Showing posts with label Counter Arguments. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Counter Arguments. Show all posts

Thursday, 16 May 2013

“Review of ‘Here comes everybody’ Clay Shirky” - T Brabazon, Times Ed Supplement, 3/4/08



“Review of ‘Here comes everybody’ Clay Shirky” - T Brabazon, Times Ed Supplement, 3/4/08

-       She is generally unimpressed
-       Clay Shirky is Professor at New York University’s ‘Interactive Telecommunications Program (at time of her writing) and clearly she doesn’t feel academics should be writing about management and business culture.
-       She says the evidence and ideas he uses are unsound as he tends to use anecdotal evidence (stories and examples from people’s experiences) and then extrapolate them outwards (so they take what has happened to a few people and say this is characteristic for everyone). So lacks validity as evidence. And therefore the ideas are just that – unsubstantiated.
-       She equates ‘mob rule’ with ‘social networking’
-       KEY POINT – ‘Older citizens, the poor, the illiterate and the socially excluded are invisible in Shirky’s “everybody”
-       This whole paragraph is key – he avoids the problematic ways in which user ‘power’ might be utilised, such as in Pro Anorexia sites - by sweeping it under the carpet – ‘it’s not a revolution if nobody loses’ AND that therefore means NOT the ‘everybody’ he is talking about in the title.
-       There’s no mention of the excluded people who she says might not have the latest phone – may have no money/time/expertise or be busy in the real world fighting injustices already perpetrated on them (e.g. they’re poor and are too busy dealing with that to ‘collectively meet and chat online' let alone have the means to do so).
-       He assumes we can learn from technology without taking it in context – it makes a difference WHO is creating the content (i.e. if it is user generated content or ‘professional’) – she thinks this is a gaping hole in his argument
-       She says there’s limited validity where bloggers link to bloggers for their reference and she complains that his book is not referenced (no citations).
-       He confuses tools with knowledge
-       He confuses process with production

“Rethinking the Long Tail Theory:How to define ‘Hits’ and ‘Niches’ – ‘knowledge@Wharton’, 16/9/09 (University of Pennsylvania)


“Rethinking the Long Tail Theory:How to define ‘Hits’ and ‘Niches’ – ‘knowledge@Wharton’, 16/9/09 (University of Pennsylvania) (Netessine)

-       Undertook analysis, using data, of Anderson’s arguments.
-       summarises the theory of the long tail very well in paragraph 4 (“The long tail theory suggests...”)
-        if you factor in product variety (how much choice there is) and consumer demand (what people actually ‘ask for’) then Anderson's argument falls down
-       mass appeal products remain popular
-       few companies operate in a purely digital distribution system
-       the whole argument centres around the idea of whether you measure the figures by absolute figures or percentages and if you factor in how many choices are being offered – essentially they writer disputes the evidence that Anderson has used, saying if you look at it slightly differently and factor in other issues, the numbers don’t support what Anderson is saying.
-       Product variety is a key factor (i.e. how many titles/texts you offer) and without this the theory is lacking validity
-       They couldn’t replicate the outcomes with the same data
-       Netessine actually shows that demand for broad appeal products (blockbusters for example) actually increased (rather than interest moving to less popular titles ‘moving down the tail’ as Anderson’s model would suggest)
-       If you have to physically stock the product, Netessine argues that the long tail model just isn’t valid/useful
-       It takes time for product recommendation features to get audiences to consume more niche products. (this is Web 3.0 – at the time of this article, the semantic web was more of an idea than a functioning and effective actuality).

Hacked Off – On reading here comes everybody by Clay Shirky and We-Think by Charles Leadbetter – Guardian, 22/3/08, Book reviews Stuart Jefferies


Hacked Off – On reading here comes everybody by Clay Shirky and We-Think by Charles Leadbeater – Guardian, 22/3/08, Book reviews Stuart Jefferies

-       professional status of journalists being destroyed by UGC/Citizen Journalism claimed by Shirky/Leadbeater is not happening in the way suggested. Old Model is changing – online allows constant revisions, old model required correct first time as limited ability to edit
-       journalists adhere to rules that ‘joe public’ doesn’t have to – grammatical accuracy, legally safe, interesting to read, not plagiarised: implication here is that public output onto the web generally isn’t
-       “Technology helps us to publish any old cobblers” and he goes on to complete with “then allows us to redraft it again and again”.
-       Whilst he admits that collaboration may work to further progress and discovery, he argues that Shirky/Leadbeater’s argument about creative collaboration in relation to the internet has little to do with “all the illiterate guff on blogs and those fatuous social networking sites”
-        Discusses the example of Black and White Maniacs on Flickr who tried to allow anyone to post, but at least 2 comments must be left on other photos to ‘thwart jokers’ but this ended up in a spiral of unusable and unworkable rules – so how does one get ‘extreme openness and decentralisation’ but simultaneously ‘discourag[e] the exercise of authority’ to work in practice?
-       He agrees with Shirky when he says only a few people account for a ‘wildly disproportionate amount of overall connectivity’ – so not here comes everybody
-       He argues that ‘connectors’ (people connecting/publishing online) could easily become other people’s bottleneck, gatekeeper, authority figure, onerous boss
-       He says they are both naive – all the tools available to the ‘mass’ to fight authority can equally be used by that same authority.

The Global Village Idiot (an amusing read) – Owen Davey, MM27, February 2009


The Global Village Idiot (an amusing read) – Owen Davey, MM27, February 2009

-       what if you’re not a ‘digital native’ – that is, familiar with all the technology and information?
-       What if the “language of your Mac, mobile phone or MP3 player is foreign to you?”
-       Not all young people are ‘digital natives’ – fallacy to assume so
-       Increased internet ‘activity’ leads to alienation and isolation – the breakdown of communities

Free culture – e-media comes of age – Sara Mills, MM28, April 2009


Free culture – e-media comes of age – Sara Mills, MM28, April 2009

-       Tim Berners-Lee – not his idea of interactivity – but we’re getting there
-       Wikipedia – subject to editing – people do like to change but it is peer-reviewed and fixed within a few hours – uses roll-back to previous editions
-       Wikipedia does promote it’s own fallacy – ironically making it more reliable: entries are supposed to be cross-referenced
-       Proximity and immediacy over skill and professionalism
-       Restricts ‘power’ and ‘agency’ for the audience to those with access to technology and the internet/fast connections – particularly Europe/US and parts of Asia
-       Wikipedia isn’t available in every language – neither is the internet

Counter Arguments overview on its way but here's Andrew Keen whilst you're waiting!

HERE - your challenge - to read it and NOT shout at the computer whilst doing so!