Website Analysis - Continued

Produsage, the term coined by theorist Bruns, takes place in www.dailymail.com. Under each story there is a 'comments' section which allows produsers to voice their opinions on the articles or to comment on others views.
Along with this is a section called 'Blogs' where a variety of writers for the Daily Mail write their own blogs on their chosen subject and users are invited to comment.
The produsage is important in involving the site in becoming a place of community. Theorist Rheingold came up with the idea of a virtual community and saw online conversations as reinforcing community projects. Taking Rheingold's theory into account, the produsers on dailymail.com are forming a community via their shared interest in the site, and in particular in news stories.
However, unlike some forums, the website is monitored and holds a strict privacy policy. There is a restriction on what is written on the site by users in the form of comments, and anything untoward is removed. It could be argued therefore that this particular site does not allow the freedom and openness to create a strong community, something that many produsers try to gain.
However, the site is primarily an informative website which offers the chance for produsage.
Although users are free to comment they are not able to change articles or news stories unlike some open-news or Wiki websites, making the Daily Mail website appear more legitimate. Meikle suggests that we, as Internet users, learn to trust certain websites, ones which we know can not be changed, freeing bias or untrue content. Perhaps this level of trust we can have for this website brings us back to it, in order to gain desired information which we KNOW is reliable.
I use dailymail.com regularly to make sure I am aware of news issues and am kept up-to-date with the worlds events. The reason I choose this website over other news websites is because I fall into it's target audience. I come from a middle-class family who reads the Daily Mail in 'real life'. I also trust it's legitimacy and like the structure, layout and hyperlinking opportunities, allowing myself to get to stories which are of particular interest to me. I also like to read the opinions of other readers and decide if I agree, although I have yet to post my own opinion, making me a user of the site, but not a produser.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html

Website Analysis

www.dailymail.com is the online version of the newspaper The Daily Mail and changes everyday to reflect the news and it's headlines.
Logging onto the home page, the user can see the days headlines and a list of other stories seen as important to viewers. There are also many hyperlinks sending the user to different parts of the website, similar to the different sections in the real life newspaper. eg. 'Coffee Break' and 'Sport'.
This structure makes it easy to browse or, as Meikle would suggest, "research" the site.
Many critics hold an issue with hyperlinks, suggesting that they are non-linear and that they change the way we read, acting as a distraction from the online text. However, for a website such as this one, such hyperlinks create a quick and easy way to direct the user from one news story to another.
The culture of the site is reflected by the nature and status of the newspaper. The website shows the stories which the Daily Mail believe their readers will find most interesting, and then displays sub-headings for the 'less important' stories and events.
The Daily Mail have a specific audience, the newspaper, although a tabloid, is seen as more 'news-worthy' than most other tabloid papers however it is too gossipy to be a broadsheet and so finds itself appealing to the middle-class, providing important stories, sporting events and colloquial gossip columns. The website mirrors this appearance.

The websites language is representative of the 'real-life' newspaper with bold, conversational and eye-catching headlines and sub-paragraphs giving a summary of the news story.
Across the top of the website are hyperlinks to various pages, displaying different topics of news. These too are quite casual and quirky, eg. the "Femail" section. The style of lexis used reflects the readership and audience.

Bruns - Moderation Functions on Collaborative sites

The word collaboration means working together or combined, therefore a collaborative site online indicates a number of produsers working together to create and improve on the content.
So when a moderation falls into place, restricting what can or can't be written, or improved on, how can this still be a democratic, "free for all" site?
Bruns discusses how there must be a "balance between openness and structure" in a website which adheres to the collaborative content. Bruns explains that for such a website to be popular, attract new produsers, it must not be too controlled as people will feel left out and won't want to participate. However, it must also establish some kind of structure otherwise there is no organisation and people can be overlooked or lost online.
writing, To make sure these sites are able to function some moderations are made. For example, as seen in Meikle'sIndymedia.com has made its main page secure, not allowing produsers to comment on its content.
idea of holding a form of structure and I believe that this does not mean that the site loses it's ability to be an open news site. The site is following Brunscontrol in order to achieve the balance, attracting new produsers, without loosing the sense of 'freedom of speech'.
In society we need restrictions and organisation for things to work well. I believe, that with these restrictions in place, such websites are still open to produsers. Without moderation's in life, wouldn't society be chaos?

Bruns - Produsers and Produsage

The term 'produser' indicates a person who uses the Internet and produces work on what they find. Just because a person is online and using the Internet, this does not make them a produser until they have produced something online. For example, in forums, those 'lurking' are not produsers, those discussing, using others views and comments and producing their own ideas, become produsers.

Produsage work must form in groups, as Bruns states, "to be a produser it is necessary also to be a user of other participants' content" (page 3) therefore produsers are alive in open news websites and Wiki sites. It is not possible to be a produser without others and therefore involves a combined creation of work.
For produsers to be involved in produsage the work must be continuous, where by produsers build on existing online content, "in pursuit of further improvement". (page 2)

It can be said that we are produsers involved in produsage as we all work on producing content for each other to discuss via our blogs. The blogs are then improved on by other produsers when we comment on already written content.

Meikle - Is open news quality news?

The Internet for myself is a wonderful thing, but my biggest criticism with it is the lack of trust I can find in it.
For open news or open publishing websites it is impossible to know where your information is coming from.
As considered in Meikle's writing, even if what we find on the Internet is true, how can we accept it if it is biased? Many open news stories may have been posted or adapted by someone whose beliefs are strong and very one-sided.
Meikle looks at Indymedia.com and acknowledges that although advertised as an "open publishing" website, Indymedia have had to secure their home page so as to gain more readers, proving that most users will only accept secure and legitimate news websites.
Does this example therefore answer the question of open news and its quality? To an extent, yes, how can it possibly be reliable when written by, well, who knows!?
In the lecture the collaborative content of Wikis was addressed. Wikitravel, Wikibooks, Wikipedia and many more are websites owned by no-one, allowing any user to contribute. While an excellent form of free Internet and a perfect way to express oneself, it is also an unreliable source of information.
We as students are encouraged to use sites such as Wikipedia but we are not to use them in essays or if quoting as it is impossible to tell where the information has derived from.
Acknowledging this, surely the open news websites are equally unreliable and therefore the quality of them is poor.
It in unsurprising that we as a society turn to genuine, legitimate sites to get our news. Is this unfair to open news sites, should we be giving them a chance? Or can we just not trust them?

Meikle - What constitues 'news' on the web?

When considering the question of "what constitutes 'news' on the web" we must take into account people's perceptions of news and what news is worthy of making headlines. As what is important to one person is different to someone living over the other side of the world.
So what is 'news' on the web? Robert Burnett and P. David Marshall argue that "news has become a subset of a wider search for information by web users"(paragraph 7) suggesting that news on the web has just become a search for information, a hyperlinking activity.
Online news allows Internet users to find exactly what they want and ignore the news stories which they are not interested in, creating a diversity in what people think is news.
The web allows a greater variety of stories and many different interpretations, eg. a westernised view of the state of the economy will differ from the views of the eastern countires.
Meikle suggests we as online news readers become 'researchers' and we begin to 'research' what we want to find on the Internet in terms of news. This idea links with that of Burnett and Marshall, we 'research' for information when online.
Meikle suggests that we then "hierarchise" sources which seems to us more legitimate, for example websites such as CNN News or BBC which we have learnt to trust.
It is addressed that weblogs and newsgroups are considered worthy for news stories but what makes us want to pay attention to certain sites? Perhaps it is that sites such as BBC or CNN News are large, recognised sites and are visited and trusted by thousands - does this therefore make their news more believable? Surely yes, because it is written by professional journalists.
But is Burnett and Marshall are correct, then perhaps 'news' is just a search for information, and what we find depends on what we see as 'news'.
Personally, I find it hard to trust 'news' found via some websites I am unsure of. I retrieve news from websites I know are legitimate and which have news-worthy stories. But then what I see as new-worthy maybe different from others.

Social-Networking Sites- What they do for us.

When society connects to the Internet there tends to be very little thought process to it. Either you log on to check emails, find out the latest news or maybe to just browse websites, but generally we all tend to connect without thinking about what we are doing.
Personally, when I wake up or come back to my flat, the first thing I do is switch on my laptop and connect to the Internet, it almost becomes addictive and we feel like we are missing out if we have had a day or two without being connected.
Facebook has been running for 5 years now and has 175 million users and 15 million users update their statuses at least once a day (http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics, accessed 15/02/09). This proves how important social networking sites have become to many people and enforces the point that so many people do not think twice about going on Facebook to chat, share photos etc. Until this module I too thought nothing of uploading photos, changing my status and writing on friends 'walls' however I now think about how people may perceive me if they come across my page. Do I look like a friendly person? Or do I show a side of me which perhaps I shouldn't?
Because Facebook is so popular it becomes very easy to trust it. You are able to make your page accessible to all or to make it private, encouraging people to give out more information than perhaps necessary. Does this make Facebook dangerous?
When considering Facebook as a "community" it is easy to see how people feel they 'belong', even if you do not have many friends on the site you are still able to connect to groups etc. Facebook has become a virtual communication world, there is so much available, why would we need to step outside of this social networking site when all our friends are here in one place?

Blanchard and Online Communities

I am finding it hard to see online discussions, forums and CMC groups a communities. I understand communities as existing in real life, where people who share similar interests and live in the same areas group together. I believe communities become real and strong when something happens to bring everyone together, when people help and are there for each other, regardless of differences, a community is formed.
The Cambridge Dictionary uses one definition of community as "people who are considered as a unit because of their common interests" (www.dictionary.cambridge.org) This suggests that perhaps, even online, communities can be formed.
Blanchard considers whether all CMC groups, including blogs, can be named as communities and suggests that to belong in a community, FtF or virtually, there must be a sense of community (SOC). She addresses whether this SOC can be found in blogs.
Although I am still unsure of the concept of online communities, I appreciate that having a sense of belonging online (whether in a forum, social networking site or blog) is important.
With regards to our own blogs, I do feel like I belong to something and can contribute to the group in my own way.
I am able to associate the four characteristics which Blanchard speaks of (researched by Mcmillan and Chavis 1986) which are involved in having a SOC;
My blog allows me to feel like a member,
I am able to speak my mind on certain views, influencing others and being influenced,
I am able to support others comments and views,
and there is a shared connection between myself and the bloggers I work with.
However, do I hold this SOC with these blogs because I already know the people I share my blog with in real life and have FtF connections with them?
Does this "community" and sense of "belonging" that we have created online only work because we already belong together in the "community" of our course and our friendships?

Dangerous Materials on the Internet

When considering the Internet as 'dangerous' it is no surprise that so many people find criticism. With the Internet becoming such a great part of our lives we must learn to trust in our use in it.
It is somewhat easier for my generation to accept the Internet and it's faults, we have grown up with this form of technology, however for our parents and older generations, trusting the Internet must be near impossible.
As stated by Lister et al the Internet is "anything but a safe space for many users" when considering the "fear of viral contamination" or "obscene conversations in chat rooms" (2003:181) There are so many stories of people whose identity, details and even money has been taken online, or people who have met with someone they only know over the Internet and have ended up being abused or worse.
According to www.hongkiat.com 266 new porn sites appear everyday on the Internet (accessed 15/02/09) and, scarily, in America "over half (51%) of parents do not have, or do not know if they have software on their computers to monitor where their teenagers go online and with whom they interact" (www.securitysoft.com accessed 15/02/09)
Such facts give an example of how dangerous the Internet can be, especially when not used correctly or by someone who is not aware of the dangers.
When hyperlinking and jumping from one website to another it is scary how easily someone can come across an inappropriate website. However, what is classed as inappropriate?
Today's society is much more open to certain subjects which only a few years ago would have been taboo. What adults see as inappropriate or offensive may not affect children.
Even so, I believe that the Internet is a dangerous place to be if the user is careless. If you don't download files from unprotected sites and if you monitor the sites you and your family visit, why should the freedom and excitement of the Internet be restricted?

Online Communities - Lecture 4

When I think of the word 'community' I imagine a small village - one which partakes in fairs and activities together. This village has people of all varieties but they all get involved together in their community. My idealised view of a community is probably very unrealistic, of course there are such villages but there will always be some people who do not get involved in these communities amongst which they live, perhaps because they do not feel as though they fit in.
The Internet offers many people a sense of 'belonging' via forums such as "The Well" and the chance to belong to what Rheingold described as a "virtual community".
As discovered in the lecture, Stuart Brand, the founding member of "The Well" set up in 1985, stated that "information wants to be free" enforcing a positive notion of allowing oneself to be involved in online communities.
As an opposing argument, many do not see how such forums can constitute as a "community" when those you are forming "relationships" with are unknown and may at any point not return to the forum, therefore showing a lack of commitment to the group.

Lister et al discusses how our "understandings of community have been determined by spatial relationships and a sense of belonging to a place" (2003:172) and considers how now we think about "belonging with one another in particular 'spaces' in the non-place of cyberspace." Such ideas conjure up questions, can a community survive online? Do we not need to be in 'meatspace' in order to form connections, relationships and communities?

I believe it is possible for those who do not 'fit in' in real life to find safety and belonging online, however, as stated in the lecture, "real communities include 'others'", and I believe, in real life, these communities are formed when different people accept, and are there for, each other. Can such situations occur in the virtual world?

Forums

I decided to look at two completely different Internet forums. The first I looked at was www.webhostingtalk.com which claimed to be one of "the largest, most influential" forums on the Internet. On this website there were many different sections which lead to certain discussions, including advertising forums, many of which you had to be a member for. I managed to get onto a forum called "Web Hosting Lounge" which contained posts by many different people on completely different topics.
I found that many of the posts were questions, asking how to use certain equipment or what was the best phone to buy etc, there are also a few people starting discussions on how many posts each member has. The conversation style on all of these posts are very colloquial and people use smiley faces, or nicknames such as "dude" to interact with each other. I imagine this is done to create a relaxed feel, perhaps like in a real life friendship conversation. This is also reflected in one discussion on Valentines day where complete strangers have been discussing, very casually, what they plan to do for the weekend.

The second forum was www.minimins.com, a website of forums dedicated to discussions of weight loss. I found this forum very interesting as it was full of discussions of support, and help between members. Some posts were quite formal but many were chatty and conversational.
Perhaps when forums are created for certain discussion points, members begin to feel part of a society or group, and in this case, people who feel uncomfortable in their real-lives, due to their weight, are able to talk about how they feel with others - I believe forums such as this one are helping many people realise that they are not alone, what a positive thing.

Generally speaking, both forums I looked at expressed a similar style of conversation. No-one was rude or offensive and every took the approach of a laid-back online conversation, albeit the second of the two was slightly more formal.
However, I believe that the reason for this is that both websites are monitored closely with "rules". When looking at YouTube.com I found that underneath videos people have left their comments, many of which include swearing and occasionally result in a few members arguing with each other and "slagging" each other off in unpleasant ways. Seeing this made me question; do open forums like these encourage arguments? People become free on the internet and perhaps gain too much power, hiding behind a nickname and sometimes a "made-up" persona, so should we as a society be encouraging this behaviour? But then why should those people who are using the forums in the correct manner, and to benefit their lives, be punished for the mistakes that others are making?

Online Identity

The Internet has become, for many, a window of opportunity, a chance to deliver your views and gain a response. We live in a country of free speech but we still must be careful not to offend anyone, so the Internet acts as a haven for discussion on ANYTHING you want.
Of course it is still possible to offend people by posting strong views however, by hiding who you are and only showing what your beliefs are you are able to speak freely.
Most forums encourage users to speak freely and fairly, however, there are some cult websites which can be extreme.
I believe that everyone has the right to argue their views, but the Internet does allow people to sometimes go over the top. For those people who use the Internet sensibly it can be an opening and a chance to be themselves, as perhaps they are unable to be themselves and say what they feel in their real lives.
Many forums allow people to express their views with people who have similar views, allowing them to feel part of a group of like-minded people. Is there anything wrong with that? Perhaps not, however this brings us back to previous points, how do you know who you are discussing your views with? Can anyone on the Internet be trusted, if so, who?

Online Persona

In society there are certain social 'rules' which everyone abides by. These rules are not necessarily stated, they are purely what society recognises as the correct way to act or the 'norm'. Online we also have these acknowledged 'rules', for example, we understand how to present ourselves in emails, and we are aware of how colloquial or formal we can be.
Because of this accepted form of online writing how are we able to present ourselves as individual from others over the net? People build an identity through their persona and how they show themselves to others online, whether through a nickname on a forum, a photo on a personal page etc.
The Internet is, to many, a wonderful thing, but it is still restricting. Online chat rooms and forums allow connections between people via typed words, there is no speech and no body language/facial expressions. It is therefore unsurprising that many people form an 'identity' online to make themselves differ from the masses. However, there are extremes to this online identity creating.
Lister et al suggests that "the Internet facilitates the development of different experiences of identity and different experiences of group belonging". It is correct that the Internet allows identities to be formed at such ease, unlike in real life, there is no one "left out" online as everyone seems to be accepted. For example, if you are homosexual you are able to meet in certain forums and meet other people like yourself etc.
For many, forming an online identity allows you to make your mark on the net, to be more than just typed words, however there are many people who use the Internet to form a whole new form of identity for themselves, one which differs completely from their real life person.
Critics may call this, forming of an online identity, a way for people to hide behind what is real and the problems in the persons real life.

I think that forming an identity online which is completely different to your own self could be dangerous and may get out of hand, how can you be aware that the person you are pretending to be is not just a stereotyped form. People online can not be seen or heard, and if you do not tell anyone, no one knows who you are, this sometimes gives people the confidence to say exactly what they think, something which could potentially be harmful to the person reading. This is unlikely to happen in real life because we hold these conventional 'rules' and social norms, we are bought up knowing that we cant just be rude to someone in real life.

Selves and Others Online - Lecture 3

I found this lecture on individuals persona's online very interesting however, I also found it hard to remove society's stigmatised view of the "strange lonely" people who we often associate chat rooms and forums with.
It is unfair in today's world to stereotype and group people however it is almost impossible not to. We are all so aware of the dangers of the Internet and have all been taught to be cautious when talking to people online as we have no idea who they ACTUALLY are.
Before the lecture I did hold this negative image of a loner sat all day at a computer trying to make "friends" and form "relationships" online, and generally I imagined them as having no friends in real life, or being online for a purpose, such as pedophilia.
I now think that it is sad that society has these views, I agree that we must still be cautious because sadly these people do exist, however is it such a bad thing to create yourself a different identity for a day, or a week, and discover the worlds reaction to you?
I have personally never acted as someone else over the Internet, however I imagine, if performed safely, it would reveal a lot about our society. How would people respond to me on a forum if I told them I was homosexual, or living illegally in the country for example. I think the Internet has become a haven for those hiding from real life, and I am glad that they are able to "fit in" to an online society, however, despite my views being altered I still am unable to find online "relationships" normal, perhaps it is because I am lucky enough to be content with my real life relationships, or perhaps it is because the stigma is always going to be attached.
I think maybe we are so lucky to be able to act as we want in life, we forget that there are many people in many countries who just cant be themselves.