Group items tagged

^I found this post on e-journals and e-books to be particularly interesting, in that some scholars prefer the print versions because they find them more conducive to browsing and looking at similar content. You can browse electronic material, just not in the same way as you would search a bookshelf. By reading an article through an electronic database, such as ScienceDirect, you can obtain instantaneous access to similar articles (sometimes, ScienceDirect will even "suggest" ones you might like, or you can access articles written by one or more of the authors. If instant access isn't possible, some databases have an automated "Request via Interlibrary Loan" or other document delivery service. You can browse content that interests you and automatically download citations and snapshots to Zotero, Refworks, or another info-gathering tool, and be less likely to misplace your research. Some libraries are caught between a rock and a hard place, because of the lack of space and the cost of storing print journals. But how do you serve the users who prefer the old ways of browsing and gathering research by rifling through these print journals?

The in-text link to the article: " The High-Tech Gift Economy" is also worth a read. It compares the proliferation of shareware and open source software to the political movement of anarcho-communism.

Oh dear. I wasted many an hour on Farmville back when it was big...way more than I'd like to admit. That's a neat connection between the digital farm and the real world--and how people's obsession over the game (though I don't know if it's still the case...I deactivated my Farm because it was, well, eating up my entire life!) speaks to something deeper, like the desire for community.

There are some failures in the analysis made in the "High Tech Gift Economy". Thinking that the internet was created by the military is a bit of a canard: in my opinion it was the most inventive misuse of military money by a university. Also there is a conception that the 'net runs on the love of pixies and nerds, where in reality it runs on commercial networks successfully making money. I'd much prefer pixie net, but it just ain't so :(

I remember playing farmville and cafeville for a few months. They were catchy, but I felt they were a bit off. The idea of being chained to the computer so my crops would not spoil or my food would not overcook was draining, so I finally gave them up. Plus, the more I read about Zygna, the less I liked them as a company. Here is an blog post about how farmville and the like induce anxiety by design. http://consumerist.com/2010/12/game-developer-says-farmville-is-designed-to-be-negative-and-draining.html

That's really interesting Jorge: I used to play civilization, but it doesn't help me relax, it just winds me up for hours, in much the same way. Then I discovered Osmos, and have a game that actually feels calm and meditative, bizarrely enough. I had enough of those damn smirking pigs, that's for sure: no wonder the birds are angry.

I never got into Farmville myself, but I do remember my news feed on Facebook being overrun with notifications that friends wanted to share their crops and farm animals with me. I got the feeling there was a mob mentality to the game and I was personally turned off by the idea of buying into a product simply because many of my friends did so. The game shows how much our lives can be affected by technology when a "game" dictates how we schedule much of our time just to ensure our imaginary crops don't wither before we can harvest them.

Anton, I agree, Civ would keep me up for hours and hours, but I would argue that Civ is different from the farmville model because it is not oriented towards a repetitive (and time based) requirement that one has to come back to the computer a certain time later to click on stuff. Even the social aspect of farmville is a kind of pressure to get more friends into the game just to unlock more stuff, rather than to share in a community effort or a competition.

You should definitely look at Jesse Schell's lecture (I think maybe next week?) I put it as optional but do take a look.

I do not understand the appeal of Farmville or any other of the 'games' on FB. I guess I also don't understand some people's obsession with their FB or Twitter accounts. If I want to keep in touch with my friends and family, I text or phone them directly - I feel more connected by having direct interactions with them versus reading their wall or sending them a 'gift' for their fake farm. I feel relieved that I no longer have a FB account, and stay in close contact with those people that I really want to keep in contact with. I don't think the 'social' aspect of FB is a substitute for F2F interactions with people you actually like instead of Like.

Great article! I have a younger sister who is 15 and I constantly worry about her possible future inability to carry ftf conversations, conduct herself professionally in job interviews and in the classroom. I find we never talk via the phone but always via text. However, when you spend most of a workday on the phone or on conference calls, sometimes text provides an alternate way to communicate quickly with others.

I think texting is a valuable form of communication under certain circumstances, however, like you said, it should only serve as "an alternate way to communicate quickly with others". It shouldn't be the other way around!

Perhaps it's not so bad anymore, but I have friend who's an associate professor that teaches writing classes. And in the past five years, he's had to grade papers where the student's literally used texting jargon/leet speak in their writing.

This is something that I've been wondering about since texting became so ubiquitous. At first it was a novelty, then something to do for a quick conversation, and now it's moved into full dialogues between people. I, too, wonder about the future generations and the impact this can have on their grasp of grammar. This is the same problem that I have with more and more people moving to telecommuting (even though I do it myself). When is it just TOO much?

I worked on a university IT helpdesk for years, and we used to get emails written in text-speak, but then teachers cottoned on to the fact they needed to teach "how to write an email", rather than "how to write a busines letter", and I haven't seen a text-speak email for years. In fact, those that do text me in text speak tend to be older now, as they have not grasped predictive texting!

@Anton I think that's a great point, I think now more than ever "how to write an email" seems to be an art form and one people know very little about. It seems like such a stupid and easy thing but I see more than my fair share of awful emails and lack of email etiquette. While I'm not downplaying the importance of writing a great critical paper, essay, letter, etc. I think how to write in new media would be something worth spending some time on with students.

@Samantha I agree with your ideas on email etiquette! I've seen many an email message blasting someone in rude and nasty ways that you would never use in person. It's too easy to reply via email or on social media sites in the heat of the moment and forget all courtesy - the online community is too removed from the personal so it doesn't feel real so there won't be real consequences for such harsh words.

It seems that texting allows for more shallow conversations; speaking in person or on the phone would definitely be a more meaningful conversation. I think texting has its place, but it should not be a substitute for good communication with others.

I think you all brought up a good point! Overall, whether we communicate via texting, email, face-to-face, snail mail (does anyone still do this? lol) etc. we need to acknowledge that each of them has its advantages and disadvantages. It's our responsibility as users on how we can utilize them ethically and not be dragged by social mishaps.

@RJ, I agree with what you've said. Texting has its place, and its purpose; it's really its own fascinating type of language, in a way. It's not analogous to business or conversational English (or insert your language here, as I'm sure this is done all over the world!), and shouldn't replace those modes of communicating, but it does have its proper time and place. It's up to schools to teach students how to communicate effectively in writing, according to what's required in higher education and the workplace. Language is constantly evolving, adding some elements and dropping others. Some words, phrases, and grammatical structures grow obsolete over time, and others emerge to take their place. English, in particular, is known for absorbing other languages' words with ease and adding them to the lexicon. I once read a sci fi novel set hundreds of years in the future in which the characters were purportedly speaking English, as the main character (who was from hundreds of years in the past) recognized it, but it sounded as foreign to him as Middle English would to a modern day speaker. Maybe standard English will always have its place as the preferred and proper mode of communication...or maybe we'll end up with something else entirely, as the digital era marches on!

@Meaghan: ooh, them's fighting words! I like to wind stauch grammerians up with the phrase, "Oh, standardised spelling is a Victorian affectation". People even changed the way they spelled their names from time to time. I love the way language evolves. Or at least I did, until young people started spoiling it all, by changing it again after my generation got it right! aa

@Anton: LOL! I agree. but find myself in that texting mess. I remember a few years ago, Meghan, that there was a huge backlash against ebonics. Similar to the texting situation now, but culturally different. It is amazing how language, through media, has just exploded with new concepts. When we talk about digital divide, perhaps we should talk about language. I mean, if I told my father to "google" something he'd think I was crazy. We have words now that simply mean things that certain people "get" while other don't. Not sure what that means.

@Anton, sometimes I want to eat my phone because of it's predictive texting feature. It'll incorrectly "predict" the word while I'm still typing, and by the time I press "enter" it's already got it lined up to be inputted instead.

@Jennifer - check out www.damnyouautocorrect.com

I think it is really interesting how we have managed to turn typos and autocorrect changes into a silly pasttime and part of our everyday vernacular. Similar to how we have now managed to turn "Google" into a verb! Sites like DamnYouAutoCorrect allow people to bond and relate over technological glitches and commiserating over embarassing text mishaps.

My favorite is http://www.parentsshouldnttext.com/.

These are great points here...I sometimes think that more attention needs to be paid to email (and texting) etiquette than even in person. When you've made a verbal misstep, perhaps offended or confused someone, in person, you can see their body language and offer an immediate response to right the situation. Online communications are more of a landmine because you don't know how someone is reading and interpreting something, and you have to wait for more information to proceed (and there could be any number of unknown factors that influence the receipt of that new information...dead phone or wi-fi down, anyone?). If I had a nickel for every friend of mine who has called me to help them figure out what a text or email might mean or how (or if) they should respond to one thing or another, I'd be a rich girl. I spend so much time unpacking the drama that unfolds in an online communication, I feel as if I'm getting a professional credential. Hmm.....

My question for Karen is would people approach a guy to ask how to respond to a text, or is this just part of women's conversation with each other? Jane Austen style stuff. I have said to younger people how lucky they are, whe I wanted to ask a girl out on a date when I was 15, I had to ring her up, or (shudder) ask in person. Now all you have to do is text. The responses I've had have been really interesting about the etiquette of getting the girl's number, then the dialogue that goes on behind the scenes once the invitation is made (as the response does not have to be immediate). It all sounds even more traumatic. I'm also told that ringing someone with a voice call is now regarded as quite rude here, if you don't text first to ask if someone is available. aa

Good article! What I found interesting was the correlation between user demographics being the same online as it is offline, i.e. more males checking political communication online AND offline. I think it shows the transition from offline media use, or more traditional modes to online and often an accumulation of both. A bit off topic but it makes me think about how we're becoming masters of mult-tasking, allowing us to be in tune to several different media - whether it be traditional TV, radio etc, and switching gears to reading news online, watching videos online, listening online. As I type this, I'm researching papers and watching TV and feel like I'm in tune to both. Researching how people are now becoming the ultimate multi-taskers would be interesting. However, because we are becoming such great multi-taskers, are we almost giving ourselves a sort of "ADD" in which, in the future, we'll have a hard time concentrating on ONE thing for a certain amount of time. I find it hard to concentrate often on a project or paper with multiple messages going on, emails coming in, texts, Facebook notifications, etc. and frequently break to do all things at once = a ton of white noise!

I think we can all relate to this wall of digital "white noise" as university students within the information management sector. It seems as though there is a fine line between multi-tasking and organized distraction. I often find myself dividing my time between school work, personal correspondence, and managing my Ebay account, but this doesn't necessarily mean I'm being more efficient. Earl Miller, a neuroscientist at MIT, has actually proven that the human brain "can't focus on more than one thing at a time" (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95256794).

Great article @ ABC. I was doing some research for my group project for the unit about e-books, brain, order, etc. and have become extremely interested in the impact of technology on our brain. As much as we may like to think we are great multi-taskers, it seems that our ability to toggle between multiple tasks on computers has hindered our ability to focus on long-winded tasks.