Wikipedia (Group 6)

Continuing with some of the similar themes as the blogging vs. professional journalism discussion, I think that the question of Wikipedia's trustworthiness and quality is one that is even more important to be considered, given the rapid ubiquity of its presence in mainstream culture. The example of the scientific articles is interesting, and I think some of the issues pointed out by Britannica in their response to the "Nature" study are valid, though embedded within their particular vision of what an encyclopedia should be. I feel that this definition is changing for the younger generation, and it's a change that needs to be acknowledged and worked with.

When I think of the question of how some might use Wikipedia incorrectly, I can instantly picture a stressed, under-motivated middle school student scrambling at the last minute to complete a paper for American History or some similar topic turning to Wiki simply as a quick source for lots of relevant information. As a result, the student may not have the full picture of the given topic and might write an entire paper on how the number of African elephants has skyrocketed in recent months.. This presents a great risk to the academic process, and I think it's difficult to argue against the statement from Britannica and others that it's difficult to fathom trusting entries that could have been edited by 10-year-olds, for all we know.

That said, some of these concerns aren't necessarily new, and the academic realm has been able to deal with previous issues of a similar nature. Look at SparkNotes and similar online ventures as an example. It's extremely easy to "borrow" paper ideas, or even complete blocks of text from these sources that have their particular viewpoint on the literary work of choice. Through a little bit of research and awareness, however, instructors have worked around this assault on academia, and now SparkNotes is simply seen as a "dirty secret" of sorts for students, when used as a direct influencer of paper content. Although literary criticism, analysis and summary is quite different from more black-and-white subject areas like math or science, I think similar tactics would allow for young students coming up through the ranks to realize the position that Wikipedia holds for them.. It's simply a matter of further de-institutionalizing convenience for students and drawing a designation between peer-edited open source and scholarly-reviewed and created closed source.

Professional journalism vs. blogging (Group 4)

The discussion on whether blogging truly qualifies as journalism is definitely a noteworthy one in terms of analyzing how exactly readers determine the validity of the words read in these various sources. However, in terms of establishing the standards that qualifies an information source as one rather than another, I think its a somewhat pointless game, especially given the sort of person that tends to follow blogs online.

As was discussed in the reading, it is apparent that the blogosphere has a certain form of internal policing that allows for readers to differentiate between trust-worthy information and smut. In many ways, I would argue that this policing has found more of a home in blogging than in the print realm, as ridiculous "news sources" such as FOX News, or more locally, the Mendota Beacon, are able to get away with writing practically whatever they please under the facade of "journalism", regardless of how well researched or written the work is.

Bloggers, however, know that they do not have a "captive audience". Given the relative ease of starting a blog, if bloggers truly want their words to be read, they realize that they won't get away with poor writing and reporting for too long before someone calls them out on it, or at the very least, simply stops reading. This policing is allowed by services such as Bloglines, and the comments that can be posted on entries, as well as the ease of forwarding URL story links to other individuals, rather than needing to have the physical print copy sitting in front of you.

Blogging allows for an international playing field of information consumpion in a way that is much different from the traditional journalistic framework. In many ways, however, I feel that it holds true to many of the traditional journalistic "values" than what journalism has become today. That said, I don't consider it journalism, but why does it need to be? It's simply another avenue for information-seekers to take in their quest for Truth.. Maybe with more options out there, people will have a better chance at (feeling like) they've achieved just that.

The DMCA (Group 3)

News article on newly released DMCA exceptions (Wes Philips)

What I found most intriguing about the exceptions listed to the DMCA by the Librarian of Congress in this article was the framing of the rhetoric about the protection of these copyrights. Some of the wording seems extremely old-fashioned, particularly considering that it is part of a "digital millennium" piece of legislation. The wording is also extremely non-sensical in many ways, to me, almost as though it was purposely written somewhat loosely because they weren't share where the line should be drawn.. Some of these exceptions I read over at least three or four times, and I'm still not entirely sure what they actually are referring to. As a borderline "tech-savvy" JMC student at UW, you'd think that legislation should certainly be written in a way that could actually be understood.. But maybe that's too much to expect from Congress.

Digital land grab (Henry Jenkins)

The Jenkins article raises some points that I think are definitely worth discussing with his argument, beginning somewhat strangely with the obscure fact that Lewis Carroll texts are in the top three most referenced in the English language. I think it is very important to realize that, in many ways, the media landscape is so different from what there was in 1930 that it's kind of difficult for me to see a legitimate comparison between the times. Blogs, web-editing tools and the trend of customization have meant that people have been able to play a very active role within their culture. Unofficial sites for musicians, athletes and other celebrities still run rampant, as well as blogs devoted to movies and television series, such as one of my personal favorites from this summer, Blogging Project Runway. The blog owners have been in close contact with many prominent figures from the show, and if the Bravo producers had some sort of problem with it -- and its loads of inside information and screen captures -- they'd have shut it down long ago... there is even a quote on the site from a Bravo suit stating his praise of the venture.

That said, the BPR people did feel the need to place a disclaimer on the page, stating that they are not affiliated with the Bravo Network, and I wonder if this was at the request of Bravo. I think we are somewhat limited in our abilities to respond to our current culture. There clearly needs to be a line drawn between 'cultural salutes' that aim to profit vs. those that aim to simply build awareness or inform, and this is a difficult distinction to be made. In order for a motive to remain for the original content producers, there need to be some protections put in place. I'm not sure that our administration has put the right people in the position of deciding where that distinction should be made, but perhaps it will just be a matter of fleshing out some of the quirks of our new media landscape before the balance can be found more appropriately.

Net neutrality (Group 2)

High stakes battle over net neutrality (The Denver Post)

Coming into the presentation in class on Thursday only knowing what I had read the night before online in the class readings, I hadn't thought too much about which side of the net neutrality debate I found myself on, and although I think there are problems with both views that need to be more closely examined, I'd be more on the side of the writer of this editorial, with their view that these companies need to be allowed to find a business model that works for them, just like any other business should be able to. Regulation is not the answer to this. Our economy functions so that the profit motive (usually) prevents something as potentially detrimental as an extensive broadband divide of sorts from happening.

I think that both sides have certain motives that are being covered by the smoke and mirrors of the framing of their side, and I think it should be interesting to watch the development of the debate closely in the coming months to see if any of these motives come to surface.

Congress must keep broadband competition alive (Lawrence Lessig)

One of my main concerns that came up following the group presentation about the framing of the net neutrality issue is also evident in the Lessig article. A lot of the argument about network providers charging fees for premium Internet to services such as YouTube doesn't seem to be based on anything beyond "what ifs". Sure, that sort of regulation could have damaging effects to the "little guy" on the Internet, and it should be addressed, but I'm not sure that the sort of regulation he is discussing would be the best vehicle for these protections.

Additionally, I guess I struggle with the comparison of net neutrality concerns to the different costs of Internet services -- from dial-up to wireless to broadband. It makes perfect sense that users of the Internet should pay more for greater speed and capabilities of their Internet surfing, and some of these options are constructed in such a way that it makes sense that it might be left in the hands of only a few companies... Just look at Charter in Madison. They practically have a monopoly on Madison cable, but do we really want five different companies running their wires all around the place? A monopoly is never the optical position for consumers, but sometimes nothing else really makes much sense.

Is knee-jerk regulation really the answer to this issue?

The PATRIOT Act (Group 1)

Opposing the Act (Russ Feingold)

First of all, I just want to lay it out there right away that Russ Feingold is pretty much my hero. I know the family and I greatly admire how all of them are not afraid to stand up for what they believe in, even when setting oneself apart from the crowd (such as Russ did with his vote on the PATRIOT Act) could have devastating ramifications for career goals. We need more people like that in this world.

As for Feingold's argument in this speech, I think it is sad that a lot of what he is saying isn't too different from what a lot of people say, but that it has continued to receive little attention from the powers that be. "Flying while Muslim" is a continued offense in the eyes of many powerful figures, and racial profiling continues to a large extent with air travel, and in other circles as well. "Guilt by association" as a whole is definitely something that needs to be better thought out, and I think this arrives at his main point. Feingold does recognize the need for solid security measures, but has perhaps a deeper understanding of the stifling effects that library and computer censorship could have

Government Surveillance and Political Participation on the Internet (Brian Krueger)

This was an interesting study, and the conclusions from the research done by Krueger isn't necessarily what I think I may have predicted. This provides us an interesting perspective on how people are actually responding to the issues implicit with the Act in their day-to-day activities, but I'm not completely sure that it's the end-all-be-all of any McCarthy period-esque censorship.

The Internet, by nature, is an excellent platform for divergent thought, and it makes now that I think about it, that this counter movement to the majority is not dissuaded by perceived government surveillance. These sorts of "off center" people are less likely to allow the fear of being censored to keep them from speaking their mind, and it's almost a reclaiming of power to use the Internet in the way that they want to, rather than the way that they may be told to.

In short, I think that Internet use is generally too micro of a platform to truly get a feel for the macro effects of this Act, as Krueger mentioned, but is definitely an interesting argument.