Bcm301 Presentation Notes

User generated histories – presentation outline “Which realities? Which do we want to help make more real and which less real? How do we want to interfere, because interfere we will, one way or another” Rheingold, 2009. Persistent unregulated uninterrupted Big Idea 1. Communicating histories/ introduction – Milly

Expanded Mash up – Web 2.0 & History 2.0 Story telling over all sorts of mediums, in all different ways – audio. You tube. Visual, forums etc History is becoming online – we access it, read it, and interpret it differently Our practices are morphing well away from the notion of one person deciding on history, we even have a unique language, and online etiquette we’ve adjusted to. “The introduction of the internet and web 2.0 technologies has allowed society to make history deeper, richer, and more accurate. Online generated history websites have caused a radical change to historical research, a craft that has changed little for decades, if not centuries”

Link to video Abbreviations, online, the combination of all the different elements

2. Multiple authors, anonymous Renee

- History is more anonymous in user-generated history. The idea of multiple authors as opposed to history1.0 where there were single authors and long production/censorship processes to go through before publication. Linear history vs. Non-linear histories - Creating primary research e.g. Interpretations of big events - We can’t see who these ‘users’ are  how do we evaluate them? Physical anonymity of users and anonymity of identity.

For e.g. The others can’t see that Mill is actually distracted “Are you sure it’s an authoritative source?”

-By combining the grass-roots knowledge and recollections of hundreds, ‘crowdsourcing’, as it’s called, has transformed a discipline that has long been defined and limited by the efforts of a single historian toiling in the dusty archives. With projects like Wikipedia that rely on crowds of researchers and writers, a wider array of details and perspectives is produced. - Creating primary research eg. Interpretations of big events e.g. cyclone tracy vs. hurricane Katrina. Primary research material is invaluable to researchers. The sheer volume of material generated regarding hurricane Katrina gives us a much more vivid and detailed account of the event, as opposed to the majority of material on Cyclone Tracy, that is secondary accounts of largely photographs of the aftermath. With Hurricane Katrina we could see it as it’s occurring, and all that information has been archived for future use. I guess it’s the equivalent of a victim of crime giving an account (e.g.) as they’re being burgled as opposed to later in a victim impact statement. This kind of immediacy also is of great consequence. 3. Creating histories simultaneously – Alison

Wikipedia relies on the collaboration of thousands of volunteers around the world to write and edit encyclopaedia-style entries on a variety of topics. In today’s world, it is easier for everyone to contribute to history. For example, anyone who has internet access can edit a Wikipedia article and do so anonymously. No article is owned by its creator or any other editor, nor have they been examined by any recognised authority. Much of the content added via electronic means is generally unfiltered. It does not go through checking mechanisms and appears instantly online for all to see. People no longer need to rely on publishing houses to have their work seen by an audience. There will always be a place for ‘authorised history’ – but perhaps we need to make room for a new form of history, history 2.0 And as demonstrated through the spilt screen affect of our video, we can all contribute multiple histories online simultaneously. For example, there is a recorded history of Milly adding a new chapter into her face book history while

E.g. Split screen shot of the three of us Using all different programs, multitasking

participating in the online group discussion.

4. Permanence – Alison

Participatory culture is being co-created everyday  user generated histories being constantly updated. Some participants have more power, ownership and control over that reality than others – but the question for all of us is the same – How do we want to interfere? As it has been touched upon previously, everything we do online is documented as you go. Every transaction (i.e. message) is saved and recorded in history; it can not be erased, even if we press the delete button. It is still saved in cyberspace’s electronic achieves. Just think of all the histories you have created by surfing the web? Do you send emails, take part in online chats, discussion forums or even upload videos on You Tube. It’s all saved. Do you consider the implications of this? For example, when your chatting to your friends in face book, do you ever stop this think this information could come back to haunt you later in life? Do you ever make a draft of blogs, face book posts before you click on the publish button?

“There is also permanence to material generated. Do you think anyone will ever watch our video?” E.g. Our video will be uploaded forever

A great example of this tracking and recording history can be seen by viewing the ‘history’ pages located on each article page. It records every single revision made to the page.

5. Changing history – we need literacy – Milly

Due to the permanence of all these online records, content found within are increasingly being used in legal and criminal investigations. Example: personal emails between colleagues and/or clients can be used in investigations. - Rheingold article (utopian views of CMC) - Internet isn’t making user generated histories, it provides a platform  it is rather the literacy of users - Tangible parts of communication media practices eg. Web pages, Facebook, Wikipedia – do not just churn out user generated histories  it is our literacy that forms the link - Knowledge, skills – “technical power to be used intelligently and deliberately by an informed population”

All three of us in the film are pretty tech savvy, we know how to use the technology to suit our purposes, in this case, a uni assignment

“Which realities? Which do we want to help make more real and which less real? How do we want to interfere (because interfere we will, one way or another” 6. Risks of history 2.0  future – Renee

3 noted by Kate Bowles: -Difference of opinion -Be more evaluative -Shared authority User Generated: A kind of grass roots participation and contribution to a web2.0 enabled site Histories: the idea of several histories, not just single authored, selectively edited history. 2 major implications: User generated means that the whole concept is actually quite political, given the grass-roots nature of user generated content. We are witnessing a shift in the way media operate, the individuals place in the public sphere and questions of gatekeepers and access to knowledge. There is a tangible power shift occurring. Perhaps we’ll see a greater sense of clarity and less bias in examining history due to the huge volume of primary material we’re constantly creating. We’re creating history right now, history that can be easily documented, searched, catalogued and interpreted. To researchers, these qualities are invaluable. E.g. Rheingold quote re: Wikipedia.

Alison’s long dialogue

‘Every one of Wikipedia's millions of edits, and all the discussion and talk pages associated with those edits, is available for inspection−along with billions of Usenet messages. Patterns are beginning to emerge. We're beginning to know something about what works and what doesn't work with people online, and why’. Rheingold, 2009. Also Ellison’s research, indicating a line of questioning regarding our behaviour. Contribution as Social Capital?

References: Boyd, Danah and Ellison, 2007, ‘Social Networking Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship’, Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, vol.13, no 1, pp210-230 Burgess, J. & Green, J. 2009. Chapter 6: YouTube’s uncertain future, YouTube: Digital Media and Society Series, Polity Ellison, N, Steinfield, C & Lampe, C, 2007. ‘The Benefits of Facebook "Friends:" Social Capital and College Students' Use of Online Social Network Sites’, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 1143-1168 Habermas, J, 1989, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, trans. Thomas Burger, Cambridge, Ma, MIT Press, in Squires, C, 2000, 'Black Talk Radio: Defining Community Needs and Identity', The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, Vol. 5, No. 73, Accessed 17/9/08, Sage Online Journals Rheingold, H. 2009, ‘Participative Pedagogy: for a Literacy of Literacies’, available at http://freesouls.cc/essay/03howard-rheingold-participative-pedagogy-for-a-literacy-of-literacies.html, accessed 5 August 2009 Rosenzweig, R. 2006, ‘Can History Be Open Sourced? The Future of the Past’, The Journal of American History, vol.93, no1, pp117-146, available at http://chnm.gmu.edu/resources/essays/d/42, accessed 5 August 2009 SMS Dictionary, 2009, ‘SMS shorthand abbreviations’, http://www.smsfun.com.au/sms_dictionary.php, accessed 10 August 2009 Wikipedia, 2009, Social network service, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_network_service, accessed 11 August 2009 Wikipedia, 2009, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia, accessed 11 August 2009 Wikipedia, 2009, SMS language, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS_language, accessed 10 August 2009 Wiktionary, 2009, Appendix: English internet slang, http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Internet_slang, accessed 10 August 2009