Summary:
In the introduction, Jenkins creates a brief summary of his book along with a short discussion on what a 'convergence culture' actually is. He mentions the New Orleans Media Experience, for example, as the place where people from 'all medias' came together to see what convergence actually means, and what changes were occurring in news and entertainment. An interesting point I thought he made was about the 'black box fallacy' which was the thought that convergence was the transfer of many entertainment consuls into one. Jenkins states that this is a fallacy because what is converging is the media types themselves rather than the 'delivery technologies,' and I think this summed up the introduction chapter quite nicely.
Quotes:
"As Cheskin Research explained in a 2002 report, "The old idea of convergence was that all devices would converge into one central device that did everything for you (a la the universal remote). What we are seeing now is the hardware diverging while the content converges." (Jenkins, 15)
"Convergence, as we can see, is both a top-down corporate-driven process and a bottom-up consumer-driven process." (Jenkins, 18)
"Media producers will find their way through their current problems only by renegotiating their relationship with their consumers." (Jenkins, 24)
Connection:
When Jenkins brought up his need for a single-function cell phone, I thought about my own. Not only does mine make calls, but it also text-messages, plays games, plays music, takes pictures, accesses my email...heck it even has a navigation system and can stream TV. So if I think about it, there are multiple forms of media convergence just on my cell phone. But also, isn't my cell phone now just a "universal remote black box" that Jenkins said was a fallacy? Yes, media itself is converging but I'm not so sure at this point if the 'delivery technologies' aren't also converging.
Connection to Weinberger:
I am having difficulty in making connections to Weinberger. The only one I can think of is the media convergence has become a "bottom-up" process, similar to Weinberger's concept of the miscellaneous. Jenkins says that media is re-organizing itself, and in a way this has to do with the new miscellaneous organization. Aand, that's all I've got.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Weinberger - What Was The Point?
Oh Weinberger, why did you write an entire book on something that could be summed up in one chapter? Don't get me wrong, I liked your point(s), but I think that repeating it over and over for 260 pages was rather excessive. I know that you wanted to show that you have extensively researched the subject, but honestly I didn't care that you had traveled to Staples Prototype Lab, underground layers where they categorize old stuff, and Brookline News and Gift. I understood your point at your first example.
The word 'atom' was mentioned incessantly throughout the book. Our physical world is orgainzed by atoms and therefore this limits us in how we organize. Your BFF the Encyclopedia Britannica shows this. We can only include so much information in it, and are therefore limited. This is because as you say, Weinberger, what is left out is just was important as what is put in. Luckily the Holy Godsend Wikipedia saves us all with the mystical hyperlink, connecting the miscellaneous in profound ways. I remember the point you made about how the average word count of the Britannica was 650 words per article while Wikipedia had only about 363 words per article. Does this mean that the Encyclopedia Britannica is better than Wikipedia? Not necessarily. I'll give you this Weinberger: I very much liked the point you made about how Wikipedia entries can be based on interest and passion rather than fact alone. If someone is interested in say, North Dakota, and wrote 10,000 words on it on Wikipedia, visitors to the site may see that at least one person is very interested in this state. This shows that the new 'miscellaneous' world is based on different values, which is admittedly interesting.
The new world of the miscellaneous is connected by the internet, more specifically hyperlinks, tagging, and personal interest. We are no longer limited by the physical world for organization (ahem, the ATOM) and therefore have begun to organize in a more organic way - a more, miscellaneous way. Strangely, this way of organization becomes more organized and exact than previous methods.
This is important because now that Weinberger has enlightened me on the wonders of the miscellaneous, I can have better clarity for how information is being organized on the web. I know that Wikipedia is more than just a faulty information source that professors hate, and I can now properly explain why.
The word 'atom' was mentioned incessantly throughout the book. Our physical world is orgainzed by atoms and therefore this limits us in how we organize. Your BFF the Encyclopedia Britannica shows this. We can only include so much information in it, and are therefore limited. This is because as you say, Weinberger, what is left out is just was important as what is put in. Luckily the Holy Godsend Wikipedia saves us all with the mystical hyperlink, connecting the miscellaneous in profound ways. I remember the point you made about how the average word count of the Britannica was 650 words per article while Wikipedia had only about 363 words per article. Does this mean that the Encyclopedia Britannica is better than Wikipedia? Not necessarily. I'll give you this Weinberger: I very much liked the point you made about how Wikipedia entries can be based on interest and passion rather than fact alone. If someone is interested in say, North Dakota, and wrote 10,000 words on it on Wikipedia, visitors to the site may see that at least one person is very interested in this state. This shows that the new 'miscellaneous' world is based on different values, which is admittedly interesting.
The new world of the miscellaneous is connected by the internet, more specifically hyperlinks, tagging, and personal interest. We are no longer limited by the physical world for organization (ahem, the ATOM) and therefore have begun to organize in a more organic way - a more, miscellaneous way. Strangely, this way of organization becomes more organized and exact than previous methods.
This is important because now that Weinberger has enlightened me on the wonders of the miscellaneous, I can have better clarity for how information is being organized on the web. I know that Wikipedia is more than just a faulty information source that professors hate, and I can now properly explain why.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Responses
I couldn't post one of my responses, so here's a record of them:
Hey Roderick,
I agree with your analysis of both the chapters. For chapter 8, I thought it was interesting that you focused on information instead of the lack thereof. I felt like Weinberger spent a lot of time talking about how important info was that wasn't included, but you made good points about how you need to understand how the information that is there works.
As for chapter 9, I liked how you focused on research as for why it is important to have an understanding of this topic. I never thought of that. I think it's interesting how you tied in tagging with research, and the implications of that in your work.
Hey Elyse,
I really liked the ties you made with real life and the chapters. The ties you made with the white space we learned about last semester and implicit/explicit information. I would have never thought of that connection! But it's true, in information as with design, the 'white space' is just as important as the rest of the speace.
I have not used StumbleUpon, but after our introduction of it in class, I am definitely going to try it. And it definitely would not be worth my time if it weren't for the 'messiness' of the internet that Weinberger describes.
Hey Roderick,
I agree with your analysis of both the chapters. For chapter 8, I thought it was interesting that you focused on information instead of the lack thereof. I felt like Weinberger spent a lot of time talking about how important info was that wasn't included, but you made good points about how you need to understand how the information that is there works.
As for chapter 9, I liked how you focused on research as for why it is important to have an understanding of this topic. I never thought of that. I think it's interesting how you tied in tagging with research, and the implications of that in your work.
Hey Elyse,
I really liked the ties you made with real life and the chapters. The ties you made with the white space we learned about last semester and implicit/explicit information. I would have never thought of that connection! But it's true, in information as with design, the 'white space' is just as important as the rest of the speace.
I have not used StumbleUpon, but after our introduction of it in class, I am definitely going to try it. And it definitely would not be worth my time if it weren't for the 'messiness' of the internet that Weinberger describes.
Blog Post 3
Ch. 8
Chapter 8 is about meaning, and what is explicit and implicit information. Weinberger talks about how confusing metadata can be, and why what is not included in a description is just as important as what is included. A good example of this is his Friendster, and his justifications for what information he adds. Finally the chapter discusses the digital, such as how Google maps revolutionized the meaning of maps – they became based on user needs rather than a map for everyone.
This matters to me as a DTC major because it is important for me to not only consider the information that I put in my work, but also the information I am leaving out. Both add to the meaning of the final product.
Ch. 9
Chapter 9’s main point is organization. On the web today, organization is so different from the physical. I find it interesting how we subconsciously organize on the internet, through things like tagging. Through the web, organization is drastically changing to messiness – which ironically can become more organized than the physical.
This is important as a DTC major because the primary way I will be organizing my work will be digital. Unless I am (maybe) a photographer or something, most of my work will be organized onto a computer. However even as say, a photographer, sites like Flickr will utilize this new form of ‘organized messiness’ through tagging. I have to be aware of digital organization in order to keep my work relevant.
Chapter 8 is about meaning, and what is explicit and implicit information. Weinberger talks about how confusing metadata can be, and why what is not included in a description is just as important as what is included. A good example of this is his Friendster, and his justifications for what information he adds. Finally the chapter discusses the digital, such as how Google maps revolutionized the meaning of maps – they became based on user needs rather than a map for everyone.
This matters to me as a DTC major because it is important for me to not only consider the information that I put in my work, but also the information I am leaving out. Both add to the meaning of the final product.
Ch. 9
Chapter 9’s main point is organization. On the web today, organization is so different from the physical. I find it interesting how we subconsciously organize on the internet, through things like tagging. Through the web, organization is drastically changing to messiness – which ironically can become more organized than the physical.
This is important as a DTC major because the primary way I will be organizing my work will be digital. Unless I am (maybe) a photographer or something, most of my work will be organized onto a computer. However even as say, a photographer, sites like Flickr will utilize this new form of ‘organized messiness’ through tagging. I have to be aware of digital organization in order to keep my work relevant.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)