Trackbacks 05

Claudia with some useful notes on Symposium 11 (I was unable to attend as I was in Canberra with 400 other young people meeting with 100 MPs to discuss ending extreme poverty). Claudia found it a little difficult to stay tuned in for the whole lecture (don’t worry, Claudia. I think that’s basically the motto of Network Media for most students). She had some great notes about the idea of design thinking though. This is something I was first introduced to in my politics class Organisations, Politics & Economies. We learned that 21st century organisations must use design thinking, dynamism, and affective forethought in order to make themselves future-focused.

Future City Illinois

Professor Nigel Thrift suggests that organisations are less focused on singular products but more on the ideas and innovation behind trends that create the terrain for their products. For example, Nike are not just manufacturers of footwear and apparel, they innovate and design trends. Their motto is “to bring inspiration and innovation to every athlete in the world”, qualifying that “if you have a body, you are an athlete” (NikeInc.com, 2014). I am excited to see how much more prominent this kind of design thinking becomes, because I think it provides some great affordances for modern consumerism.

George writes about the 80/20 rule we saw in the Barabási reading. He also mentions the 90-0-1 principle, as cited by Jacob Neilsen in 2006. This idea suggests that there is a participation inequality on the Internet with only 1% of people creating content, 9% editing or modifying content, and 90% viewing content without actively contributing. I wonder how those figures have changed since 2006 and what they would look like in 2014.

Jessica writes about the database discussion from week 11’s symposium, focusing on the relationship between databases and narrative (which I agree there is none of – databases are not stories). I’m still trying to understand how blogs are a database though – I kind of wish I was there in the symposium to hear Adrian explain that one!

Trackbacks 03

Apple gives us a run-down of the Oracle of Kevin Bacon we spent time discussing in the symposium this week. She explains that technology is bringing the world together and making it a smaller place. I think it’s so sad that the ‘unconnected’ are so easily forgotten in sweeping statements like this. Three of five people in the world still do not have access to the Internet. We are so easily blind to the reality of information inequality. As can be seen in the late modern world, access to the digital world is closely connected to power and who wields this power. The disparity between those who are ‘media rich’ and those who are ‘media poor’ raise issues of technological infrastructure, or lack thereof. It’s something I’m very interested in – the idea of information rich countries and information poor countries who might be disadvantaged by their inability to access  the online realm.

Kate talks all about copyright in her blog post, making a really interesting observation that so often copyright is discussed with negative connotations (such as copyright infringement, or copyright limitations). Instead, I’m on Lessig’s team and think we should be moving more towards a celebration of all that copyright can allow, especially in the field of creative commons which can contribute to some amazing cultural movements such as remix culture and rewrite culture.  

Nicola tackles the idea of technological neutrality – something I’m still grappling with myself. She thinks that technology is neutral, until picked up and used by a human. I think that it’s a lot more complex than this, with debates around technological determinism and the relationship between technology and culture continuing to stump me with each new reading.

Trackbacks 01

Rebecca has been practicing her HTML (you go, Glen Coco) and has also graced us with this fabulous image. I like her commitment to learning about coding and the practical benefits she foresees this may offer her in her professional career. I agree with her, and I might start using a resource she suggested for skilling myself up with the language of HTML (how’s that for a tautology) called W3Schools.

Jamie muses over the Nelson reading from week 5 and assesses how far we’ve come since his predictions of paperless offices and a world without libraries. (Also, great Theodor pun, Jamie. I’m a big fan).

b8086e4a909bd5b17511e9d6fc282776a542c21c309627b9e053945bd87a29dc

Image via Quickmeme

Let’s be honest for a sec, when we need to research does our mind automatically think “library” or “Google”? Thanks to advancing technology we are being conditioned to move away from traditional print literacy.” – Jamie.

I completely agree with this, and have noticed my personal shift away from the traditional institution of the library throughout my academic career. During my time at RMIT I could probably count the times I’ve used the library on my two hands, however I can guarantee I’ve used the RMIT library’s online search tools and database for almost every assignment. That’s without even mentioning Old Mate Google…

Finally, Nethaniel talks about whether or not he’s a ‘humanities student’ at heart, after Adrian mentioned in Symposium 05 that ‘we’re not programmers’. I find this concept of student typologies very problematic and I’m trying to slowly work it out. Maybe it’s just my intrinsic dislike of labels (#angst) but I feel like this doesn’t allow for conceptualising students as multi-faceted with their own collective talents. Does that mean that because you’re studying medicine you’ll never understand the nuances of musicology? Can physical ed. students forget about political theory or gender studies? Basically, I don’t think that what ‘type’ of student you are is mutually exclusive of what ‘type’ of student you were, could be, or might be. I will end on that double negative.