Second Life is a place where anyone can have just that. It is a richly detailed virtual world where anything a computer programmer can imagine can exist: There are minutely detailed replicas of Rockefeller Center and human-size raccoons; sex and sadism and spiritual retreats; conference calls and a currency exchange. Almost all of it is created by the people who pay to dwell in it. Linden Lab, the San Francisco company that created and owns Second Life, acts as a sort of laissez-faire government. It makes money primarily by selling property, of which it can conjure an infinite amount.
Second Life seems like an overnight sensation--it drew almost a million new residents in the last two months of 2006, doubling its population. In fact, it began in 1999, when Philip Rosedale quit his job as chief technology officer at RealNetworks to realize his lifelong dream of building a virtual-reality environment. Most people he knew thought he was quixotic and certain to fail. He almost did. No wonder the 38-year-old Rosedale describes the recent onslaught of attention as "almost surreal."
What's real is that Second Life is a haven for entrepreneurs, with thousands of businesses selling things ranging from clothes to office buildings to body parts. Business is conducted in Linden dollars, but those can be cashed for cold, hard credit card credits. The in-world economy is now clipping along at $10 million--those are U.S. dollars--a month. Big companies are popping up, too, experimenting with what might be a look at tomorrow's three-dimensional Web.
Tuesday 26 January 2010
Monday 25 January 2010
Homework: due in Wed 27th Jan
h/w Create a ‘Second Life’ avatar. Answer the following questions:
1. How have you chosen to represent yourself?
2. What can you ‘do’ in 2nd Life?
3. Who owns 2nd Life? How do they fund it?
4. Is it a good example of online media produced by the public?
Look at this article to help you
Thanks BBC 2
Lucky us, from Saturday 30th January the lovely people at BBC 2 will be broadcasting this series that looks ideal for this unit. Make sure you record
Democratic, but dangerous too: how the web changed our world
In two decades the world wide web has become the most powerful information tool since Gutenberg's printing press, but also the most intrusive and threatening. Aleks Krotoski, presenter of a major new series on the history of the net, reports.
Excellent article on the drawbacks of the net from Sunday's Observer Newspaper.
Excellent article on the drawbacks of the net from Sunday's Observer Newspaper.
Sunday 24 January 2010
Friday 22 January 2010
Public production of Web 2.0
1. Ensure you understand all the terms to do with Web 2.0.
2. Consider your own contribution.
3. Email me your facebook or myspace profile to shsgmedia@mac.com
2. Consider your own contribution.
3. Email me your facebook or myspace profile to shsgmedia@mac.com
Wednesday 20 January 2010
Good Article on Twitter
Twitter grows up in aftermath of Haiti earthquake
by Tim Leberecht
Font size
Print
E-mail
Share
8 comments
Share
4
In the wake of the devastating 7.0 earthquake in Haiti, Twitter has been serving as a major hub of information, the Nielsen Company reports. Nielsen refers to preliminary analysis of data indicating that Twitter posts are the leading source of discussion about the quake, followed by online video, blogs, and other social media.
Although most online consumers still rely on traditional media for coverage of the quake, they are apparently turning to Twitter to share information, react to the situation, and rally support. Sysomos, an analytics firm in Toronto, estimated that nearly 150,000 posts containing both “Haiti” and “Red Cross” were sent through Twitter since the quake. The Twitter account for the Red Cross, which on average had been adding roughly 50-100 followers a day before the Haiti quake, has gained more than 10,000 followers since.
Combined with tapping into the large mobile universe of text messages (136.6 million subscribers sent and received text messages in Q3 2009), many aid and relief organizations have begun using Twitter to spread the word and gather donations, augmenting their other channels. As online conversations around the Red Cross’s 90999 text campaign ("Text HAITI to 90999 to donate $10 to @RedCross relief") efforts grew, the Red Cross tweeted Friday morning that donations exceeded $8 million.
But Twitter’s growing power comes with new responsibilities. In the aftermath of the disaster, some people used the microblogging service to spread rumors and falsehoods--such as that UPS would be willing to ship any package under 50 pounds to Haiti (UPS debunked that myth). Twitter was also aflutter with news that several airlines would take medical personnel to Haiti free of charge to help with earthquake relief (American Airlines and JetBlue representatives said this was not the case). The FBI warns Internet users who receive requests for charitable donations on behalf of earthquake victims to "apply a critical eye and do their due diligence" before responding. "Past tragedies and natural disasters have prompted individuals with criminal intent to solicit contributions purportedly for a charitable organization and/or a good cause."
What all this shows is that Twitter is not like Facebook (as much as Facebook is trying hard to be more like Twitter). Relationships are not reciprocal, and they’re not based on trust but on authority--a currency that is easier to fake. Twitter is much more like a 21st century CNN, a broadcasting-cum-narrowcasting network, and as such prone to propaganda and misinformation.
by Tim Leberecht
Font size
Share
8 comments
Share
4
In the wake of the devastating 7.0 earthquake in Haiti, Twitter has been serving as a major hub of information, the Nielsen Company reports. Nielsen refers to preliminary analysis of data indicating that Twitter posts are the leading source of discussion about the quake, followed by online video, blogs, and other social media.
Although most online consumers still rely on traditional media for coverage of the quake, they are apparently turning to Twitter to share information, react to the situation, and rally support. Sysomos, an analytics firm in Toronto, estimated that nearly 150,000 posts containing both “Haiti” and “Red Cross” were sent through Twitter since the quake. The Twitter account for the Red Cross, which on average had been adding roughly 50-100 followers a day before the Haiti quake, has gained more than 10,000 followers since.
Combined with tapping into the large mobile universe of text messages (136.6 million subscribers sent and received text messages in Q3 2009), many aid and relief organizations have begun using Twitter to spread the word and gather donations, augmenting their other channels. As online conversations around the Red Cross’s 90999 text campaign ("Text HAITI to 90999 to donate $10 to @RedCross relief") efforts grew, the Red Cross tweeted Friday morning that donations exceeded $8 million.
But Twitter’s growing power comes with new responsibilities. In the aftermath of the disaster, some people used the microblogging service to spread rumors and falsehoods--such as that UPS would be willing to ship any package under 50 pounds to Haiti (UPS debunked that myth). Twitter was also aflutter with news that several airlines would take medical personnel to Haiti free of charge to help with earthquake relief (American Airlines and JetBlue representatives said this was not the case). The FBI warns Internet users who receive requests for charitable donations on behalf of earthquake victims to "apply a critical eye and do their due diligence" before responding. "Past tragedies and natural disasters have prompted individuals with criminal intent to solicit contributions purportedly for a charitable organization and/or a good cause."
What all this shows is that Twitter is not like Facebook (as much as Facebook is trying hard to be more like Twitter). Relationships are not reciprocal, and they’re not based on trust but on authority--a currency that is easier to fake. Twitter is much more like a 21st century CNN, a broadcasting-cum-narrowcasting network, and as such prone to propaganda and misinformation.
Homework: Has Web 2.0 changed the relationship between Institutions and Audiences?
How has Web 2.0 changed the relationship between audiences and institutions?
Give as many examples as you can from:
Online news
Online TV
Music Industry
Give as many examples as you can from:
Online news
Online TV
Music Industry
Wikipedias definition of Web 2.0
The term "Web 2.0" (2004–present) is commonly associated with web applications that facilitate interactive information sharing, interoperability, user-centered design,[1] and collaboration on the World Wide Web. Examples of Web 2.0 include web-based communities, hosted services, web applications, social-networking sites, video-sharing sites, wikis, blogs, mashups, and folksonomies. A Web 2.0 site allows its users to interact with other users or to change website content, in contrast to non-interactive websites where users are limited to the passive viewing of information that is provided to them.
The term is closely associated with Tim O'Reilly because of the O'Reilly Media Web 2.0 conference in 2004.[2][3] Although the term suggests a new version of the World Wide Web, it does not refer to an update to any technical specifications, but rather to cumulative changes in the ways software developers and end-users use the Web. Whether Web 2.0 is qualitatively different from prior web technologies has been challenged by World Wide Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee, who called the term a "piece of jargon"[4] — precisely because he intended the Web to embody these values in the first place.
The term is closely associated with Tim O'Reilly because of the O'Reilly Media Web 2.0 conference in 2004.[2][3] Although the term suggests a new version of the World Wide Web, it does not refer to an update to any technical specifications, but rather to cumulative changes in the ways software developers and end-users use the Web. Whether Web 2.0 is qualitatively different from prior web technologies has been challenged by World Wide Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee, who called the term a "piece of jargon"[4] — precisely because he intended the Web to embody these values in the first place.
Wednesday 13 January 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)