|
« December 2004 | Main | February 2005 » January 30, 2005help with vacation planningIt is absolutely ridiculous that i haven't taken a proper vacation since January 2002. I'm longing to see a proper beach and do a shitload of reading for my orals while lounging in sand. The problem is that i have no idea how to best go about finding a cheap flight to some place warm. I'm curious if anyone who reads my ramblings has a good idea of where to look. I want to fly out on March 18 and want to come back on March 27 (could fly out after 8PM on the 17th and could land on the 28th at any time). Hawaii, South America, Caribbean, Asia... i don't care. Just warm, sunny, beachy and not resorty (i.e. i want to find a hostel or a bungalow or something else that is low-key). Does anyone have any suggestions of how to get somewhere for relatively cheap? Everything that i'm seeing is >$700 and won't take my miles (American). Category: reflections & rants
Posted by zephoria at 9:39 PM | Comments (22) | TrackBack (0) questions of classification (a response to Clay)Clay's right - i'm a huge skeptic, although i don't attribute it to the academy at all. My first reaction to hype is and always was critique (unless, of course, i'm doing the hyping). This has resulted in me always ::raising eyebrows:: over everything from the *best* bands to "i just met the best girl in the world" stories. I'm not actually in disagreement with Clay about classification - i am, after all, in a librarian school. My first indoctrination was "classification is impossible - here are a bazillion techniques that we use to try to get better schemas." So, when i critique folksonomy, it is not in comparison to formal structures of classification. My critical reaction comes from any and all concerns that folksonomy is the panacea to hundreds of years of librarian woe. I know that formal systems are screwed, but i think that folksonomy has its own set of problems. While i acknowledge the comparisons that can be made about the problematic similarities between folksonomy and formal classification, i also think that the effort towards 'accuracy' is actually clouding a few major differences. The differences are not that surprising, but very important. It comes down to benevolent dictator vs. crowd behavior. Sometimes the benevolent dictator goes way wrong, but also, sometimes crowds are scary. There's a problematic feature to crowds - they like to homogenize. Yes, the guy with the mohawk can assert his independence, but folks might trample him. Or he might be left to his own planet. Should he be given more attention than others because he is different? Should a classification schema be concerned with frequency/popularity or the full range? What does it mean to classify things that are rare viewpoints? Who gets to decide? That's a heavily contested domain in classification. Folksonomy isn't asking the questions about the implications of collective action classification. Who benefits? Who becomes marginalized? What priorities bubble up? How does pressure to homogenize affect the schema and the people involved? How are some people hurt or offended by decisions that are made? Should moderation of classifications occur? If so, what are the consequences? I totally appreciate the just-do model that is often espoused here, but i don't subscribe to it. I believe that you have to go into the doing with the questions always at hand and always in check. What makes formal classification interesting is not its end result, its "technology" but the huge discourse around it, trying to figure out the implications of any and all decisions. Those questions have been around for years and i think that it's important that we use those questions, those concerns, not for comparison but as a guideline for our hyping. In short, i love tagging and folksonomy. But once it is taken serious and people are talking about 'accuracy' and being offended, questions that must be asked despite the hype - "folksonomy is better" is not good enough for me. Category: social software
Posted by zephoria at 3:34 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (2) January 28, 2005issues of culture in ethnoclassification/folksonomyI love the conversations that have emerged recently on folksonomy/ethnoclassification/tagging/ontology (see del.icio.us tag folksonomy for a good collection of them). Of course, i'm particularly a fan of skeptical posts that raise the social consequences flag (thank you Liz and Rebecca). I wanted to bring up a few things about culture that i feel haven't been really addressed yet. (My apologies if i've missed them.) First, don't forget Lakoff's Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. Classification schemes are always culturally dependent based on how people organize information. There is nothing universal about the terms that we use, the relationship between those terms and the meanings behind them. Many terms are contested, used differently by different populations for different reasons and otherwise inconsistent. (Take a look at Raymond Williams' Keywords if you want to see how different socio-cultural terms are employed over time in Western culture alone.) What makes the tagging phenomenon utterly fascinating is that there is a collective action component to it. We love to see how people will come to common consensus on relevant terms. But part of what makes it valuable is that, right now, most of the people tagging things have some form of shared cultural understandings. The "in the know" groups using these services are very homogenous and often have shared values and thus offers valuable related links. This helps explain why Rebecca Blood is concerned about the MLK tags - they signify a lack of shared common ground. In tagging, quality is not just about 'accuracy', but about what cultural assumptions dominate. This is also the problem that motivated my earlier post on digital xenophobia. The translation problem alone offers insight into the problems of collective action tagging (see Benjamin). There are tons of words that cannot be simply translated literally both for linguistic and cultural reasons (such as my colleague's favorite - ohrwurm from German or any number of metaphors). And there are tons of words with multiple and conflicting meanings. This is why reading a translation of something is never the same - it's not just a matter of linguistic translation, but cultural translation. That's almost impossible. Flipped around, the culture of the people tagging says a lot about how they use language that is quite valuable. We might want to see everything with a particular tag using the sense that we mean. There is also a perspective problem. Think about the tag 'me' on Flickr. This is fantastic when we're organizing stuff for ourselves, but such a tag is inherently dependent on perspective. These questions have been raised as ones of 'accuracy' but they're not. They're about perspective and culture. Accuracy is only meaningful if we share the same cultural assumptions. Ironically, we know that culture matters at some level, if only via our collective choice to discuss FOLKsonomy and ETHNOclassification. Given that we're dealing with culture and structure, we must also think through issues of legitimacy and power. How are our collective choices enforcing hegemonic uses of language that may marginalize? Design questions then emerge. How do we deal with conflicting cultural norms as more people are engaged in the act of tagging? How useful are tags across cultures? Do we only gain value from collective-action tagging amongst groups of shared values? If so, how do we implement that? And what are the social consequences for explicitly delimiting culture online? [Also posted on M2M] Category: social software
Posted by zephoria at 5:29 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (6) why i'm in academiaWow. I'm back in school. And overwhelmed in that way that only school can offer - more reading than is physically possible combined with a radical shift in discursive styles and output combined with the weight of feeling as though everything is overdue. Of course, everything *IS* overdue, including blog entries. Because i'm back in school, what's on my mind is why. Some of my dearest friends have left this semester and nothing makes me cringe more than being asked when i'm going to graduate. (I promise that until i do i will continue to say "3 more years" as i have since the beginning.) I'm trying to unpack why i believe in academia and why i want my PhD. Or maybe this is an annual reality check. I love having a knowledge project, a philosophical direction to grapple with a core issue of humanness. I love being intellectually engaged with the end goal being knowledge above all else. I love learning and i love teaching. Of course, i absolutely despise writing - it's like pulling teeth and i seem to avoid it like the plague. There's nothing fun about grant writing and the internal politics are brutal (although not as bad as in non-profits). The irony is that the deeper i go into academia, the more i enjoy having one foot in industry. I really like helping people work out development problems, offering applicable critique in a way that they can move forward. Of course, my goal isn't monetization so i can't imagine actually being responsible for the development of a product inside a company, only for helping people who are motivated by monetization figure out flaws in their plot. Of course, my politics are still strong here and i cannot imagine helping projects that will monetize by abusing people in any form. I am not invested in only communicating with other academics or people whose end goal is knowledge production. I'm happy to talk to developers, journalists, businesspeople. I find the conversations stimulating and the questions that are asked challenging. That's part of why i read blogs not just academic papers - access to diverse views. I love thinking of my peer group as being broader than just other academics and i love getting feedback or having conversations outside of the academy. Unfortunately, peer reviewed papers in academia take forever and it's really hard to motivate to get my ideas out that way when i can just throw things up online and get burnt at the stake and then rework my ideas. Somehow, the idea of not sharing until it's peer reviewed feels so institutional. Of course here is where i'm going to get myself into major trouble with academia. I don't think that the institutional boundaries are the end-all-be-all and i do think that they're quite limiting at times. I've never been one to appreciate rules for rules sake. I'm half terrified that my openness is going to get me into major trouble down the line (another reason why i'm terrified of graduating). The other trouble is that by having feet in multiple worlds, i'm not doing justice to any of them. I'm not the best academic i could be and i'm not the best consultant or whatever that i could be. And i have a million things that i should write about here but never get around to. Worse: there are a million conversations that i would love to have but simply don't have time for. My desire to have it all means that i can't actually balance anything. In the meantime, i feel like i'm moving forward at speeds far too fast for comfort, continuing to balance on the weeble wobble system and hoping that it will all work out. Am i naive as hell? Category: academia
Posted by zephoria at 4:05 PM | Comments (13) | TrackBack (3) defining a disciplineLast semester, i took the first core PhD class in performance studies at Berkeley. This semester, i'm taking the second one. The structure of these core classes is brilliant and i'm still in awe of how valuable they are; i also admit that it's making me addicted to that discipline. Performance studies, like information sciences, is a field defined by its interdisciplinary. It is still trying to define itself, express its meaningful contributions to knowledge and define its methodology. Structurally, what they have done at Berkeley is set up a core methods + theory requirement. In the methods class, an overview is given that conveys how you address topics in performance studies methodologically. Attention is given to critical analysis, ethnography, oral histories, etc. The theory class throws you deeply into the roots of the discipline, asking you to constantly challenge the assumptions and terms put forward. From the onset, you're asked to question the field and in doing so, define it. The assignments prepare you to be an academic. You are required to do a book review (the typical first publication in the humanities) and a conference paper. You do a project built on a key methodology. You write a course syllabus for freshman. Finally, you define a term that is central to performance studies. (Note: defining a term is not as easy as it seems... this includes documenting its history, usage, applications, etc. Think 20 pages.) What intrigues me about this process is that performance studies is doing an amazing job of asking its students to really define the field, to really think through the intellectual projects of the discipline and to come to terms with what it means for them. In essence, the discipline is active, constantly reflexive and redefining on a generational level. This seems to me to be a brilliant way to actually indoctrinate students and i'm hoping to see this approach applied more broadly to interdisciplinary spaces. As a student of information, i'm still not entirely sure what we mean by information. Or more accurately, i'm not at all aware of what the different discussions are and have been. And the more time that i spend at CHI, the more i'm concerned that HCI isn't entirely figuring out its identity either. And i never did figure out what the unifying knowledge projects of the Media Lab were. [I kind of wonder if performance studies is partially successful since it defines its discipline based on an active process rather than on a site / noun (performance vs. information).] How do other interdisciplinary disciplines begin the process of scoping theory, methodology and site? Are there other good models out there that one should look to? Category: academia
Posted by zephoria at 2:17 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0) January 20, 2005the failure of digital course cataloguesEvery year during undergraduate, i would race to University Hall to pick up a copy of the latest course catalogue as soon as it was released. My best friend and i would sit in couch covered coffee shops over tea/juice and circle classes that looked interesting. The classes were ordered by departments with cross-references made. Each class had a full description under the title and professor. There was this glorious rush of all the things that we could learn and we obsessed over that book. The beginning of each semester was filled with the enthusiasm of rushing around on campus seeing if the classes lived up to their description. Inevitably, some of the classes would be cancelled, change times or otherwise not match the promise of their description. Because of this and the cost of publishing those catalogues, most schools went digital. There is nothing nearly as delectable about surfing terribly organized webpages looking for classes by title/professor only, having to click twice to find a description that is never there, a syllabus that is never submitted on a website that is often unavailable for this or that reason. Not only has searching for classes lost its joy, it's outright irritating. I automatically skip over surfing the disciplines that don't seem at all related - things like French or geography or art. And thus, as i learned last semester, i miss critical classes that would have been beyond interesting. But to find them in the sea of titles would never work. It takes 1 scroll-down bar, and at least 1 click to get to each discipline. You have to scroll down to grad-level classes (or click to next pages). And then click on every class whose inane title might actually be relevant. That's a hell of a lot of clicks for nothing. After looking at 50 or so classes, i've given up. But i found a new method! Of course, it will drive all of the pro-digital folks crazy because it's just as flawed as the original tree-killing one. Now, instead of dealing with the hellish page, i go to the bookstore the day before classes. I take a notepad and walk through each aisle of textbooks. I don't pay any attention to what discipline i'm in - i just look for things whose titles look interesting or whose authors i know i should read. Ooh - 3 Bourdieus, must be good, write down class number. I came out of the bookstore with 10 potential classes and then looked those up on the hellish website. They were in departments i never would've guessed (and some that i would've). I cut out all the classes that took place before 11AM or have 3 meeting times cause i know better. At this stage, it's seminars all the way. And voila, i have class choices. The funny thing is that this route is in theory far more unpredictable. There are inevitably classes with readers instead of books or where the professor forgot to order the books. But i found more interesting classes this way in 30 minutes in the bookstore than i did with probably 1 hour spent in online frustration. And i feel as though i have a general understanding of the topology of classes. Now, this doesn't mean that online course catalogues can't work, but they need to be improved. Desperately. First off, it should be hyper simple for professors to upload their course books. In fact, they should upload it to the same system that orders it and puts it online. The course readers people should also connect all items there to the class because you know they have to document it somewhere since they call for copyright on all of those items. Given complete data, I should be able to search for authors that I want to read, not just professor's names. I should have a little interactive system that shows what classes I've taken and shows me the topology of classes available, including a recommendation system. I should be able to surf the classes by similar content, across disciplines. I should be able to see the whole landscape, not just the terrible hierarchy of departments and numbers and navigate without a bazillion clicks. And dammit, i want a PDF that i can download and print out incomplete. Let me kill my own tree so that i can have the joy of sitting in cozy couches with a friend and cider, surfing all of the possible things i could take. Make the digital do more than my paper version ever could, but let me have my paper joy too. Category:
Posted by zephoria at 11:14 AM | Comments (10) | TrackBack (0) January 19, 2005little danahI just spent the week in LA with Mimi, working out readings for this semester and plotting in general. As such, i got to spend lots of time with her kids who are utterly awesome. Luna was obsessed with my fuzzy items and jingly bracelets and decided to dress up as little danah, resulting in a picture that i just had to share.Category:
Posted by zephoria at 12:44 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack (0) January 15, 2005addiction twitchingIt is so not cool that both LiveJournal AND Last.FM are down simultaneously, particularly when i need them both. Then again, that's probably because they're linked somehow. Hrmfpt. Category:
Posted by zephoria at 12:34 AM | Comments (8) | TrackBack (0) January 13, 2005Technorati tagsTags, tags, everywhere tags.... Technorati just launched Tags. This system collects three types of tags: Flickr tags, del.icio.us tags and "category" tags on blog posts. (Unlike Flickr and del.icio.us only the author can tag blog posts.) It's definitely in early beta and there aren't that many posts that are tagged. This is probably because most people don't categorize (if their tool even lets them) and they didn't include LJ/Xanga moods as tags. Herein is another reminder of differentiating similarities. Some of you may be looking for all blog posts on 'blogging' but some may want to find all entries marked as 'giggly'... This would be super useful in the friends of friends context. (Of course, i'm still terrible at categorizing my posts because it takes far too much work.) Category: tagging
Posted by zephoria at 9:43 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack (6) Resonance: A Convergence of Perspectives on Music and SpiritualityOn February 5, ExploreSpirit (the org that put on the Altered States and the Spiritual Awakening conference) is putting on Resonance, a conference that "will examine music from this emerging paradigm of the sacred, exploring the connection between music and spirituality from a variety of perspectives, weaving them together into a larger whole, and providing a glimpse of a new landscape of sound and spirit." This might be of interest to those of you who appreciate the intersection between music and spirituality. It sure interests me. Category:
Posted by zephoria at 3:19 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) call me CountessWhen Scott was signing up with United, he found that he was required to give a title. Of course, rather than just having the generic ones, they went all out. Choices include: Mr, Ms, Mrs, Miss, Dr, 1sgt, 1stLt, 2ndLt, Adm, Baron, Baroness, Bishop, BrigGen, Brother, Cantor, Capt, Cardinal, Cmdr, Cmst, Col, Count, Countess, Cpl, Cpo, Dean, Duchess, Duke, Elder, Ens, Father, FleetAdm, General, Governor, Gysgt, Hon, Imam, Judge, Lady, Lcpl, Lord, Lt, LtCmdr, LtCol, LtGen, LtJg, Ma, Major, MajorGen, Mcpo, Mgysgt, Minister, Monsignor, MostRev, Mother, Msgt, Mstr, Pastor, PettyOff, Pfc, Po1, Po2, Po3, President, Prince, Prof, Pvt, Rabbi, RearAdm, Rev, RightRev, Scpo, Senator, Sfc, Sgt, Sgtmaj, Sir, Sister, Smn, Smn1, Smst, Sp4, Sp5, Sp6, Sr, Sra, Srta, Ssgt, Swami, TechSgt, VeryRev, ViceAdm Category: fun links
Posted by zephoria at 12:46 AM | Comments (8) | TrackBack (2) Mac mini for the massesI've decided that the Mac mini shall be bought by Mac fetishists for the people in their lives for whom they provide all technical support. This includes parents, grandparents, siblings, bosses. etc. For this to work effectively, Mac must include one key application when they release Tiger: SOLITAIRE. Category: digitalness
Posted by zephoria at 12:37 AM | Comments (21) | TrackBack (2) January 12, 2005Announcing the Apple iProduct
ROFL Category: digitalness
Posted by zephoria at 11:13 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0) January 9, 2005Dealing with Culture[posted to OM] People who have relationships with each other often have shared interests, values and tastes. As collections of relationships evolve, cultures form with collective interests, values and tastes (that may not resemble any or all of the individual members'). There are shared cultural practices and activities embedded in these cultures. There are two ways of looking at this - through the foci or through the group. There appear to be communities that follow particular interests, say a music genre. But also - and this is important - there is a higher probability that your friends share the same interests as you than a random sampling of people. In other words, if you really like David Bowie, your friends are more likely to like David Bowie that a random collection of the same number of people. Of course, this does not mean that they all like David Bowie or that any of them like him as much as you do. Likewise, this doesn't mean that the biggest David Bowie fan is your friend (although you're more likely to have something in common with this person than a random stranger). Cultures often form within social network clusters because members of the group tend to share things in common. Additionally, when people like each other, they are interested in trying out each other's passion. Try dating someone who *loves* David Bowie - you'll find yourself listening to him too. Now, think about all social networking tools. They have all proliferated based on social network clusters - friend groups with dense network overlap. A lot of these groups have brought their groups' culture with them and it is these cultures that people often recognize. In the early days of Friendster, this is why people thought Friendster was all gay men, all Burners, all whatever. The indie rock kids have invaded MySpace, the Burners took over Tribe.net, Brazilian culture has dominated Orkut. Depending on the cultures that an individual participates in, one service or another feels far more appealing. Anyone interested in creating sociable applications needs to understand that this dynamic is natural and the product of very excited individual(s) spreading a product to their friendgroup. Why a group really values a particular software should be a problem to solve, not an act to suppress. Attempts to disrupt culture often disrupts a lot more than the narrow culturally defined group - this is the problem with social networks... attitudes flow through the networks just as much as information. Culture emerges in most social technologies that bring people together. Like it or not, the company who has created the tools is faced with the responsibility of supporting that culture, particularly with hosted tools/communities. This can be very tricky when a company fosters a culture that they did not expect or want (a.k.a. it's not a population that can be squeezed for money). What to do becomes an ethical question. The irony is that most social technology companies want the whole world to use their service. The world includes a vast array of different cultures and communities, not all of which are compatible with each other. So when the cultures have to interact because of the tool, it is fundamentally impossible to actually have all cultures involved if there are conflicting ones. Take the homophobes and the queers - they really don't go well together. If you choose to support the queers by making your tool queer-friendly, you will piss off the homophobes. And no matter what, those two groups really don't want to have to interact with each other on the site. Therein lies an interesting problem for builders of social tools - how to support culture, what to do when you have issue with the culture that emerged and how to deal with the fact that you can't get everyone to use a social tool if the interface will reveal the values of the other one or if members from conflicting groups will have to interact. Category:
Posted by zephoria at 2:15 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack (2) Blogophobic CompaniesSomeone recently asked me if i knew of companies that are blogophobic (i.e. have fired/threatened to fire people for blogging). Today, i ran across a reader-generated list of Blogophobic Companies/Organizations which includes a link to bloggers who were fired. I don't know how accurate any of it is... Category: blogging
Posted by zephoria at 12:01 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (1) January 8, 2005On a Vetted Wikipedia, Reflexivity and Investment in Quality (a.k.a. more responses to Clay)[Also posted at M2M] In response to Clay, i *definitely* do not believe that Wikipedia should be ignored and i definitely do not believe that Britannica is better - just different. When i said that Wikipedia will never be an encyclopedia, i am definitely referencing the current definition (although being flexible on the fact the definition does state book form). Whether the definition will expand, who knows but i don't think it matters. Both encyclopedias and Wikipedia are knowledge resources and they will always be different. If legitimacy requires a definitional change, i'm worried. Why does it have to be an encyclopedia? Why can't it simply be Wikipedia? In this (long) entry, i want to make 3 points: I am not arguing for a radical altering of Wikipedia. That said, i can envision new features that would complement what currently exists. When i argue that i would like a vetted version, i have a particular vision of it. I would like to go to Wikipedia, see an open entry that is universally writable with a section that has been vetted and whose authors, affiliations and motivations are listed alongside that vetted component. Let me contextualize this through example. Let's talk about the Wikipedia entry on Anomie. This is a classic term from introductory sociology (and often a "define this" on a test). If i were teaching Soc101 and my students wrote this, i wouldn't think that they got it. Now, it is a perfectly good definition and it isn't flawed, but it's missing much of the context and Durkheim's essence. Two things are notably missing: religion, division of labor. While a Durkheim scholar probably would have included this, they probably would not have included its Greek roots or a band of the same name. Those additional factoids are part of what makes Wikipedia utterly lovable. Alternatively, consider the definition of Anomie at the Emile Durkheim Archive. Here, we have citations as well as interpretation of both primary and secondary texts (and brief references to both religion and division of labor). We know the status of the author (a student in sociology), why he wrote this entry and who has checked his entry for verification. Yes, he could be lying, but this is much more reassuring than an entry written by N unknown people. When i'm writing sociology papers, i want to understand Durkheim's definition as deeply as possible, not simply have a passing understanding. For this reason, i would ideally have a Durkheim scholar define anomie to grok what Durkheim meant by it. That's not always possible (although part of the reason why i take sociology classes). Instead, i try to suss it out both through the primary text and through secondary interpretations. Yet, when using secondary interpretations, i really want to understand from where the author is coming. In anthropology, there is a concept called reflexivity. It is the process by which a research articulates and situates the biases that they bring into a situation, with the knowledge that all data acquired is interpreted and that the researcher's biases affect that interpretation. Not everything in Wikipedia is a fact - most of it is an interpretation of some concept. Birthdates are facts. Descriptions of theories are interpretations. And the fact of the matter is that scholars rarely have the same interpretation of any theorist (a fact that results in heated debates between scholars that are utterly off-putting or perceptibly trivial to non-academics). This comes to where i would like the combination of vetted and open portions of an entry. I would love if Wikipedia would allow scholars to write static components to entries with a publicly identified author. Let the Asian Tsunami Disaster be written at first by anyone, but let the scientists have a vetted section that explains how the quake created a tsunami. Now, i totally agree with Clay that Wikipedia is a system not a product (another reason that the label encyclopedia is poor). Britannica and Wikipedia are both brands. Britannica's says that each entry is well-researched and every effort is being made to convey the entire picture. The Wikipedia brand does not guarantee the same efforts nor does it guarantee equal quality between entries. It is an open-source brand that says that there is an equal opportunity for entries to be written. Different brands, different expectations, different quality. I am not skeptical about Wikipedia - i value it intensely. But i don't give it authority simply because it is open-source. I don't buy into that religion. I also believe that there is something to be said about expertise. The eccentric PhDs with their narrow focus have spent years dedicated to understanding very particular areas of knowledge. They are invested in the accuracy of a particular topic, understand the different debates and are deeply aware of the consequences of poor interpretation. They research things actively, trying to express all sides. It is not simply their authority that makes their descriptions have weight - it is also what they have to lose if they fuck up. Academics and public intellectuals risk far more when they assert bad interpretations than people whose job description does not include intellectual evolution and educating the next generation. PS: I *love* the fact that there is a burgeoning intellectual discussion on this topic in which so many people are talking. Category: social software
Posted by zephoria at 2:49 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (2) On LiveJournal and subculturesLiveJournal is not a single community - it is a collection of communities. It is not all subcultural, all youth, all anything. Yet, for subcultural populations, LJ plays a very special role. It is for these communities - those who have found a safety net in LJ - that i decided to step back and write a piece for Salon - Turmoil in Blogland. I am not arguing nor do i believe that Six Apart is bad, misguided or clueless. I am fully aware that this sale is quite valuable for many different groups involved. And i'm very well aware that Six Apart (or at least Mena Trott) gets the value of personal communicative blogging. Yet, LJ culture is unique and often chaotic and scary. To nourish this will take a commitment and responsibility that i'm truly hoping Six Apart will embrace. For the subcultural populations on LJ, this decision will be key and it's important that Six Apart works to learn from these communities before altering the social fabric in any way. For example, for many of us, there's nothing comforting about pro-Ana communities, yet they're very present on LJ. Understanding why these communities flourish on LJ says a lot about both the tool and the culture we live in. Efforts to destroy them will be devastating to the individuals and communities involved, even though the behavior seems so self-destructive. The trick is not to be patronizing, but to understand. So, enjoy the piece. And thank you so much for the ongoing commentary - i've learned a lot from the different perspectives people have offered. PS: to clarify on broader commentary - i identify as a blogger and i blog on four public sites, one private one, and various class ones. I also keep a private LiveJournal although i used to keep a public one. That said, most of the perspective that i'm offering comes from my interviews with bloggers and LJers, not my own personal experiences. Category: LiveJournal
Posted by zephoria at 2:50 AM | Comments (12) | TrackBack (0) January 6, 2005social contract vs. guiding principlesHave i mentioned how much i hate lawyers? Why is social contract changing to guiding principles? The term 'social contract' does not come from legalese - it's an ancient political theory with a rich history. In short, a social contract is a set of culturally agreed upon norms that help maintain social solidarity. In most cases, the elements of the social contract are never explicated or concretely agreed upon - they just become norms. In almost all cases, people give up freedoms because it is good for the society as a whole. Thus, elements of the social contract are usually articulated as "that's just wrong" or "you just don't do that." Lying, stealing, cheating, killing... these are all things that fit into the social contract. Of course, many elements of a society's social contract are written into stone through law but the social contract came first. Guiding principles are not the same as a social contract. A guiding principle is what those in power, those building the system, those who are actually doing the structural guiding are seeking to achieve. A social contract is something that is culturally accepted by all parties. For example, as a guiding principle, spam avoidance means that the creators will do everything in their power to make LJ a spam-free service. As a social contract, everyone involved will do their damnedest to rid the service of spam. I know that the intentions are the same and that the goal is to just be careful of legalese, but one of the things that makes LJ so special is that there is a social contract between the participants. This needs to be maintained for LJ's culture to survive, even if the term is being removed from its legal cannon. Category: social observations
Posted by zephoria at 9:09 PM | Comments (10) | TrackBack (0) it's officialI really appreciate their explanations. Although some thought otherwise, i do very much respect both companies and all people involved. It was also nice to see some of my issues addressed head on. I do believe that everyone has good intentions and really wants to see a merger be beneficial for everyone. Of course, i'm still concerned. I'm concerned because i think that the greatest effect will be on those who aren't reading this or any of the other announcements. But only time will tell and i will definitely be watching with great interest. On a lighter note, i'm *very* humored by Mena's reference to her days of wearing black. Category:
Posted by zephoria at 12:28 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0) Jonathan Harris
It sends shivers down my spine to see someone who knows how to construct visual images in a compelling manner. Damn i love that shit. Harris also made me very happy by referencing a friend of mine from Media Lab days - Golan Levin (another brilliant visual artist). Category: visualization
Posted by zephoria at 12:05 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (1) January 5, 2005what does Live Journal own?I'm in complete awe of the feedback that i've received on my most recently post. I've also been getting feedback in other channels, including via email, IM and my LJ. I couldn't answer a question posed by one LJ commenter so i thought i'd throw it up here because i think it's interesting: So what does the IP ownership here look like? Because there are two parts to this; the software, and the community. So I have no idea how saleable the following are: Category: LiveJournal
Posted by zephoria at 6:10 PM | Comments (9) | TrackBack (0) Music-Driven Networking[From OM] I've been actively watching last.FM lately [1] [2]. I believe that the value of this tool has yet to be truly uncovered (partially because it's buggy as hell and there are key features missing). Still, i think that it is quite relevant for this discussion and important issues arise when considering it. In an article entitled "The Focused Organization of Social Ties," Scott Feld discusses the role of interests in social networks. You and i may both know five people, but if we also have five diverse interests in common, we are far more likely to get along. Furthermore, if you and i have five diverse and rare interests in common, we are very likely to know many people in common. In his article, he introduces foci to the structure of social networks, emphasizing that "foci tend to produce patterns of ties, but all ties do not arise from foci" (1018). Foci are not simply interests, but also people, places, social roles, etc. [Anyone interested in issues around modeling foci in social networks in applications *must* read this article.] Music is one of the best focis out there. We naturally turn to our friends for music recommendations. People access music through their friends and people (most notably subcultural youth) find friends through music. Particularly among younger groups, i would posit that much about social network can be understood through music distribution and tastes. [Anyone have good research on this?] Music is a cultural foci, one that i think has a lot of salience for these tools. It is present in most of the sociable articulated social networks and the most important factor for MySpace (built on indie rock bands) and Tribe.net (built on Burning Man culture which is fundamentally a music/art festival). Yet, it is last.FM that takes it to the next level and lets you connect for and because of the music, directly appreciating others' music tastes. This is not to say that there aren't oddities involved. Your behavioral musical profile says so much about you that articulated versions of your tastes do not. I have already found myself temporarily banning certain artists because their dominance in my profile gives the wrong impression of my tastes. In other words, the visibility of my behavior has resulted in a behavioral change. That is indeed a very interesting end result of publicly visible behavior-driven social data. Category: audio
Posted by zephoria at 2:36 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0) January 4, 2005The Cultural Divide Between LiveJournal and Six ApartAh, shit. If Brad is willing to sell, i suspect that this rumor is definitely true. It doesn't require a brain to know that buying LiveJournal would be a brilliant move on Six Apart's part. That said, i'm not sure that i like this move at all. Live Journal is a culture, not simply a product or commodity that can be bought. From an outsider's perspective, it might appear as though they are similar properties - they are both blogging tools, right? Wrong. Jump inside LJ culture. People who use LJ talk about their LJs, not their blogs. They mock bloggers who want to be pundits, journalists, experts. In essence, they mock the culture of bloggers that use Six Apart's tools. During interviews with LJ/Xanga folks, i've been told that MovableType is for people with no friends, people who just talk to be heard, people who are trying too hard. LJ folks don't see LJ as a tool, but a community. Bloggers may see the ethereal blogosphere as their community, but for LJers, it's all about LJ. Aside from the ubergeek LJers, LJers don't read non-LJs even though syndication is available. They post for their friends, comment excessively and constantly moderate who should have access to what. While you cannot generalize about LJers, a vast majority of them are engaged in acts of resistance regularly (think: subcultures, activists, youth rebels, etc.). They value LJ because it values them. They value LJ because it is a tool of resistance, an act of going against mainstream and representing those already marginalized by society - the geeks, freaks and queers among us. They don't want to be mainstream. They don't want their parents/authorities/oppressors using the same service. At the same time, LJ provides shelter, support, community. When someone threatens to commit suicide, LJ doesn't throw up its hand and scream "not my problem." There are folks who actually work to help friends help each other. They're not just an anonymous service - they care. I would love to know why people donate to LiveJournal. My hunch is that it has to do with cultural identity. When you donate, it says so on your page. When you donate, you signify that you value LJ. Forget increased features, you've just made the ultimate commitment to a community - a commitment of money. And aren't you jealous of the permanent members and early adopters? Friends have asked me if people care about Brad. Craigslist users often talk about knowing someone who knows Craig and that they value the intimacy of it because they know that Craig loves them. I don't think the same is true for Brad. The geeks definitely give me the 6 degrees relationship status, but most people talk about it being their community. In other words, i think that as far as most LJers are concerned, LJ is run by an attentive benevolent dictator who cares about them. They don't care about Brad - they care about the freedom that he appears to give them without any indication of reality. Movable Type is a product; LiveJournal is a community. Six Apart is seen as a community that provides tools, not culture. I suspect that if LJ goes to SA, there will be discontent from LJ users even though the media and blogosphere will hail it as an exceptionally [insert business rhetoric here] deal. Even if Six Apart doesn't change a damn thing, i suspect that LJers will feel wary, unloved and co-opted by The Man. I can't imagine them going anywhere fast but i can't see them being happy either, nor can i see them continuing to contribute economically. My biggest concern is that a merger will stunt the cultural growth on LiveJournal that makes it so fascinating. My second concern is that Six Apart will not be prepared to deal with the userbase and will initiate practices that are more detrimental because of fear. [For example, what's the best way to handle an LJ community dedicated to cutters trying to outdo each other via images?] It takes a resistance-based culture to support a community of resisters and Six Apart is by no means a resistance-minded company. My third concern is that LiveJournal will shift because of investor value. It's already compared to blogging, but as its own entity, it doesn't have to be evaluated on those terms. If bought by Six Apart, i'm concerned that SA's investors will evaluate it on SA blogging's terms instead of in terms of LJ. My fourth concern is that fear of control will limit the evolving identity production/consumption that makes LiveJournal so valuable for youth and marginalized populations. It's already far too public for more people, but easy access to LJ from MT/Typepad could be a disaster for many LJers. While many bloggers love to talk about LJ with disdain, as a low-brow version of the culture, i adore LJ from the bottom of my heart and i'm truly concerned that LJ's culture will be corrupted by an acquisition. It is not like any other blogging service and the needs that it serves are fundamentally different. I understand that Brad would gain much from selling, but it breaks my heart all the same. I can totally understand what he will gain, what Six Apart will gain... but what will LJ folks gain? Sad sad sad. I hope Malik is wrong. And if he's not, i hope i'm wrong. But i'm very very concerned about the impact of this should be it be true. Category: LiveJournal
Posted by zephoria at 11:00 PM | Comments (78) | TrackBack (53) technorati has keywordsAnnouncement: Technorati implemented keyword search - yippeeee!!! Category: tagging
Posted by zephoria at 10:07 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (1) 43 thingsAnd while i'm at it.... 43 things is a voyeuristic hoot even if nothing else. It humors me endlessly to see what people's goals are. But i also realized that i am not really willing to cough up my resolutions for this year. Call me superstitious, but publicly announcing them seems like a recipe for never completing them. Of course, this is one of my issues, undoubtedly. I mean, when i blog something, i never write about it properly because i've already done it. Of course, i never think through things well enough on a blog, but ... welcome to danah neurotic land. In any case, voyeurism... fun... My favorite is currently "use 'yellow arrow' to hyperlink real life". And i love the folks that want to procrastinate less - they're off to a bad start.... Category: tagging
Posted by zephoria at 9:18 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (1) wanting to like books we likeBy now, y'all know that i have a book fetish. Just a small one. [Wanna help me move???] So, i really really want to like Books We Like, especially now that i'm revisiting content-motivated recommendation networks. And i do really like their intention (and their kind request for participants to "Be forgiving."). There's one small problem: i have *ZERO* desire to input all of my books again. Zero. Most people bitch about creating a new profile on each service. I feel this way about my books. I currently have two Excel files: one for all books that i own and one for all articles that i own. I am awaiting the kind soul who will build my ideal application for text management. It would start with a XML or DB schema that would access my half.com and Amazon purchasing habits, record when i bought it (which indicates more label material than anything else seeing as i buy books while writing papers or starting classes). And it would allow me to scan what i already have using Marc Smith's magic toy. What makes last.FM so valuable to me is that i don't have to do much but listen to music which i do all the time anyhow. I don't even have to tag anything since i've already done that work for other purposes, namely to listen more without painfully crashing Gwar into Nina Simone (even if some whacked children think this is a good idea... hrmfpt). Why can't something like Books We Like connect with my already present habits? Why can't it help me organize my books. I already write commentary on them - why can't it help me connect this together? Why can't it let me simply rate my books for others when i don't feel like writing a commentary? Why is there so much overhead for participation? Sadly, i can't be bothered to input information in there - i just don't see the value as outweighing the effort required. And this is super sad because i really want to like the people's republic of books. Category: tagging
Posted by zephoria at 9:01 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack (1) Academia and Wikipedia[Also an M2M entry in direct response to various points in Clay's K5 Article on Wikipedia Anti-elitism which responds to Larry Sanger's Why Wikipedia Must Jettison Its Anti-Elitism] First, let me acknowledge that i have excessive privilege in this lifetime. That said, i'm not convinced that academia operates solely on an aggressive exertion of privilege nor am i convinced that any institution in the United States can be discussed without an assertion of privilege. But that's another story. I would argue that many librarians, teachers and academics fear Wikipedia (not dislike it) because it is not properly understood, not simply because it challenges their privilege, just as most new systems and media are feared by traditionalists of all sorts. Have we not had enough conversations about blog fear amongst journalists? As a contributor to and user of Wikipedia, there is no doubt that i have a deep appreciation for it. All the same, i roll my eyes whenever students submit papers with Wikipedia as a citation. This is probably a source of much Wikipedia dislike amongst academics. Wikipedia appears to be a legitimate authority on a vast array of topics for which only one individual has contributed material. This is not the utopian collection of mass intelligence that Clay values. For many non-controversial topics, there are only a limited authors and we have no idea what their level of expertise is. Hell, i submitted a bazillion anthropology entries while taking Anthro 1 based on my textbook and most of them remain untouched. My early attempts to distill anthropology should definitely not appear as legitimate authorities on the topics, yet many students take them as such. On topics for which i feel as though i do have some authority, i'm often embarrassed by what appears at Wikipedia. Take the entry for social network: "A social network is when people help and protect each other in a close community. It is never larger than about 150 people." You have *got* to be kidding me. Aside from being a patently wrong and naive misinterpretation of research, this definition reveals what happens when pop cultural understandings of concepts become authorities. I have extreme respect for those who seek to define concepts such as those who craft the dictionary and encyclopedias. It is extremely challenging to define a term because you are trying very hard to capture and convey excessive amounts of information in an abbreviated fashion that cannot be misinterpreted. This takes talent, practice, precision and a great deal of research. Consider, for example, the difference between a good science writer and a bad one. Not everyone can convey large bodies of research in an easily accessible manner. This does not mean that i dislike Wikipedia, just that i do not consider it to be equivalent to an encyclopedia. I believe that it lacks the necessary research and precision. The lack of talent and practice mostly comes from the fact that most entries have limited contributers. Wikipedia is often my first source, but never my last, particularly in contexts where i need to be certain of my facts. Wikipedia is exceptionally valuable to read about multiple sides to a story, particularly in historical contexts, but i don't trust alternative histories any more than i trust privileged ones. My concern - and that of many of my colleagues - is that students are often not media-savvy enough to recognize when to trust Wikipedia and when this is a dreadful idea. They quote from it as though it cannot be inaccurate. I certainly distrust many classic sources, but i don't think that an "anti-elitist" (a.k.a. lacking traditional authority and expertise) alternative is automatically better. Such a move stinks of glorifying otherness simply out of disdain for hegemonic practices, a tactic that never gets us anywhere. I don't believe that the goal should be 'acceptance' so much as recognition of what Wikipedia is and what it is not. It will *never* be an encyclopedia, but it will contain extensive knowledge that is quite valuable for different purposes. If the fuss dies down, i'd be exceptionally worried because it would mean that we've lost the ability to discuss the quality of information. Alternatively, i too would love to see a vetted version of Wikipedia, one that would provide a knowledge resource that is more accountable and authoritative. Update: "The user who visits Wikipedia to learn about some subject, to confirm some matter of fact, is rather in the position of a visitor to a public restroom. It may be obviously dirty, so that he knows to exercise great care, or it may seem fairly clean, so that he may be lulled into a false sense of security. What he certainly does not know is who has used the facilities before him." - Robert McHenry is Former Editor in Chief, Encyclopedia Britannica [From Tech Central Station via Preoccupations] Category: social software
Posted by zephoria at 1:48 AM | Comments (16) | TrackBack (6) |
