Sunday, September 25, 2016

The Hinderances and Advantages of Crowdsourcing

Back in 1946 when Charles Babbage successfully created the first programmable computer, I doubt even he and his fellow visionaries ever dreamed of what this new piece of technology could accomplish when given to the mass public and used with a common goal in mind. Now, in 2016, we are able to directly see just what does happen when this public format of togetherness is put into motion; it’s called crowdsourcing. Life itself is a series of strategic social moves, both via technology and in person, whether this is intentional or not, these strategic moves have led to some pretty amazing things, like solving cold cases, and some more mundane things, like the never-ending attempt to find Bigfoot.

This leads to the idea of being able to control the message, who has this control, and what can we do with the control that we do have. In Chapter 1 of “Controlling the Message” by Farrar-Myers and Vaughn, we see this idea exemplified in the 2008 Obama campaign and how the use of social media escalated to create a more personal, impactful, and interactive campaign that focused on crowds and targeted their specific interests based on information that could be found about each potential voter, especially through programs like Project ORCA and the Houdini system. “This social media targeting was premised on voter modeling, which entails assigning numerical scores representing political attitudes and behavior to every member of the electorate,”(Kreiss and Welch). This allows politicians who are leading a campaign to control the message in new ways in order to create a persona that they believe is desirable to the public.

 But it also gives the public a good amount of leverage as well, for they are the ones who are depended upon to respond and interact within this platform. They hold the power in this way for social media movements can just as easily be created via crowds as it can via a political candidate. Even if these social movements are just in the form of memes about Trumps hair, they are still created by a crowd coming together with a common goal in mind in order to create, share, and make a recognizable theme of humor that those outside of this crowd can understand.

Or in the form of a Facebook page for all memes Bernie Sanders and low down political fun. AKA: Bernie Sanders’ Dank Meme Stash. You just have to see it to believe it.







Okay, enough fun for now. Crowdsourcing actually can do much more than the Tom foolery shown above; not always, but it has happened. In “Controlling the Message” we find that digital political advertising began in 2000 and has only progressed since then. This advertising model is easily broken down into three primary objectives in the 2008 Obama campaign. “...to build a robust supporter base, to mobilize those supporters to become volunteers and donors, and to persuade undecided members of the electorate (Barnard and Kreiss 2013),” (Kreiss and Welch).

 This digital advertising model can be seen in how Reddit and Facebook users were able to crowdsource together to help solve the 20 year old cold case of Jason Callahan who had been missing. In a way, the volunteers and detectives who were working on this case were using digital advertising to their advantage in order to find Callahan. They dropped this call for help out on the Internet, in hopes of building a supporter base (objective one), to mobilize some of these supporters to become participants in this search by volunteering or donating time or funds (objective two), and in hopes of persuading others to join in on this search, at least in the form of support, which can mimic the objective of persuading voters to choose one side of the electorate or the other (objective three).

 It all began with the simple sharing of a photo, something that happens on massive scales every day. "That month, an Australian woman with the handle greymetal opened a Grateful Doe subreddit and posted his picture to Imgur. She and other volunteers circulated the image widely, particularly within Grateful Dead fan communities; they also posted it to places like r/washintondc and Buzzed,” (Dewey). The formula is not completely interchangeable, but there are definitely some similarities between both situations.
Do you recognise me? I have been without my name for nearly 20 years.

Crowdsourcing is simply a search for answers, even if those answers involve something more simple and nostalgic, like Bigfoot. The Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization, the BFRO, is an example of how independent groups are able to interact within themselves to reach a common goal. In Chapter 3 of  “Controlling the Message” we see how social media has opened doors for independents in a political sense, in order fro political narratives to be shaped via “attack dogs” or “cheerleaders”, but in a non-polical setting, this looks a little different. “This new medium allows independent groups to reach important constituencies,” (Azari and Stewart). This Bigfoot crowdsourcing is happening by area, state, and region; this same categorizing also happens when mapping for the presidential polls.

 The belief with this type of crowdsourcing is by collecting community option and input, this will lead to potential truth. Given that the search for Bigfoot has been going on since the mid-1800s on the Pacific Northwest coast involving the indigenous tribes that lived there, which is still debatable, just like Bigfoot itself, it is hard to say if this crowdsourcing will lead to any truth at all. The only truth that attempts to present itself is the fact that the amount of data regarding Bigfoot sightings uploaded  to the BFRO page has become more sporadic or slowly trickled off in all the regions as a whole, taking into consideration the regions that receive the most sightings like California, Ohio, and Oregon.

 This has potential to be an example of “audience fragmentation” given the specific focus on information at hand. Azari and Stewart describe “audience fragmentation” as “allowing readers to choose content on the basis of topic and point of view”. Those who are participating in the BFRO site are choosing their topic of focus and are allowing bias based on their point of view. They are expressing a small ability to control the message that is being created for they are playing an active part in creating that message itself in the hopes of finding truth. There have been claims to truth in these sighting, but no actual truth has been acknowledged.

 The last example of crowdsourcing is the infamous 4chan and Reddit users who investigated the Boston Marathon bombing. "The Boston Marathon bombing is easily the most crowdsourced terror investigation in American history, with the FBI soliciting videos, cellphone pictures, and anything that could lead to the capture of whoever set off those pressure cooker bombs. This is what happens when you ask for the public's help,” (Abad-Santos). These users are seeming to act as “surrogates” as Azari and Stewart describe, who are carrying and creating a narrative for what may or may not have happened during the bombing and who is responsible for the bombing itself. 

 Once again, pictures were the main source of evidence in the attempt to find truth, even though no truth was found, but the sharing and discussing of photos and media in a crowd-focused way was the main way in which the public attempted to find answers; much like I think the FBI or police force would. The main focus was on backpacks, for that is what the bombs would have most easily been transported in without looking suspicious. Photos are a huge part of our lifestyle and one of the biggest ways we look for answers; whether that be Facebook stalking your ex or literally trying to find the perpetrator of a bombing. 
The reasoning behind this type of crowdsourcing is if you get a big enough group of people together, it will make up for the unhelpful weirdos who just scream conspiracy theories when they have nothing else, and they never do. I believe the 4chan and Reddit users were truly trying to help solve this, and I think there were solid attempts, without just blaming conspiracy theories, even though there was a fair amount of this kind of conversation involved regardless. 

 Ultimately the question is how big does a group have to be in order to find a “truth” reagardless of the level of seriousness involved. There is a certain amount of “it depends”, but social media is really about manipulation, for better or for worse, so the question is how much of a manipulator do we have to be to find truth? Don’t act surprised, truth isn’t as gleaming and pure as you thought. Crowdsourcing is massive manipulation to find an answer, and truth, unfortunately so, sometimes acts in the very same way. 
Posted by at No comments:

Friday, September 23, 2016

Questioning Blog Post Length: Does Size Really Matter?

Word Counts: The Magic Number Everyone is Looking for 

“How long does it have to be? What do you mean there is no limit? But we need a word count” were just a few of the questions asked in regards to our first blogging assignment in a social media based class this semester. Panic. Sheer panic. With essays, online forum responses, and reflection papers this is an easy answer, just look in the syllabus, you know who your audience is and what they expect from you. But for blogging, the answer isn’t always as clear.  For social media it is never clear what will work and what won’t, especially the first time you attempt something; it is more or less trial and error until you start to get it right and see a pattern of positive response from your intend audience.
Inspiration vs. Necessity 

As an English major and lover of the written word, my tendency is to always write way more than I need to, sometimes to the point of excessive repetition, regardless of the assignment, topic, or course at hand. I always get the feeling that I could always say more, research more, make just one more point, or expand beyond the bounds of the continuously growing word count. In the blogging world, this desire to write until I just can’t anymore applies as well. As Joe Bunting describes in his own blog about the question of length in a blog post, “How Long Should Your Blog Post Be? A Writer’s Guide”, if you feel inspired, you do not always have to conform to a certain word count or paragraph limit; this is good news for me. "If the muse moves you, don’t be afraid to write posts that are 2,000 words or more. At the same time, don’t feel bad if you want to write a post that’s just 200 words long.” It is all about finding the balance between your wants and desires and those of your audience as well. 

It is much easier to fall into this writing black hole of inspirational rambling because you are fully in control of what you write and the numerical limit literally does not exist. But does it? Is there a certain limit that can apply to blogging as a whole, regardless of the topic or content, that will make it successful, or does it indeed depend on the content and topic of what is being written in order to determine the length of each blog post? This is able to be argued both ways I believe, for both are very influential factors when blogging. 

 Bunting points out the bloggers themselves all want more readers, comments, links, and traffic, but in order to get that, we have to be strategic in the content that we share with the public. Naturally, your audience pretty much drives your word count when paired with your goal in writing the post in the first place. However, this is hard to do when you don’t necessarily know who your audience is, what they may or may not be interested in, and what length will keep their attention or generate the most response; especially if you are a beginner blogger, like me.
Share More to Get More

Not only do you need to focus on how readable the blog post is, but also how shareable it is, the SEO, depending on where you are intending to share it. The potential share ability of your blog post can affect how long or short you make your post, depending on your audience and content. Simply put, Bunting explains that the longer the post, the better for social shares, the shorter the post, the better for more comments; it is all about your priority in what type of response you want most.

 In contrast, Marieke van de Rakt makes the point in her blog about blog length that even if your post is lengthy, it still has to be done in an effective and readable way. "However, long posts require strong writing skills. Not every writer will be able to write readable blog posts of more than 1000 words. Still, these lengthy blog posts are of great importance for your SEO strategy”, (van de Rakt). You cannot depend solely on length, you actually need some skill. This means structure, a clear direction, short, easy to read parapgraphs, and no distracting grammar mistakes; it is much harder to do. The higher the length, the better chance you have of your blog making a presence on search engines, like Google, especially if it is over 300 words. This is the most solid and dependable word count you will probably be able to find in regards to blogging, but it gives you a starting point. 
Try, try, try again.

 Social media is all about trial and error, and this applies to blogging as well. You have to find what works for you and concrete way to go about blogging that will lead you directly to the perfect way to blog, but there are definitely some key factors that will help you along. You won’t ever know if you don’t try. If you have forgotten just how much you can grow on social media, look back at your 2010 Facebook self and compare it to now. Hopefully a lot has changed, but if not, make your blog that place of change, you still have a chance to redeem yourself. 




Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, September 22, 2016

Twitter-Crazed Trump Vs. Calculating Clinton

Even in the political world, the “always on” phenomena continues to exist, thrive and play the game of give and take with the audience that it is directing its content to. In politics, the snarkiness, opinionated shade throwing, and defensive subtweeting is often kicked up a notch to a borderline blood-bath level, and this is not only between fellow Twitter users in the audience, but also between the politicians themselves. This point is made overly clear in Matt Villarreal’s bog post on “Always On Politics”.
"Politics has become an even nastier battle-field where no ones opinions are respected but rather shot down in an instant. Even Donald Trump, as shown above, is bashing Hilary Clinton. He is recognizing the fact that she has taken some time off of Twitter and the campaign and makes the assumption that she is sleeping. Our candidates are even expressing personal opinion on their own campaign!” said Villarreal. 

 The use of social media has intensified from the beginning of time, but most notably and specifically with each presidential election. The most noticeable shift in this social media phenomenon in connection to political campaigns was during the Reagan campaign via his use of direct mail to his current and potential voters. This focused and selective use of media to potential voters has only grown and become more and more personal. Yes, they know where you are, who you are, what you have done, what you will do; accept it.  As Hannah Alfred states in her blog, the public has not only gotten more comfortable with social media use, but so have politicians. "A major observation through journalists and social media is how they are less afraid to voice their opinion or hide facts,” (Alfred). The most obvious example of such comfort is embodied by, yes, you guessed it, Donald Trump. 
This is typical Trump. Who actually cares about the placement of private planes? Does this mean anything beyond the obvious pettiness that it is? I am sure Hillary is trying to be just like Trump and this is obviously her best way of acting in a Trump fashion. Being on in a political way is not always political in the sense that the information being sent out is serious and valuable to our lives; it can also be absolute madness.


For some candidates, social media plays a more crucial role in the campaign that they lead than others. The type, amount, and tone of the posts that are shared out to the public says a lot about the candidate, their political views, and their views reagarding social media. Those that use social media more often, in more abrasive and uncensored ways, like Donald Trump, it can be argued that he is putting a lot of trust in either himself to be able to recover from potential backlash from the public, or in social media itself as a structural component as a “gatekeeper” to control the message he is attempting to send. From every tweet he has ever made, himself personally, this does not seem to be a thought in his mind, for he does not make any significant attempt to recover from tweets gone bad; and if he does, it is not from him directly, but rather his social media team. You can tell by the time of day the tweet is tweeted out, the vocabulary and tone that is used, and the lack of exclamation points within. 

 However, an argument can be made that he is trusting Twitter as a structure to control his own personal message because every tweet that he makes always sparks controversy, no matter if it is in a positive or negative way, and this seems to be all he truly cared about. As Matt puts it  "In a way he has become more successful on Twitter for causing arguments amongst his followers,” (Villarreal). He is the bully from fifth grade that everyone simultaneously likes and hates because thy fear for both their lives and their level of cool. What it seems that Trump is actually doing is falling into stereotypical Twitter-like behavior. which is perfectly described in Controlling the Message by Farrar-Meyers and Vaughn. “Twitter is defined by “look at me” and “don’t be boring”,” (Lawrence).

So here we see the bully in action. Columnists are “wacky”, The New York Times is “nuts” and a “laughingstock rag”. His vocabulary is phenomenal, is it not? His retweets and pictures embedded in his feed are also incredibly on point. I hope you catch the sarcasm. His tweets and political on-ness is incredibly juvenile, unprofessional, and is a pride strutting show that gets us as Americans nowhere in the sense of real political questions, issues, or concerns in the race to the finish line, but it undoubtedly shows his extreme level of comfort with using Twitter to speak his mind in a completely unfiltered way. May we never forget his infamous “I love Hispanics” tweet on Cinco De Mayo. Shudders.
While an embarrassing majority of Americans believe that Trump can do no wrong and live for tweets such as these, he is not really getting to the issues that actually matter, and rather focusing on the petty fluff that strokes his ego. It is hard to know what exactly is the truth via Trump, for his tweets are not always static, or via his social media team, for there is a definite distinction between the these two sets of tweets. As Megan Larson describes it in her blog post “The Tweeting Trump”, "Trump has no filter and says what he thinks and then his staff comes in and does damage control,” (Larson). Trump is unavoidably separated from his own campaign due to how he interacts on Twitter and the persona that he creates there.

 Hillary Clinton’s presence on Twitter, however, is completely different from Trump’s, and shows a different perspective of how politicians can be “on” in a more grown up, stereotypically political way. Clinton and her social media team shows an understanding for what their direct and potential audience wants with easily shareable links, retweets, and pictures in a clean and professional looking feed. Clinton’s approach is entirely different and it works in its own way. Clinton makes the distinction between her personal tweets and her social media team’s tweets with the signature “-H” so her viewers know what they are getting from her Twitter page. The tweets that are signed by Clinton herself and those that are not have a consistent tone and message throughout, unlike Trump’s tweets.



Just like normal, everyday people, politicians have to be skillful at being “always on”; even if that means ranting via name-calling. Side-eye at Trump. Each politician thought each election has had to conform to or transform the social media world to best fit them, their campaign, the individuals they are trying to reach, and the goals that they are attempting to share. When it comes to being always on, politicians easily epitomize the more extreme levels of this concept.
Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, September 15, 2016

What Kim and Snoop Have to About Being "Always On”

As social media fanatics and dedicated participants of the online world, we are “always on; literally and cognitively. We have this desire to always be on, seeing, being seen, being involved, and connected with those who also participate on the same social media sites that we do. When we are not on we are still “on”, either due to FOMO, nosiness, boredom, or you actually are genuinely interested in the lives of your peers, your family, that crazy aunt that you won’t follow back, and your celebrity crushes. Or, you are actually friendless with no social life and are just taking a course in college that is based on social media and what being “on” means in regards to ourselves and the bigger picture of social media and general. There is an invisible social construct in regards to social media that grabs our attention and makes us as an audience and as participants feel like we have to be following, liking, and sharing at all times; regardless of the fact if those that we are participating with are strangers or friends.

 Talking in specific terms of Instagram and being on, it is one of the easier apps to be on and “on” because it is mostly visual content, rather than word-heavy, link-based posts that require brain power. It is a seemingly mindless form of social media where you can scroll through your personal feed for hours, move on to your search feed and scroll on that for even more hours, and by that time you can come back to your personal feed again to look at the new content that has been posted in all those hours, and then once again go back to the search feed to look at even more content; the cycle is endless depending on your level of do nothingness or dedication to become Instagram cultured at 2 am in your bed whilst eating a pint of ice cream and watching Netflix simultaneously.

 However, being “on” doesn’t always mean you are connected with those who are also “on”. I find myself being both on and “on”, but I don’t necessarily find myself feeling connected or “connected” with those who are always on and “on”; not even with my friends who are actually my friends, I’m just there to be supportive in the form of a like or comment. This may be due to the fact that my social media skills are extremely sub par and sporadic, and I am not a huge fan of the way that Instagram is formatted now; which is more of a Facebook relevancy format that usually suggests accounts that have no correlation to what I am actually interested in. 

 I am longer able to find interesting, organic, and unique accounts of people, businesses and brands that I actually have a true interest in. Instead, I am stuck with Harley Quinn makeup tutorials, pictures of Selena Gomez from fan accounts and way too many pictures of dogs doing weird things. I don’t want to look at any of those things, except maybe the dogs, but even that kind of content needs to be in small doses. There is a misfiring in both the connections and the assumptions that Instagram makes because the content is just not meeting my expectations in what is should be to be entertaining and worth connecting with. However, this desire to be “on” continues to be prevalent in my everyday life, for that is where so much of life actually happens; even if that means watching the lives of other people through a tiny screen.

 Looking to people who are professionals at being “always on” we look to the celebrities. The most infamous and stereotypical that comes to my mind first is, you guessed it, Kim Kardashian. When will the world move on from this fanatic fandom phase with Kim? I have no idea. Maybe when her butt gets smaller. But until then I guess my blog post will just have to include her and her form of being “always on". What makes Kim’s posts interesting is that they have this iconic feel to them, no matter how simple or mundane they may be. This is possibly due to her iconic figure, the brand she has created for herself as a person, her duck lipped selfies, the recent fetish for sheer clothing, twerking videos, or her on point editing skills that make each post look professional, and given her level of fame and wealth, it is safe to assume that they probably are. She has 82.4 million followers so something must be working.
A photo posted by Kim Kardashian West (@kimkardashian) on


A photo posted by Kim Kardashian West (@kimkardashian) on

A photo posted by Kim Kardashian West (@kimkardashian) on

Kim doesn’t post as much as one might think she would as a celebrity of her character and status. She shows a certain level of restraint in the content itself and the amount of content she actually posts to keep her audience intrigued, but not enough to frustrate and be unfollowed; though it would take a lot of unfollowing for her to actually be affected. There is also a well rounded mix of “artsy” posts and “look at my body and give me attention” posts. This is a skillful “on” that shows that she knows her direct audience and what works for them as opposed to another celebrity and their audience. There is no way that she could, or anyone or that matter, could be always on, all the time. This seems to be connected to Dana Boyd’s idea of privacy and publicness in “The Social Media Reader” by Mandiberg. “Ionically, the publicness of social media also provides privacy in new ways. Many of those who embrace the public aspects of social media find that the more public they are, the more they can carve off privacy,” (Boyd). There is a good chance that Kim is able to fall under this category of private and public balance. 

 With that, celebrities and ourselves have to start being selective and strategic when it comes to being “on”. As Boyd makes clear “There’s no formula for embracing always-on practices, and we must each develop our own personal strategies for navigating a world with ever-increasing information,” (Boyd. This same theory applies to the lives of celebrities as well. This is something that I think Kim does extremely well and I’m not even a Kim Kardashian fan. Even when she isn’t on she is still “on" because she is constantly doing something, even if its nothing from our perspective of life, and creating new content from those experiences to potentially share out on multiple social media feeds; Instagram being only one of them. Kim has over 3,600 posts on Instagram which is incredibly low for a celebrity of her fame, especially paired with her level of sensuality that she does not mind sharing with the public.

 Compare this to the number of posts that a celebrity like Snoop Dogg has, which is over 25k, and you can see the huge difference in level of “on-ness”. His amount of followers is significantly lower than Kim's, at around 12 million, but his content output is much higher than hers. But, here is where Kim pulls forward to the lead in the level of being on. Snoop Dogg may post more, more frequently, but Kim posts more discussion-worthy, attention grabbing photos that blow Snoop Dogg’s posts out of the water. 

 Granted the audiences for both celebrities may be different, but probably not as much as one may think. Sure, the argument can be made that Snoop is funny and just plain cool, due to his high posting of random videos that have no purpose, memes that are just there for entertainment and half-hearted relatable laughs, or awkward selfies that just don’t match up to the infamous selfies that Kim unashamedly rolls out constantly, but Kim is sexuality in human form and in an Instagram account and at the end of the day that is what sells, no matter if that is what you are personally into or not and she sells it well; just enough to keep us interested and wondering what is next.

A photo posted by snoopdogg (@snoopdogg) on

A photo posted by snoopdogg (@snoopdogg) on
She is posting for our entertainment, for herself and her ego, potentially to connect with her fans, and because she knows that we are always on and “on”. We follow her for these very same reasons, unless you’re like me and are not a fan and are just following her because your professor said to. But nevertheless, I am still on. You have to have a level of skill to be able to be a properly on social media guru, or at least a decent participant, and I believe that those who are followed by significant numbers of people on social media understand this. 

 There has to be a correlation between the audience’s “on” and the “on” of the person who is posting. Whether we want to be on or not, we are always “on”, even if that simply means mindlessly scrolling through videos of Snoop Dogg getting high with his A-list friends, or analyzing the size of Kim Kardashian’s butt at different angles on her Instagram page. In this era of “being on”, that still counts for something and that something is important to us in some way, no matter how small. Being on is no longer a choice, it seems to simply be a way of life. .


Posted by at No comments:

Monday, September 12, 2016

Evaluative Blog #1 on Gifting


As Marisol Ramos made clear in her blog about Gifting, as a society we are completely hung up on this notion and what it means for us as being accepted people to those that we exchange gifts with. We are permanently stuck in Christmas mode where the gifting never stops. Before I make my next point I will directly call to its attention that Hannah Alfred made this exact point in her blog about gifting, but I wrote this connection to “Happy Birthday” posts before I got a chance to read it personally. This shows that multiple people in the same age group are recognizing that there is a gifting pattern that is specified to this phrase on a specific day and all of the expectations and emotions that are connected to it. 

We have made social media so much of a “gifting” aspect in life that we are deeply and permanently hurt and offended if we do not get tagged in a “Happy Birthday” post by all of our Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter friends that we usually never talk to on a regular basis and our extended family twice removed when this one special day rolls around. As Mauss puts it “A considerable part of our morality and our lives themselves are still permeated with this same atmosphere of the gift, where obligation and liberty intermingle,” (Mauss). Recently, I heard a fellow classmate state that the only reason they use their Instagram is to mainly post “Happy Birthday” posts to their friends, meaning that their Instagram is just one big gifting machine, even if the the gift in return is simply a like or a “thank you!” comment. But sometimes this small gift is enough to make us feel like we have done a good deed and that we have improved the life of another, because let’s be honest, we aren’t just doing this to benefit others, self gratification is a huge aspect. 

A sense of expectation and entitlement is involved with this gift giving through tagged selfies and forced candids on days such as birthdays because the sharing of memories and the portrayal of relationships can only reach its' full potential by being included in the world of social media; in-person gifting is not enough. Megan Larsen’s blog post on gifting correlated directly with this point of this expectation and self-interest reasoning behind giving anything in the first place. “If we give someone a gift, we expect to receive a gift back. There is an underlying self-interest behind gifting,” (Larson). This concept of interest has made a shift from being simply a term used in the accounting sense to describe sums of interest that had to be collected, to a term that is connected to self (Mauss). Have we as a culture moved to far into this “love me and accept me” desire via social media that we can no longer fully appreciate an in person relationship unless there is a social media relationship attached? As long as this gifting expectation exists, which it always has, as we saw most apparently with Polynesian tribes in the reading by Mauss, this phenomena will continue to thrive, ruin friendships, and divide families; all due to a gift in the form of a social media post. 

While seemingly self-interested birthday posts may take on the role of a  more “pure gift” as Mauss describes, this self-interest can also take shape in a profit, business level where you are getting actual funding in return for the gifting that you share with a larger community and this gifting makes a shift to a more “pure barter” gift. For example, celebrities being the spokesperson for certain products, brands, and movements. You know those Instagram models who promote teeth-whitening products, tea, and makeup? Yeah. Their gifting gets them followers, likes, comments, and a profit. But most of us don’t even get a fraction of that kind of gifting in return, yet we still give, give, give. Take this blog for example. I know that I will not get a huge reaction from the small number of interested readers who may be out there, but I gift my mediocre knowledge and desperate opinion in hopes of being gifted a good grade in this course and positive comments from my professor that I didn’t completely miss the point. True, part of it is due to my moral obligation to at least try and not be a slacker, but it is not a concrete exchange that I can count on; I hope and gift anyway. 

On Instagram you cannot make it one day without seeing comments under the posts of your followers and of those on your search feed of low-key exasperations when someone was not given photo credit or was not tagged specifically in the group photo. As participants and creators of the social media golden age we want to matter, be included, and feel like we have been given a place and sense of worthiness in someone else’s life. This want has moved from just wanting to be asked to hang out or acknowledged in public, to wanting to be added on every form of social media possible, as well as being in constant contact on all of these forms to solidify your worth as a gift giver and as a receiver of these gifts. 

It totally is a popularity contest, as Marisol points out in her post, even if you are a casual social media user; you are still sucked into the vortex of being cool, accepted, “liked”, and “shared”. "Social media is another popularity contest, but rather than having to impress the 50 “cool kids” in your run-down town, you are now given an entirely never-ending audience of people," (Ramos). There is a sense of wanting to be remembered, hence the constant and unnecessary “throwback” posts; a constant asking to be remembered and to be gifted with a sentimental comment or like. We indeed want to be praised and that level of praise is dependent on what form of social media you are using, what content you have posted, and what message you are trying to portray and to whom. The question becomes what is real and what is not. 

The more I personally get involved on social media and in “real-life” in living, breathing social circles, the divide between social media and real life becomes even wider, rather than more interconnected and in sync. Why? One life is more real and one is more “put on”. A relationship with one person on social media may be completely different in person. This ups the complexity of life in general and the connections we have with people, further calling into question when the right time is to give a gift, to whom, and what type of gift is acceptable. It is a guessing game that can go really well or horribly wrong; wrong being not receiving acknowledgment for your gift at the very least. 

We like to hide behind our technology, which is why we have come to put such a high price and expectation for satisfaction on social media and the gifting that goes along with that. Millennials are portrayed as a very “giving” generation due to the significantly less gifts we get in return, but yet we still continue to be active and giving on social media regardless. There is a significantly greater willingness to give via social media rather than to give via the community, to your friends, family, or organizations you are involved in. As Hannah described it,“It creates a “give and take” persona that is much more easily accepted through  a virtual world rather than reality,” (Alfred). Spot on. 

Depending on where it is applied, the glamour and willingness to gift changes slightly, but not enough to cut it out of certain parts of life completely. We are controlled by gifting, but do we have the ability to break free of this control? That is the million dollar question that will change depending on who you ask. 
Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, September 1, 2016

Wikipedia: The Secret Weapon of the Internet

Wikipedia. Love it or hate it this infamous Internet resource is a huge part of our social lives and the researching and sharing culture that we are constantly participating in; both on and off technology. It is an instant information simplifier, gap filler, and detail expander, but we never really take it seriously beyond this point due to the Wikipedia stereotype that has been created in our academic culture. Regardless of how “dependable” a source we think Wikipedia is, or have been told it is by every teacher we have ever had since Middle School, it has hidden talents and that make it more valid and helpful than one may think. 

 However, it also has an extensive list of biases and controversies that make it more dramatic and technical than at first search. So dramatic in fact that there are even Wiki editing wars. Yeah, intense. Thanks to Wiki- lovers, haters, questioners, and defenders who have taken the time to research and discuss what really goes on behind the scenes of this Internet powerhouse, we are able to take a closer look at what Wikipedia really is and how it is actually used.

 Before my eyes were opened to the truth of Wikipedia I thought in a similar way about it that I am sure most of us do; that it is a go-to source for uncomplicated answers for uncomplicated topics, but nothing more, because that is just too much commitment. I felt as if it were impossible for Wikipedia to give anything more than that, but that was only because that was all I had ever heard about it. In actuality, Wikipedia has a solid, interactive editing system. It is a hotspot for various people interested in almost every topic you can think of, from multiple perspectives, who take a stand every day to make sure they are creating a change on the Internet via Wikipedia, or to make sure their page isn’t changed by someone else whose views they view as invalid or just plain wrong.

 Even Wikipedia’s Twitter page shows how interchangeable it is able to be in the lives of those that use it; both simple and complex. It mass shares out mundane facts about history as well as article links to more in depth topics that take more brain power .

A more negative example of this is when the NYPD was caught attempting to rewrite articles, and even completely delete articles altogether, on police brutality in order to shed a softer and more inaccurate light on them as individuals and as an organization. “Public relations is one thing, but having staff go into Wikipedia to change the written narrative on police brutality is altogether different,” (King). This organization is obviously viewing Wikipedia as a social and informational platform that sincerely matters for it could potentially have huge affect on their reputation and image. “Computer users identified by capital as working on the NYPD headquarters’ network have edited and attempted to delete Wikipedia entries for several well-known victims of police altercations.... Capital identified 85 NYPD addresses that have edited Wikipedia, although it is unclear how many users were involved, as computers on the NYPD network can operate on the department’s range of IP addresses,” (King). The NYPD realizes that Wikipedia is a mass-searched site for all kinds of information and they were making sure to cover their bases, regardless of the lies that they may have told in the process.

 Wikipedia is a way more political and socially active site than I originally believed it was; which is both good and bad. Good, because it is keeping up with the times as an information source, definition provider, and thought stimulator, something I didn’t think it was doing beforehand, and discussing relevant issues and topics that people are searching on an updated day-to-day basis. So relevant, in fact, that there is evidence that potential Clinton Vice Presidential candidates are able to be predicted via Wikipedia due to the patterns that arise from pages in the amounts of edits that have occurred on the pages of Julian Castro, Tom Vilsack, Tim Kaine, and Sherrod Brown. Tim Kaine was chosen as her running mate, and Wikipedia has evidence that shows it predicted such; he was the individual with the most Wikipedia edits. “The Wikipedia page of Virginia Senator Tom Kaine, on the other hand, has seen 62 edits on Friday alone. There have been almost 90 edits in the past week,” (Meyer and Starr).

 However, this is also bad because this makes Wikipedia one more place where there is political and religious warring via keyboard, nit picking over details that frankly do not matter just to prove a point, and straight up shade. Wikipedia is in some ways just another biased source with a mirage-like neutrality that makes it hard to determine who is on who’s side for you don’t know who edited what and when.

 Wikipedia is a also a place that receives traffic from not only from the those that we deem important, such as senators, Presidential candidates, potential Vice Presidents of the United States, the NYPD, but also from your every day college kids who want to make a difference. Wikipedia has its own language, culture, and work dynamics that are not apparent at first, second, or even twentieth use; if you’re like me in this time of Wikipedia enlightenment.

For its size, Wikipedia has fewer errors than any other Encyclopedia. This isn’t so surprising when you take the time to understand the editing process that is required for any information to make it to public domain officially. Teams of editors must come to agreement on the article at hand, or any changes that are attempted to be made on the page before anything actually changes on the page that the viewers see; it is a much slower, regulated process of change than I have been led to believe by research sticklers. There have even been edit-a-thons to update and change information on Wikipedia, specifically by students like Ira Ferris, who depends heavily on the internet and all that it provides in the academic sense, because for her, Wikipedia makes a statement beyond quick and unreliable Google searches; she wants to make sure history itself is accurate.

 This encouraged me to think about my own use of Wikipedia and how subconsciously restricted it may be due to the years upon years of reminders of the inaccuracy of Wikipedia in an academic sense. What I have come to realize is that Wikipedia is more than just the red-headed stepchild that we like to pass it off as, for good, bad or indifferent. It can be a real and valid voice for certain instances and topics, but we have to be willing to allow such dependence. For Ferris, Wikipedia is a place to make history and to make history known; it is a place where she wants accuracy to be present. Many other Wiki readers and writers want this as well, which further fuels the culture that Wikipedia has created for itself, and in turn for others, due to the sharing nature that it survives on.

 However, the changes that are made and are attempt to be made are not provided in a clear and easily accessed way for the public, calling into question morality, ownership, and justice. It makes copyright regulations a little wishy washy for we like in a world where copyright applies to more than just books, magazines, and journals. This need for proper citation and regulation has moved on to media of all forms and contents within your textual writing. Sure, most everything is shared due to the heavily used social media that our culture is built around and on, but the line between sharing and pure plagiarism is a faint and often situational one.

 What we would all benefit to realize is that Wikipedia is more than we think it is, for better or for worse, even if we think we know exactly what it is, the product it creates, the people that are involved in this creation, and the online society that keeps it living, editing, and Wiki-warring to this day.










Posted by at 2 comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)