Week 6: MMORG, augmented reality and virtual worlds

So I've been a bit slack, holidays and what not have set me back a couple of weeks...oops. I enjoyed Hardey's reading Life beyond the screen. I think it helped me to understand the concept of 'online identity' and avatars etc etc when he explained how the process of urbanisation has led to a decline in face-to-face social relations. Suburban life is generally not a 'Desperate Housewives' situation where everyone knows everyones business. People are continually finding themselves living among strangers. This process of urbanisation can also apply to the general living standards of people these days as it is safe to say that people living in large cities or close to, will own a home computer, with internet access. There is also an increase in people living alone, due to the change in society's expectations of marriage and family. In combining these different factors, we can see how online relations have become a way of socializing, and expression. As discussed in the lecture, people create online identities (avatars) separate from their actual self but with features and characteristics that they can relate to. This way it does not feel so foreign and they are still being exposed. Although I'm a firm believer in physical interaction, I can certainly see how this interaction appeals. The risk of initiating awkward relationships is massively reduced and features such as online dating can morph into real world. The internet must been seen as not only a communication tool, but a space for socializing, so instead of going to get coffee on the corner, meet in such and such chat room at such and such time (byo coffee). I don't think that 'Second life' or an online dating service will ever be apart of my daily internet search, but I can see how it has become an effective way of meeting people and interacting with others.

Weblog Week Five

Each week I'm feeling like more and more of an internet amateur. Slashdot, Twitter etc. Never heard if them, doesn't even ring a bell. Didn't actually think there was anything much beyond the realm of facebook or myspace. Good so I've established I know nothing about blogs. But here I am writing my own wee blog, which I would say is neither A, B or C class, more in the D area because if anyone reads it, its to help pass this assessment! It seems blogs have come a long way since the "computer savvy amateurs" of the 1990s. Blogs are now posted by all sorts of people, even celebs have their blogger pages to keep fans up to date. And if you're not already a certified celebrity, you can become one through the blogging world. Tila Tequila, developed a popular Myspace profile and just recently had her own show on MTV, 'A Shot at Love.' It was of course riveting television, and I'm sure that she and the winner are still together... But thats hardly the point, the fact is that through the popularity of her Blog, Tila was able to self promote so well that she merged into a real life celebrity and I'm sure she made a hefty sum whilst doing so! Jill Walker defines blogs as "personal and informal," like a diary entry that is confessional. I think that the concept of a blog is cool, and really quite ballsy. Blogs are posted to encourage a response, if you are to belt out an opinion for all to read, it could be met with mixed reviews. These comments are for the purpose of discussion, allowing interaction between the author and the reader, but what if you wrote something really crap? (I have an excuse-its compulsory) I guess thats half the point, 'constructive' criticism. I'd be scared though... O Baoill (I wonder how you would say that out loud...) writes of the "incestuous nature of the blogosphere" because of the tight bonds amongst bloggers. Blogging may not be my thing, but after this lecture I can see a little clearer why people use this as a tool for communication and publishing.
Cya next week, I really should start posting on time because it is already next week...

Post #4

To be honest, Wikipedia has hardly been a site that I have frequently visited. This is probably because I don't really use the internet for research. Yes there is the benefits of a search engine such as google, but my inability to determine what is legitimate, or relevant leaves me in a spot of bother. There is just so much information out there! Big chunky book with a good index suits me fine. However, the concept of Wikipedia or a "wiki" does appeal to me. It brings a variety and range of opinions to the web page. Although its lack of validity is a rather important factor, not to be overlooked. In Chesneys (haha can't help but think of the wee red head on Coro...) reading this week he develops this point further in that the lack of authority is questionable. The fact that this site aims to provide information, but openly admits to the possibility of being incorrect is much different to that of the older informative web sites such as Britannica Online. There has been a noted shift in authority, as Erika discussed in our lecture; the distinction between producer and consumer is blurred. Anyone can be an 'author' through using a tool like blogger or facebook, the hard bits getting the reader.
I think that online information (particularly Wikipedia) should be monitored for the obvious fact or fiction reason, but mainly because a communicative tool as useful as the internet should not support a reputation for its lack of truth. A resource that is universally appreciated by its users should really aim to provide an accurate service. Wikipedia is just one example of suspicious reliability, but if internet users are to seek information then I think that some form of authority should aim to maintain truth. Maybe then I could utilize it more!