I found the discussion regarding participatory learning environments interesting, but I wonder if it is too theoretical? It sounds to me as if the authors are proposing that the system needs to be revamped (which is likely true) but, as we have discussed in class, there is a lot to the system and so this is much easier said than done. I am interested to hear what my classmates who are teachers have to say on this topic because, while the concept of a participatory learning environment that "respects and values the contributions of each participant whether teacher, student, or someone from the outside community" (95) is a fantastic idea, but is it likely? The authors do acknowledge that teachers have a lot of responsibilities in their roles as is, but it still seems that this may be a very idealistic model that would have to be implemented in smaller ways.
One of the things that occurred to me whilst reading this section was the importance of learning how to filter information, and I think that is a skill that should certainly be refined. The example was given of Wikipedia being a bad source of information-- whereas this is not true! Wikipedia is an excellent starting point for knowledge, and yet it is still stigmatized as being bad. Wasn't it Reagan who said, "Trust, but verify"? Wikipedia isn't a bad start, and can lead to great sources, so why are students still avoiding it like the plague?
Another good point that was made in this chapter was the abundance of "junk food content" that is on the web. If Buzzfeed, for example, is the perception of the digital news world, we're in big trouble. Or, a few days ago one of the top stories on my Facebook news was regarding a picture of an actor eating corn in an odd way. Why? This is what gives digital media a bad name! However, perhaps it is wise to consider that the same can be said of many things-- the salacious is what sells. Gossip rags exist for a reason. The search for quality knowledge amidst the junk is key. The quality is there, but let's just say they put candy and gossip rags by the cash registers for a reason--- they know we can't resist.
Stepping back to the idea of Wikipedia, because the authors take some more time to focus on it later in the chapter, this site is an interesting form of a participatory community. If one was to go to any Wikipedia page, he or she could click back and view the edits made throughout the span on the page's existence. danah boyd cites the example of the American Revolution as being a true example of collaboration, in which American and British historians had to work together on a hotly debated event in history to come up with an unbiased account. It is the inherent nature of Wikipedia as participatory that makes it more trustworthy, not less.
The question of participatory culture and collaboration introduced into the school environment is an interesting one. Among other things, the authors talk about fan fiction, and mention how people aren't quite sure if something like that should be welcome in schools. They have defended it as being a creative way in which people are able to write themselves into the stories they love, but does it have a place? If writing fan fiction is the most likely way to encourage certain students to write, would it be a valuable contribution?
Fan fiction also leads us into the topic of interest, and which interests should be valued. I think that they make a good case that, yes, interests are crucial because they are ways in which a teacher can connect to his or her students. In a lot of cases, traditional schooling isn't going to cut it. Some students are going to need more, and the access that we now have to the digital world may be a way in which teachers can learn to better connect with their students.
Chapter 5 is titled "Commercial Culture," which immediately reminds me of the advertising world that I live in every day at work. Society is attacked by our commercial culture every day, and from all directions. And, if you don't believe that-- what does the below splotch of ink represent?
I rest my case.
But I found it interesting that, although it doesn't tend to occur to me, we are attacked in a similar way by the digital world and social media-- it's everywhere we turn, and to see that laid out before me was eye-opening.
It is for this reason that I found danah boy's introduction to be a fascinating walk-through of the growth and development of the digital world, from the early days to where we are today. It was also in this introduction that I learned the definition of a new term- Web 2.0, which is the name for current social media. Considering social media in the sense of it being a rebirth from the imagined purpose of the internet was enlightening, but Jenkins staunchly argues that to synonymize participatory culture with Web 2.0 would be incorrect, and that participatory culture did exist prior to Web 2.0.
Web 2.0 did represent a fairly fundamental rethinking of how cultural production operates under capitalism, though it did not make producing culture more democratic in any absolute sense. It did broaden who could produce and share culture; it did invite some discourses about responsibility and accountability that have helped to fuel current struggles over corporate terms of service; it did offer a model of cultural and social participation that many found enticing when the terms were first introduced. But those of us who care about the values of participatory culture need to be deeply critical of that move to capture and commodify the public's participatory impulses. (126)The Web 2.0 discussion linked it back to capitalism, and the desire to make money (isn't that what we all hope for?) based on capitalizing on the things people seek, enjoy, and want, but the topic also came up that people utilized these tools to create better opportunities.
I've mentioned my shame-laden love of MySpace and, because of that, I enjoyed the discussion of the site that popped up later in the chapter. MySpace is, apparently, a prime example of early Web 2.0 and "the perpetual beta," that is continually being updated and reworked. On that note, I had no idea that the ability the edit the HTML of one's MySpace profile was a fluke! However, that turned into a major thing that MySpace was known for-- and, on that note, part of the reason that I am doing the final project that I chose! By learning how to get around the rules, people became enabled!
There has been so much over the years that has gone into the digital world, including discussions of what is ethically owed to creators. This is something that is still hotly debated to this day because, at the end of the day, people are driven by some kind of payment system. People want credit, praise, money, or all of the above, for the things they have created. And where does the copywrite issue fall in the midst of this? Surely, creators have rights to the things they have made, but how is this to be handled in the new digital age? It is certainly harder to keep tabs on, although the effort is certainly made.
The final discussion on legal regulations and policies is one that I hope we get to talk about more in class. This is a sticky topic, because raise your hand if you like government control? ...Yeah, not many people are up for that. As boyd says:
All too often, new policies are introduced for political interest, and those who are making the decisions do not have an understanding of the ramifications of what they're putting forward. Laws are introduced before technical systems have stabilized and before the public has really engaged with the issues at play. As a result, we see all sorts of unintended consequences, and make regulatory moves intended to protect vulnerable populations backfire.This argument, along with my personal beliefs regarding government intervention, make me highly suspicious of any attempt of governing the online world. More than anything, what comes to mind is the following image, which littered my Facebook profile for a decent period of time when it was the topic at hand:
I look forward to discussing this further in class, and seeing what everyone else has gleaned from this discussion.
No comments:
Post a Comment