small pieces that each person in the crowd holds. Can corporations use wikis effectively to store information? Who holds the power? With any type of wiki it is important to remember that someone must be in charge of moderating and filtering the information. Or if a wiki is used inside a corporation does that remove the need for a person in charge of filtering? Either way a wiki can be an effective tool in allowing businesses to collaborate without the need to be in the same geographic location.

Courtenay Honeycutt and Susan Herring discuss the collaborative potential of Twitter. This is of particular relevance to the discussion of Anonymous organisation tools, as Anonymous uses Twitter for a large amount of its public relations. @Anonops, @AnonymousIRC and @Youranonnews are twitter users with substantial followers, each with greater than 250,000 followers. Anonymous's favourite method of attack - Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS - works better with every additional participant. Anonymous must recruit members to participate in such attacks through Twitter, Facebook and Youtube. Twitter presents the most anonymous and easily digestible communication channel of the three, whilst also being extremerly active during past operations such as #oppayback. Therefore, Twitter plays a central role in the collaboration of anonymous, especially communicating with those who do not take an active role in IRC chats. Honeycutt and Herring examine the conversational and collaborative potential of Twitter with the use of the @ symbol to direct conversation. This activity is very prominent among the Anonymous Twitter account listed earlier. Anonymous Twitter feeds are full of responses to criticisms and answers to questions. It is worthwhile to note that Honeycutt and Herrings article was written in 2009, before use of the @ symbol became recognised by Twitter as a certified way of creating conversation. Now, it is easy to transverse conversation simply by clicking tweets with an @ symbol. During Anonymous operations, Twitter provides an invaluable resource in being able to address such a number of followers at once. Honeycutt and Herring also note similarities between Twitter and IRC channels, also noting that the hectic, crossing conversation are perhaps part of the appeal to some of IRC. This is certainly present in Twitter, but without the constraints of server based IRC channels. Twitter presents a global audience to which Anonymous reaches out, when recruiting

Digital Maoism, by self-confessed ranter Jaron Lanier, provides an alternative (and quite contentious) view on collaboration and the way it is used in Wikipedia. Unlike Reagle Jr, who suggests that collaboration can be successful with the correct cultural infrastructure (Reagle Jr, 2011, para. 103), Lanier argues that the best way to achieve successful collaboration on the web is to always cherish the individual over the collective (Lanier, 2006, para. 68). He expresses his frustration with the inaccuracies of his own Wikipedia page and speaks about the work of collaborative communities (or as he calls it, collectives) on wikis more generally, with disgust (Lanier, 2006, para. 33). Lanier argues that, "[h]istory has shown us again and again that a hive-mind is a cruel idiot when it runs on autopilot. Nasty hive mind outbursts have been flavoured Maoist, Fascist and religious, and these are only a small sampling" and that, "[i]f wikis are to gain any more influence they ought to be improved by mechanisms like the ones they have worked tolerably well in the pre-Internet world" (Lanier, 2006, para. 65). Lanier's essay is an interesting resource to view when thinking about collaboration and 'the wisdom of crowds' theory (Surowiecki, 2004, p. 5), and how this applies to Wikipedia. Lanier, a computer scientist and regular writer on the topic of computers and Internet-based technologies, portrays a controversial viewpoint that differs from much other writing on the topic. While I don't agree with most of Lanier's outspoken views which are often unsubstantiated, I think that there is some merit in the suggestion that there needs to be at least one individual, (as well as the correct infrastructure, as other theorists suggest), to guide the work in collaborative organisations. I also think this resource is useful as it is so far removed from other writing on this topic, which often glorifies the collective, allowing you to think about the topic in another way.

References Lanier, J. (2006). Digital Maoism. Retrieved from http://edge.org/3rd_culture/lanier06/lanier06_index.html Reagle Jr, J.M. (2011). Good Faith Collaboration. In J.M. Reagle Jr, Good Faith Collaboration: Culture of Wikipedia (Online Edition, Chapter 3). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Retrieved from http://reagle.org/joseph/2010/gfc/chapter-3.html Surowiecki, J. (2004). The wisdom of crowds: Why the many are smarter than the few. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Digital Maoism is a rumination on the direction of online collaboration. Lanier examines this from a self reflexive viewpoint which begins with an examination of his own self as constructed by users on Wikipedia. In doing this he looks at online collaboration not through the empirical standpoint of participation, but the deeper reflection of having been 'produced' by it. The inconsistencies in the online record of his life introduce his perspective of measured criticism toward collaborative networks which increasingly attempt to function as overarching meta-narratives. Larnier's tone is personal, his perspective artistic rather than academic, he relates his arguments in language which brings it to life, "it's important to not lose sight of values just because the question of whether a collective can be smart or not is so fascinating. Accuracy in a text is not enough. A desirable text is more than a collection of accurate references. It is also an expression of personality." Seeing in Emily's introduction that Larnier was a "self-confessed ranter", I was a little concerned as to how balanced the article would be. He is a bit of ranter, but such is his passion for the subject, and I would say that it is a fair and insightful critique on online collaboration. Larnier's main thrust is reaffirming the importance of the individual as conscious participants within networks of online collaboration: aware of their own value as part of a diverse group rather than drones in a 'hive'. The relevance of this essay is its recognition that online collaboration is not smart merely by aggregation, that users must be empowered in their own beliefs for the group to benefit from the multiplication of which.