In a Computer Mediated Communication filled world=]

Please add images/videos related to race/gender online at,

the password is atec07 (will ask for it when you first click edit page)




Hey everyone,RACE AND GENDER

Race and Gender are important issues that we covered in class. I feel that these issues need to be addressed and it is always interesting to see what other people have to say. I didn’t even know about the girl with the youtube video until my mom told me about it and added it to my wiki (I am very proud of my mom for learning to contribute on a Wiki=P).

Anyways, I want to add a lot of variety and get lots of people to contribute with text, images, and video about the issues of race and gender in the online world. I really hope you find this as important and interesting a topic to discuss as well. (If not, please still try to add/edit- I seriously will return the favor if you need contributions on your project!!=])

Click on the link > RACE AND GENDER ONLINE

Next, go to edit page and it will ask for the password: atec07

It is that simple and to classmates: we are all familiar with it because it is the same we used before..I mean the same type Wiki we used in the beginning before midterms. So it’s fairly simple. All I ask is for just a few minutes of your time. I would truly appreciate it and return the favor. I really want to see what you have to say, plus it will make it much more interesting. I hope I have convinced you to give my Wiki a little attention. But if not I understand we are all busy and stressed..good luck with finals!=](I have one Thursday-it seems too soon!) See you all Thursday for presentations!!Take care,



When I was reading Nakamura’s Cybertyping and the Work of Race in the Age of Digital Reproduction, and Gregg’s Posting with Passion, I kept trying to link the two. Then I noticed the underlying theme that these authors present is that no matter how much we try to ignore it and become overly consumed in the thriving internet world, below the surface both race and gender are still issues we need to deal with. Yes, even online these issues are not simply going to disappear.

The big misconception is that on the internet everyone gains authenticity and freedom. But are race and gender issues simply going away and everything is wonderful? Unfortunately not. We merely transfer over our knowledge of these issues into new terminology: For instance, we use terms like Cybertyping . We need to address these issues more, because having an unidentifiable identity online will not change “real” problems.

 I had no idea how racist the grand internet world could be. But this “grand” internet is also directed towards upper middle class (a.k.a-people who can afford it!) People are being left behind and not even receiving the opportunity of this so-called freedom). Then once an individual plunges into the internet hype, they find out nothing has changed for them.  Nakamura demonstrates with “James Warren and Winona Lake [who] used their internet access to order goods from Kozmo, only to be told that their zip codes aren’t served by the company” (322). Even though they very well should have been able to order from Kozmo like anyone else-even online with no face shown there are still other factors that identify and discriminate (such as where you live).

Gender has been a big concern online as well. Do women blog? Of course they do. Do they prefer journals to socialize? I don’t know and I don’t really care. As long as I have a choice and can voice my opinion in the online world then I am ok. The problem is people have to learn to not judge so much. It is sickening! First, we are judged how we we are going to be judged by what we write about? Who cares as long as you are contributing! Online, somewhere anyone can find their content to be meaningful (for example Gregg explains a male blogger named Zach who was dealing with finding his identity and his parents sent him to a Christian camp). Collaborating online is amazing to me. But we must have Awareness of race and gender online if we want to reach the world’s fullest potential.

{October 25, 2007}   Paper is US

In Paper Machine: Paper or Me, You Know, Jacques Derrida examines the meaning of physical paper from the folds to every bit of ink that projects one’s voice. Furthermore, he examines how it translates into the virtual world:

 “paper can get to work like a multimedia, at least when it is for reading or writing-remember there is also wrapping paper, wallpaper, cigarette papers, toilet paper, and so on”(43).

I found it interesting how even using computers to write papers, we still retain the same format that paper has. He is intrigued by the way paper gives support to writing and who we are.

Although with technology the use of paper is lessening and lessening-we still view paper as a connection to one’s identity. I did not quite understand the point Derrida was trying to make as I got lost in words such as “graphosphere.” However,  we discussed Derrida in class today, and it made things much clearer. Basically, Derrida sees paper as representing who we are, because as a society we use paper form for identification. Another words, without a birth certificate or social security card, we are a nobody. We do not exist. We are not real. But the physical paper makes you and I real.

WOW held the WOW funeral, which we laugh because it comes from a virtual world where anybody can be anybody. We don’t care as much as when it is someone we physically see in real life, because we know that they have been accepted. Plus, we are still transitioning between how we deal with our emotions in real life verses the virtual world. I think it will take some time before what we experience online will become so real that each of us can seriously attend a funeral online and not laugh about it. But indeed our experiences are becoming more and more our realities. People are as real and as valuable as the paper that identifies us. As a commenter, parasite, on the blog on the WOW funeral  puts it:

“I feel really bad for the person who died, disrespecting her by turning her into nothing more than an avatar in an MMORPG. I would at least pay my respects in real life if it were someone I knew. It’s called real life people!”

{October 23, 2007}   Save the Internet!

The great thing about online is that I have the freedom to write this blog to you right now and you have the freedom to search for it on google and find it immediately. But what if you couldn’t? What if many sites you normally go to you could not view, because of certain gatekeepers of knowledge. The gatekeepers meaning phone companies and cable companies that want to make money and limit you from content you search for online.

Savetheinternet explains:

 “On the Internet, consumers are in ultimate control — deciding between content, applications and services available anywhere, no matter who owns the network. There’s no middleman. But without Net Neutrality, the Internet will look more like cable TV. Network owners will decide which channels, content and applications are available; consumers will have to choose from their menu.”

Is limited choices really what we want? The great thing about the internet is that it is a free, open platform for anyone with an internet connection to access. But our freedom is threatened. I had no idea that this was even an issue-but that’s why it is important that we inform others. Fortunately, I had the freedom to go right over to savetheinternet , where I had the priviledge to write my congressman. But if we lose net neutrality, I may not have had the opportunity to be informed and inform others immediately. Of course some regulation is always needed, but not when it comes to what we can view on the internet!

If we lose net neutrality then what will be the result? I worry we will lose our smart mobs next. Thus, we will lose our ability to freely express ourselves and educate others. I don’t want this happening do you? It is important we stand up for our freedoms, or the internet could be changed unlike ever before.

{October 22, 2007}   Who really is an author?

Michel Foucault’s “What is an Author?” basically says that it is hard to define the author because the work that the author creates can be interpreted in so many ways. Thus, the work is what makes an individual author gain importance. But how do we classify their work? It gets pretty tricky. In Foucault’s words,

“They are unique in that they are not just the authors of their own works. They have produced something else: the possibilities and the rules for the formation of other texts. In this sense, they are very different, for example, from a novelist, who is, in fact, nothing more than the author of his own text.”

An author can be defined by a series of works because of similar subject matter and/or because of their grammatical style. Therefore, I can see why it is increasingly complex to define what exactly an “author” is. Foucault provides many reasonable arguments, but there were so many explanations-I felt the complexity over just trying to link together everything he was saying! But I have to give him credit for questioning the authority of an author in ways I never would have thought of.

Copyright is a continuous problem because it is so hard to define. How do we  decide what is original and what is not? Well as Lawrence Lessig explains nothing really is because “creativity and innovation always build on the past.”  We observe similar works (whether it be books, movies or art) because that is how we gain knowledge and build our own skills,  by what we have seen in the past.

But building off of old works is not as easy as it may seem. It is quite limiting to try to come up with a new way of approaching before seen material. But in our society today, many people have access to the internet; which means many people are more free to express themselves. However, this can be dangerous because how do we protect an individual’s work when this so-called “individual” is turning into a social-networking world?!

One can see why copyright is becoming such a big issue. As Mark Helprin indicates, “Mozart and Neil Diamond may have begun with the same idea, but that a work of art is more than an idea is confirmed by the difference between the “Soave sia il vento” and “Kentucky Woman.” We have different words for art and idea because they are two different things.” Another words, a work may be quite similar but convey a different message. One individual artist does not get the right to the use of blue and gold paint because they used blue and gold streaks of paint in their work-but each artist takes something from what they have studied and observed, and might use blue and gold paint, but it is conveyed in a completely different way.

A good example is Brian’s blog, from the article Sony Bastards Ripped Off the Bunny Tsunami Ad. In it he explains how Sony revealed in their recent ad bunnies that were oh so familiar…that is to Kozyndan’s panoramas. Brian explains that“the Passion Pictures animation studio ripped off kozyndan’s after requesting samples of their work and never called them back.” Here is where the issues of copyright come into play. Who is to blame? How do we know? If Sony copied someone else, regardless isn’t that stealing their work? But at the same token, Sony may of used Kozyndan’s work as their starting point, but came out with their own unique version. As FUPJACK, a commenter, responded to the blog:

“I wouldn’t call this a rip-off. KozynDan doesn’t own the idea of bunnies and waves. Yeah, it influenced the commercial, but it’s not the commercial. The original art focuses on a ‘classic’ Japanese piece of art being mixed with rabbits, and the video’s about stop-motion rabbits mixed in with people in NYC.  As fun as it is to rage against a company vs. a small artist, this is a case of artistic influence. “

FUPJACK says it best-the bunnies are not one person’s idea and use. (Now with a book that produces the same output it is different. If you are writing exactly the same thing practically word for word, then that’s a problem. Therefore, we must ADD to, not take away from someone’s valued work). It is like I said with the paint, it is a material that can be recreated in a different way revealing new and interesting significance.

In The New Order of Order and The Work of Knowledge from Everything is Miscellaneous by David Weinberger, he mentions how crucial it is to have information in the third-order. In this type of organization, “content is digitized” and therefore “removes the limitations we’ve assumed were inevitable.” Let’s take Weinberger’s example of Corbis:

“Corbis, because its collection is third-order and thus fully digital and cataloged, is designed to be searched by any customer.”

Weinberger explains how important it is to have ease of access. Also, Corbis is financially gaining as well as encountering less work because they are working with digital photos. He explains further that “Corbis spends less per image, can make more per image, and is able to turn more of its images into productive assets.”

Corbis is just one example that illustrates Weinberger’s point that organization through third-order is key. Unlike previously using physical photo albums, we now can organize our photos online according to our own preferences.

We are now creating our own experiences and knowledge-Or rather we gain knowledge by sharing and grasping knowledge from others. Therefore, Weinberger addresses that knowledge comes from understanding :

 “the commoditization of knowledge frees us to understand. Generally we understand something when we see how the pieces fit together. Understanding is metaknowledge.

How do we really know what is valuable knowledge though? Weinberger points out that sites, such as the Library of Congress, struggle with all the continous pages of information. He says that “The Library of Congress’s carefully engineered, highly evolved processes for ordering information simply won’t work in the new world of digital information.” Why not? I disagree.  The great thing about the web is that we can always improve  how the information is organized. But I think judging the organization/knowledge depends on the situation.  Moreover, it depends where you are searching and what information you want.

If I am searching the Library of Congress, I would be thrilled to come across pages and pages of information. I know I don’t have to read everything, I just browse through some of it. But it is great to know more information is there if I want to explore it later. Although Weinberger thinks the Library of Congress has “too much information moving rapidly, there are no centralized classification experts in charge of the new digital world we’re rapidly creating for ourselves..” Who is he calling the experts? 

Weinberger mentions later the idea of “the world and our third-order understanding of the world are miscellaneous” and at one point exclaims that “the miscellaneous digital world we’re building for ourselves.” He then says how “expertise are losing some of their gravity.” As much as he thinks it is key to have third-order organization, he also is worried about the organization and knowledge turning into “how messily you are connected.”  So some points I was a little confused. I felt a lot of his writing was redundant as well-but other than that it was very difficult for me to find anything I disagreed with.

Andrew Keen made clear his concerns of the Web 2.0. He sees people of the web merely living in this fantasy world (that will eventually be let down). However, he mentions his concerns about anyone having the ability to post their own music or news (and that it will replace traditional forms). Keen replies “by flattening media, by doing away with the gatekeepers, Web 2.0 is righting cultural injustice and offering people like your friends Joe and Maria an opportunity to monetize their talent.” Keen believes it is wrong for anyone to just put their music on the web-he thinks then we will lose our well known artists. Why does he think that these respectable and talented individuals will not be a part of the Web 2.0 experience?

“You won’t find the talented, trained individual shipwrecked in his pajamas behind a computer, churning out inane blog postings or anonymous movie reviews.”

He pretty much is saying among these busy chattering monkeys, the talented and well educated people are not so present.  Keen feels that what matters to us will disappear. Our society will think that these things matter to us through information of blogs. I believe Keen is living in a bubble, because our society is benefiting from blogging and sharing our own music.

Considering the web is us, it is important to shape it in a way that can appeal to all of us. Of course we all have different tastes and can’t make everyone happy-but what is great about Web 2.0 is that you can find topics that are of interest to you. I do not see how in any way we will lose our traditional media-but rather we will add to it (as we do now). I think it is unfair to say that the smart, talented people will not want to be a part of Web 2.0. I think both professionals and amateurs can easily find a place where they benefit from Web 2.0.

But he assumes we our “flushing away valuable culture” through blogs and gaining irrelevent information. How are we losing our value? We are collectively shaping our world in a way that we can understand it. I think by including these so called “monkeys” we learn much more, and come across many talented individuals that we never would of had the opportunity to do before.  The “monkeys” are shaping what is of value to us. Thus,  the “monkeys” (aka you and I) are the professionals now-we bring something new to the table that traditional media alone never could have done.

{September 27, 2007}   My Wikipedia Experience!

Wikipedia is a great source for practically anything. If you need information on a particular subject, and quickly, then Wikipedia is the way to go! Ofcourse considering we are humans, we do tend to make mistakes-so even Wikipedia needs editing and constant watching from other users (so information stays accurate). I had the luxury of experiencing the wonderful world of Wikipedia. I had never edited anything on Wikipedia, so it was indeed an interesting experience.

I came across the Dillard’s page on Wikipedia and saw a lot of red (yay-it meant editing was wanted-so I gave it my attention!=]) The problem was quite easy to fix-all the red marks were of links that linked to no other Wikipedia page. If I had time I would create pages that the terms could link to. But for now I just worked on editing the Dillard’s page. I thought the best thing I could do for now is to get rid of those links to help people out!

Here were words that were originally links to nothing:

Mayer& Schmidt
Gus Blass Co.

I think that is all of them. I had to go back a couple times because I had almost missed a couple-but luckily showing the red links makes it more identifiable. Also, as I was fixing them, I played around with the set up of History and Beginnings. I would move the picture, or move the headings and add spaces just to see the difference. I put a couple sentences that I thought belonged under History instead of Beginnings, but for the most part I think it got back to how it looked originally. The last thing I did was added an external link just to give another source of history for Dillard’s: More Dillard’s History from NYJobSource

Anyways, this was quite a Wikipedia experience for me. I really am fascinated by it. I am going to continue to watch it to see what happens. Or maybe do some more editing and creating to the Wikipedia world when I have time: only time will tell!

et cetera