Last Group of Presentations (and a Broken Phone?) -- Updated

Presentations

So, I figured I'd write this before I potentially break my G1 by installing Android 2.1 on it.

UPDATE!!! - I should have updated this after I actually updated to Android 2.1, back when someone might have actually read it. Anyway, phone is running a kind of stripped down version of Android 2.1. It's pretty good, save for the data connection issues and that it killed my beta install of Swype.

(Note: Sorry Brent, I showed up late to class and missed the first presentation. I don't feel that I'll be able to add anything to the discussion about the presentation because I'd be basing it off someone else's thoughts. So, there is no entry for Brent in this blog post.)

(Note 2: Wow, more people than I realized are no longer in this class)


Tuesday, April 27

Dan
Lee
Mike
Angel
Kristin

Thursday, April 29

Brent - Missed
Cynthia
Neil
Josh
---------

1 - Dan - Video Games and Virtual Communities

So, the argument I took away from Dan's presentation was about gaming communities and how they're just as much about learning as they are about hanging out. In other words, learning principles are enhanced in online environments (games) and this may account for the rise in the number of users online.

I think it is an interesting topic, but as I look at my notes I have some thoughts about the stats you're using. I think you were quoting Xbox Live user stats. How are those broken out? Is it only Gold level (those who pay a monthly/annual rate, can play online, and get demos). Do the figures include Silver level (those who have a free account, can only do voice chat and send direct messages, but can't play together online)? Are the recorded accounts just the pure number of accounts or is it the active accounts. For example, I have Gold XBL account, but my 360 broke over Christmas break and I haven't been on since (nor have I fixed it). Are people like me included in the total? It doesn't hurt your overall argument, but I think that's something that needs to be made clear.

This part of my notes is a little dicey, but you noted an "Affinity Group Principle" and how multiplayer/collaborative play in that context contributes and makes learning possible/better. Considering improvements in machine AI (see the Eureka Machine), can a artificial participant simulate that now. If not now, would an artificial player(s) (not conversationalist, but just playing) comparably contribute to learning in virtual gaming environments.

A step down from the AI thing, I was wondering if you were going to address the trial and error learning found in puzzle games. Afterall, there are many puzzle games on iPhone, MySpace, Facebook (Bejeweled Blitz) that can be played in a vacuum. Do those intersect or counter your argument/paper?

That's all I got.

Back to top
----------

2 - Lee - Political Activism and the Perpetuation of Hate (Youtube's Unique Roles)

There's a lot to this topic and presentation. In fact, I think there's a bit too much. For example, the discussion of how fact-based discourse is "better" than emotional. There just seems to be things in the presentation that are beyond the scope of DTC 475 that I would take out. I don't have a ton of specific examples of things to remove, but if this were my topic I'd approach it this way...

We know that there are extremes on Youtube and we know there are people who are looking to spread hate/wild opinion and those looking to spread "fact-based" arguments. I would argue something like why/how YouTube is such an effective (and neutral tool) for this rather than the fine details of what various arguments are and how they are presented on Youtube.

That's not a great argument I just outlined there, but I would focus the paper on Youtube or video sharing sites and how they encourage or discourage things people want to talk about.

Fin

Back to top
----------

3 - Mike - CYBERCRIMES! REAL VS VIRTUAL! (-- What's the Difference?)

The title is all caps because that's how I wrote it down in my notes. Strange.

Anyway, on to the presentation. Not to get all super critical right up front, but this felt kind of like a report than an argument. What we saw in the presentation was more about you can do this, that, and the other, to protect yourself from cybercrime rather than something like -- Crime is all around us. As more money and information move to the anonymous realm of cyberspace, criminals are increasingly taking advantage of these opportunities to remediate meatspace crime online.

You then outlined 3 reasons why this is. Convenience, freedom/anonymity, and growing pools of information (people and money) accessible online. You could incorporate your personal experiences into the intro section of your paper to set the table, so to speak.

Overall, I think you know what you're doing and are on an appropriate track. I just wasn't sure exactly where you were headed based on the presentation.

End of the line.

Back to top
----------

4 - Angel - Bridging the Digital Divide Through Game-Based Learning?

I didn't really have any significant notes. Overall I thought it was an interesting argument that not only can games teach groups things, but considering the digital context, that learning process can also help bridge the digital divide.

I don't remember the specifics of your proposal so this not might be irrelevant, but I wrote down "When access != Access. Access in school vs home" In other words, when "access" isn't the same as "access" and how access in school and access at home might have different impacts on learning and ultimately the digital divide. You might have addressed that in your presentation, but my notes aren't that detailed. If you aren't covering it, you might want to touch on something like that.

Cease reading. Unless you want to read other stuff.

Back to top
----------

5 - Kristin - Proposal: Healthy Online Presence Education

I like the idea and concept. I don't know if this was in the presentation, but I wrote that the goal of the project is to create a proposal for a program focused K-7th graders that strives to make kids effective users, safe netizens, and good stewards of net culture/communities.

I had some comment written down about the long term viability of this program. In the near term it really makes sense, but down the road, assuming cyberspace continues grow in importance and use, wouldn't something like this just be part of the standard elementary education curriculum. However, this is a proposal hat highlights a need and explains a jumping off point that could lead to other things. So, my note about this is rather pointless.

So, I had a comment, but really no comment.

---EOM---

Back to top
-----------

6 - Cynthia - Under-represented Can Be Represented in Cyberspace

I only caught the end of this presentation due to my tardiness, but based on what I saw and heard I think there is a good argument here about how cyberspace is (or can be) a space of increased diversity and this allows for representation and additional understand of various groups.

Exposure and discourse helps us find a common ground. This affordance of access to groups who are otherwise "hidden" in meatspace also gives them tools of representation they wouldn't otherwise have.

Again, I don't know what examples (and counter examples) you were looking at using, but I like the argument and it sounds good.

Halt.

Back to top
-----------

7 - Neil - The Advantage of Smartphones: Closing the Digital Divide

Similar to Derek's topic. The topic and argument sound decent, but I did have a note or two written down.

I don't know what I meant by this, but maybe it will spur something if you read it. Next to a note about your discussion of mobile use in developing countries, I wrote, "wealth as access?". I think I meant something like you could use measures like average income per capita in various countries to illustrate how as these communities get more money, they get more connected. I think this is beyond the scope of your paper, but it might help identify a financial "sweet spot" where connectivity become feasible in emerging economies. I don't know, I just wrote it..

Another comment I wrote was a potential question that might come up about your example of mobile phone loaning. That does improve access, but does it do anything to the knowledge side of the digital divide equation. Sure, someone can get online with someone else's mobile phone, but what good is that if they aren't fluent or able to participate online?

Done.

Back to top
-----------

8 - Josh - Phones and Connected Communication Tech as a Way to Affect Change in Meatspace

First of all, sorry for potentially adding extra work to your paper by bringing up SMS. Especially if you were already done.

Anyway, I felt like you're on the right track and everything.

My only concern was SMS since you brought up phones as an example and used the WTO protests in Seattle (1999). As we saw in the readings for DTC 375, SMS can effectively be used as a tool to make changes in meatspace, people can create communities in meat space by recording a list of numbers and then the community gets virtualized when the SMS part takes over.

I don't recall what examples you were linking to the WTO riots, but most if not all mobile connectivity in that case would have had to be via SMS since internet connected phones weren't viable for most people or cell networks.

I don't know, just a thought.

Stop - Hammer time.

Back to top

Rounds 3 and 4 - I Wear My Sunglasses At Night

I have no idea why "I Wear My Sunglasses At Night" is the subtitle of this post. I think it's best not to question it.

Presentations

Tuesday, April 20

Mark
Sara
Cassie

Thursday, April 22

Dena
Michelle
Brittany
Mark
---------

1 - Mark - Online Enabled Environmental Activism

Cyberspace and online communities are the most vital part of Internet-based eco-activism.

Based on Mark's presentation, civic action, Environmental activism in this case, is enabled and encouraged through distributed communication/reporting often found in web tools and other internet connected tools. This not only leads to responses to activities through spoof and media/culture jamming websites, but it creates the ability for these movements to be more proactive. Combining disparate reports and whistle-blowing activity into one widely accessible pool lets people notice trends and address them before they become more significant problems. The Internet and cyberspace enable local activism that has global support. Examples of this, as noted in Mark's presentation: iPhone app - Ecosnoop, citizen journalism, whistle-blowing sites/blogs, etc.

Back to top
----------

2 - Sara - Presentation of the Self in Cyberspace

So, this is a topic I tend to take issue with in general. Not that the argument is invalid or anything, but I tend not to agree with it. Yes, people represent themselves differently in different spaces online, but this also happens in day to day life. We typically take on different codes of conduct or styles of self-representation according to the context of any given situation. One behave differently with friends they've had since elementary school than with friends made via work, behavior around a boss changes, class behavior is typically different, etc. These representations aren't put-ons, made up, or completely faked, but rather a filtered version of what the situation dictates at any given time. I think if one acted without these filters all the time, they'd be considered anti-social or at least lacking etiquette.

Granted, in meatspace we have the opportunity to connect person's behavior in context A with their behavior in context B, so we can see that they have a full "character." Without the persistence and visual element, this is nearly impossible online, but I don't think that one's selected persona online is any less real than the meatspace personas that constitute one's full character. If anything, I think that online spaces have given people an opportunity to explore aspects of their real personality that meatspace situations don't support. In that case, we have to consider if the relatively low-risk environment of online spaces allows one to reflect an even more "real" version of themselves. Personally, I don't know if I'd go that far, but I think it is more appropriate to say that online personas can be very flat and focused out of necessity, but they're no less real or valid than personas in meatspace. A question to consider might be something like "Does anonymity/transparency online, by both the actor and observer, support very narrow interpretations of who people "really" are?

Back to top
----------

3- Cassie - Social Networking Sites in the Classroom

I think the topic is interesting, but without much context of what it's like to teach, it's hard to make any real good points. However, as a student, I completely agree that incorporating social networking tools/sites into a class would be helpful. Questions of academic honesty and whatnot start to crop up when you bring remote tools like these into play, but those exist anyway. So, I'm not certain of social networking's viability to do "class work," but I think it would be good to explore how these tools can teach lessons that might be ignored due to state requirements and whatnot. Things like social skills, conflict resolution (via starting/stopping flamewars - a stretch, I know), etc. I recall there being a few social networking sites noted (WoogiWorld, A.R.D.P (I think that's my acronym for something longer), and Facebook), but it would be best to focus on one and show how it can be used to improve an existing part of the lesson plan or fill a gap that is overlooked, but increasingly important.

Back to top
----------

4 - Dena - Social Networking Tools Don't Have Controls That Reinforce Real World Rules

This is a cool argument and a rather complex topic, but I feel like Dena has a good handle on it by picking out specific laws/rules that have attempted to regulate behavior online, but are ultimately just for show. Without enforcing Chinese-style filtering, user identification, and content guidelines, these things are practically unenforceable. I think Juile mentioned this, but my notes don't specify, but I think something to explore to support this is where the responsibility for actions lie. Obviously that's a difficult question to answer, but I think the complexity of the situation can help support an argument about the difficulty/impracticability of such an endeavor. Do we really want a UN of cyberspace that regulates how various sites/services can function?


Back to top
----------

5 - Michelle - HCI is Promoting Migration to Cyberspace and Blurring Boundaries Between the Real and Virtual

I think everything fit together real well in this presentation. There was some discussion about how computers, software, and other systems are becoming increasingly anthropomorphized, which is incredibly important, but I think, as was noted in the Medotate example, it is also important to look at how metaphors are very important in making cyberspace feel more like reality (e.g. spreading things out to "move them out of the way" so you could focus on one document on the desk). After going through most of an HCI class already, metaphors in terms of actions and icons are an integral part of making people innately understand how something works and making people feel comfortable. It seems like this is already discussed through the examples, but that's another HCI "trick" that is important in accommodating migration to cyberspace.


Back to top
-----------

6 - Brittany - Location Based Advertising

This seems like a well researched topic, but I think there is too much focus on individual examples. Location Based Advertising (LBA) is certainly important for business, but rather than focusing on how or why it is important, I think it would be interesting to focus on where the information comes from, who seems comfortable with it, and why they're comfortable with it. Personally, I think the examples of it working are less important than why it works.

Back to top

-----------

7 - Mark - WoW and the Cost of Access - How Changing Modes of Monetization (in MMOs) Impact Communities

I think this is a really good topic and argument. As we do migrate more fully into cyberspace, these communities become more and more real. It's great to try to bring people on board, but when changes to accommodate new users are "overpowered," it doesn't "break" the game, but it can break the experience. There are several micro-transaction based MMOs and other online games that have this community division due to people being able to buy levels and loot. I also think looking at the way it changes learning within the context of the game is an interesting approach also. How can people learn these skills if it's given to them?
Back to top

Round 2 - Presentation Boogaloo

Presentations
Katie
Beau
James
Hans
Spencer
---------

1 - Katie - Proposal: Bridging the Digital Divide in Low-Income Schools

Considering the nature of the project, it is somewhat hard for me to make a ton of comments and where things can be shored up. However, I did have one thought on the topic in general.
Based on my own impressions of where things stand and some of the texts we've read, I think addressing the digital divide in the context of schools only goes so far. Katie seemed to be focusing on giving kids, teachers, and, to a lesser extent, parents, access to and knowledge about computers and cyberspace, but it was all offered in the context of schools, libraries, business-like skills, and "the man." This isn't some anti-government or big brother thing, but more an authority thing.

Most of my (elementary) education was in a school in a rural community of about 1,500 people, but computer classes were a big part of the curriculum (Basic (on Apple computers), LOGO, Oregon Trail, Where in the World is Carmen San Diego, etc). This undoubtedly generated an interest in computers, which translated to computing at home and further exploration at home, but it eventually turned into touch-typing, word processing, resume writing, publication creation, simple web-page building, etc. And that's where it fell apart, there was no discovery or real skill building in 90% of the activities in class because it was all really derivative and under the constant gaze of teachers. Those activities in that context didn't really add to my fluency or grasp on technology.

I learned way more about the internet, software, computer repair, script writing, and other interesting skills while I was playing around with computers at home. Anything that deviated from the lesson plan while at school was quickly curbed and gave me (any my classmates) a very limited impression of what computers were really for. I know this proposal is intended to be a tool to get a school to adopt or expand programs, but I think getting computers in the home where kids can really experiment is critically important. Clubs and open lab nights are great, but they can also be very limiting. Katie may want to consider incorporating a school issued laptop initiative into the plan for more drastic change. As we saw in the recent school laptop spying thing, the watchers can watch at anytime and activities can still be restricted, but being invisibly restricted is a completely different experience (which may lead to learning through circumvention attempts) than having an authority figure hover and correct all the time.

Back to top
----------

2 - Beau - Gaming: Myths and Facts

Sorry Beau, I know the Konami code, but didn't speak up. Anyway, I think this should focus on how gaming has irrevocably changed culture. Traditionally, culture shaped gaming, but gaming no longer just mirrors reality. Reality increasingly adopts lessons and ideas from gaming (and fiction as a whole). Overall, I think Beau has everything sorted out.

Back to top
----------

3- James - Gaming From Birth

There was a lot in James's presentation and I didn't get it all down, but I'll post what I've got.

First off, Pac-Man (and Mrs. Pac-Man) didn't get all strong when he ate the fruit (that's only for bonus points). He could only eat ghosts when he got the power pellets.

Game mechanics aside, I THINK (because my notes suck), my take away was that society (and parents more specifically) should not vilify and completely separate kids from games because the rates of game playing are increasing. In addition, gaming, like literacy, has the potential to fundamentally change (and improve) thought processes. Gaming isn't a fad like the pet rock and has already changed society and digital/video gaming is critical in understanding our world as it moves forward; taking gaming away (maybe) is like keeping a kid from reading certain genres.

On a Pac-Man related note, Pac-Man meets Saw:

PACMAN: THE MOVIE TRAILER from Therefore Productions on Vimeo.

Back to top
----------

4 - Hans - Social Networks Bridging the Chasm? (Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Horatio from CSI: Miami)

Some of the things that Hans discussed were kind of in opposition to things I was planning for my own paper, so I've got a bunch of questions written down that would be largely unhelpful to anyone else. Anyway... I think the idea of the inverting pyramid of production and people's roles shifting is a good focal point. That, combined with personal experience might help demonstrate how social networks are breaking down traditional hierarchies online and that's helping bridge the divide.

Back to top
----------

5 - Spencer - Do Games Make Better Soldiers?

I think this will work as long as everything is kept in the present and the argument doesn't start looking too much at what may come. I say this because the emotional stress and whatnot may be better emulated in more immersive gaming experiences down the road. A chart of stresses was used as a reference point in the presentation, but I imagine some of those stresses aren't represented in the simulated war environment of training camps. It's training camp just a more high-impact game? Through more immersive systems, many of the physical (and some emotional) stresses noted in that chart could be effectively emulated or "imported" into the virtual experience (e.g. tear gas exposure).

Virtual simulations/games may never match reality, but neither does physical/"real" training. War is war, training, no matter how real or virtual, is still a simulation of what one might encounter.

I feel like arguing this point is going to be a constant battle about why one simulation is less valuable or warranted than another. Especially when we consider efforts in "remote" and mechanized warfare. And this is why I would shy away from talking too much about future ramifications.

I think the context of soldier training might be a good way to explain how gaming can be a good teaching tool, but it is only successful to a point. We reach a point where real-world ramifications shatter what is applicable, learned, or expected in simulations and virtual spaces.

Back to top

Round 1 - Fight!

Round 1 - Fight!

There's not a real fight but I might find myself in one..

I did like everyone's presentation and I think it helped shape or recognize relatable threads in my thoughts about my own final.

---

So, topic the first:
The PRC's Traditional Control of Information (and the People) Remediated Online

This is a huge topic, but I think it can be pared down. I really like this topic and it kind of intersects with some of the things I was going to discuss in my final paper re: fragmentation of groups/technology and how that will continue a divide online.

Lorena referenced a Chinese YouTube analog called Tudou, but another popular video sharing site is Youku. If I were writing about how Chinese video services filter content/results, I'd look at more than one site. I'd also try to use Chinese search terms. I don't speak/understand much Mandarin and I don't imagine many in the class do, so here's a useful English-Chinese dictionary: http://www.mdbg.net/chindict/chindict.php .

Also, I had a problem with the video clip because that wasn't really indicative of user generated content (I'm certain it exists), but rather a repost of a clip from CCTV-9 (the English language arm of China's government run news service), which might be available through on your cable or satellite service. I found it on Dish Network 265 and online (http://english.cctv.com/01/index.shtml). I felt that was kind of like searching for America on Youtube and finding a clip from a pro-America news outlet and claiming that the prevailing sentiment/available opinion about in the US.

Another issue to consider is how Internet use in China is different than here. Although I largely interacted with students, accessing the Internet at an Internet cafe is significantly more common there than here. Due to various factors, personal computing seems less personalized. Tracking may be easier or harder due to this.

Might also want to look into the PRC's history of requiring registration for people who owned computers/got online, I don't think they require this anymore (Did I learn this in this class? I don't remember).

May also want to browse some English language Chinese blogs to get a better feel for online culture in China. There is a surprising amount of anti-government blogging and whatnot. Is it quickly altered? Yes, but it is out there. There's a lot about China's online culture at this blog: http://www.zonaeuropa.com/weblog.htm.

So, I brought up a Firefox extension/add-on called China Channel, but I didn't realize that it hasn't been maintained since '08, but you check it out here: http://chinachannel.hk/#home. It basically allows you to temporarily route your traffic through a Chinese proxy so you can get a Chinese view of the web; however, I don't know if it works any more.

Some things that Julie brought up that also concerned me were the sites Lorena referenced as examples of the Chinese web browsing experience. Having accessed the Internet while in China, I can speak from experience that when you do a prohibited search or try to go to a prohibited URL, there's no red screen saying forbidden or otherwise explicitly notifying you that you've done something the state doesn't appreciate. In my experience, if you try to go to YouTube or Facebook it just loads a white page, acts like the page didn't exist, and then blocks your service for 10 to 15 minutes. Searches were very similar, things were either completely absent from the search results (Tiananmen Square would just give you pictures of Mao) or your access would be temporarily blocked.

A more recent thing related to Internet filtering in China is the Green Dam Youth Escort. There should be a significant amount of news about the effort and public backlash.

Wow, that's a lot of crap about Chinese Internet. Sorry, I think I'll have to truncate the rest of these a bit.

---

Gender Roles Reinforced Online?

I wasn't sure where Sheila's topic was initially going. The Facebook and MySpace stuff initially seemed more about demographics rather than gender roles. However, both the ultra-gendered and neutered spaces of Stardoll and Club Penguin offer all sorts of possibilities about who and how they play out gender roles in these spaces.

I like the idea of exploring the possibility of gender neutrality in online spaces and/or how meatspace social pressures/norms migrate with us as we migrate into cyberspace.

Maybe this was part of the original concept, but I also think it might be interesting to look at how developers/owners try to create a space for purpose X, but it gets transmuted into purpose Y by the users even though they theoretically have less "power" using that service.

Sorry for this anemic section, I don't think it's going to get much better though. I think it's a really good idea, but I don't have a clutch of resources at hand for this. However, there was an article a while back about Myspace being a digital ghetto and the "white flight" to Facebook. Kind of crazy and not related to gender specifically, but it's an interesting side note in the context of social networking tools and there could be gender issues at play as well. (http://www.inquisitr.com/27998/myspace-now-a-digital-ghetto/)

---

Cell Phones as a Bridge Between the Urban and Rural

There seemed to be quite a bit of discussion on this in class already and I didn't have any burning questions or comments about Maurice's topic.

It is a reasonable argument to make. I think the only thing that came to mind was the idea of something like a connectivity/technological arms race between independent farmers as they try to circumvent large commercial farms and agri-business. The little guy can use technology to undermine and compete with the big guy, but doesn't the big guy have the same opportunity to respond in kind using the exact same tools.

I don't know if that makes any sense, but I'm trying to make sense of my own notes.

---

Education Through Gaming

Corrinda's topic is rather good and the research/reasoning seems on point. An article about an achievement gap, gaming, and gender was recently posted on Kotaku.com: http://www.kansas.com/2010/04/08/1260027/are-video-games-causing-achievement.html. That article argues that a "decline in boys' [academic] scores coincides with the emergence of video games." The article talks more about how gaming for entertainment is a distraction to traditional education, so it is different from the core of the argument, but it provides a counterpoint to build an argument around or something to support the position that since kids are distracted by gaming, why not use it as an education tool because it inherently has educational potential. However, I don't know if that can be worked into the lesson plan project that Corrinda is creating.

---

Politics Online and in Traditional Media
Or
Old School vs New Skool

There definitely potential to argue that the Internet has or is beginning to fundamentally change a significant aspect of contemporary society; however, I think the way the topic was framed make it sound more like a report of what happened in the most recent presidential election.

Kat had a lot of information, but I think the main point might need to be focused into something about how the Internet and web have fundamentally changed expectations and in order to be successful in politics or marketing, people/groups need to rely on the micro-level communication and detailed organization afforded by the Internet and web rather than the macro-level broadcasting that worked before. That's kind of vague too, but I think that's a path that might yield more than just approach A vs approach B.

Local Activism on a Global Stage

I don't know what our metric for "recent" is, but I'm going to refer to a specific instance of political action that is part of a broader and ongoing series of political action. It may be played out, but the People's Republic of China (PRC) crackdown on Tibetans in the lead up to the 2008 Beijing Olympics was made visible to the world at large through the Internet. I'm not familiar with any activism sites or other technology based social networking tools that were used to organize protests within Tibet, but there were many videos posted to video sites from the spring of 2008 up through the beginning of the Olympics.

This wasn't a secret crackdown, but most everything that was being reported was based on information supplied by the Chinese government or through state sponsored news agencies. People (here and in China) knew that there was a Tibetan protest/uprising, but most news media was blocked from entering Tibet to see what was going on and very little information about the reality of the situation was available. The people who lived in Tibet and were witnessing the uprising (or riots as the PRC called them) found ways to use technology to circumvent the state media and state operated "Great Firewall of China" to get a non-state filtered point of view across.

As I noted above, I'm not certain how the Internet played into the organization of physical protests and whatnot, but the Internet and web were used to bring attention to and spread what was going on in the Tibet Autonomous Region and how the PRC controls the flow of information into and out of the country. If you go to a site like http://tibetanuprising.org/, you can see posts detailing experiences in Tibet during the lead up to the 2008 Olympics, the issues surrounding Tibet and China, and videos of the protests. What I mostly saw during that time was videos posted to YouTube and LiveLeak. You might have seen a news story about the Tibetan uprising or riots, but it tended to show aggressive protesters being subdued by perfectly behaved military officers. However, the videos posted online by anti-PRC or pro-Tibet groups showed a situation where protestors were antagonized by the state police, which led to violent clashes that started with more or less civil arrests but further devolved into protesters being severely beaten by police.

In addition to videos posted online, various sites have been created which serve to expose and bring attention to the political views and activities within China, and Tibet specifically, that would otherwise go suppressed and unnoticed in the greater global consciousness.

New (and extended) final paper topic

Essentially what I will do is argue that the digital divide is ever moving and changing in size, but will never close. Part of this is due to current approaches that seem to focus on getting people onto the Internet and into cyberspace with the appropriate tools, but as we more fully migrate into cyberspace issues similar to those that create barriers between people and communities in the real world will continue to divide communities and fragment cyberspace.

(Sorry for the repetition below)

Although society may ensure everyone has access to cyberspace, has the mental tools to assert themselves in cyberspace, and can afford access, new issues have already started to and will continue to perpetuate the digital divide in other ways. The digital divide will become less about the issues noted at the top of this paragraph and more about accessing people and content in cyberspace. The digital divide will never close; current events and those in the recent past demonstrate that this gap will continue to hinder our ability to find equal footing in cyberspace for the foreseeable future.

Resources:
Carvin, Andy. "1's and 0's: Mind the Gap: The Digital Divide as the Civil Rights Issue of the
    New Millennium." Information Today. MultiMedia Schools, January 2000. Web.

- Explanation of digital divide and solutions
Carvin points to several factors that contribute to or make up the digital divide. I will use these to outline a common conception of what the digital divide currently is. One of the major issues Carvin notes is community; this will also be my major point. Overally, I will use article this as a starting point to illustrate how "solving" these issues and getting more people into cyberspace will also migrate these divisions into cyberspace communities and ultimately create new barriers.

Cotten, Sheila, William Anderson, and Zeynep Tufekci. "Old Wine in a New Technology, Or a Different
     Type of Digital Divide?". New Media Society 11.7  (2009): 1163-1186.


- Technology/Tools perpetuate the digital divide
This article explores the differences in how tools (mobile phones) are used by male and female users and how these different experiences in cyberspace, which are created through inexpensive, increasingly common, and non-uniform devices, are creating new barriers, not to entry, but between people and resources in cyberspace. I will use this source to explain how an increase access can cause fragmentation of a relatively uniform space as more people and means are added to the mix.
[May also find additional resources exploring how rich multimedia experiences in cyberspace can lead to issues of who and what we can access (e.g mobile devices (iPad/Phone) with no Flash, but certain resources require Flash).]

Kolko, Beth and Elizabeth Reid. "Dissolution and Fragmentation: Problems in On-Line Communities," 
     CyberSociety 2.0. Ed. Steve Jones. Thousand Oaks, Calif.:Sage Publications. 2000.

 - Self-selecting communities and inconsistent identities continue digital divide
In this essay Kolko and Reid discuss, in further detail, issues similar to those Dibbel discussed in "A Rape in Cyberspace." The article explores how people interact in online spaces, what issues arise, identity inconsistency as we more fully involve ourselves online, and how this level of anonymity can ultimately break online communities and create distance between users. I will use the examples noted in this essay to expose the fragility of wholly virtual communities and how these communities can create closeness, but at the same time keep people from fully engaging with others.


McCalla, Gordon. "The Fragmentation of Culture, Learning, Teaching and Technology: Implications for the
     Artificial Intelligence in Education Research Agenda in 2010." International Journal of Artificial 
     Intelligence in Education 11 (2000): 177-196.

-Further information related to Kolko article
This article discusses community retraction/specialization/exclusivity in the face of a growing pool of information and people. Not everyone will have access to information at the same time. They will have the ability to get the information, but certain (self-)imposed boundaries or restrictions in their "corner" of cyberspace will result in them accessing something ahead of or behind the curve that, given the rapid pace of change in today's cyberspace, will leave them disconnected on some level.


Souza e Silva, Adriana de. "From Cyber to Hybrid: Mobile technologies as interfaces of hybrid spaces." The 
      Cybercultures Reader. Ed. David Bell and Barbara M. Kennedy. New York: Routledge, 2007.
      757 -772.

-Increases access to cyberspace through cheaper and more convenient(?) devices.
Souza e Silva explores the proliferation of cellular phones and how new spaces are being created. This increased access can potentially lead to bridging the digital divide. However, even as indirectly noted in the article, these spaces become divided through geography, technology, and community connections. I will use this as a counter point of sorts to my argument and point to examples in the article to link to other articles and points in my argument.

Ada Lovelace Day

Prior to being introduced to it by way of this blog post, I was completely unaware of Ada Lovelace Day. I know about Ada Lovelace, but the idea of a day devoted to Ada Lovelace and other women in technology and science is new to me, but completely awesome. 

Initially I started thinking about women in traditional science who I learned about in elementary and high school; unfortunately, it seems like women in technology and science are under-represented and those who are noted receive most, if not all, of the attention (Lovelace and Curie specifically). So, I decided to consider women in the more contemporary realm of the web and one of the first women to come to mind was Lifehacker.com founder Gina Trapani. I've read Lifehacker off and on for the past few years and the resource/community she has built is impressive and her efforts are something everyone should aspire to.

Before actually checking Ginatrapani.org, I assumed that Gina was primarly a blogger and focused more on book writing after becoming less involved with Lifehacker.com. However, that's just a small portion of Gina Trapani's contribution to technology. She's also a programmer of several internet tools and is working with a company on a platform that the White House will use to gain insight into what people in various social networks think about policy and other issues.

Check out http://ginatrapani.org/ to see all the other cool stuff she's working on.

The Final (Topic) Countdown....

That title is terrible, I'm sorry. Anyway, I've been struggling finding a topic I want to stick with and I think what I've settled on is teetering on the verge of report and argument, so I'd appreciate any feedback.

The current iteration of the web and cyberspace communities in general have been called collaborative, social, and supportive. Most of these have positive connotations, but anti-social and negative activities still occur all these years after the events outlined in Dibble's "A Rape in Cyberspace." Although we like to think that people and cyberspace have evolved over the past 10+ years I argue that cyberspace has tremendous potential for creating good, but it is also a cesspool for awfulness, which can be seen on a regular basis. Examples: Myspace suicide, griefing in online games, chatroulette trolls, etc.

I may also argue that this is not necessarily happening because people take on "different" identities in cyberspace, but rather accentuating latent or suppressed facets of their real world identities. Real world has more to do with crafting specific identities and rules of conduct than cyberspace. Supporting concept: Idea that there is less risk and fewer perceived enforced norms in cyberspace/virtual spaces.

Points!

So, after I posted that Lara Croft post, I was thinking about the ways games could change how we percieve things and I remembered the following video I watched earlier in the week. It's from a video game conference called DICE and the presentation in the video concerns points, virtual and real "value," and incentivizing everything through ubiquitous computing and game systems.

PS3 Games - E3 2010 - Guitar Hero 5

Dude Looks Like a Lady?

Not an Aerosmith fan, but the title seemed appropriate. Moving on...

I was kind of torn trying to choose just one article to cover for this week's blog post, but I decided to look at an article we read for Tuesday: "Does Lara Croft Wear Fake Polygons? Gender and Gender-Role Subversion in Computer Adventure Games." I kind of wanted to look at the idea of griefing in online communities and games that was presented in "A Rape in Cyberspace," but there were aspects of the Lara Croft scenario(s) that I wanted to hash out in a blog post. Let's time warp back to the start of my post and actually get to the article by Schleiner I opted to look at.

As the title implies this article is all about the video game character Lara Croft who is featured in the (still ?) popular Eidos franchise Tomb Raider. Schleiner breaks down the roles that Lara Croft fits into in gaming culture; not within the pantheon of gaming characters so much, but within the minds of gamers. Schleiner discusses the positions of Lara Croft and the player in several different player-avatar relationships in her efforts to explore how or if understandings of gender will change through playing games as characters of another gender. I agree with most of the points made in the article with the exception of the "Lara as Drag Queen" section.

Schleiner posits, "Male players of games like Tomb Raider are drawn into identification with the female avatar [...] [allowing] players to experiment with 'wearing' a feminine identity , echoing the phenomenon of gender crossing in Internet chat rooms and MUDs" (223). Now, given the state of gaming technology and popular game design at the time I do have some issue addressing this part of the article, but it seems that Schleiner is stating that Tomb Raider and Lara Croft present this great boon where "boundaries between [...] gender norms [...] will become more fluid" (223).Considering the way the game is represented and the limited interactions the player has with the world through the character, I don't agree with this assessment. This isn't to say that I don't think games can lead to a situation where there is a blurring of boundaries between genders and/or gender roles, but I don't think Tomb Raider and the character of Lara Croft are particularly effective at  doing so.

Initially, her statement might seem like a given considering that Lara Croft is/was one of the only major game heroines, but in the context of Tomb Raider, this assessment does not hold true. Schleiner points out many of the following issues with the way Lara Croft is presented, but the aforementioned conclusion is still presented. The first issue I have with this section is the fact that players can have a go at "wearing" another identity. I'd argue that this is nearly, if not completely, impossible given the locked third person perspective of the game. My disagreement has less to do with mirroring the virtual donning of a new skin in first person view and more with the conceptual disconnect that is added by a third person view. In third person view, the player is constantly aware of the disconnect between their own skin and that of the character. There is already the clear barrier of the hardware (controllers, screen, speakers, etc) and that of the unreal virtual visuals, but in third person view an additional layer or filter is added because the player is not only aware that they are merely acting as a puppeteer. Additionally, the character and its appearance is always placed in the center of the player's view. So, not only does the player have to immerse themselves into the virtual through the hardware, but now they also have to try to mentally augment their perspective to get past the centrality of the female character's appearance. I'm not saying that the player should not be aware of the character's gender, but rather the gender of the character shouldn't be this central to the experience because it seems to remove some an opportunity for the player to create a strong mental/emotional link. If something happens it seems like it is more of a situation of "Oh, look what happened to Lara" instead of "Oh, look what happened to me." The player is basically watching these things play out and the character is little more than something to draw the player's "gaze" rather than build a substantial connection.

The second issue I have with Schleiner placing Tomb Raider in the role of tool for gender blurring is the fact that there seems to be very little interpersonal/intercharacter activity within the game. Schleiner states, "Human non-player characters sometimes impart information [...] [but] the game shifts to a [...] mode, which precludes involved player interaction" (223). If the player is continually distanced from the character's role and interactions which are often key to defining who the character is in terms of gender and general personality, how can Lara Croft and Tomb Raider act as a gender blurring tool as it is positioned? Everything the player actually experiences while controlling Lara is very generic and could be experienced using a character of any gender or even a non-gendered character. Other than presenting a female form, Tomb Raider doesn't actually do anything to co-mingle or break established understandings or interpretations of gender. I see where watching a female character perform these typically male actions in a male dominated space could give one pause, but the design of the game keeps Lara (and the player) from the role of drag queen.

If we go back to the first statement I quoted and consider the comparison between Tomb Raider and MUDs in changing notions of gender, we can start to see how far away Tomb Raider is from meeting the goal stated by Scheiner. In a MUD, the player is actively playing as another person, potentially with another gender. As I tried to point out above, Lara just becomes this distanced virtual other that the player happens to be controlling within the context of Tomb Raider.

Stop! Hammer Time!

I had originally planned on writing about Haraway's "A Cyborg Manifesto," which Dena covered in the last round of theorist summaries, but then I decided to check out the other groups to see what other technologists had written. All were intriguing, but I decided to go with Manovich's article titled, "Friendly Alien: Object and Interface," which is the article Mike covered last time.

I selected this article because I am taking a human-computer interface class this semester and the content of the article seemed interesting and relevant. Besides, I figured I should learn more about what Manovich has to say since I still haven't finished the copy of The Language of New Media I checked out.

I didn't really read Mike's summary or comments that thoroughly at first because I didn't want his take on the article to slant my take on things. After reading Manovich's article, formulating my ideas, and finally reading Mike's post, I think I came away with something sufficiently distinct.

Irrelevant note: I don't know if this was a transcription error or what, but I'm going to call out the following misprint/error: "It will require lots of work and imagination before aesthetically satisfying solutions will be find." For shame.

Beyond my unqualified comments regarding editing or whatnot, this article was good, even if it is too short. This article feels more like a detailed set of notes than an article, but it poses some interesting information and insights into how people currently engage with computers/technology and how that may or should change. I'm not saying that the way the article is composed is bad or anything, in fact I like it, but it's pretty light on discussion of theory and contains more information about "cool stuff" in general. As a result, it is easy to focus on the objects rather than ideas if the reader does not have sufficient background knowledge. Onward -

Manovich jumps into talk about how the impression and interpretation of interfaces have evolved over the years. This idea is demonstrated through a discussion about artworks by Milos Manelas that show how we've gone from being wrapped in a tangle of cables and surrounded by beige boxes to using devices that seamlessly integrate into our clothing, living spaces, and environments in general. No longer are we doomed to a desk full of cables, we have integrated/convergent technology that can more deeply integrate into the lives we have or want to have. I kind of dispute this idea because a third of my desk is currently strewn with cables and wired devices, but maybe that's more a comment on my poor cable management skills. Anyhow, with increased ease of use and technological invisibility, computing devices have gone from being these utilitarian fringe geek culture objects to fetishized objects of desire, status, and style.

The specific example Manovich uses involves an apparently upper-scale consumer electronics store in Paris that has made these high-fashion pieces of tech the center piece of their stores and business. They aren't just there to show off what they can do, but how they can enhance one's style. He then discusses how this is good because it shows an increasing comfort with this inanimate Other (or alien as Manovich puts it), but it is bad because there's no reason, real integration, or benefit connected to slapping a pretty pattern on a portable gaming system or BeDazzling a cell phone. This type of enhancement is detrimental because it creates an incongruity or "discontinuity" that is distracting and takes the user and others out of the experience the device is offering. After explaining this odd situation of people trying to shoe horn technology into traditional aesthetic frameworks, Lev talks about deeper integration of form and interface/experience. In my mind this was starting to sound like form follows function, but that idea is quickly refuted in the article ("This does not mean that from now on 'form follows interface.'") and replaced by the idea of mutual accommodation. Neither side of the interface/form coin gets preference; they both work in tandem to create a sensible user experience. In his closing remarks, Manovich notes that we're still at an early hybrid state where there seems to be a desire to smash art and science together without enough concern with how one impacts the other. We currently operate these "friendly alien" interfaces that we cope with, but they are not ideal or unified. However, progress is being made in bringing rather low-tech common/natural objects together with high-tech computing and interfaces. He points to the example of smart objects, which are seemingly normal devices that invisibly hold and integrate advanced experiences. Although he doesn't mention this in his article, a quasi-smart object can be seen in some implementations of Microsoft's Surface technology. There is still some disconnect between the form and interface, so I am reluctant to call it a "smart object," but it's a tangible example.

As I noted above, I think the cool things Manovich noted in this article are secondary to the ideas of integration, convergence, and shifting relationships to technology. If we, as a society, really want to be able to use computers as tools to do more work we have to get a point where it is as easy to use as a hammer. I'm being a little too simplistic, but I think the comparison stands. Whether it is through culture norms or some other innate understanding, you can give a child a hammer or better yet a hammer-like toy and within moments they understand that interface and form. There is an immediate connection with a tool that has many uses ranging from killing foes to building homes. The combination of simplicity and applicability has made the hammer a lasting and seemingly indispensable tool throughout history.

Having systems that look nice and require tons of training or don't make sense in a given context does not lead to ubiquitous use, just a larger niche. I, and I imagine many others, argue that without an ultra inclusive user base that has a very high level of fluency with the interfaces, human progress and invention will start to stagnate. I'm sure some idea would eventually emerge to overcome this compartmentalization of technology and continue the process of cultural evolution, but why not make computing more accessible and useful to everyone instead of the relatively elite group of the wealthy and/or educated. Accommodating both ends of the form and interface spectrum while also accommodating the integration of high technology will lead to fundamental and surprising changes in cultures and societies.

Manovich, Lev. "Friendly Alien: Object and Interface." Manovich.net,
    2006. Web. http://www.manovich.net/DOCS/friendly_alien.doc. 
    February 18, 2010.

I Am Going to Get Medieval on Your Person.

I opted to go with something aside from a science fiction film because I haven't watched any in a while, but I did see Pulp Fiction for the bajillionth on IFC the other day. I hadn't read chapter three of Digitizing Race at that point, but as I was thinking about my blog post after class I thought the episode of the movie featuring washed-up boxer Butch (Bruce Willis) and crime lord Marsellus Wallace (Ving Rhames) could apply to the issue of race and technology that Nakamura discussed when talking about The Matrix series and Minority Report. Yes, there is much more to discuss in Pulp Fiction re: race and power, but I'm going to try to limit this to two topics so it is more manageable for all involved.

In order to see where I'm going, it's necessary to go over my understanding and interpretation of facets of Nakamura's argument. The points I found most compelling and applicable to Pulp Fiction are found on pages 116, and 118 of Digitizing Race. On page 116 Nakamura writes about technology present in the Matrix and Minority Report to demonstrate how black characters either have antiquated (or less potent) versions of technology used by whites or use the same technology as whites, but only in superficial or support roles. Regardless of the level or interaction or integration, the black characters can never meet or exceed the power or technology wielded by the white characters. On page 118, she writes, "Seeing is always seeing in relation to the state; attempts to break this deadlock result in the loss of all personhood, a condition under which one enters the dead space or alpha channel of sociality." I think everyone gets this point, but I'll elaborate. In other words, "the man" owns you whether or not you buy-in to that arrangement. In relation to contemporary times, if you don't go along w/ norms and go off the grid or operate within a structure outside that of general society, you don't get the same access and affordances of that society (existing in the alpha channel). However, once attempt you re-enter that society and function as if you don't subscribe to those societal rules and norms, you lose all rights to your person(hood) and are open to control by those in power.

On to Pulp Fiction, considering that the parallels are not exact, I am going to have to make some generalizations or slight modifications to Nakamura's exact quotes and try to fit them into a contemporary, realistic, and Pulp Fiction-y framework. (Side note: The title Pulp Fiction and term realistic seem at odds.) So, rather than treating technology as interfaces or computers as Nakamura does in her argument, I'll look at technology in terms of weaponry. Similarly, Nakamura uses seeing and its constant tether to the government in Minority Report to elaborate on ownership of the body and information. However, I'm going to replace state with white men (typically those wield most political power throughout the world) and rather than sight, I'll look at what is "yours," what you independently/personally control, and power.

Without explaining all the "episodes" of the film, I'll just say that Marsellus is positioned as a strong, powerful African American male figure throughout the narrative. However, the scene I noted at the beginning of this post reflects Marsellus's tenuous, if not completely fiction control of his own body, technology, and power within a largely and almost exclusively white context. I suppose I should quickly recap this act of the film to make sure everyone is on the same page. Although the statute of limitations on spoilers is up on this movie, skip the next paragraph if you've never seen the movie and want to watch it some time. Actually, if you want to watch Pulp Fiction without it being spoiled, you might want to skip this post all together.

[If you want to watch the crash and the end of the pawn shop scenes, you can watch you tube clips here and here.]

Butch (Willis) is strongly advised to throw a boxing match, by Marsellus, in exchange for money and Butch agrees. Butch does not go through with the deal, wins the fight, and inadvertently kills his black opponent in the ring. Butch flees. Marsellus and his henchmen attempt to track down Butch without success until Butch pulls up to a stop light/sign and Marsellus walks across the street in front of Butch's car. This begins a confrontation where Butch hits Marsellus with his car and then crashes said car into oncoming traffic. Marsellus and Butch both survive and are being watched/tended to by crowds of exclusively female bystanders. Upon coming to, Marsellus shoots at and begins chasing Butch. They wind up in a pawn shop where Butch beats up Marsellus and prepares to shoot him. However, the pawn shop owner (?) uses a shotgun to convince Butch to stop and the pawn shop owner proceeds to knock both of them out, tie them to chairs, and gag them. Marsellus and Butch are both bound and gagged and find themselves at the mercy of two "hillbilly boy[s]" (the pawn shop owner and a police officer/guard named Zed) who "randomly" selects Marsellus (using the eny meeny miney moe rhyme) to be raped. Marsellus is taken to an adjacent room while Butch manages to escape his restraints and flee the area, only to be compelled to save Marsellus. Butch browses through an assortment of pawn shop goods and eventually finds a Japanese-style sword that he uses to kill the pawn shop owner and keep Zed at bay. Marsellus gets the pawn shop owner's shotgun and shoots Zed. Butch and Marsellus part ways - The end, basically.

 So, how does that mess of a situation from Pulp Fiction intersect with The Matrix and Minority Report? Indirectly, but through Nakamura's assertions outlined above. Looking at the first issue of technology, we do see Marsellus in a role where he wields "technology" in the form of a hand gun and attempt to use that technology to assert some level of control against Butch. However, due to Butch's luck or divine gift, Marsellus is largely ineffective when he attempts to use this piece of technology. You might say, but he did shoot someone in that scene. Yes he did, but it was a woman bystander who was looking after Butch. And that's a whole separate topic. Anyway, Marsellus attempts to gain or assert power by using a weapon that is traditionally associated with western (white) warfare and can't do it. However, Butch (white), whose father was a soldier in Vietnam, appears to be completely fluent and adept at using a gun. Even a completely unrelated white character (the pawn shop owner) uses a gun with apparent ease. I'm not saying that only whites can use guns in the real world, but I am saying that in the context of this scene from Pulp Fiction, it appears that only white people are sufficiently capable with technology. You say, Marsellus does use a shotgun. Agreed, he obviously shoots Zed, but he's using it to support Butch in his rescue/revenge mission. You could argue that Marsellus was using technology on his own for his own goals, but Marsellus wasn't able to use the technology of the shotgun without the presence or intervention of Butch. Without Butch he was completely at the mercy of the two white hillbilly rapists, which brings me to point the second.

The whole idea of control over one's self (conceptually), body, and ability to manage or assert power is a pervasive one regardless of race when faced with advances in technology, but if we look at the situation in Pulp Fiction and historically, it is largely shaped by race and the control exerted by whites over non-whites (the state over the populace). This is a harder topic to tackle because it requires a significant level of reshaping to get Nakamura's argument to fit in such different confines. However, if we look at the portion of this act starting at the point Butch and Marsellus were bound to their chairs, we can see how Zed and the pawn shop owner act as the state or controlling power structure while Butch and specifically Marsellus wait to see what will happen after they left their own criminal underworld and entered the white's world of the pawn shop. This might seem ridiculous, a bit of a stretch, and contradictory since I just aligned Butch with whites a moment ago. Fair point, but I argue that this situation is slightly different in that the two power holders in this situation don't seem to consider Butch part of their world, he is put on the same level as Marsellus (at least superficially because I can't speak for the motivation of fictional charcters). After the completely arbitrary and degrading use of the eeny, meeny, miney, moe rhyme to select Marsellus, we can see how the rapists and potential murders have completely taken away any power, control, or ownership away from Marsellus. Not only by binding him and rendering him helpless, but also by violating his body through rape. While he held a substantial level of power outside the rules of society, as soon as he re-entered and attempted to behave in the same manner, those with power took control of Marsellus and attempted to remove his personhood and remove him from this societal model.

Strings

I'd first like to say that trying to use full web-based applications while tethered to your phone's edge connection is pretty awful. Actually, using the web at all over an edge connection is practically impossible and enraging.


With my mobile internet access gripe(s) out of the way,  I'll be talking about Donna Haraway article titled "A Game of Cat's Cradle: Science Studies, Feminist Theory, Cultural Studies." I think this article provides a solid model of critical theory or for looking at the world and the interaction(s) of all sorts of human and non-human systems. In this article Haraway not only explains this worldview, but also how her work is influenced by it.  Haraway starts her article by explaining the fields noted in the title and various other areas that constitute the typical understandings of modern life. She does this with very academic language that is kind of outside of my scope of knowledge so I'll try to skip going into detail and possibly misinforming everyone with a potentially  flawed interpretation of the early definition/rationale/justification portion of Haraway's article. Instead, I'll roll what I got from that part into the core of the article.

Approximately half-way through the nine page article, Haraway explains the "cat's cradle" that all these different points of view and disciplines operate within. All these lines or strings of thought do not exist outside each other, they rely on one another to build a more complete whole. In this interconnected webbing, all of these different avenues/thought processes need to be elastic and work with the other strings or hands in the cat's cradle game. People often see these different threads as completely separate and even possibly in conflict to some degree (i.e., one discipline or "discourse" should/can acquiesce and fall under the rules of another, rather than working together in their unique, but collaborative ways); however, if we consider Haraway's cat's cradle metaphor where all these different things are interconnected, we see that one thing can't stay still or overtake the others because that will either make the system static (and lead to stagnation) or will result in a tangled mess that we'll never pick apart. Neither confrontational approach accomplishes the goal of any of the others. Furthermore, what do we gain if we keep plodding down the same path regardless of what forks we might see? Maybe, we'll eventually get somewhere, but maybe we'll just go in circles never seeing that path that could have led to what we were missing. It's not only important to see that things are happening elsewhere, but work with how those things are influencing and can influence everything else. Maybe I'm using the following terms incorrectly, but Haraway seems to be advocating an interdisciplinary approach (approaches that are actually commingled) to the world rather than a multidisciplinary one (approaches that consider others, but don't actually consider intersections of those approaches). Sure, we can try to fit everything under the umbrella of XYZ, but we're missing out on seeing a much larger picture.


Like I noted in the beginning of this post, Haraway addresses many other things in greater detail, but this idea of understanding and employing different approaches without trying to make them fit into a single conceptual framework is most critical.

Haraway, Donna J. "A Game of Cat's Cradle: Science Studies, Feminist
     Theory, Cultural Studies." Critical Digital Studies.
     Eds. Arthur Kroker and Marilouise Kroker. University of Toronto
     Press, 2008. Web.
     http://books.google.com/books?id=2MCAp3mhdlgC&lpg=PP1
     &vq=Haraway&pg=PA45#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Selected Haraway Piece

I tried to figure out everyone's email address, but that didn't work so I'll follow Dena and Neil's lead and call out the article I selected on my blog. So, I'll be looking at "A Game of Cat's Cradle: Science Studies, Feminist Theory, Cultural Studies."

Old Games, New Experience

This doesn't really have to do with augmented reality or what we discussed in class, but rather the first-person Tetris game linked to in the class blog.

I could have commented on the blog post, but I wanted to include some inline images. So, game the first:

3-D Stereogram (Magic Eye) Tetris
I don't think that my screenshot helps see the effect, but this is basically a magic eye poster version of Tetris. You've got to focus in a strange way so you can see actual pieces falling. I couldn't play very long because I had to sit in a weird position at my desk in order to reach the keyboard and maintain the Magic Eye effect.

And game two:

gnop
It's pong, but be the ball instead of the paddle. You have to control the pong ball through a series of pong screens that have more or less difficult paddles.

Question Mark and the Mysterians

The assignment for this week is to select a passage from one of the four articles we read this week, but I think I may end up drawing on Bell's article to supplement my argument against a passage from "Against Virtual Community." First off, I'll say that there are some issues that are brought up in the article that I don't completely disagree with, but as far as the main thrust of the article goes, I have to disagree with his assessment of virtual communities.

The portion of the article I want to look at is a few pages long, but I think I distill this. In a series of paragraphs from pages 230 and 231, Robins basically attempts to invalidate or argue against the idea of virtual communities (or "virtual culture") by positioning virtual communities not as spaces for meaningful intentional interaction or an effort to truly make the world smaller, but as nothing more than common places of escape in which individuals are trying to get away from dealing with the other. While Robins does not say that a community requires engagement with the other, he certainly uses the passage(s) from page 230 and 231 to cast doubt on the validity of virtual communities and the "virtual communitarians'" espoused goal of removing or limiting the impact of physical space in one-to-one or one-to-many, interactions with (each) other. The idea of "defeating" space is questioned and it is argued that physical/geographical space may be "gone" in one direction, but has grown in the other by separating from the real world. For example, one might be conceptually closer to a group on the other side of the world, but one's physical neighbor is further away than ever before.

His assessment of avoiding the other is fine; I completely see where he is coming from. As Bell ("Webs as Pegs") notes, people in virtual communities tend to self-select their communities and engage with people who share interests with them. It makes sense, kids do this in elementary through high school and we continue to do it in college by joining certain clubs or selecting majors that suit our preferences, and this, ideally, puts us in a physical world of like minded individuals. It is not as if in the physical world we MUST engage with everyone. This is where I start to diverge with Robins and his assessment. The idea that distance related to physical space is growing with increased closeness to virtual space is flawed. I argue that the space between my neighbor and I is vast no matter what if we don't share common interests. We can talk about this or that, but if we don't really share interests or get along, then the distance with/in the physical world is still present and practically insurmountable. Am I close to my neighbor and in the same community? I suppose. However, if I am not actively a part of that community what good is it? How is "escaping" that space and "retreating" to a virtual community lessening my connection with the physical when the connection is already superficial or even tenuous? Whether I am in the virtual community or not, my level of closeness with the physical world is not necessarily affected. I propose that virtual communities and space potentially afford an opportunity to interact and possibly uncover new unexplored links between an individual and physical world. This strengthened bond may not be created without exploring virtual communities. Even if one goes into virtual space to escape and simply avoid the other, again, it does not change the relationship to the physical world. I would argue that someone in that situation has already disengaged from that physical community and that space is lost either way. So, virtual communities in and of themselves aren't these home wreckers of physical relationships, but just another place to explore either good or bad.

I suppose one could keep pushing this out further and reach a point where they say "Increased time in virtual spaces causes a withdrawal from physical space in one generation and that filters down to the next and so on until we're all in these virtual "pods" and we don't interact with our physical communities." Ok, but how does that change society? I can't say, but I don't think it leads to the collapse of the world because our interactions have shifted from context A to context B. Will it be different? Of course. However, I'm certain that humanity and global societies will successfully adapt to the shift like generations before have dealt with writing, urbanization, the phone, etc.

[Edit: So, I added some more stuff after the jump, but it is basically the same as above just worded differently and using a different context... And I ramble on about Amish people and rain.]