Joachim Vlieghe

" I'm quite illiterate, but I read a lot. " JDS

The number of people writing and amending content on the world’s most expansive knowledge experiment, Wikipedia, has been in gradual decline for six years. A recent study from the University of Minnesota suggests that new rules and algorithms for quality control implemented in 2007 may be partially responsible.

(…)

But Aaron Halfaker, one author of the study, disagrees. “I don’t think that hitting newcomers with an algorithmic hammer is the best way for a community to level off its size,” Halfaker tells Mashable. “I’d assert that newcomers not finding work to do is a much better driving force for reducing the editing population. Yet our results suggest that the algorithmic reverts are the stronger predictor of churn.”

Steven Johnson on the future of reading. (via explore-blog)

Probably the biggest change is going to come from the changed definition of what we’re reading. More and more, texts will evolve the way Wikipedia entries evolve; the idea of a finished text, where all the words have been locked down, will start to seem a little less orthodox—something you’d expect from a novel, but not from a magazine article, say. And that open-endedness will likely mean that the reader is capable of participating, adding links, commenting, suggesting new avenues for exploration, fact-checking. So we’ll have to read in an even more focused way, I suspect, knowing that we can have a say in where the text eventually goes. So there you go: ebooks and digital text are keeping us from skimming *and* forcing us to engage with the text more directly. Who would have thought it?

Social Media Categories (by Leigh Durst)

I’ve been playing around with a list I’ve compiled of over 3,500 social media applications, tools and utilities … This has prompted me to ask whether or not there is a standardized industry list of social media categories - or a well thought out manner of categorizing the proliferating social media landscape. Thought I’d put it out for discussion.

Few up-front notes on my goals/questions related to this exercise:

• Keep it broad enough to be meaningful.
• Focus on the “main focus” of the site/tool/app with recognition that there may be some overlap between categories
• Consider “features” such as profiling, rankings, purchasing, etc… as attributes of brands within each category - rather than categories themselves.
• Also keep topics, such as “events” or “teens” as a separate attribute of a brand within a specific category.
• Software/hosting providers aren’t the major focus here - perhaps put these in as another category?
• Services only for corporate use (e.g. Yammer) might warrant a new category

So - here are the categories I have so far. Please weigh in!

Aggregators – Any site that takes (refeeds) content from a bunch of sites and lumps it together in one site. Content may include news, profiles, blog posts, etc. These sites allow/encourage community rankings of site content, and repost content based on popularity.

Wikis – Sites that offer user-driven or collaboratively created information. These can be encyclopaedic, like Wikipedia.

Mobile – Any site or tool that is focused on mobile use or marrying web with mobile

General Networks – Large, general communities that offer a wide array of services, including profiles, messaging, “friending”, social utilities, media sharing…

Niche Networks - Communities of any size that offer a wide array of services, including profiles, messaging, “friending”, social utilities, media, which are focused on a narrow topic or area of interest. For example: pet lovers, artists, politicos.

Media Sharing - Sites or utilities that primarily focus on sharing media of various types, including:

• Books
• Audio (includes music, radio, podcast)
• Video
• Television
• Film
• Animation
• Multimedia
• Slideshows
• Presentations
• Live Casting

Blogging - Sites or utilities focused on full-scale blogging. These can include companies that host blogging platforms, utilities for bloggers, blog aggregators, etc.
Microblogging – Sites or utilities focused on micro-blogging, or the 140 character or less quick status updates offered by Twitter, Friend Feed and many others

Bookmarking / Link Sharing – Ablity to memorize URL and share it…de.licio.us and other sites apply)

Utilities – Downloadable (e.g. Desktop application) or embeddable (e.g. You Tube Video or MyBloglog reader list) tools that can be used for a number of purposes. These include but are not limited to:

• Search (finding anything!)
• Desktop (e.g. downloadable desktop tool like Twirhl – twitter app
• Productivity (to-do lists, etc.)
• Contact Management (manage your contacts across outlook/email accounts)
• Profile Management (e.g. manage your profile across Social Media sites)
• Calendar/Events Management (create your own, create an integrated calendar with friends)
• Messaging (messaging others via mobile, SMS, other)
• Status/Lifestreaming (Manage/view status across social media sites e.g. hellotxt, ping.fm)
• Listening/Measurement (Enable users to measure social media usage)
• Blogging (some are just for bloggers)

Real World Connections – Sites that connect users online to real-world events in their local communities.
Experience Reporting – Any site with emphasis on having users report their experiences (life experiences, customer experiences) related to any event. This may include a life event, shopping event or transaction, attendance at a conference, etc.
Location-Based Services– Sites that allow users to interact with other users or view data based on geography. E.g. Yelp (local reviews of local business)
Virtual Worlds – Sites that literally allow users to create avatars and interact within a 3D virtual environment such as Second Life

About Encyclopedia Dramatica (as found on Wikipedia…)

Encyclopædia Dramatica (often abbreviated ED) was a satirical open wiki launched on December 10, 2004. It lampooned both encyclopedic topics and current events, especially those related or relevant to contemporary internet culture. It was frequently utilized by a socially fluid and dynamic internet subculture known as Anonymous. The ‘not safe for work’ site celebrated a subversive “trolling culture”, and documented internet memes, culture, and events, such as mass organized pranks, trolling events, “raids”, large scale failures of internet security, and criticism of conservative internet communities which were accused of self-censorship in order to garner prestige or positive coverage from traditional and established media outlets.

The magazine Wired described the site as “where the vast parallel universe of Anonymous in-jokes, catchphrases, and obsessions is lovingly annotated, and you will discover an elaborate trolling culture: Flamingly racist and misogynist content lurks throughout, all of it calculated to offend”.

Ninemsn described Encyclopædia Dramatica as: “Wikipedia’s evil twin. It’s a site where almost every article is biased, offensive, unsourced, and without the faintest trace of political correctness. A search through its archives will reveal animated images of people committing suicide, articles glorifying extreme racism and sexism, and a seemingly endless supply of twisted, shocking views on just about every major human tragedy in history.”

On April 14, 2011, the original URL of the site was redirected to a new website that bore little resemblance with Encyclopedia Dramatica named Oh Internet. Parts of the ED community harshly criticized the changes. Several mirrors of the original site have since started up.  

Encyclopedia Dramatica about Wikipedia…

World of Wikipædia, or Wikipedia, is a massive multiplayer online role-playing game in which some really cool dudes compete to paraphrase detailed information into a shorter, reader-friendlier format. However, unlike any other MMORPG, the major rewards and upgrades are to players’ perceived expertise on their own edits, which players can trade in for sparse IRL recognition or can add to their laundry lists of personal accomplishments.

During gameplay, Wikipedia players can gain more authority as they progress, with “Administrator” and “Double-O Licensed” rankings granting them access to GOD MODE. While the rules for winning the game are a tightly-kept secret, it is believed that the winner is treated to a night of accolades and praise from Wikipedia overlord Jimbo Wales.

Encyclopedia Dramatica about objectivity…

“NOBODY EVER COMES TO THE INTERNET WITH OUT A GODDAMNED MOTHERFUCKING POINT OF VIEW TO SPOUT OFF OKAY? SO THIS BULLSHIT ABOUT BEING NEUTRAL? IT BRINGS UP MORE BULLSHIT THAN IT’S WORTH. AND PLUS PEOPLE THINK THAT NOT HAVING A POINT OF VIEW ON A SUBJECT MAKES YOU MORE RELIABLE. NO, IT MAKES YOU MORE STUPID IS WHAT IT DOES. I DON’T TRUST YOU IF YOU AREN’T SPOUTING OFF ABOUT SOMETHING. YELL. SCREAM. DO SOMETHING. JUST DON’T FUCKING TELL ME THAT I’M NOT BEING NEUTRAL. THERE’S NO SUCH FUCKING THING SO STFU.”

Encyclopedia Dramatica, “Neutral Point of View”

(via lukesimcoe)

Wikipedia's Strategic Plan to increase Content Quality and User Engagement...

The Article Feedback Tool is designed to address the following issues:

• Quality assessment – Article feedback complements internal quality assessment of Wikipedia articles with a new source of data on quality, highlighting content that is of very high or very low quality, and measuring change over time.
• Reader engagement – Article feedback encourages participation from readers, offering a new way for readers to become editors.

Source:

“Review - New Digital Media and Learning as an Emerging Area and ‘Worked Example’ as One Way Forward.” - Georgia Durán

“As I read his arguments, I actually wondered if digital immigrants can truly understand DMAL or if we are like anthropologists studying another culture. We may have learned to speak the language, but we will always impose our biases since we are not truly members of the group. Perhaps the study of DMAL will fluctuate until digital natives join the discussion.” (GD, p.2)

“Teachers [and practitioners] need significantly more professional development to close the divide between adults who are more like tourists [or immigrants] in digital worlds and youth under 30 who function as digital natives.” (Banks et al., 2007, p.17 in GD, p.5)

“Although popular, I question the reliability of Wikipedia, which bills itself as ‘the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit,’ whether one is a scholar or not.” (GD, p.3)
   > Being cautious concerning the reliability of Wikipedia is certainly not a careless thing to do. However, questioning it on the basis of the (professional/educational) background of the contributors is questionable in itself. The idea that only scholars can be relied upon to contribute to the creation of a body of trustworthy knowledge is a slippery slope that leads to Ivory Tower Thinking of academics. It is hard to hold such a position as a social scientist, since research and knowledge coming forth from the humanities or social sciences are infused by what happens in society, among people, within and between cultures.

“There are many who might benefit from this book, provided that readers are culturally literate in academic studies and popular culture, specifically digital gaming, and have time to absorb the dense content.” (GD, p.8)
   > The previous remark also relates to this quote by Durán, only directed the other way around. It is hard to imagine that anyone (researcher/scholar, practitioner, or others) who is genuinely interested in the theme of the book would be unaware of, or unfamiliar with, popular culture. Add to this Durán’s own conclusion (which she offers by quoting Gee): “one can develop an appreciation for some texts without participating in the practices of the group whose texts they are (…)” (Gee, p.20 in GD, p.8). Combined this leads to the idea that there is little reason to regard the required cultural and/or academic literacy as a downside of Gee’s discourse.

  > Whether or not the example worked example Gee gives in the book is poorly chosen is irrelevant. The book focuses on the idea of the ‘Worked Examples’ itself, not on giving them. Crucial to this idea is the fact that the examples are open to discussion, alteration and dismissal. The only relevance of the comment concerning the fitness of the example worked example is the judgment itself, since this is the start (but only the start) of what Gee calls the ‘working’ of the example (Gee, p.49).

“(…) I find it much easier to read on my Kindle because I control the layout.” (GD, p.6)