Dibbell embarks on an investigative assignment as a writer for Wired magazine and discovers the exciting and sometimes dark world of online gaming, by becoming a player in Ultima Online. By engaging in the world of online gaming, Dibbell uncovers an entire virtual economy in the form of trading goods, property, gold, and other services that can lead to serious profit in the real world.  Through his gaming experience, Dibbell demonstrates how online gaming is more than just a game. In addition to providing a platform to make a monetary profit in the real world, online games serve as a meeting place for individuals to build friendships and an interesting experiment in how people “play” and interact.

In describing his adventure to Tijuana to uncover a loot farm, the excitement of making a profit selling goods and property, and the ability to outsmart cheaters, Dibbell paints a fantastical and somewhat sensationalized picture of online gaming. Personally I was along for the ride, enjoying the excitement and scandal involved in the virtual economy, until Amanda presented a very interesting scenario in our class discussion. Dibbell introduces us to his online companion Radny, a 17-year old, who befriends him in the game and to a certain extent outside of the game. In Amanda’s question to the class, she asks if this if there were any ethical considerations between the real and virtual worlds.

Great question.

The MacArthur Foundation recently sponsored an study on teens and their use of digital technology, as part of a $50-million dollar digital media and learning initiative. This study shows the importance of digital technology in shaping how teens learn, play, socialize and participate in civic life. Researchers found that social networking sites, video-sharing sites, online games and other pieces of digital technology were undervalued and misunderstood by adults. Many adults viewed digital technology as having a negative influencer, when in reality, researchers observed the effects as having a positive impact on teens. The study demonstrates that when young people engage in digital technology, including online gaming, they are developing important social and technical skills.

Bottom line- young people are online. They are playing online games, they are on social networking sites. In the virtual world, many have created alternate identities and you really don’t know who you are talking, playing with or selling to, something that could have serious implications in the real world.

My question: is the online gaming world presented by Dibbell a safe place for teens to develop their social and technical skills?

Of course, digital technology has immense value for human communication, but it seems to me that a study endorsing the benefits of online gaming as a tool for young people to develop life skills provides a false sense of security to what is really out there in the world of online gaming. I think that Dibbell presents a slightly dramatized view of the gaming world. Certainly, he sought out most of the action that he encountered, however the ability for young people to effectively protect themselves against schemers, cheaters, theifs, and other malicious individuals is not entirely convincing.

It’s just something to think about before playing.

Newspapers, blogs, and a slew of experts have been discussing how Web 2.0 is the next frontier of how we communicate and share information. Public relations firms are creating entire teams to bring Web 2.0 to their clients. Even the IT person at my own company recently gave a presentation on incorporating Web 2.0 into the daily operations of the association.

Got it. Web 2.0 is important. It’s the next big thing. It’s everywhere… but what is it?

In “What is Web 2.0” Tim O’Reilly sets out to provide a deeper understanding of the principles and applications that have created such a buzz. O’Reilly describes Web 2.0 as a platform, where users have the ability to create their own data and applications. Central to the operation of Web 2.0 are certain “core competencies.” In Web 2.0, software shifts from a product to a service and users become co-developers rather than just consumers. Web 2.0 is centered around harnessing the collective intelligence. Instead of keeping a tight reign of control over information that is released, web services like RSS allow users to easily disseminate information. Although it may seem counter-intuitive to what we know about intellectual property and copyright, Web 2.0 is designed to encourage hackability and remixability. As O’Reilly explains, instituting restrictions on changing data, web services, and applications limits re-use and experimentation, thus hampering the possibilities of innovation.

O’Reilly also focuses on the idea of the “Long Tail.” Smaller sites focusing on narrow niches dominate the Internet. There is no mainstream, but a series of specialized sites representing a number of interests. In Chris Anderson’s book, The Long Tail, he uses the example of Wikipedia to essentially describe the heart of Web 2.0 and open source. Intelligence is “emergent.” No one is in charge. There is no over-arching body to tell people that they are right or wrong.For many, this diversity and freedom represents a scary, uncharted frontier, yet it doesn’t necessarily have to be.

In the words of my professor, what do we know for sure?

The answer is nothing. We know nothing for sure, but Web 2.0 allows us to collaborate and produce new and innovative products and information. We are there to challenge each other and ourselves.

Challenge accepted.

Although this happens to be a Republican example, the power of visual media is certainly not a matter of party politics. Visual media including, videos, commercials, and televised debates and speeches, allows voters to analyze both personal attributes and political platforms of candidates. Campaign advertisements use video and visual media to reinforce their messages, Saturday Night Live presents caricatures of our favorite candidates, and interviews and debates serve to educate voters on the issues.  Historically, candidates have recognized the importance of visual media in reaching voters, but in the current election, the power of visual media coupled with the ability to rapidly disseminate information via the Internet has transformed the political landscape.

Digital technology provides voters with instant access to information and the ability to become active participants in the political process. We no longer rely on the evening news or the daily papers for our news. We look to bloggers or even e-mails and links from friends and colleagues for “instant access” to election updates. The accessibility of information through YouTube, social networking, and blogging has also revolutionized the type of information that is available about candidates and campaigns. People are not just watching, but sharing, posting, commenting and creating.

So this leads me to my question: how has instant access to visual media influenced public opinion in the 2008 Presidential Election?

I am interested to hear your feedback in a number of different areas:

1. What examples of visual media have stood out to you during the Presidential Election 2008?

2. Where did you first see this example(s)? For example: was it a television news story, a commercial, or something that you heard about on the Internet or watched on YouTube?

3. Has a particular commercial, video clip, interview, or parody changed your perception of a candidate? Has visual media changed the opinion of someone you know?

4. Can you think of an example where visual media has crossed the line? Gotten too personal?

5. In an election where age, gender, and race have all been been brought to the forefront, how would you gauge the importance of instant access to visual media in breaking or reinforcing stereotypes?

6. Do you think visual media has the power to shape public opinion?

Your feedback is greatly appreciated. I am looking to narrow down the topic a bit, if you care to share exampes, they are most welcome.  Feel free to post a comment or e-mail me directly at kthomas978@gmail.com. Thanks!

What is it exactly that sets Google apart from its rivals?

In The Search, John Battelle chronicles the remarkable (and remarkably short) history of Google.  As Battelle notes, Google went from a virtually unknown project designed by two Stanford students, to the fastest-growing company ever, with its five-year revenue growth exceeding 400,000 percent (p. 235). Google’s success is marked by innovation, some luck, a unique management style, and expansive vision of founders’ Sergey Brin and Larry Page.

For many, Google is synonymous with “search”, but Battelle notes that search is merely a vehicle for reaching Google’s end goal of organizing the world’s information and making it accessible (p. 248).  Search demonstrates that something needs to be found and Google takes this charge very seriously.  Google essentially believes that everything from music, photographs, maps, videos, e-mail and books can become digitized and searched.

Google does not just connect people to the information they are seeking, but simultaneously manages and collects the world’s information through its numerous applications: Gmail, Google Documents, Google Reader, Google Calendar, and now the Google Phone (the list goes on and on). In addition to managing world’s data, Google has shaped its search engine traffic into a successful business model. By employing the “pay per click” model, AdWords and AdSense have allowed advertisers to effectively reach their target audiences, creating a profit for both them and Google.

Innovation requires people to think above and beyond the norm, but Google’s mission of world information domination is a bit extreme. In the first half of The Search, I was fascinated with Google’s humble beginnings, unconventional business model, and thirst for innovation. As I read through the second half, I started to feel a little uneasy. With great power, especially regarding personally identifiable information on the Web, comes great responsibility. Brin and Page’s unconvential business practices have lead to Google’s unprecedented success, yet I am curious to see how this sustains the corporation over the long term.

Battelle raises a critical point regarding stewardship of this vast storehouse of information, As he describes the amount of personally identifiable available through the Google search engine (and other search engines), he cautions that our culture has yet to fully grasp the implications of accessing all that information. Before we are able to protect ourselves from misuse, we must understand the breadth of the information accessible to us. How can we successfully manage and protect our information, if we don’t know it is out there?

There is no question that Google has created a successful model perpetuated by constant innovation and expansive vision. Google reinforces its status in the information world with services and applications that are widely popular, accessible, easy-to-use, and free. Early in the semester, we discussed how hearing about a product from a friend or acquaintance remains the best form of advertising. How many of us out there use Google because of a clever advertisement? Most likely none. We use Google because our friends, co-workers, family members, classmates and colleagues use it. Google has ingeniously created and subsequently dominated our information-sharing culture.

I am curious to see what the future holds for the powerhoues that has become Google, but until then, I am off to check my Gmail!

This blog post supplements the benefits of blogging raised in Naked Conversations. Blogging helps small business clients, executives, and companies to “get the creative juices flowing.” These individuals get comfortable sharing information and use industry words and phrases to reach out to consumers. Communications or P.R. professionals may not think or know to write about these specific industry topics when representing a company. Blogging provides a channel for information to come straight from the source. As we learn from Scoble and Israel, this can be both positive and negative, but this article demonstrates how employees and executives can establish themselves as “subject matter experts,” an essential aspect in demonstrating a company’s ability to be a leader in its industry.

Returning to my own “Ah-Ha” moment, I was struck by one of the comments made by Steve Rubel. He was discussing how to integrate new media into communications strategies and his advice was to talk with consumers. Rubel discusses the need to understand how and why consumers are using the Web. He stresses that consumers, not marketers will be determining how the media looks in the future. This is critical in establishing your company’s blog and developing a communications strategy that is audience appropriate.

In Naked Conversations, Scoble and Israel present a blogger-centric view. They focus on identifying the culture and policies of a corporation to determine how a company should develop their blogging strategy. Scoble and Israel offer ten tips to ensure “Doing It Right,” but reaching out to consumers is not mentioned as one of these tips. Scoble and Israel emphasize naming the company blog, reading other blogs, establishing relationships with other bloggers and those that link to your blog, however, they seem to omit the seemingly necessary conversation with consumers.

As Scoble and Israel describe, it is important to understand your company’s ethical and legal policies on blogging (if they have them), but what about your audience? Framing your blog according to company policy and the recommendations of your bosses is like having a one-sided conversation. In Scoble’s “Corporate Weblog Manifesto” he does encourage corporate bloggers to respond and listen to readers, but it is point 29 out of 34. Speaking as a blogging novice, it seems intuitive to identify a target audience as an initial step when developing a blogging strategy.  Why blog if no one will read it?

Scoble and Israel present many important tips in developing a successful blogging strategy and avoiding potential blogging disasters, but Rubel’s emphasis on reaching out to consumers is critical as we move forward in the digital age.

Well, actually more of recovering corporate blog skeptic.

In We the Media, Gillmor demonstrates that blogs are essential tools for individuals to engage in the global conversation. Blogs encourage transparency in business, credibility in journalism, and information-sharing among individuals. As Gillmor explains, blogging keeps the conversation open and maintains accountability by allowing others to provide feedback.  I recognize the value of blogging and specifically corporate blogging; however, I continue to struggle with the idea of corporations relinquishing messaging control to the blogosphere.

Scoble and Israel’s Naked Conversations is the missing piece to my corporate blogging puzzle.  In this book, Scoble and Israel present real-life examples of corporate blogs and helpful blogging strategies. They highlight a diverse group of businesses using blogs to reach consumers. The businesses range from large companies like General Motors and Microsoft to small family-owned establishments like Horsefeathers’ restaurant in New Hampshire and Stonyfield Farm organic yogurt company. By illustrating the diversity of corporate bloggers, Scoble and Israel prove that corporate blogging can serve the communication and marketing needs of virutally any type of business. Blogging should encourage meaningful conversation, and depending on the needs of an individual company, each corporate blog will look and behave differently.

Sun Microsystems has 1,000+ Sun bloggers. IBM use internal blogs to communicate with employees only. Others companies such as, Stonyfield Farm create different blogs to serve niche markets. Scoble and Israel show how corporate blogs can yield results as different as the blogs themselves. Sun bloggers show the human side of a large corporation. IBM bloggers increase communication between employees and enhance the work experience. Stonyfield Farm uses blogging as an alternative to traditional advertising. Each company blogs for a unique purpose garnering different results, but there is a notable value-added element in each example.

Another example presented in Naked Conversations, introduces B.L. Ochman, a marketing consultant and blog strategist, who describes how blogging may not be the right fit for every company. Some CEOs do not have the time, ability, or inclination to create a successful or meaningful blog. She states that blogs should be for companies that are willing to put their ideas out in the open.  Companies should evaluate if and how blogging can work for them and work to incorporate blogging into their marketing strategies.

Gillmor presents the “why” and Scoble and Israel present the “how.” Their real-life examples, tips for success, and discussion of the advantages of joining the blogosphere present a clear framework for starting a corporate blog. People should not be saying anything just to say something, but rather should take the time to articulate what is important to them as individuals in the appropriate context. For me, this is the missing piece. It’s not just being part of the conversation, but about contributing value and improving the worth of your product, idea, or company. Corporations don’t have to turn everything over to the blogosphere, but blogs can be an excellent way to reach out to consumers and gain insight into their products or approach. It is about finding the right fit for your company and executing your blog in a way that promotes discussion and conversation.

We are essentially users without a user manual.

We have taken charge as users to create and distribute our own news and information and continue to do so at a staggering rate. In We the Media, Gillmor talks about Wikipedia, the online encyclopedic reference site, which allows virtually anyone to edit and create content.  Because of its open nature, the credibility of the content is often questioned, but it is clear that Wikipedia has transformed user generated information-sharing.

Throughout We the Media, Gillmor stresses the important role of journalists as preserving accuracy, fairness and thoroughness in news reporting, but he also paves the way for a new model of promoting these traditionally “journalistic” values and addressing the issue of credibility in user-generated content. In addressing the misinformation, saboteurs, trolls, and spinmeisters that have come to plague online sources, Gillmor suggests that the best way to combat these impediments to accuracy is to keep the “conversation” open to informed users, and allow these users to continuously update and educate one another.

Gillmor favors the cooperative approach over the grim prospect of facing the authoritarian control of government, Big Media, telecommunications companies and others. Gillmor views copyright restrictions as a tactical method employed by major stakeholders such as the entertainment or telecommunications industry to preserve their business models, profits, and competitiveness.

Gillmor sees the increased regulation of the Internet as a direct threat to the core values that have made it the most transformative technological advancement in modern history.  The Internet has become a powerful tool in allowing users to break away from the constraints of traditional media and Gillmor fears that restrictions on information-sharing will greatly hinder the ability of users to do so openly and freely.

In my opinion, Gillmor’s “open conversation” model of promoting accuracy and preserving credibility makes complete sense… in dream world.

Okay, okay, I’m not actually that cynical, but allow me to explain…

Gillmor discusses Technorati, which serves as a solid example of how this model can be effectively utilized. A vast number of contributors are able create and distribute information, and a ranking system based on user response provides a measure of credibility and assists the reader in making informed decisions on the content. This example highlights the benefits of this model, but is not representative of society as a whole.

In the “real” world, I do not see businesses, corporations, or even individuals surrendering their control to this model. I work at a very small non-profit association, and we still use “spin” and press releases (to the horror of Gillmor) to distribute our information.

Even on the small scale of my non-profit, our board of directors and decision-makers would be reluctant to rely on the integrity of informed users to edit and openly critique our messaging. Maybe this would be beneficial, but I do not see them relinquishing control.  While I can see the dangers of over-regulating the Internet, I do believe that copyright and intellectual property laws do help preserve credibility.

In an article posted on the class de.lici.ous site from the BBC, entitled “Warning Sounded on Web’s Future”, the writer that the public needs better tools to differentiate between fact and fiction on the web. The expert interviewed suggested creating a system that would label websites according to their level of trustworthiness and proven reliability.

This may not be the best solution out there, but it could potentially appeal to both supporters of cyber-liberties and those looking for regulations. We must look for creative solutions to successfully navigate the road ahead.

Gillmor accurately assesses that in today’s society access to the internet and the explosion of new technology has enabled the average person to communicate globally at virtually little or no cost.  As a result, Gillmor describes how news reporting has transformed from a  “lecture” controlled by Big Media to a “conversation,” where the former news audience is able to actively participate in the process.

I think Gillmor’s lecture/conversation metaphor is an excellent way of illustrating the transformation of our changing media culture. Blogs, RSS, SMS, Wiki and social networking sites allow people to literally have a conversation, exchange ideas and create their own news quickly and easily without having to rely on Big Media for their information.

Major news networks are even beginning to include citizen journalists in their reporting. MSNBC has set up a citizen journalist section of its website where viewers can send in their own videos. Websites like NowPublic, that allow people to upload their own photos and new stories, have even become a source for journalists looking for breaking news. Individuals now have the ability to blog or write about the issues that they think are important and newsworthy.

In Essential Blogging, Cory Doctorow playfully muses that, “blogging roundly kicks journalism’s ass.” Doctorow et al clearly demonstrate the immense versatility and vast potential for blogging as a communication platform. As illustrated through Boing Boing, a blog can be written by anyone, about anything, in any style anywhere.

Doctorow et al successfully describe how the ease and accessibility of blogging sheds a new light on traditional journalism.  When writing a blog, information can be posted and disseminated globally in just a few minutes, replacing the timely journalistic approach which requires pitching, writing, editing and rewriting before finally publishing. A reader can also respond to a blog posting instantaneously, facilitating the exchange between the writer and the audience.

So, the answer is simple. We should put down our newspapers and start blogging, right?

Well, not exactly.

While everyone may agree that blogging and digital technology have transformed our society for the better, it is unlikely that you will hear someone like Gillmor supporting Doctorow’s colorful statement on the benefits of blogging over journalism. Gillmor recognizes the immense value of citizen journalism, yet he still maintains that professional journalists must remain the gatekeepers for news and information. Their role is to help shape the conversation by providing accuracy, fairness, and thoroughness to the news that is being reported. Gillmor sees the media revolution as an opportunity for professional journalists to improve their own work by learning from an audience of experts. He envisions a society where the best aspects of the traditional system supports the emergence of new ideas and new contributors.

My question is how do we strike this balance between engaged citizens expanding the sphere of knowledge and professional journalists maintaining a level of accuracy and integrity in news reporting?  In our class discussion, we have seen how prominent journalists such as Soledad O’Brien have reported on incorrect information obtained from blogs. I see the value in Gillmor’s vision for future, however I think that today’s newspapers and major networks are facing financial challenges and an overall decrease in subscribers that will eventually come to effect the very core principles that Gillmor seeks to uphold. For this reason, it is crucial as a consumer to demand accuracy in reporting and assess the credibility of the sources that we seek.