Monthly Archives: March 2010

Chat Roulette

I thought that video was quite charming…and I’m glad he took the time to break down what would actually happen if he replaced himself with a cute girl.  I had those suspicions myself, even after my relatively limited experiences w/ CR these past few weeks (which have mostly occurred on weekend nights when my friend who discovers/enjoys things like Chat Roulette is around).

I’m not really sure how I feel about Chat Roulette at this point; all I have to go on is a strong feeling in my gut that says “NO”.  This is the instinctual aversion I have to Chat Roulette whenever it is flooding those myriad leering faces into the room for split-seconds at a time.  Perhaps I would feel differently if I saw any practical/productive use for the program.  But I don’t, and so I would hesitate to call it a “media tool”.  The maker of that video makes some cutesy point that Chat Roulette brings us all around the world in a matter of seconds, but it doesn’t, really; it brings us for a brief second into many bland, dimly-let rooms and gives us a momentary glimpse of some blurry face that we will never see again.  So in the end, I think it’s a fun thrill, but I assume it’s going to fade as quickly as it appeared.

Our dear little blogosphere *shudder*

If one were to examine my blog/twitter activity over the last, say, 24 hours, one would notice that all of it occured in the last, say, half an hour (except for one tweet of the amazing new OK Go video).  This is partially because I’ve been pretty busy all day and haven’t been near my computer.  But there’s something else going on…I’ve had time to check my email and my facebook and a couple of other sites at least once over the course of the day.  I had to hear about that music video somehow!

What’s going on here is that my time spent filling our online requirements for this class is still just that…time explicitly set aside for doing what I feel I should rightfully do to feel like I’m adequately participating in this class.  It’s set apart from other activities just like reading an article or writing a short essay is–and I don’t think is how this aspect of our class should work.  I was hoping that tweeting, blogging, and commenting would become part of my daily rhythm, and especially that my ideas for blog posts would flow rapidly and possess an casual air that my current attitude in writing this post certainly lacks.

But I don’t think this is completely my fault, nor can it be blamed on any individual in the class.  I think the…blooming, if you will, of our blog community into somewhere that we flock to and check up on regularly would be an organic process that’s a bit hard to explain.  Shirky discusses, early in his book, the widely-acknowledged phenomenon that group behaviors are complex and cannot be explained as the sum of the behaviors of many individuals.  And I’m trying to find some explanation in Shirky why blogging still feels (to all nine of us, I think it’s safe to assume) like an obligation (blogligation?).  I mean, it is an obligation.  But still.  I have this vision of a class blog filled with all sorts of impassioned conversation; I think I remember Jason mentioning that the Wire class’ blog came the closest to this, because the Wire is so %&*~@($ing good that it inspires that kind of passion.  In our little blogborhood (ugh…though maybe a better term for our little community), I’ve been trying to comment on people’s posts, but it feels like a bit of a fruitless task, and I feel like I’ve been dragging my feet every time because: 1. there is little chance of that comment inspiring further discussion, and 2. my posts have been commented on twice, both times by prof. Mittell.

I think Shirky’s “Personal Motivation Meets Collaborative Production” chapter–which mostly focuses on Wikipedia and how it functions quite differently from a traditional, capitalist and/or hierarchical organization–holds maybe the closest thing to an answer.  And I think it has something to do with the way people contributing to any given website are a small percentage of those even visiting that site, and that group is in turn a tiny fraction of all web traffic, and they go where they go on the web because those are places catering to their very specific interests.  Shirky mentions the fact that in order to voluntarily make time for a new activity, one must find that new activity more interesting or fulfilling than something else that already occupies a portion of their waking hours.  And media studies interests me quite a bit, so I’ve tried to absorb information on the topic in the past, but I didn’t, say, visit any blogs focused explicitly on media criticism.  So perhaps, as a group, we simply all haven’t made that shift in priorities that would allow our blogmunity (blogdom? blogitory?) to truly flourish.  It’s not something you can force……but I think we’re getting incrementally better at it.

So, I guess the best way to close (if you’ve read this whole thing, or at least skipped to the last paragraph) would be to say, please comment!  Let’s have our first real online conversation right here!  Tell me if you think I’m talking out of my ass, if you think you’ve thought of a better tie to Shirky than I have, or if you have an idea for some way to more thoroughly blend, right here in our blogship (these get worse and worse…), the personal/fun with the academic.

Wikipedia adventures

Last semester, I took the film dept’s “Authorship & Cinema” course on David Lynch with Ted Perry, and I remember vaguely thinking that his wikipedia page was somewhat messy for such a noteworthy director.  Upon returning to the page, I thought the organizational structure had improved some since I last visited, so I stuck to simply improving sentence structure and word choice and other such things.  The few times I have taken the time to do higher-level structural work on a wikipedia article has been when the articles were so godawfully written or woefully incomplete that just looking at them made me kind of angry.  This was not the case w/ the Lynch article, and I did not feel so confident that my ways of changing the organization of the article would be better than the ones in place, so I let them be, performing only more minor edits (which is still an important part of the wikipedia system).

Here’s a link to good ol Davey: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Lynch

The part of this little adventure that was much more eye-opening was my visit to the article’s “discussion” page, a part of wikipedia I don’t visit too often.  Normally, I would expect a place on the internet where users can freely say what they want in a forum setting to consist mostly of random, directionless hate and/or total non-sequiturs and/or porn, even in a corner of the internet as sequestered as the talk page for David Lynch’s wikipedia article.  This is simply what I’ve seen in the past, and I’ve come to the conclusion that the comment sections for youtube videos contain more concentrated hate than any other location in the universe, physical or virtual.

But users remarkably adhered to the suggestions at the top of the talk page: “be polite”, “assume good faith”, “avoid personal attacks”, and “be welcoming”.  There was one WTF moment, under the heading “Badger?”:

“Is David Lynch a Badger? Last time I checked he seemed human and if he isn’t human he is most assuredly not very badger like. Or am I missing something and badger has some other meaning. ARavagedIsland (talk) 22:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)”

But mostly the comments were respectful and intelligent.  I suppose Shirky’s notion that it takes more work to harm wikipedia than it would take to undo this harm applies here.  I also learned that this article had been nominated for featured article-dom a few years ago, and got to see why it had not been named one, as well as gaining some other insights into how that process works (and as I mentioned in class, I think the featured article process is one of the most important parts of wikipedia, as it acts as sort of a guiding light for all articles).  Finally, I saw that it was part of several “wikiprojects”–efforts to create, for instance, “an encyclopedic guide to comics on wikipedia” (a project to which Lynch’s article is only tangentially related, earning it “C-class, Low-importance” status).  Seeing the myriad organizational structures that have all organically arisen to improve wikipedia is quite inspiring.

Lastly, I’d like to recommend people visit some of wikipedia’s about-wikipedia pages, as they can be enlightening and also quite funny.  Here are a few good ones:

Wikipedia:Please_be_a_giant_dick,_so_we_can_ban_you

Wikipedia: Unusual Articles (incredible time-waster)

And here’s one of wikipedia’s many great lists, this one about “cryptids”, or animals whose existence has been posited but not proven.  Another fantastic time-waster.  List of cryptids