Stephen King on Wikipedia.

The article about Stephen King on Wikipedia.org has been put together collaboratively by several contributors visiting the site. In building encyclopaedias through open-source software, or sites, no concrete research is necessary. Of course editors may have searched the information specifically for this purpose, but generally people who have the knowledge simply share their knowledge with the rest of the world through one of the largest media of our time. This particular article cites 20 different references, which gives me the impression of reliability. In order to create an article on Wikipedia it is quite important to only include reliable, or verifiable, information, since this encyclopaedia is not a community where users are free to write whatever they might feel like.

The article itself contains not only information concerning King’s professional life, but also some information from his upbringing and hobbies. It goes deeper into certain parts of his life and sometimes focus is on facts that might not be as highlighted in other encyclopaedias or external sources. What separates articles in encyclopaedias and other sources is that encyclopaedias are generally not specific in some way, but aim towards covering as much as possible about the concerned topic. Another thing that differs when comparing this article to other articles on other online encyclopaedias is that this one contains mostly pure facts, woven together to short narratives. Other articles present the author by showering him with positive critique and pretentious adjectives. This Wikipedia[n] article gives the reader what he wants – facts. This is also because Wikipedia’s policy does not allow editors to take a stand, but encourages each editor to follow the rule of neutral point of view, which means that whoever includes the information is not allowed to include personal thoughts about the topic, since they may mislead the reader and are certainly not verifiable.

When looking closer on this new media encyclopaedia, I can not help thinking about the large flow of information passing numerous computer screens every day. According to article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About, there are approximately 75,000 active contributors and 5,300,000 articles published in over 100 languages online on this site. Since its birth in 2001 the site has increased popularity and activates new editors, who serve new readers each day. The fact that it is free of charge, no need for registration and that the open-source software behind the site, facilitating the contributing process, I believe help draw more users. Every user, contributor, or editor makes a part of the community, which has come up out of this knowledge phenomenon. One could compare Wikipedia to any peer-to-peer software, since it is, to a certain extent, about give and take. Or sharing and receiving information. Thanks to the software, anyone is allowed to add, edit, or remove an article in order to improve the information. Behind all this information, there are ways for users to communicate through this site. Discussions may be created regarding certain topics, and through these discussions social networks are created.

The social experience of Wikipedia is perhaps not as significant and important as the intellectual experience, since Wikipedia is primary an encyclopaedia and not an online community for people to add friends and share their personal problems with people they do not even know. As far as I am concerned, there are social networks in, and around Wikipedia, but it is really all about the information. Although, people from all over the world can add to each others articles and comment on posts from the other side of the world, so to a certain extent Wikipedia affects and creates a social experience. But still, it is primary about the information. It is the information that brings people together, who then contributes with even more information, which then attracts even more people. The network goes around, like in a circle, and every day the diameter of the circle gets even wider. But, to prove my point I argue that people are attracted by the information, and not the people, and therefore it is more about the intellectual experience. Even though every line of information may not be true, or reliable, there is so many facts included in this context. On the other hand, what has made the site so big is the active contributing from people all over the world.

The fact that everyone, for once, may and can contribute makes this site, still, quite unique in the sense that the information contained does not come from one single person, but is collected and studied several times before it is tied up collaboratively on Wikipedia. I believe that people contribute partly to provide the information to others, but partly also because people tend to wish to satisfy their own intellect by proving for themselves that they are being needed and that they can make a change.

Digital Art & Literature

Artport:

This site supports mostly digital art and different research projects related to digital art. I would say that the site is mostly for the artists and instead of providing artifacts, it feels like this site is more about promoting the artists behind the works.

Rhizome.org:

This site, on the other hand, seems to be focusing more on the projects than the artists behind them. It supports not only digital art, but also text, though the provided text is mostly related to the artwork, such as comments, conversations and listings. It supports mainly digital art such as: software, code, websites, moving image and games. The artbase directory conveys all of the digital works published on the site.

Wikipedia[n] articles:

In comparing the different categories Digital Art, Internet Art and New Media Art I guess that they all are somewhat alike, since they are all connected to technology and computers in some way.

Digital Art is basically something that has been modified by some computer application, such as computer made or retouched images.

Internet Art is often called net.art and uses Internet as its primary medium. It is not of the same importance in what medium the message, or artwork, is created but as long as it is dependent on Internet when it comes to publishing, spreading and sharing it may be classified as net.art.

New Media Art is basically artwork created with new media technologies. These technologies can be anything from computers to robots, including e.g. animations and graphics. It is quite similar to Digital Art, but is more culturally precise and broader in the sense that it may be created by more advanced technology than computer applications or software.

I Love Bees:

I would argue that this is perhaps on the border when classified as a game. Though it is an ARG, an Alternative Reality Game, but for me this is not what I would define as a game. To me, it is more of a narrative, created somewhat collaboratively by all the participants. It is being played, or acted out through different media, but most important - it takes place in reality.

I Love Bees was played just like this, one person created a plot and gave missions for the participants to play out and solve. First, some bottles of honey was sent out. The labels of these bottles coonveyed an anagram, I Love Bees, which led the participants to the web site, and thereafter to a blog and so on. I would describe this as Internet art, since Internet is its primary medium.

Implementation:

I am sure I have seen this before, but can't really remember in what course. Anyway it reminds me of the work Skin, by Shelley Jackson. Parts of a text is spread out all over the world on stickers, which people post in public spaces. This kind of art is very conventional and non-linear. I am really not sure what to call it, but since we are discovering three kinds of art I guess I would go with new media art. It is not dependent on any particular digital medium, but it is a pioneering way to spread a message and to spread one's art all over the world without digital media. The cultural sense of this project is way broader and more important than the technological part, hence the lack of technological importance.

The Matrix vs Snow Crash

Regarding the recently read novel Snow Crash versus the movie The Matrix I would say that there are clear similarities, but nonetheless differences. Both rely on highly developed simulated worlds that allow users to embody an avatar of binary-based flesh and blood. The simulated world in The Matrix, the matrix, is basically as similar to the real world as possible, but for what we know at the beginning of this century, these worlds are not yet created. At least not in their full senses. The interfaces are a bit different, since in the matrix the user logs on by inserting a cable into the back of the head, but in Snow Crash the user logs in to the Metaverse by wearing a certain type of goggles connected to a computer. The Metaverse is then presented as a program in the computer. Consequently, the user has to be connected to a computer at the time. This could of course lead to some mobility, whereas while the user is in the matrix he is not able to move, talk or act in the real world.

Both worlds are created worlds, which means that they are created based on the real world. In the matrix, the user is presented to what the real world used to look like before the machines took over. Machines built by humans. The Metaverse is a created program, made by several hackers in the real world. When entering the matrix, or the Metaverse, one with the right knowledge may create new programs to change or add things to the program. In the matrix Tank, the operator, downloads numerous of programs into Neos mind, or rather the avatar’s mind. In doing this, he learns martial arts, how to ride a motorcycle and how to fly helicopters.

A major difference between these two simulated worlds is the matter of death. If an avatar dies in the matrix, the user’s body in the real world dies as well. This makes the matrix closer to reality and makes the Metaverse into a mere program, or game, since if your avatar dies, you get thrown out and have to wait until the graveyard daemons takes away the avatars body. Then, after some time the user is welcome to log on to the Metaverse again.

This matter of death was true until the arrival of the virus Snow Crash. It is presented as a virus in the Metaverse, but known as a drug in the real world. When an avatar receives this virus, in the shape of a small card and uses it the computer get snow crashed, meaning that the screen is filled with binary code. This code can only be read by hackers, since they are the only ones who understand it. What the virus does is that it completely crashes the computer, but it also “overloads” the brain of the user and destroys the person wearing the goggles. With this kind of viruses the reality and simulated worlds like the Metaverse are no longer as separate as we are used to. It has always been possible to log of from games by simply pressing a button, but it has never been possible to log out from reality by acting in the game.

The question of interaction gets questioned in this kind of contexts. Does the user interact with the game or does the user just simply allow the game, or technology in a wider sense, interact with reality? What has, until now, only been dangerous in the way that it keeps fat kids away from exercise may suddenly have fatal consequenses.

Virtual Worlds

The whole notion of virtual worlds, or virtual reality, has come to be extremely hyped and is more used than ever. One could either look upon this phenomena as an excuse for not enjoying the “real world” or as an extension of the own persona in the digital age. Virtual Worlds has derived from virtual cultures, but with differences as developed interface and interaction possibilities. Peoples’ true identity is often deliberately hidden and instead they can be whoever they want to. These non-textual spaces allow the user to take the shape of a virtual character, an avatar, which one may shape, dress and name in any way possible. The avatars become a way out from an uncomfortable stay in the real world and a possibility to start over, on the exact same basis as everybody else.

Personally I do not see why people rather chose a virtual world above the real world. Even though almost everything in this world is possible in a virtual world like Second Life I still argue that there is a prominent difference between them. I mean, this world is real, the other one is a complete binary matrix created by people of the real world. This might seem obvious to most people, but to some others not. The fact that people feel more confident in themselves and more “themselves” in a virtual world, embodied by a character on the screen than in their own bodies I think is totally incomprehensible. Perhaps I am just being conservative and restricted in my own head, but do not really agree with those users.

Concerning the extension of the persona in the digital age virtual cultures opens a whole new perspective when it comes to socializing. Telephone- and video conferences may be replaced by virtual world meetings, but there might be a problem with communication media when it comes to talking or writing. Organizations, companies and other groups have applied this kind of meetings, and this might simplify future gatherings and also lead to widened social networks.

Flickr

In the matter of folksonomies and social communities and software there is one service which I find particularly interesting. Flickr is an online photo album where users are encouraged to upload there photographs or other images. Every user gets his, or her, own personal album, but at the same time, the whole site works as a huge collaboratively managed context of photographs. As well as one can upload photographs, Flickr also gives the user the possibility to interact with other users and photographs. This is for me a development aiming towards enhanced interaction and communication possibilities. As people add comments to each others photographs they may exchange experiences and interests. Even though one does not have a great interest in photography to become a user and to upload photographs I think it is an excellent example of a social service where people may combine their hobby with socializing with other professional and non-professional photographs.

What I still think is particularly interesting with this service is the tagging- commenting possibilities. There have been some doubts when it comes to free tagging, but I argue that it is a positive development that, also, aims towards a more interactive solution when browsing and searching. Thanks to the tagging system users can search more specifically than in pre-decided tags. Of course it may also lead to complete misleading, and the number of tags will probably never end. Although there are some doubts with this tagging system I like it and believe that it will become more frequent as time goes.

I am not completely sure what people use this service but when visiting the web site I get the impression that many different kinds of people are registered to Flickr. Even though what kind of social group one belongs to in real life, one might find other groups in this photo community. I believe that the user is brought into different groups depending on interests and coincidences as in everything else. There might be groups of people who like to take photos of certain objects.

Flickr might relate to the other sites, but is at the same time quite unique. There are numerous online photo albums, but Flickr has come to be one of the most used ones. The combination of a personal photo album along with the interactive community makes up a certain kind of folksonomy. One can, besides tagging their own photos, also tag other’s photographs for personal purposes, such as enhancing one’s own searching process.

I can not see any dangers with this system. As said the tagging system might be a problem for some, but otherwise I, out of my experiences, argue that Flickr is a popular site whose purpose has led it into the world of Web 2.0.

Experiences and thoughts about digital cultures.

I have been quite involved within digital cultures since I first got online. I was around ten when I got into my first chat room and my first acquaintance with other people in cyberspace. I found this extremely exciting since I now could communicate with other people than those I hung out with. Even though I enjoyed this service I was very restricted and did not trust people I did not knew. With false names and secret acronyms I started to investigate these areas. This way I got the opportunity to take on whatever disguise I wished and those I talked to had no chance to uncover me. This, I argue, could be a good thing, but also a bad thing, because people do not have to reveal themselves to strangers, but at the same time you never know who you talk to online.

My first impression of digital cultures was in an area containing only textual information, but I also have some experience in visual areas as well. In communities like second life one takes the shape of an avatar and is then allowed to move, look, talk, and do other actions in this version of virtual community. As a result the human interaction with technology is brought to a completely new level, especially when it comes to communication.

As I have grown older, my interest in what I now can refer to as digital cultures has developed as well and I am no longer as restricted as I used to be. Or, when I think about I do not mind giving out my name, age and address on my own web site, but I do not feel comfortable giving out my name in a chat room, or MUD. I do not know, because it is basically the same. People may as well visit my site or my blog to figure out who I am and where I live. Perhaps I do not trust the technologies. Perhaps I am simply old fashioned. Anyhow I in some way use the technologies of digital cultures each day, and it sure has become a huge part of my everyday life.

Twitter & Second Life

I have, as everybody else in this course, become a member of the virtual community Second Life. My avatar is an extremely handsome guy named Kries Raymaker. The reason why I stress his appearance is because the editor was a real challenge :)

I have also created a twitter account: DigCultChris.