Virtual Worlds are becoming a hot topic. Is it a complete waste of time or does it actually provide benefits to people?
The article "Toys with a Second Life" talks about Webkinz which is puzzling. There are already websites where children and play games online and have their own pets such as Neopets which has existed long before Webkinz. Purchasing real life merchandise is optional not required like the Webkinz. But the real question is that should we be concerned about how much we are exposing children to virtual worlds? What if they want to spend more time on virtual worlds instead of interacting in the real world? This could cause a significant change in how society works. There is nothing inherently wrong with virtual worlds, but we have to be concerned about excess.
The iReport "'Naughty Auties' battle autism with virtual interaction" talks about how they use virtual worlds to combat autism. Which goes to show that virtual worlds can have both positive effects, not just negative ones. The only problem would be in the event the internet stops working or there are power outages for the inviduauls relying on virtual worlds for their social lives, will they be able to survive without it? While its great that they are enriching their social lives, but they should consider giving the real world another chance.
Moving on from social aspects. Virtual worlds can foster creativity, since digital content is easily distributed and created. A lot of people use virtual worlds as sources for creating mashups. Such as video game models to create short films. An example being Top FPS which is a parody of First Person Shooter videogames and the reality TV show Survivor
What is the future of virtual worlds? On one hand, it may become a vacuum where people endlessly waste their time and life. On the other hand, isn't that the point of technology? To make life so easy and convienent so we can afford to spend countless hours doing leisurely activities instead of backbreaking labor like our ancestors. Personally, I think virtual worlds are currently quite limited. When they come out with virtual worlds where you can directly interact within the virtual world instead of just looking at the world through a computer screen, that will be exciting and frightening. Will future virtual worlds make people want to stay hooked up to machines all the time? Virtual worlds may cause life to change significantly in the future.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Twitter Discussion
Using twitter to discuss the articles was a different experience since the conversation was more of a free form where anyone can reply to anyone's tweet. While in a classroom everyone would have to wait their turns and pay attention to each other. Sometimes I forget what I want to say when its my turn. So for twitter since its text based, that is less likely to happen. What I didn't like was the character limit since every tweet I wrote was too long so I had to constantly rewrite them to make them shorter while maintaining a cohorent message.
Blackboard Discussion isn't that much different than Twitter, except its more organized and takes longer. So in terms of following a discussion, it is much more convinient using blackboard, but in terms of speed it might be annoying for impatient people. A distinct advantage is the lack of character limits. And if there is, its much less strict than twitter.
Overall I would prefer Blackboard discussion over the two, and in general I don't like using either.
Blackboard Discussion isn't that much different than Twitter, except its more organized and takes longer. So in terms of following a discussion, it is much more convinient using blackboard, but in terms of speed it might be annoying for impatient people. A distinct advantage is the lack of character limits. And if there is, its much less strict than twitter.
Overall I would prefer Blackboard discussion over the two, and in general I don't like using either.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Social Networking Sites
Visit Facebook, Myspace, Friendster - and one other social networking site of your choosing. Compare your impressions of these sites. Note that you probably should register and log in to get the complete picture.
Facebook - Facebook is a social networking site that is constantly changing. I don't log in that often so buttons always get rearranged and I can't figure out where they are. Not sure why they insist on changing it though. Originally it was a fairly good social networking site where only college students could join since you needed a college email to join. But now that they opened it up to everyone else, there is an increasing amount of fake profiles which was a big problem in myspace. Overall facebook is a great site that allows you to keep in touch with virtually anyone and everyone. You can easily share pictures, videos, and links. Although some of the newer features seem unnecessary. You can comment on someone's wallpost. Why not just post on the wall instead? I guess this allows for more detailed conversations that are visible in a convenient location.
Myspace - Myspace is one of the earlier social networking sites that existed before Facebook. It has many features that exist in Facebook, but the main two differences that I have found is the ability to upload music on Myspace and the rampant amount of fake profiles that just send you messages attempting to lure you onto their adult websites. Myspace also lets you make changes to your page which gives it greater customization, but that tends to be used poorly by people who plaster their pages with images that end up making the page unreadable. Myspace for the most part has lots its edge on social networking to Facebook.
Friendster - Friendster is an interesting social networking site since most of its users are located in Asia. It is the icon of social Networking there. Unfortunately that happens to be its main standing point. For the most part its quite similar to Facebook. Which may be a good or bad thing. If they expand globally they might become a major competitor to Myspace and Facebook.
BrightFuse - This is a new professional networking site created by Careerbuilder.com. At first glance this website looks quite similar to LinkedIn. Upon closer inspection I noticed it has more social networking features similar to Facebook. It has a "Working on section" which is similar to a status update on facebook/twitter but has a more professional association. Brightfuse also has a built in blog feature. It was created recently and is probably relying on the fact that they already have a large userbase from Careerbuilder which they can easily transfer over. It's careerbuilder usebase and its extra social networking features may help brightfuse stand out compared to the already successful LinkedIn.
P.S. I didn't realize this post was supposed come before Social Networking. =P.
Facebook - Facebook is a social networking site that is constantly changing. I don't log in that often so buttons always get rearranged and I can't figure out where they are. Not sure why they insist on changing it though. Originally it was a fairly good social networking site where only college students could join since you needed a college email to join. But now that they opened it up to everyone else, there is an increasing amount of fake profiles which was a big problem in myspace. Overall facebook is a great site that allows you to keep in touch with virtually anyone and everyone. You can easily share pictures, videos, and links. Although some of the newer features seem unnecessary. You can comment on someone's wallpost. Why not just post on the wall instead? I guess this allows for more detailed conversations that are visible in a convenient location.
Myspace - Myspace is one of the earlier social networking sites that existed before Facebook. It has many features that exist in Facebook, but the main two differences that I have found is the ability to upload music on Myspace and the rampant amount of fake profiles that just send you messages attempting to lure you onto their adult websites. Myspace also lets you make changes to your page which gives it greater customization, but that tends to be used poorly by people who plaster their pages with images that end up making the page unreadable. Myspace for the most part has lots its edge on social networking to Facebook.
Friendster - Friendster is an interesting social networking site since most of its users are located in Asia. It is the icon of social Networking there. Unfortunately that happens to be its main standing point. For the most part its quite similar to Facebook. Which may be a good or bad thing. If they expand globally they might become a major competitor to Myspace and Facebook.
BrightFuse - This is a new professional networking site created by Careerbuilder.com. At first glance this website looks quite similar to LinkedIn. Upon closer inspection I noticed it has more social networking features similar to Facebook. It has a "Working on section" which is similar to a status update on facebook/twitter but has a more professional association. Brightfuse also has a built in blog feature. It was created recently and is probably relying on the fact that they already have a large userbase from Careerbuilder which they can easily transfer over. It's careerbuilder usebase and its extra social networking features may help brightfuse stand out compared to the already successful LinkedIn.
P.S. I didn't realize this post was supposed come before Social Networking. =P.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Social Networking
Social networking websites are used to network obviously. Friends and relatives use it to keep in touch. It is especially beneficial to those that are living far apart. Some of my friends did study abroad and updated their facebook while there allowing everyone to see any pictures they took at the foreign country, or to simply communicate over long distances.
Companies have been using social networking sites to look for potential employees as stated in the article Social Networking Technology Boosts Job Recruiting. What isn't mentioned in the article is that sometimes companies use social networking sites for spying on their employees. Making sure that they aren't posting offending content on the internet since it may lead back to the company. Or they can even snoop on status updates to see if employees are really sick and not just skipping out on work. So on one hand its great that employers can seek out employees now online, but on the other hand employers now possess more knowledge of heir employees and might try to use or abuse that knowledge to their advantage.
Of course its usage will change in time. Presently its a great tool, and only occasionally you hear of it being abused such as cases of cyber bullying or cyber stalking. The BBC documentary "The Virtual Revolution" Episode 4 touches on the potential danger of social networking websites. Some people spend an excessive amount of time on facebook chatting with their online friends or playing applications like mafia wars and farmville instead of spending time their real world friends in the real world. In the future, more children will be exposed to such websites and other virtual world technologies that just sucks them in. Of course it is a worst case scenario, but the concern is valid. What will be the future of social networking and its impacts on humanity? Only time will tell. Perhaps we can become aware of these potential problems and prevent them from ever occurring.
Companies have been using social networking sites to look for potential employees as stated in the article Social Networking Technology Boosts Job Recruiting. What isn't mentioned in the article is that sometimes companies use social networking sites for spying on their employees. Making sure that they aren't posting offending content on the internet since it may lead back to the company. Or they can even snoop on status updates to see if employees are really sick and not just skipping out on work. So on one hand its great that employers can seek out employees now online, but on the other hand employers now possess more knowledge of heir employees and might try to use or abuse that knowledge to their advantage.
Of course its usage will change in time. Presently its a great tool, and only occasionally you hear of it being abused such as cases of cyber bullying or cyber stalking. The BBC documentary "The Virtual Revolution" Episode 4 touches on the potential danger of social networking websites. Some people spend an excessive amount of time on facebook chatting with their online friends or playing applications like mafia wars and farmville instead of spending time their real world friends in the real world. In the future, more children will be exposed to such websites and other virtual world technologies that just sucks them in. Of course it is a worst case scenario, but the concern is valid. What will be the future of social networking and its impacts on humanity? Only time will tell. Perhaps we can become aware of these potential problems and prevent them from ever occurring.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Blogs vs. Wikis
Blogs and Wikis are two aspects of new media. To be honest I have limited knowledge and experience with Blogs and not really sure what the fuss is. I have however spent countless hours reading articles on wikipedia. I never really got involved with editing or collaborating on wiki. I just like reading articles there for the huge sources of information.
Which brings up the most noticeable difference between blogs and wikis are that for wikis they are supposed to be objective repositories of knowledge where anyone can edit the content. As this CNN article points out is that Wiki is often criticized for its inaccuracies so they are focusing on refining their articles with proper references and citations. It is essentially a form of many to many communication.
On the other hand, blogs are more about personal opinions and thoughts without any sort of filtering or regulation. It is primarily a one to many communication. Visitors can post comments but cannot edit any of the content. As far as I can tell blogs aren't as popular as wikis no doubt due to the collaborative communities found in wikis.
As more people gain high speed connections to the internet, the more important internet social networking becomes, and the more essential collaborative sites like wikis and blogs will be. Since blogs also allows people to easily communicate their thoughts and have others comment on them, they can also be used for collaboration. Blogs have more direction communication features compared to wikis. For wikis there aren't too many direct communication features. So that means bloggers can easily collaborate by adding each other on their blog lists and commenting on posts.
I am not creative enough to think of new uses for wikis. But I imagine if they could implement some direct communication features similar to blogs, it could allow for more closer knit collaboration. And even have a user section where you could post your own blogs. There is no reason why wiki can't incorporate social networking features into its site as a subsection.
Which brings up the most noticeable difference between blogs and wikis are that for wikis they are supposed to be objective repositories of knowledge where anyone can edit the content. As this CNN article points out is that Wiki is often criticized for its inaccuracies so they are focusing on refining their articles with proper references and citations. It is essentially a form of many to many communication.
On the other hand, blogs are more about personal opinions and thoughts without any sort of filtering or regulation. It is primarily a one to many communication. Visitors can post comments but cannot edit any of the content. As far as I can tell blogs aren't as popular as wikis no doubt due to the collaborative communities found in wikis.
As more people gain high speed connections to the internet, the more important internet social networking becomes, and the more essential collaborative sites like wikis and blogs will be. Since blogs also allows people to easily communicate their thoughts and have others comment on them, they can also be used for collaboration. Blogs have more direction communication features compared to wikis. For wikis there aren't too many direct communication features. So that means bloggers can easily collaborate by adding each other on their blog lists and commenting on posts.
I am not creative enough to think of new uses for wikis. But I imagine if they could implement some direct communication features similar to blogs, it could allow for more closer knit collaboration. And even have a user section where you could post your own blogs. There is no reason why wiki can't incorporate social networking features into its site as a subsection.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Old vs. New
I think it is quite easy to distinguish between new and old media, but I can't say the same about distinguishing between the various new media technologies. This is a long read, but only because I think it is best explained with many examples. Old media tends to be static, non-interactive, slower means of communication and less easily produced and distributed. While new media tends to be more dynamic, interactive, quicker and easier to produce and distribute.
Let me explain further on those concepts. For old media such as newspapers, or TV the content is the same. You can read the same newspaper over and over and the words printed on the page will not change. When re-watching a movie or episode of TV, it will play the same way every time. While for new media, the content can change. An example being amazon.com's product referral system. If you click on a certain product or purchase a certain product, the website will make recommendations based on those products you viewed or purchased. A another example would be mmorpgs. When you play an mmo, every playthrough will be different. Like choosing a different character, learning different spells, using different items, and etc.
Which brings to the next concept of interactivity. Using newspapers and TV again, you can only read the newspaper and watch TV episodes. And that's it. While for video games, you have to command your character to do every action. For websites like blogs and forums where you can make posts and share your thoughts, opinions, and pictures. Or wikis where you can add or edit pages. In old media websites, all you could do was read off the page and nothing else.
The next concept is speed. For old media, its much slower. Sending a letter through the post office will take days to weeks. If you write something for a newspaper or magazine, it takes time for them to be printed, distributed, then customers purchase them and read them. While for new media, its much faster and in some cases instantaneous. Such as a blog, all you have to do is click the "Publish Post" button and your writings are instantly available to read on your blog. Anyone and everyone can read it right away. It doesn't have to be distributed to stores, or require a release date like newspapers. Going back to the post office mail example, new media technology such as email or text message lets you send messages to a person anywhere almost instantly. And they can respond right away. So you don't have to wait weeks for a response or worry about your letters getting lost in the mail.
Lastly, the accessibility of the media technology is a great distinguishing factor. For old media, it is difficult and expensive to get an article published, or produce a film and have it aired on television or at theaters. While for new media, anyone can write their own articles and post them on blogs. As youtube as shown, pretty much everyone can produce their own films and distribute them online and reach a massive audience.
Hopefully I have explained the distinguishing factors between old and new media sufficiently enough so you the reader can easily tell the difference between old and new media.
Let me explain further on those concepts. For old media such as newspapers, or TV the content is the same. You can read the same newspaper over and over and the words printed on the page will not change. When re-watching a movie or episode of TV, it will play the same way every time. While for new media, the content can change. An example being amazon.com's product referral system. If you click on a certain product or purchase a certain product, the website will make recommendations based on those products you viewed or purchased. A another example would be mmorpgs. When you play an mmo, every playthrough will be different. Like choosing a different character, learning different spells, using different items, and etc.
Which brings to the next concept of interactivity. Using newspapers and TV again, you can only read the newspaper and watch TV episodes. And that's it. While for video games, you have to command your character to do every action. For websites like blogs and forums where you can make posts and share your thoughts, opinions, and pictures. Or wikis where you can add or edit pages. In old media websites, all you could do was read off the page and nothing else.
The next concept is speed. For old media, its much slower. Sending a letter through the post office will take days to weeks. If you write something for a newspaper or magazine, it takes time for them to be printed, distributed, then customers purchase them and read them. While for new media, its much faster and in some cases instantaneous. Such as a blog, all you have to do is click the "Publish Post" button and your writings are instantly available to read on your blog. Anyone and everyone can read it right away. It doesn't have to be distributed to stores, or require a release date like newspapers. Going back to the post office mail example, new media technology such as email or text message lets you send messages to a person anywhere almost instantly. And they can respond right away. So you don't have to wait weeks for a response or worry about your letters getting lost in the mail.
Lastly, the accessibility of the media technology is a great distinguishing factor. For old media, it is difficult and expensive to get an article published, or produce a film and have it aired on television or at theaters. While for new media, anyone can write their own articles and post them on blogs. As youtube as shown, pretty much everyone can produce their own films and distribute them online and reach a massive audience.
Hopefully I have explained the distinguishing factors between old and new media sufficiently enough so you the reader can easily tell the difference between old and new media.
Research Project Description
Title: Impact of New Media on our Social Lives.
Description: For my research project I intend on researching the impact of new media on our social lives. I will discuss both positive and negative affects. Examples of positive affects would be how new media technologies such as video chats, texting, and email allow people to communicate instantly across the globe with their friends and relatives. While others such as wikis, flickr, forums, etc allows people to find others with similar interests to form communities and they can collaborate/contribute to "projects". Of course negative effects will also be discussed such as cyberbullying, people posting incriminating texts or pictures on facebook, and any possible effects on our face to face communication skills.
Description: For my research project I intend on researching the impact of new media on our social lives. I will discuss both positive and negative affects. Examples of positive affects would be how new media technologies such as video chats, texting, and email allow people to communicate instantly across the globe with their friends and relatives. While others such as wikis, flickr, forums, etc allows people to find others with similar interests to form communities and they can collaborate/contribute to "projects". Of course negative effects will also be discussed such as cyberbullying, people posting incriminating texts or pictures on facebook, and any possible effects on our face to face communication skills.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
