GOODBYE!

The End to an era...

And so it is...My blogging for KCB201 is in its last stroke. It was interesting to find that at the beginning of this exercise, the thought of continuously blogging about issues relating to virtual cultures was quite scary. But over the course of this assignment, I have found the continuation of blogging to be a quite enjoyable one. Obviously, being the person that I am, I love voicing my opinion about topics of interests. To be honest, I was not previously interested in voicing my opinion about anything Virtual Cultures had to offer. Yet I find myself extremely hesitant at now giving this ‘blogging exercise’ the flick as I easily thought I would be doing 6 weeks ago.

The mere thought of me being a “produser” as Axel Bruns says, would not particularly have gone down well with me 6 weeks ago. I have proved myself wrong. Throughout this exercise I have happily voiced my opinion on Online Communities, Open Source Software, Digital Distribution of Music, Commercial Produsage and Citizen Journalism. Who would’ve thought?Most noticeably, I have recognised this succinct trend of this collision of old media versus new media. This battle that seems to be evident due the advancements in technologies is an interesting concept, which I will definitely hold close to me for quite some time.

Well, so be it...as I like to say. The time has come to say goodbye to this KCB201 assignment, and thank you for visiting my blog!

Untill next time, which I hope will be soon...goodbye!

Online Identities

Response to Kate’s blog – On My Soapbox: Virtual Communities

Where have our identities gone?

I was having a read through Kate’s rendition of virtual communities and how they have taken over our identities, and it got me thinking about what really has happened to society? Is it now socially acceptable to just converse over online communication, rather than face to face interaction? Is that really what our world has come to? It was not long ago when Myspace and Facebook didn’t exist, and mobile phones were the communication extraordinaire that people were turning to for communication purposes. And what about before that? When mobile phones and social networks didn’t exist? Surely people somehow managed to interact with each other! Yes of course...the good old face to face “having a cup of coffee” with a friend was how communication was formed.

“An online identity is a social identity that network users establish in online communities” (Online Identity, 2008). “Identities consist of self-conceptions. Some ideas of self are assigned, some are chosen: chosen, spiritual, intellectual, biological. Social constructivists believe that identities are formed by our relations to others – both people and things. Due to the ways in which relations change and for, once could then say “like a network, so are our identities”; as the network changes, so our relationships change, and so we change” (Ludewig, 2007).

Change...yes that is an interesting term used by Ludewig. How much have we changed in time, and what does the future hold for us? I once heard that communication and information is a powerful combination, and that the key to online communities is indeed communication. I feel that this communication can sometimes be the “alternative and lazy” way out of it. When our online and offline identities overlap they influence our self-concepts and what we stand for. What is going to happen to future generations of communication where online and offline lives have fewer boundaries. More to the point, I believe that these online identities are disconnected the offline identities, in the way that people are not interacting with each other half as much.
Gone are the days of the good old cup of coffee...


References

“Online Identity.” (2008). Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_identity (accessed May 14, 2008).


Ludewig, H. (2007). “The Paper in which I Discuss Ideas of Identity and Subjectivity in the Network Society and Provide a Basis of Inquiry at the Crossroads of Nanotechnologies.” CRDM 703. http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:9IxoJuj8-LwJ:e-heidi.com/files/vonLudewig_EmbodiIdentityNanoTechnologyy.doc+like+a+network,+so+are+our+identities%E2%80%9D%3B+as+the+network+changes,+so+our+relationships+change,+and+so+we+change%E2%80%9D+(Ludewig,+2007).&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=au (accessed May 14, 2008).

Thank you fellow KCB201'ers!

After having a quick read through of some of my fellow KCB201’ers blogs, it got me thinking about this creative expression we call “blogging.” I was instructed to write an assignment with a consistent amount of blogs entries, on a topic of my interest. What really is a topic of interest in my case? I am a second year Media and Communication student, and no, before you ask, I am not doing a double degree like every other person at this university seems to be doing. I unfortunately have yet to really decide what I want to do in life. I know it lies in this “media field” but that is all I really can scale it down to at the moment.


So here I am, onto my second year of university, and asked to write some blogs on my topic of interests. Well so far, I have endured countless hours of television, music, print media, computer (not to mention Photoshop), media, economies, communications, speaking, and journalism studies. And have I enjoyed it? Let’s be honest...Not every moment of it.



The term, blog, has been referred to as “being initiated by Barger in 1997, as a log of the web or weblog. In its simplest form it is a website with dated entries, presented in reverse chronological order and published on the Internet.” (Paquet qtd in. Bartlett-Bragg, 2003). Paquet lists five features that a representative blog exhibits: “personal editorship; a hyperlinked posting structure; frequent updates; free public access to the content via the Internet; and archived postings” (Bartlett-Bragg, 2003). After looking at these features a representative blog must have, I begin to ponder on how to improve my blog. What is it that I can talk about? Topics such as produsage, citizen journalism, open source software, DIY, collaboration, networked people and online communities pop into my head as I brainstorm an idea for my next blog entry. But I have written about nearly all of these so far, and I am struggling for ideas about how to then go that step further and relate these to my personal interests.


Before this assignment, I always considered blogging as quite a waste of time; a forum for people to complain about issues in society. I was wrong. I now am slowly becoming aware of what blogging can entail and why it really is important to just get out there and do it. After reading the blog of a very faithful and academic hero, Henry Jenkins, I found comfort in this unfamiliarity of blogging. “The crucial point is that running a blog is a commitment, and has to be understood as part of a larger set of professional obligations. When I first began blogging as an academic, I sought advice from other bloggers” (Jenkins, 2008).


There I have it, it seems I am not the only one having troubles with blogging. If the infamous Henry Jenkins once sought help from bloggers, then I can now feel comfort in what I am hoping to achieve. “Media studies as a discipline has been quick to embrace the potentials of new-media platforms as channels for sharing our research and scholarship. A growing number of junior and senior faculty members in our field are becoming bloggers” (Jenkins, 2008). Yes...Henry, we are becoming bloggers...at least now I am after reaching out to my fellow KCB201’ers and finally trimming down this term called blogging.


References

Bartlett-Bragg, A. (2003). Blogging to Learn. http://knowledgetree.flexiblelearning.net.au/edition04/pdf/Blogging_to_Learn.pdf (accessed 12 May, 2008).

Jenkins, H. (2008). Why Academics Should Blog. http://henryjenkins.org/2008/04/why_academics_should_blog.html (accessed 13 May, 2008).

Digital Distribution of Music.

In the World of Ones and Zero

The digital distribution of music...what we like to call the easy “DIY approach” to listening to and marketing music online. “Do it yourself (DIY) is a form of collaboration environment allowing individuals to publish and share their contributions of information and knowledge” (Saunders, 2007).


Compared to several years ago, the number of places to buy music online has skyrocketed into the thousands. I now ask the question, will the major record labels disappear like the dinosaurs to which they’ve often been compared? I think not. I must admit though, it’s now clear that the independent music distributors emerging in the business, such as Nine Inch Nails and Radiohead, are going to be a far bigger piece of the picture than ever before. These artists have taken upon the “DIY” approach in distributing their music by their own means over the internet, ditching their record labels to showcase their own talent. Is this the new trend that will see the fall of the dinosaurs or is the old school ways of distributing CDs through record labels still in the norm for consumers?

An enormous crop of mushrooms springing up overnight has been the common story since the emergence of the Web. The massive and rapid growth of online music distribution outlets is pretty amazing. Now I can’t really preach to you all here and say that I have never illegally downloaded a song off the internet. Because I have, countless amounts of times I might add. The accessibility of it is really just too tempting.

Nevertheless, with all this put aside, online distribution is fast becoming the most effective way of listening and marketing music. "We are today barely seeing the first glimmerings of what a fully networked public culture might look like" (Russell et al, 2006). Undoubtedly, a growing number of artists are seeking new ways to control the marketing and distribution of their output to counter music piracy on the internet. Of course, this does really depend on the popularity of the band, and whether the distribution method will work for them in particular. Coldplay set the precedent for other commercially successful bands by ditching their record label and releasing their new single on the internet, free of charge.

"The battle between the recording industry and file-sharing music fans is perhaps the most high profile example of shifts in the production and consumption of cultural products, and it illustrates some of the underlying issues associated with these changes " (Russell et al, 2006). “Radiohead and Reznor’s Nine Inch Nails have seemingly been trying to one-up each other when it comes to using the Internet in innovative ways. Radiohead released its latest album, In Rainbows, on its Web site and invited fans to download it for whatever price they felt was fair. Nine Inch Nails then released multiple versions of its album, Ghosts, on its Web site, with prices ranging from free to $300. Not to be outdone, Radiohead invited fans to remix one of its songs and upload their versions to the band’s site” (Worthen, 2008).

I’m not sure if online distribution of music will become the ‘next big thing’ for all artists, as I believe the tangible aspects of the CD are still much appreciated by some. I can also say, without hopefully sounding too hypocritical, that I do prefer listening to the “authentic CDs” of my favourite artists and bands, rahter than the dodgy online versions. Bands such as Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails are really rebelling against the industry, and it’s hard to imagine a lot of other “more mainstream” artists seemingly deciding it’s time to give their record label the big BOOT.

“Record companies should focus on understanding the Net better and on harnessing its potential. For starters, less rigid rules would help propel the record companies into the online music business” (Brull, 1999). Nevertheless, I believe physical discs are going to be around for a long, long time for several reasons. The most obvious reason is that people are use to them, and have invested lots of money in gadgets for playing, recording and storing them.

So in my opinion, when the planet is bathed in a thick layer of ones and zeros, online music distribution will be gargantuan. Right now though, it’s merely a trend that is and will be quite successful for a minority of artists and consumers who prefer this way of life. But it is not for all!

References

Brull, S. (1999). “Are music companies blinded by fright?” Business Week Online. June28. 1999 Issue. http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_26/b3635140.htm (accessed 11 May, 2008).

Russell, A et al. (2006). Culture: Networked Public Culture. http://networkedpublics.org/book/culture (accessed 12 May, 2008).

Saunders, B. (2008). KCB201 Week 7 Lecture. Queensland University of Technology

Worthen, B. (2008). The Wall Street Journal. http://blogs.wsj.com/biztech/2008/04/29/coldplay-metallica-motley-crue-embrace-the-web/ (accessed 11 May, 2008).

Appreciating Hard Work...the shift towards Citizen Journalism




What is Citizen Journalism?

News organisations have become accustomed to being the so-called “gatekeepers” of information. But with the Internet’s emergence, information has broken free and become commoditised and democratised. But is this information really serving its purpose in the field of media, or is it corrupting and deterring from the facts provided by real journalists?

Let’s fact it...we’re all citizens, but not all of us are journalists. Journalism requires more than just one person and it needs a support structure. It’s about editing, questioning and challenging assumptions. Much of what is put on blogs right now is “opinion.” There are good, thoughtful opinions out there, but they’re often presented as fact. In my opinion, there is some journalism happening in the blogosphere, but not much. It’s mostly meta-journalism reporting on issues that have already been reported.

"Citizen journalism is a concept that advances the idea that consumer or everyday citizens take a more active role in the news. It is often referred to as the “new media” and includes everything from passionate letters to the editor and comments on blogs and news sites, to bloggers scooping stories or exposing doctored or omitted facts from mainstream media reports. The sharing and collaboration of information through online communities is inevitably part of building common viewpoints between citizens " (Holetzky, 2008). Yet, are these truly factual assumptions, or can they be misleading in some cases?

The founder of this evolution in journalism is of course technology; this alongside Citizen Journalism goes hand in hand as partners in the adoption of online opinions. Equipped with speed, collaboration and delivery, technology is now a key part in this user participation approach. Stories are being found via text messages, grainy pictures on camera phones and cyber cafes. These sources of information are posted on the internet and viewed by millions. The phenomenon of this is causing news coverage to now be considered a partnership, between citizens and journalists. "Journalism is also significantly transforming under the pressure of network-era convergent and participatory culture. Evolving digital communication tools and practices are clashing with those of traditional news media, resulting in paradox and contradiction" (Russell et al, 2006).

My opinion regarding citizen journalism can go both ways. While I think it’s good to use this citizen adoption within online communities as part of building people’s opinions on news events, it also distracts the attention from real journalists, who most likely first hand get that information after the many gruelling working hours trying to obtain it. “Acts of citizen journalism in this sense happen by mere coincidence. People are everywhere and when disaster strikes, someone usually has a camera” (Cohn, 2007).

No doubt I believe that when Citizen Journalism is handled properly it adds value and improves quality within communities. This shift to sharing information is inevitably happening, and all I can do is hope that real journalism is still being appreciated. I know for a fact I prefer the facts that have been researched and accurately reported by qualified professionals.

“The role of journalists is to now concentrate harder on how, when and where they can add value through our strengths of analysis, context, background and range” (Sambrook, 2005). So be my guest – involve yourselves in Citizen Journalism, but don’t forgot to appreciate those who properly accessed those thoughts of yours before you, scrutinised and researched over them for days, and thus gave you the opportunity to voice your opinion. So let’s face it again, without real journalists on hand, there would be no citizen journalism!


References

Cohn, D. (2007). Time citizen journalism pulled its acts together. http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=39443 (accessed May 8, 2008).

Holetzky , S. (2008). What is Citizen Journalism. Wise Geek. http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-citizen-journalism.htm

Russell, A et al. (2006). Cuture: Networked Public Culture. http://networkedpublics.org/book/culture (accessed 12 May, 2008).

Sambrook, R. (2005). Citizen Journalism and BBC. http://proquest.umi.com.ezp02.library.qut.edu.au/pqdweb?index=4&did=973240511&SrchMode=2&sid=1&Fmt=4&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1210340087&clientId=14394

“What is Citizen Journalism?” (2008). You Tube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58iZpMRclwI (accessed 8 May, 2008)

How do Communities Evaluate Quality?

"Citizen journalism in all its forms, as it has emerged and developed during the first decade of the twenty-first century, is driven by similar motivations: it, too, acts as a corrective and a supplement to the output of commercial, industrial journalism. Like open source, too, it has recently begun to challenge the role of its corporate counterpart as opinion (and innovation) leader" (Bruns, 2008).

This close relationship between Open Source software and Citizen Journalism as a form of produsage is widespread in today's communities. And the question remains, how do these communities evaluate quality and authenticity? What is real journalism and how can we classify it properly when such imitational devices as citizen journalism are introduced. Readers have to understand that information provided by citizen journalism is just opinions, and can not always be relied on as factual information.

This other form of produsage being Open Source software. How is this challenging the proprietary dominated world, and what will become of it in the future? In my earlier blog, Open Source Software, I challenged this question of what would become of this form of produsage. I believe there is a good future ahead for Open Source, as this is what people are looking for in software. Not to say that Citizen Journalism is not healthy for society, it is necessary to be wary of what can really constitute as journalism and what can not.

So the answer to my question. I believe communities evaluate quality by trial. Obviously there is currently much commotion about Open Source and Citizen Journalism because they are challenging the norms that were put in place before these. They are obviously working to some degree for the people, as they are definately getting used and intorducted to more and more people.

That is all my thoughts for now:-)




References

Bruns, A. (2008). Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage. Peter Lang. New York https://cmd.qut.edu.au/cmd//KCB201/KCB201_BK_163501.pdf (accessed 8 May, 2008).

Citizen Journalism- What is it and is it authentic?



Citizen Journalism "is the act of citizens "playing an active role in the process of collecting, reporting, analyzing and disseminating news and information. The intent of this participation is to provide independent, reliable, accurate, wide-ranging and relevant information that a democracy requires" (Citizen Journalism, 2008).

The citizen journalism movement slowly emerged after journalists themselves began to question whether or not their coverage of such events were entirely accurate. This stemmed from the 1988 U.S presidential election. This widespread concern became particularly evident as news surrounding politics and civic affairs were further questioned. The key citizen journalism websites include Indymedia, Slashdot, Kuro5hin, Wikipedia and Current TV.

The main idea behind citizen journalism which I have begun learning about is the ability to allow people without professional journalism training to create media on their own or in collection with others. This gives people a chance to say what they want to say, and even point out factual errors about professional journalism. Giving them a voice allows for a much wider spread community, who can openly enjoy the pleasure of writing and interacting with people about certain issues concerning society. The most common form of citizen journalism is through blogging, which is what I am undeniably doing right now.

"Sometimes called grassroots journalism, citizen journalism is seen by some news outlets as a threat to journalistic integrity. Citizen journalists, however, believe that their methods hold news organizations to higher standards. While news organizations don’t really have a problem with citizen journalism when it’s a case of citizens bringing in useful footage they’ve personally captured, some may not always appreciate citizens offering a viewpoint" (Holetzky, 2008).

My opinion on this matter is that journalism is not just about writing your own opinion about an issue. It's about researching an issue and actually going out there and finding and sharing your point of view. It isn't just sharing information like most people do in blogs these days. The task of doing journalism far exceeds that of citizen journalism where people claim to know more about a particular topic than a professionals. Well, sometimes this might be the case, but really the majority of these people haven't gone to university and undertaken the grueling 4 or more years of training! That's what I think anyway...

References

Holetzky, S. (2008) What is citizen journalism? Wise Geek http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-citizen-journalism.htm (accessed 8 May, 2008).

Wikipedia. (2008). Citizen Journalism - what is it? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58iZpMRclwI (accessed 8 May, 2008).

Open Source software

The Future of Open Source Software

This is an advertisement for Open Source Software which shows the benefits of Open Source to consumers, and illustrates the impacts it inevitably has on society.

“Those who don’t make their programs Open Source are finding it difficult to compete with those who do, as users gain a new appreciation of the rights they always should have had” (Perens, 2008).

What is the future of Open Source software? In a world where Microsoft increasingly threatens to dominate computing and the Internet, the strongest potential rival to its dominance is no longer its traditional commercial rivals but, surprisingly, a seemingly motley collection of free software tools and operating systems collectively dubbed “Open Source” software. Unlike most commercial software, the core code of such software can be easily studied by other programmers and improved upon – the only proviso being that such improvements must also be revealed publicly and distributed freely in a process which encourages continual innovation.

Linus Torvalds, the creator of Linux, wrote its core code on a web server named Apache, and put together a set of updates to older software by a band of volunteer programmers. Richard M. Stallman, founder of the Free Software Foundation and the GNU free operating system was then added to the Linux core, which was announced as the "GNU/Linux operating system. Now, these Open Source programs are emerging not just as inexpensive but as more robust and dynamic alternatives to commercial software. "Open source software emerged to a significant extent in response to the shortcomings in commercial software development, addressing fields of innovation and forms of software which for various reasons had not been covered sufficiently by the industrial process" (Bruns, 2008).

Companies now using Open Source software have a distinct advantage over proprietary users, with its rapid development and easy to use software.

As stated in one of my earlier blogs, “Open source is a development method for software that harnesses the power of distributed peer review and transparency of process. The promise of open source is better quality, higher reliability, more flexibility, lower cost, and an end to predatory vendor lock-in” (opensource.org). “Open Source software means software that gives you four essential freedoms:

Freedom 0: the freedom to run the program as you wish.
Freedom 1: the freedom to study the source code, and change it to make the program do what you wish.
Freedom 2: the freedom to redistribute copies of the program when you wish.
Freedom 3: the freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions when you wish” (Free Software Magazine, 2008).

The obvious benefits of Open Source including costs, speed, ownership of features and functionalities far exceed those of proprietary software, where the source code, creation of ideas, reviewing and testing are all kept in house to the developers of the software. "Open source has numerous benefits, including breaking the relentless hold of technology lock-in, and cost savings in acquisition and life-time support costs" (Agosta, Forrester Research qtd in. Walker, 2004). Putting together Open Source software is not as easy as it sounds: Open Source does not just mean access to the source code. It requires various distribution terms in which an Open Source program must comply with.

Despite all these challenges that arise from Open Source software, I predict that Open Source will conquer over proprietary software. “Already, research laboratories have adopted the Open Source model because the sharing of the information is essential to the scientific method, and Open Source allows software to be shared easily” (Perens, 2008). Also, businesses are slowly adopting the Open Source model as it collaborates groups together, and gives them the easy of solving problems without the threat of an anti-trust lawsuit. Large corporations have also adopted Open Source to combat Microsoft, and to assure that another Microsoft does not come to dominate the computer industry.

One of the most promising indications of the future of Open source is its past: in just a few years, it has changed the history of the computing industry, and millions of users have solved many different computing problems, and there is no stopping them anymore. Prosperity and Knowledge here we come!

References

Bruns, A. (2008). Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage. Peter Lang. New York https://cmd.qut.edu.au/cmd//KCB201/KCB201_BK_163501.pdf (accessed 8 May, 2008).

Free Software Foundation. (2008). http://www.fsf.org/about/what-is-free-software (accessed 1 May, 2008).

Perens, B. (2008). The Open Source Definition. Open Source Initiative. http://perens.com/OSD.html (accessed 1 May, 2008).

Kroperx. (2008). Open Source Ad. You Tube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsZsC47Yza8 (accessed 6 May, 2008).

McGregor, C. (2008).Interview with Richard M. Stallman. Free Software Magazine: Issue 21 http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/articles/interview_with_richard_stallman (accessed 2 Mayb, 2008).

Walker, T. (2004). The Future of Open Source in Government. gOSapps LLC http://www.oss-institute.org/newspdf/walker_oss_white_paper_2292004.pdf (accessed 5 May, 2008).

How is open source work ( as an example of community produsage different from commercial production?

Open source software is now taking over the proprietary marketplace - and has no plans on leaving!

As defined in opensource.org, "Open source is a development method for software that harnesses the power of distributed peer review and transparency of process. The promise of open source is better quality, higher reliability, more flexibility, lower cost, and an end to predatory vendor lock-in." Open source provides access to the source code, which is the instructions that tell a computer to do certain things. Historically, proprietary software was free and anyone could contribute and share the code, although now " the source code is locked away. Only a select few may see it and change it" (Cathedral model" Raymond, 1999).

Open source software was first introduced by Richard Stallman in 1984 when he founded the Free Software Foundation, and launched the GNU project, aiming to produce a free operating system which would be compatible with the proprietary Unix system. Along with designing new rules for the licensing of this software, Stallman announced that anyone has permission to run the software, copy it, modify it and distribute the versions.

"By contrast, commercial, proprietary software is produced by a selected group of developers with a much more narrow range of expertise. Their primary motivation is their salary" (Barr, 2007). The most common example of proprietary software is Microsoft Windows, in where guidelines are set and contributions are only made by the developers. This process can be seen as a tedious one as the ability to explore multiple solutions and errors is limited.

For example, an employee at Microsoft Windows gets no incentives to makes technology compatible with its open source competitor. On the contrary, any open source alternative to an existing proprietary software standard has to be compatible with the existing standard, and it has to be possible to use this opensource technology in a network constituted of proprietary technologies. "This is typically the case for Linux and most examples of open-source technologies: as for Linux, it is even now possible to emulate Windows on a Linux machine. As a consequence, it is easier to adopt locally a compatible open-source technology rather than a non compatible proprietary technology, for a similar level of local adoption" (Open Source vs. Proprietary Software, 2007).

Whether Open Source or Proprietary there are both advantages and disadvantages with both software. However, the basics of open source are determined by the openness of sources and contributions of all people, and the basics of proprietary is the reliability of developers and their skills.

I believe, as an important consumer of today, that both these software are an essential part of our society today.


References

http://www.matthewbarr.co.uk/opensource.htm

http://www.opensource.org/

http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/dalle2.pdf

What are the differences between commercial production and community produsage?

What are the differences between commercial production and community produsage?

"It builds on a simple, yet fundamental proposition: the proposition that to describe the creative, collaborative, and ad hoc engagement with content for which user-led spaces such as the Wikipedia act as examples, the term production is no longer accurate" (Produsage.org, 2008).

From production to produsage - The simple process that is changing the world, and allowing users to turn into producers. One might ask how this can be achieved?

Produsage is the activity in where were all in the postion to act as both users and producers of content, allowing users the ability to interact with each other, access and retrieve content, and respond to it by making their own contributions. The difference between commercial production and community produsage is simply in my view the difference between theory and practice. Producers are those who make factual and theoritical information, where produsages are those users who create their own content, and challenge these ideas of theory with their own. Though the disadvantages with produsages is that mistaken, false information can be avilable and can mislead audiences, and can potentially introduce errors - deliberate or accidental. Although they do provide some advantages including faster more frequent updates, and greater infolvement of the community.

"The produsage process itself is fundamentally built on the affordances of the technosocial framework of the networked environment, then, and here especially on the harnessing of user communities that is made possible by their networking through many-to-many communications media" (Produsage.org, 2008).

How is Web 2.0 different from Web 1.0?

How is Web 2.0 different from Web 1.0?

Web 1.0 was revolved more around the publishing of websites by advertisers, with no assistance from consumers. It is seen as a "static" thing, like a billboard or a magazine and are only changed by whoever publishes it.

Whereas, "Web 2.0 is a revolutionary view of the Internet and the social and business uses of advanced technologies rather than the technical aspects of those technologies. The core concept of Web 2.0 is: Use Internet as a platform and leverage network effect to harness the collective intelligence in a cost-effective manner" (Sizlopedia, 2007). Web2.0 is seen as a "user-generated" or "user-shaped" device, which allows consumers to publish the content they want on a website. Famous example of "Web2.0 applications" already in use and much talke about are Flickr for photographs, Wikipedia for encyclopedia articles, Facebook for maintaining friendships, You Tube for seeing young people mugging to videocamers and Answers.com for combining elements of these with its own user-generated Q&A section. It helps to increase participation of users like blogs, e-commerce website, torrents etc, where every user gets a change to publish in a website one way or the other. Downloading programs such as Limewire, where illegal downloading of songs, TV shows, and movies allow consumers to build a centralised song database, and thus growing a network.

In the mid-1990s, the Web began with Web1.0 as a repository of information and static content. Within a couple years, a huge amount of content was dynamic, returning custom results to users. By the turn of the century, the Web became much more interactiveallowing users to play, stop, rewind and fast forward through audio and video content. Web 2.0 makes Web-based applications feel like and run as smoothly as local applications

"Sometimes called the "New Internet," Web 2.0 is not a specific technology; rather, it refers to two major paradigm shifts. The one most often touted is "user-generated content," which relates more to individuals. The second, which is equally significant, but more related to business, is "thin client computing" (Tech Web Network)

How do online communities organise themselves?

"Online communities are a group of people who come together online to participate, debate and share information"(Dibben, 2007). The purpose of online communities is to serve information about the community and how to participate, hosting of the tools of communication and conferencing, and providing ways to organise relevant information contributed by the community and history of the community.

"Online communities are formed to communicate, learn and share, provide support structure for mentoring, provide records and archives, online training or professional development, access to expertise, and to extend communication between networks" (Dibben, 2007).

Online communities involve some critical factors in order to be successful and effective. Firstly, focus on topics is important to the community and essential in creating a online community. Following on, finding a well respected community memeber to coordinate the community, and making sure each member has the encouragement to do their best. Finally, by using all the key thoughts that each member provides is essential in creating a successful and effective online community. It is also important to make sure each community member has the certain skills that are required, and they are focused on the same values and interests.


"Most people initially join online communities believing that they will receive some benefit. For an online community to generate useful content and an ongoing sense of community the proactive participation of a critical mass of members is required" (Dibben, 2007). Being an effective contributing member of an online community usually means having a combination of skills, an understanding of the culture of the community, solving logistical problems so that regular access is convenient, and ultimately an attitude of wanting to participate and contribute.