Session 11 Readings - The Digital Divide

Before reading the articles this week I thought that “the digital divide” referred to the divide between those skilled in the use of technology and those who are not. That is part of it, but it's not the main focus. What I didn’t realize is that the emphasis isn’t on knowledge and skill as much as it is on effective access to the technology. This concept seems to make more sense on an international level than it does here within the U.S. Undoubtedly there are many people in our country who don’t have a computer readily available to them, but they do have some access because there are so many public places where computers with the Internet are freely accessible. Internationally however, there are so many developing countries that haven’t even been exposed to this technology. There is little or no access to computers and the Internet. This is where you really begin to see the divide between the haves and the have-nots.

In the “Introduction to A Deepening Divide” article, Van Dijk suggests that the concept of digital divide should be reframed in order to reach a better understanding of it. He makes a distinction between four different kinds of “access” which include: physical, motivational, skills, and usage. I think this is a great idea. Just because people have physical access to computers and the Internet, doesn’t mean that they are willing to use it, or that they even know how to use it. All of those components should be considered when speaking of the digital divide.

This recent news article talks about the digital divide in regards to proficiency in using the technology, focusing on the divide between kids and their parents: Digital Divide: Kids outsmart their parents

Session 10 Readings - Economics & Work

“The Economies of Online Cooperation” article by Kollock was an interesting read. He makes a point that because online interaction is relatively anonymous and there’s no central authority, it is nearly impossible to impose monetary or physical sanctions on someone. The article focuses on the great amount of sharing and cooperation that occurs online. It’s very true that people give away a lot of valuable information through the Internet…the same information that many professionals charge big bucks to divulge. It's referred to in the article as gifting or providing public goods. Kollock poses the question: Why would anyone give away such valuable knowledge and advice for free?

I think there may be various motives involved sometimes, but in most cases, I think people are just generous and if they have information that can help someone, they are willing to share it. It’s just a sincere, selfless act. The article pointed out one’s reputation as a possible motivation for contributing information…a very valid point. If someone is providing high quality information, displaying a willingness to help others, and showing eloquent writing skills, they can build a good reputation in their online community. I think some people just gain satisfaction from knowing that they have influence on people and the environment. From personal experience, when I’ve helped someone online, and then they’ve come back and told me how they took my advice and it served them well, I felt good about it…like I made a difference. A lot of times, I think there’s also a factor of reciprocity. People give and take information between one another...sort of a "I'll scratch your back, you scratch mine" relationship. Sharing ideas and other information online is such a great thing!

An article based on a survey conducted to find out why people contribute free information: "Why Do People Write Free Documentation? Results of a Survey"

Session 9 Readings - Government & Politics

The reading selections for this week were definitely not my favorite. I am not a fan of politics at all. To be honest, it bores the heck out of me. I realize it’s important, and very relevant to me as a part of this society, but it pains me to talk about it. I just wanted to get that off my chest. lol.

In the “Impact of the Internet on Politics” article, Cornfield and Rainie pose the question is the Internet an outlet for direct democracy or is it a contributor for political divides? I think the Internet serves as both. It makes political information much more accessible to the general public, which is a great thing. As citizens, it is now easy for us to pull up information on different candidates or political figures and see what their views are, what goals they've accomplished, and what they've failed to do. Especially when regarding candidates running for various political offices, the Internet serves as a great way for them to directly interact with the voters. Through video, blogging, texting, and widely used websites, candidates can certainly express their political views and intentions more easily. They have the opportunity to reach many more people than they ever could prior to the presence of e-government. It’s a two sided coin though, because the Internet is an outlet for so many people with strong radical views to impose their opinions upon other people. Sometimes, it can be very one-sided and biased and a lot of people maybe swayed from their views by reading false or exaggerated information about something or someone. It this respect, it can harden our views, and cause people to jump ship very quickly. Candidates are vulnerable to lose many supporters this way.

I think no matter what, people are always going to have something bad to say about any and everything...but overall, I think political issues and political figures benefit from the exposure they recieve from being displayed all over the Internet. So, I say it's a good thing. You take the bad with the good, and hope the good prevails. In this case, I believe it does. Any candidate who is serious about winning their election should utilize the Internet as much as possible to campaign and get their message heard. It could be very beneficial in the end.

Here's an article about a recent increase in e-government citizen satisfaction: LINK

4 References for my Research Paper

I decided to write my research paper on how technology has affected the music industry. Using the research port on UMBC's Albin O. Kuhn Library website, I found 4 sources to reference in my paper:

1. Clement, G (2003).The mp3 open standard and the music industry. Communications of the ACM. 46, 90-6.

2. ACM Press, (2001).The internet is changing the music industry. Communications of the ACM. 44, 62-68.

3. Meisel, J, & Sullivan, T (2002). The impact of the Internet on the law and economics of the music industry. IEEE. 4, 16-22.

4. Vlachos, P, Vrechopoulos, A, & Pateli, A (2006). Drawing emerging business models for the mobile music industry. Electronic Markets. 16, 154-68.

Session 8 Readings - Health & Welfare

In the "Generation Rx.com" article by Kaiser, I was very surprised that 75% of the sampled "youth" were researching health information more often than they were downloading music or playing games. I guess younger people are just as concerned about their health and well-being as older people are. I can definitely understand why they would turn to the internet to find out things about their health that they may not feel comfortable talking about to family, friends or a personal doctor. It enables privacy and allows you to be discreet about your personal issues.

Then there is the issue concerning the validity of health information available. It's hard to decipher between what is reliable information, and what's not. If you search about a specific set of symptoms, you may get all different kinds of sources saying a thousand different things. Sometimes, I think we take for granted that what we see on-line is legitimate info, especially if the website looks appropiate or professional--but that's not always the case. We need to be careful not to believe everything we read.

I would think most people just use the internet to get a general idea about health. I believe its basically just to get some assurance that when you're experiencing certain problems, that its not too serious. Then, if any red flags are raised, we know it's time to seek out a professional who we can trust to really know the truth about the situation. Rather than having to run to the doctor for every little thing, we can do our own little research and sometimes we can rule out certain things. The Internet can be very helpful for that purpose, if used cautiously and correctly.

An article about the Group Health Centre starting a service to provide credible health information on-line through a number of approved websites: http://www.soonews.ca/viewarticle.php?id=12988

Session 6 Readings - Entertainment

I can definitely understand why this peer-to-peer sharing of music is the devil for record labels, producers and artists. The article by Fox called "Technological and Social Drivers of Change in the Online Music Industry" was very insightful about the topic. The industry loses a lot of money through illegal downloading. I swear, it is so hard to think of downloading music as stealing. People compare it to walking into a music store and physically stealing CDs. But when the software and websites are readily available, and it’s right there at your fingertips, not to mention being so convenient, it is very hard to resist.

On the other hand, I also see how it can be beneficial to artists in some ways. On-line, I listen to music that I otherwise wouldn’t listen to. It gives me exposure to a lot of different artists and different types of music. A lot of the time, if I hear a few songs that I like from an artist, I will go out and buy their CD. If I had never heard of sample of the music on-line, those artists would lose sales from me. I know a few people who are the same way, and I’m sure there are many, many others who do the same. I’m sure the music artists are very pleased that soooo many people are listening to their music, more than ever before…all due to the Internet. There’s just a big downfall because they don’t get paid for it. I think they are rewarded in other ways though…the more people that hear them, the more that will go out and pay to see them perform. So, there’s an upside and downside.

I think many people see downloading as someone giving something to them as opposed to them taking something from someone else. If someone is offering you a free meal and you don’t have to go out and get it, why would you choose to make extra effort and go out and pay money for the same thing? I think that is how most people feel. To try to make myself feel better and rationalize my actions, I like to put blame on the peer-to-peer service itself rather than blame myself. It’s like, I’m not providing the service, I’m just using it…bad excuse I know. Shame on me. Oh well....

An article about how music downloading among kids has declined in the last three years: http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070524/BIZ/705240374/-1/BIZ

Session 5 Readings - Language

Today, the younger generation stands accused by many of butchering or destroying the English language when text messaging on our cell phones or chatting on AIM. People see it as a threat to social progress. I disagree! We use short-hand and text-lingo because it serves more efficiently for our purpose…to relay messages at a quick pace. This doesn’t mean that we don’t know how to correctly express ourselves in society exhibiting fluent use of the English language. Text lingo is just an extension of how we express ourselves. It is by no means a substitute nor is it a hindrance, blocking advancement in knowledge of proper English. This is why we have English in schools, and papers to write, constantly, from elementary all the way up through college level--this has not changed since the time before computer lingo and short-hand existed. So, we have not lost the ability to talk and express ourselves, we have merely developed fresh, new, innovative ways to do so.

In the “Internet Linguistics” article by Crystal, I found interesting and totally agreed with the insight into blogging. It is indeed a very creative medium, and it has revived the art of diary writing, which was thought to be dying out as a literary domain a few years ago. I also liked how Crystal described blogging from a linguistic point of view as displaying the written language in its most “naked” form. That is very true, because you don’t have interference from editors, proofreaders, or anyone else who might try to standardize it and turn it into something watered down and bland. It’s exciting to be able to freely express yourself, with all of the emotion you choose to include, censor free. I think it’s a motivation for child and adult literacy. I have just recently found inspiration to begin my own personal blogging, because I desire to feel that same excitement in expressing my thoughts about different things, and also the satisfaction of looking back on what I’ve written and reflecting.

Here's a cool article talking about blogging and how it's a quicker way of getting news, but how some people have problems with it in certain circumstances: http://beltwayblogroll.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/06/blogging_is_a_w.php