This week I invested a lot of time in reading the 75 page Lister 2009 chapter “New Media- A Critical introduction.” The chapter contained many threads, which remained loosely linked but not tied together. Published in 2009, the chapter referenced Web sites that are no longer operating (MScape, Delicious, Napster), and authors (OReilly Web2.0) that don’t seem to have a current online presence.
Nevertheless there is some material in the latter half of the chapter that was helpful in my study of Online Community. It also contained definitions and examples for Long Tail theory, Web 2.0, counterculture, convergence culture & transmediality. I placed short definitions of each on my terminology page.
In Lister’s chapter, I found the concept of Web 2.0 interesting. This was also well explained in the paper by Lewis (2012) which I wrote about here.
Web 2.0 is a phrase coined by O’Reilly (2005) and pertains to internet applications focused on participatory information creation, tagging, sharing, and remixing—and, wherein tech companies rely almost entirely on user-generated content for monetization. Simultaneously voluntarily given and unwaged, enjoyed and exploited, free labour on the Net includes the activity of building Web sites, modifying software packages, reading and participating in mailing lists, “Web 2.0 shows how our creative expression becomes commodified and sold back to us”. ‘Lister 2009’
This resonated with me because The Mooc I chose to study was Sustainable Urban Development by University of Wageningen. Whilst thousands have enrolled, and the developers want the students to self- enroll in teams of 20-100 people each, to work on 100 challenges and to find solutions for 100 cities. This strikes me as a very valuable research tool for the university if they can succeed in convincing people to divide themselves up into such Web 2.0 teams.
My peers posted interesting articles that helped me with the study of my MOOC. Jiyoung Kwon posted the article on low completion rate of Moocs, which stands at 5%. The article concentrated on the other 95% who are still completing (and gaining) from some of the material. This might be the institution’s way of putting a positive spin on the non completion rates, but maybe it is an acceptance of how people learn in un- moderated environments
In the MOOC that I am looking at, the developers have created 5 themes or tracks, and students can follow their own track of interest, and still gain a cert of completion if they complete two thirds of the course. Is this an attempt to counteract the low completion rates I wonder?
I commented on three other peer posts in this article, on ‘lurking in Moocs’, ‘lack of conversations in Moocs’, and ‘how the brain retains information’.
an ongoing contest from a do-it-yourself culture that challenges traditional forms of elite expertise. It is a struggle over boundaries: about the rhetorical and material delimitations of insiders and outsiders.
By contrast it is the propensity of modern day culture to view content and chat about it, via personal devices that are completely individualised, which can be physically isolating. The sheer volume of content viewed means less in depth thinking and pondering. Content depends on our demographic, our preferences, and our click history. Youtubers that are incredibly famous across the world are unknown by our friends within the same social circle. Individuals from any background can post something for free on Youtube, TikTok or a myriad of outlets and so there is a low barrier for entry to access our devices.