Playing for Real
I think I was one of the few people in the theater Saturday afternoon who laughed out loud when Wall*E was briefly entertained by a game of Pong. Back in the 1970s, my cousin and I spent countless hours locked in competition over the video game that imitated ping-pong. I would probably never spend so much time at an actual table tennis contest, but I remember that this new video game concept had me hooked. The same with Pac-Man and later with the Game Boy version of Tetris. My sister and I used to joke that our paychecks should be delivered as rolls of quarters.
Your serve or mine?
I moved on to more adult pursuits, bypassing the Nintendo craze and now only vaguely aware of Xbox 360 and Wii. I heard about Second Life when it was featured on an episode of Law and Order SVU. I’ll confess: until that episode, I didn’t even know what an avatar was.
But now I have one. For my Social Media class, I have opened a Second Life account, created an avatar and am about to explore a world of my own creation. If you thought I was adverse to blogging, I can’t imagine why people would want to spend their time “playing” in Second Life. I recall when some friend’s kids showed me their alternative life when they played The Sims. All I could think was: “Why don’t you call up some of your real friends and go outside and play?” Darren Barefoot was clearly reading my mind when he crafted the Second Life parody website, “Get a First Life.”
I’ll admit I’m a little curious. And, since this is a class assignment, I can use this as an excuse. I’m already considering whether I should explore a second life as a man or as a woman. Should I be 20-something or the age of my peers? Should I try life as a different race, religion or sexual preference? Should I be law-abiding or not? Will I upgrade to a premium membership?
Stay tuned. I’m already feeling the hook reeling me in. I might become the newest recruit who joins the millions of people who escape the everyday to explore a second life. Maybe my avatar will be a professional blogger and invent the next trend in social media. Or maybe I’ll become the Alan Greenspan of Second Life and create a Central Bank that will regulate the Linden dollar (L$).
Finding My Voice (or Making It Up As I Go Along)
Students of Garrett Graff know that the first sentence of Chapter 10 in Robert Scoble and Shel Israel’s book, naked conversations reads: “No one wrote the official blogging rule book.”
That means that I am in unchartered water without a life preserver as I experiment to find my blogging voice for this blog which is part of my Social Media coursework . Each week I wonder where the conversation will take me as I ruminate on the weekly readings. I am grateful that there are no “blogging police” and that I have free reign to make it up as I go along…as long as I am having fun (class requirement!).
And, with the semester just about half over, I realize that I am having fun. I was skeptical early on about “this whole blogging thing,” and I still think there are a lot of random posts and a lot of random comments out there–in the blogosphere–that make me shudder and say, “who cares?” But then I think that there are a lot of talk radio stations (and people who call in to those shows) and tabloids (The Weekly World News was once a favorite in my office). We all have choices about what we read and what we listen to. We are fortunate enough to live in a country where freedom of speech is our right, and I am fortunate that there are no blogging rules that I have to follow as I seek my own style; my own voice.
Of course, naked conversations tries to guide us so that we won’t to it ‘wrong.’ Or so we won’t do it wrong for our company. Since my first blogging efforts are for my self, I can only hope that I will avoid the “forced and selfish” — or worse — Elvis on black velvet catagories! Moving forward, I will try to “be linky (Tip #9)” and engage in more conversations (so classmates: PLEASE COMMENT!).
Truth or Consequences?
Almost every day we collaborate.
At work, colleagues might brainstorm tactics for the latest public relations campaign. At the speedway, a NASCAR driver, engineer and pit crew might strategize how to win the race given the slippery track conditions. And, over the telephone one evening, chefs might debate culinary tricks for creating a full-proof souffle.
The Internet has added another dimension to the way we collaborate and the way we share ideas and information. Flickr is one example of a Web tool that allows photographers to share their photos with family and friends — or complete strangers. Another example of this new kind of collaboration is Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia that is accessible to everyone with almost unlimited ability to add, edit or delete entries.
Wikipedia’s crowd sourcing methodology opens the doors to endless contributions that collectively bring unlimited knowledge and resources to those curious to seek its information. But Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has only limited safeguards in place to ensure that entries are accurate. Some of these checks and balances have only been added in the aftermath of revelations that biographic details for John Seigenthaler Sr. included false accusations, and that a longtime Wikipedia contributor falsified his credentials.
Should the public trust Wikipedia more than an expert-led encyclopedia? That depends who you ask. A December 2005 study published in the journal Nature, found Encyclopedia Britannica to contain an average of 2.92 mistakes per article compared to an average 3.86 mistakes per article for Wikipedia based on peer reviews. That means that the Encyclopedia Britannica that I grew up with — and considered all knowing — was only as accurate as the persons who contributed to it. Same as Wikipedia.
But there is one key difference. The Encyclopedia has a hierarchy that includes editors, researchers, writers and fact checkers. That business model is also costly and subject to economic pressures. In his book, Here Comes Everybody, Clay Shirky explains that “[b]ecause of managerial overhead, large groups can get bogged down…” Shirky adds that “[n]ew social tools are altering this equation by lowering the costs of coordinating group action.”
Shirky argues that loosely affiliated groups — such as Wikipedia collaborators — “can accomplish something more effectively than the institution can.” While managerial costs may be greatly reduced (Wikipedia has only one paid worker, instead relying on scores of volunteers), the threshold for trust is indeed high. But Shirky notes that “groups of people who want to collaborate also tend to trust one another.”
But, does this type of collaboration serve the public good? And, should it be extended, as Wikipedia’s Wales envisions, to textbooks, his brand of citizen journalism and other media?
The jury is still out.
I’ve used Wikipedia occassionally to look up “facts” about a product or a company. Most of my research was for general use or a class assignment. None of the categories were controversial and I haven’t used the research tool to find information on an individual. I generally assumed that the information I read was accurate. The best resource I discovered was the references or citations at the bottom of the article. Many times I was directed to articles in publications or on blogs that I did not know existed.
Which leads to a very important question: Do you believe everything you read? Journalists often hear that question. Students should wonder whether to believe everything they hear in the teachers’ lecture, and patients should wonder about the accuracy of everything they hear from their doctor. We are socialized early on to believe that persons of authority impart the truth. The same could be said for books and newspapers. We all like to believe that if it comes from a reliable source, then it must be true.
The Internet has forced us to redefine who and what we consider reliable.
The Wikipedia model works because the majority of its volunteer contributors are passionate about this project. Nevertheless, there are still those who would seek to upend it by contributing false information or posting rumors or perpetuating a hoax. Wikipedia’s founder must take additional steps to safeguard his brand and ensure its credibility. By adding a limited number of paid experts that are accountable, contributors could be held to stricter standards. Increased reliability would lend itself to truth and not to consequences.
Channeling Your Inner Conan, Ellen, Jay…or Embracing a Guilty Pleasure
Until today I was a podcast virgin.
In the past I’ve watched network television shows on my laptop and linked to the latest YouTube video emailed to me by a friend, but I had never visited TWiT, Rocketboom or Ask a Ninja — some of the vlog and podcast sites recommended by my Social Media instructor. I’d never downloaded podcasts from NPR or the Sunday news programs so popular in Washington, D.C. In fact, even though I’m an avid iTunes music downloader, I had never even clicked on iTunes podcast library.
It was time to expand my universe. I’ll admit I cheated a bit. Since I didn’t even know where to begin, I read some of my classmates’ blogs to see what they had watched and listened to. First I went to TWiT and tried to listen to Roz’s adventures across the Pacific. After a few seconds, I thought: “Who cares?” I tried to listen longer, but frankly, I was bored. Sorry Roz. Have a safe journey.
Next I investigated Ask a Ninja. Maybe if I were a prepubescent boy I’d think this was funny…..or interesting. From there I clicked on Diggnation, “The Crazy Episode Taped in New York City.” Maybe Kevin and Alex aspire to replace Conan O’Brien one day. Their escapades did keep my attention for about 10 minutes but I didn’t sign up as a subscriber and I’m not likely to seek a steady diet of their brand of entertainment.
My next destination after leaving Kevin and Alex’s Brooklyn set was Tiki Bar TV. The stylings and humor were more sophisticated. I was starting to understand the Guilty Pleasure syndrome. But after awhile, my mind began to wander and I was off looking for the next distraction. I checked out Hot for Words, and while I did learn the origins of some slang, more importantly I learned that a busty blond in her brassiere is sure to attract an audience.
Maybe it’s the small screen, maybe I already consume too much other news, media and information, or maybe I just subscribe to other guilty pleasures. I don’t expect to become a podcast addict anytime soon. I’m too busy catching up on the last season of Weeds so I’ll know what is going on when the new season on Showtime begins this week.
Searching for Tim Russert
Typing the words “Tim Russert” into the Google search box Sunday night delivered 2,960,000 “personalized results” for the NBC newsman who died Friday afternoon. Surprisingly, what floated to the top was not news reports about his untimely death but links to his two books. There were, however, two related search choices at the very top of the page: Tim Russert dies and Tim Russert dead.
What exactly was I searching for? What was my intent? Was I looking for a new nugget of information or trying to make sense of a sorrowful event that has shaken the Washington journalism community where I spent so many years?
Perhaps both. I was also trying to tackle this week’s reading of John Battelle’s The Search How Google and Its Rivals Rewrote the Rules of Business and Transformed Our Culture. I thought about the questions posed by my Social Media course instructor, Garrett Graff: “Should we be afraid of Google?” Is it too big/powerful?
I also visited the sites of other search engines. Again, I typed in the words “Tim Russert.” GoodSearch revealed 823,610 results and Big Daddy spewed out 9,620,000 hits. Wow, I thought, even more than Google. Yahoo news also delivered more than 9.5 million results.
What to do with this information? Again, what was my intent? I did discover some new details and read two wonderful essays that brought some sense of understanding to the recent events. (And I also learned how many other search engines — specialized and general — are out there.)
But what I began to more fully realize is that a search engine – be it Google or any other – gives each of us access to knowledge and information that is limited only by our curiosity. I may have unearthed a small detail that I was searching for, but I also discovered how a blogger in Australia responded to the news.
Wherever our curiosity takes us; however we quench our thirst for knowledge; whatever our intent, Google and the search engine community have made the world all the more accessible for each of us to explore. And that is a good thing.
So Many Choices, So Little Time
When an acquaintance self-published a book of poetry a few years back, I was surprised–and impressed–when I found that I could buy a copy on Amazon. Late to the online marketplace, I thought Amazon only offered best sellers at deep discounts. I had no idea of its vast inventory, nor that its inventory extended beyond books, CDs and videos.
Over the years I visited Amazon a bit more frequently–still drawn by the lower prices. As I began to develop a profile, Amazon’s list of “other books I might like” grew longer and started to catch my attention. I realized it was marketing genius, but I couldn’t help but be intrigued with some of the more obscure titles it introduced to me. Since then I have contributed significantly to “long tail” statistics without even knowing the theory existed. It is only after reading Chris Anderson’s “The Long Tail” that I have become familiar with this concept.
It is interesting to note that just as consumers had news delivered to them based on the choices of a few editors, consumers had products delivered to them based on the choices of a few merchants. But now, as customers engage in conversations with the expanding definition of “media” that provide news and information, Anderson describes the (not so) new marketplace where consumers also have a conversation, letting merchants know exactly what we want to buy. The public is no longer limited to reading, hearing or buying what someone else believes is newsworthy, trendy, hot or important. We live in a world of instant gratification made possible by 24/7 Internet access that delivers us to sites offering an endless supply of books, movies, news, music and anything else you can think of.
Reaching the mass market used to be the ultimate goal. Anderson closes Chapter 2 with this sentence: “We are turning from a mass market back into a niche nation, defined now not by our geography but by our interests.” The ultimate goal of the future may be how many niche interests you subscribe to.
New Horizons
You can take a girl out of traditional journalism but can you take traditional journalism out of the girl?
Call me old fashioned, but I still believe that through hard work and extensive reporting a journalist educates her readers on events or issues that the general public does not have access to. But I also realize that the first CNN camera that recorded unfiltered events as they happened (a White Bronco driving down the 405 Freeway or scud attacks during the first Gulf War) changed the way journalists delivered the news and the way the public wanted it delivered. Most important, it also started the evolution of WHO would deliver the news.
In his book, We the Media, Dan Gillmor makes the case for grassroots journalism or citizen journalism. The media and technology savvy public want to be part of the conversation. And in the age of IM , texting and cell phone video, we want our news, information and, of course celebrity gossip NOW. As a traditionalist I worry about this new direction and the new definition of “news,” perhaps almost as much as traditional historians worried about the first oral histories they encountered.
I also realize that grassroots journalism brings more stories–perhaps the stories that we all really care about — to a wider audience. And, as more traditional journalistic tools (printed newspapers and magazines) struggle to stay afloat, at least there are newer methods of engaging citizens in the conversation.
Grassroots journalism certainly gives new meaning to the old Walter Cronkite news series, “You Are There.”
Getting Started
It’s time to step into the 21st century.
I’m a graduate student at Georgetown University in the Master of Professional Studies program. I am studying public relations and corporate communications. My friends and colleagues who knew me when I was a reporter during my 20-plus-year career at various news outlets tease that I have gone over “to the dark side.”
Focusing my PR work on “cause” marketing and corporate social responsibility doesn’t feel very dark. But writing a blog sure does. Who really cares what random folk have to say, or about their random musings? But, stepping into the present (or is that catching up with the past?) means that I’m immersed in social media and digital strategy classes this summer. And launching my first blog.
Primarily, I will tell you my thoughts on assigned class readings. I might also tell you my thoughts on
other, more random, topics. As the antibloggergirldc, who knows where this will lead.
But for now here is my confession: Not so bad. I might even grow to like this.
Hello world!
Welcome to WordPress.com and my first post as antibloggergirldc. I’m launching this blog as part of my studies in Social Media this summer at Georgetown University. Enjoy.
