Folksonomy is defined as- “a user-generated system of classifying and organizing online content into different categories by the use of metadata such as electronic tags.” In Monday’s class, we stated that Folksonomic went under the Commons Knowledge category, (along with open source which can be edited by creators and readers/ democratized/ crowd-driven/ collaborative). Conversely, taxonomy, which is defined as, the branch of science concerned with classification, especially of organisms; systematics, falls under the Copyright category. The copyright category also includes (closed source/ curated/ expert-driven/ producer vs. consumer, and individual). Immediately, we can see the dissimilarities between the two categories. Commons, which is a shared space, in class we gave the example of the quad, is fundamentally based on humans resolving conflict. Intellectual commons, we stated, is Wikipedia. Via Wikipedia, we share a lot of intellect with each other. In today’s age of the Digital Natives, we now share pictures with each other. Commons Knowledge can be both powerful and harmful for two main reasons. Powerful, in the sense that, one can be apart of the conversation. Being able to edit and put your spin on information is powerful, and is an example of the freedoms we have as United States citizens. However, just as aavila1019 said in the previous blog, the information listed may not always be correct which can be harmful for those trying to educate themselves. With copyright, you are getting expert, and exact information. There is a vast amount of money within the world of copyright. Additionally, we touched on the printing press, the term draconian, and express-written consent playing major roles within copyright. There is much debate and controversy over all of the terms previously listed. Controversy includes the stealing of music from artists from illegal websites.
Commons Knowledge vs. Copyright
As we talked about in class, folksonomy falls under Commons Knowledge. Folksonomy can be defined as a user-generated system of classifying and organizing online content into different categories by the use of metadata such as electronic tags. Meanwhile taxonomy falls under Copyright. Taxonomy is defined as the process or system of describing the way in which different living things are related by putting them in groups. As we discussed in class Commons Knowledge is open for everyone. Everybody puts their input into a topic or event that’s taken place. It’s an open source for everyone and it allows people to experience different perspectives. The only problem is sometimes, when information is given, the facts aren’t always true. For example Wikipedia, not all sources from some of those documents are exactly true. Anybody can change anything on those pages. We saw that with the clip of Colbert changing information on Wikipedia and how he helped the elephant population increase. Copyright is more of a closed source and expert driven. Although the law of copyright infringement is usually being broken by people everyday. I know most of us download music from Spotify and SoundCloud, which has become a source of commons knowledge where people can freely download their favorite songs. The Internet has allowed us to easily obtain information that we need and seek. The Internet is free and open to everyone and it has made life easier in obtaining information faster and connecting people from all over the world. Because of this commons knowledge has developed and is becoming more accepted.
Commons knowledge is open for anyone to contribute to. The idea of sharing your space with ideas excites me because it gives us a chance to experience different views and perspective on the same topic. Where in copyright it is a closed source and material that is copyright is limited. Our opinion does not matter because the material will not be changed. Commons knowledge gives individuals the chance to be free and distribute creativity, facts and ideas at one time. Of course I believe that people should be certified to make specific allegations but if you are certified then I support the idea of sharing space.
According to the American Library Association, “Copyright issues are among the most hotly contested issues in the legal and legislative world; billions of dollars are at stake.” Not only does the issue of copyright laws being broken everyday greatly effecting libraries, it is impacting the world. It is easy to break the civil law of copyright infringement because of the lack of security on the web. Commons knowledge has developed and is now more accepted.
Lievrouw brings up a great example of commons knowledge using the website Wikipedia. I have always thought that Wikipedia is a biased and unreliable informational site. However, I never took the time to appreciate the amount of equality the site offers. It is shared space and most information can be reliable and trusted by the person who over sees the site. It can be argued that non-copyright sources are unreliable. In this era the Internet is free and open to anyone. It has become idiot proof, even eight year olds are now surfing the web. It is a valid concern but I don’t think it is appropriate to say that only copyright is reliable. In some cases it is not.
Participatory Journalism is when public citizens play an active role in the process of collecting, reporting, analyzing, and disseminating news and information. Now a days when people are out, they always have their phones with them. Whenever anything that’s interesting is going on out in public, people will always have their phones recording or they’ll be taking pictures. It’s a new form of journalism that informs others that they were there and witnessed what they put up. One example that I can think of is the death of Eric Garner. This happened over the summer and I can remember, I was hanging out with my friends and one of them clicked on one of the videos. It showed how the police was choking Eric Garner, which then led to his death. This topic was trending all over twitter. Now everybody was talking about it and you could see plenty of videos of what happened. You could go on YouTube and actually see some of them. They show the cops choking him out and Eric Garner yelling that he couldn’t breathe. This ultimately led to his death. This gave cops a bad image as if it isn’t somewhat damaged already. Now with the shooting of Michael Brown, cops are at low point now. You could see videos of the shooting online now too. I remember watching a video of some guy recording Michael Brown’s dead body. His blood was surrounding his body and the guy recording it was just saying he couldn’t believe what he saw. These videos are being shown all around the world and it’s all over social media. Anything that happens will most likely end up in social media especially with the public being able to record or take pictures with their phones. These types of events and others will be more accessible and easier to find.
As I was going through the New York Times website this morning I came across an article titled “Is It WWIII or Just Twitter?”
Maureen Dowd, the author of the article, describes a tragic seen, vividly, in which a drone lands in the middle of a wedding and kills innocent people. Then she quotes what President Obama stated after the ISIS brutal beheading of two American journalists: “the truth of the matter is that the world has always been messy. In part, we’re just noticing now because of social media and our capacity to see in intimate detail the hardships that people are going through.”
Dowd goes on and quotes what, the president of the Los Angeles World Affairs Council, Terry McCarthy, said about the President’s remarks: “Whether or not James Foley’s brutal beheading was shown on YouTube or disseminated on Twitter doesn’t affect the horror of what was done, and in another era, it would have been just as shocking, even if reported only on network TV or radio or in a newspaper.”
Although I do agree with the fact that social media and their millions of users do magnify everything that happens in the world with the endless possibilities of commenting, sharing, and creating content- that does not justify the catastrophic events that have occurred lately.
Participatory Journalism provides people (formerly the audience) with a magnificent tool that allows them to express their opinions and also receive feedback about it. I believe that what is happening now with the situation that Mr. Obama talked about is that by finding out easily and faster about things happening in different parts of the world, citizens are holding governments more accountable and are pressuring them to “do what they have to do” more than before. What do you guys think?
Participatory journalism also known as “citizen journalism” is definitely a type of news source that is becoming more prominent in our digital era. I can somewhat say that I agree with Lavroux’s argument that “participatory journalist feel compelled to practice journalism because they feel as if professional journalist aren’t doing their jobs”. The reason I somewhat agree with this statement is because as we discussed in class the media is quick to have an abundance of bias in their news coverage, and citizens don’t know what to believe so they feel as if they should cover the story themselves. On the other hand participatory journalist are subject to do the same thing because weather they believe it or not they are “covering” the story from their point of most of the time. Tommy Sotomayer a well know youtuber covered the story of Ferguson with his own spin on the situation, this a prime example of how anyone can utilize the internet to cover news stories, he even goes to the extreme of touching on racial profiling.
I also feel like professional Journalist work hand in hand with participatory journalist because they interview different types of people who have their own views on the story being covered. its also interesting to see people on the Internet poke fun at some news reports, an example of this is Sweet Brown “Ain’t nobody got Time for That”. All in all I feel like no type of journalism is going to be completely unbaised, if so it is very hard to do so because we naturally use bias word choice.
Participatory Journalism involves untrained public citizens that take on the task to report on events happening in the community. This form of journalism has recently been utilized in the case of the Michael Brown shooting, which led to Ferguson protests. With the unfiltered content being spread throughout Twitter, Facebook and numerous videos on YouTube or Vine, the content in which the public is receiving is raw and placed based on perspective and personal opinion. When individual opinions are being brought into a situation multiple stances can be taken, allowing the consumer to choose what to follow but the negative impact resulting from this can be dangerous.
With the growing use of the internet participatory journalism is becoming a widespread phenomenon. Items are being posted within seconds of them happening, leaving room for plenty of false information. Without filtering of the media, we are being placed into a more desensitized state of mind. Participatory Journalism gives people a voice, but not everyone knows how to use that voice responsibly.
Participatory Journalism is when public citizens play an active role in the process of collecting, reporting, analyzing, and disseminating news and information. I was not able to attend our last class which this term/topic was covered, however after reading several other blog posts, reading the text, and doing further research in this area, I believe I have a basic proficiency of understanding.
In the world of sports, currently, the biggest news is the Ray Rice scandal. Ray Rice, a Westchester County native, and former NFL player, has been indefinitely suspended from the NFL for assaulting his wife in an elevator. He was originally suspended for two games by Roger Goodell, commissioner of the NFL, until most recently when the entirety of the video of the assault within the elevator was released. After the video had surfaced of the events which took place within the elevator, all hell broke loose via social media, and all major media outlets nationwide. Public citizens were tweeting, making Facebook statuses, and even creating meme’s and Instagram’s pertaining to the event.
The entire nation has been participating in the story of Ray Rice’s assault. I do not believe it is good, nor bad, but inevitable. I also believe the NFL commissioner to be extremely naive in the sense that, he stated he had never seen the video within the elevator, which caused Rice to go from a mere two game suspension, to an expulsion from the league. In today’s world, everything is recorded, nothing is kept private, i.e. Donald Sterling, and now the Atlanta Hawks owner. Everyone has an opinion, and it is everyone’s right to share their viewpoints on the matter. Some, more ignorant than others, regardless everyone has the right to do so.
My viewpoints on the matter?
1. You put your hands on a woman in a physical, harmful matter, that’s immediate jail time.
2. Absolute bullsh*t that Roger Goodell claimed he had never seen the video from inside the elevator when handing down a two game suspension to Rice. You’re the commissioner of the NFL.. You mean to tell me you didn’t have all the facts in front of you after a video is leaked showing one of the top players dragging his unconscious, then fiance (I don’t know how to do the accent on the ‘e’ on a mac), out of an elevator? You made $44.2mm in 2012-13… He shouldn’t resign, he should be fired.
3. Do I believe Ray Rice is a horrible, malicious man? No. Was he wrong? Obviously. However, I do believe (most) everyone deserves a second chance. I do not know for sure, but I assume he was heavily intoxicated during the incident. Does that make it OK? Again, obviously not. But, people make horrible mistakes. He’ll have to answer to God one day, and only He can judge. I believe an indefinite suspension was the correct call, and that should have been the immediate move. He’ll need to do a significant amount of counseling and work, but I believe we’ll be seeing him on Sunday’s again eventually.
Journalism has always been an informational outlet of the world. It dominates our media and has blurred what we perceive as reality and fiction. Due to its institutional “business” orientated agendas, much of the information that is shared through journalism is typically tailored to interest a particular party. Things such as headlines, pictures, particular word choice, and sometimes even omission, all of these have been commonly used techniques in what we I like to call “Standard Journalism”
Nevertheless, a new form of journalism has began making it mark amongst the media. Participatory Journalism in basic terms is a new wave of journalism that entails a “guerilla” form of information sharing. Essentially it is the ability to take raw information/news and be able to mass-spread it to the public in its purist form.
With the rise and take over of the internet and social media, more people are taking out there phone and recording everything that is happening in the world. Participatory Journalist have the ability to stream live footage online without worrying about being censored or cut by any governmental agency. By the time this does happen most footage has been played and re-played by many. the ability for a video to go viral these days is as easy as tying a shoe.
What this means for the news companies and media outlets is that they need to be able to cover any news story with honesty and purity because if they don’t, there are many individuals that will. As a matter of fact, there are many example today of news outlets trying to beat bloggers and “journalist” to the story. Such was the case with the ISIS story about a month ago. The news about the issue was leaked all over twitter before and major news corporation had any idea of.
This is subject to opinion but, I believe that these type of battles over supremacy and story ownership has caused these news corporations such as the New York Times to publish unacceptable front covers such as the one with the beheading of James Foley.
Unfortunately, the inevitable saturation of news will always exist but now that the public has the power in their hands, the truth will be more accessible and easier to find.
Since the birth of Internet, research, communication and speed have dramatically changed. We are able to find answers to almost any of our questions by using Google, the biggest and most successful search engine. Although it has turned out to be extremely useful, people have begun to rely on search engines as if the first few results were the only information available, when in fact millions of results show up. Moreover, these big companies are paid for advertisements and to position websites in certain order. This means that you will probably not only get webpages with the highest number of hits, but paid websites that sneak in.
This is why; algorithmic journalism shouldn’t be trust a hundred percent. As many media companies, they tend to hide sites from people or block certain words to show up to keep regulations or interests of private parties.
Our generation isn’t used to obtain information from other sources, and this will create a problem to our society, as we will be under these companies control, pulling strings in the shade.
Relying on algorithms to define the results of studies, news, opinions etc. wouldn’t be a very good option. Once again, relying on a single and private source just as our generation is starting to do will have a negative effect on our future. Obtaining all the information from a single source is definitely very dangerous, because our ideas and points of view could easily be changed by these private companies. Action needs to be taken.