Comments on: Here Comes Everybody http://outsidethetext.com/arche/here-comes-everybody/ EMAC 6361 (University of Texas at Dallas) Spring 12 Thu, 21 Apr 2011 01:23:50 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Jenny Mizutowicz http://outsidethetext.com/arche/here-comes-everybody/comment-page-1/#comment-4703 Jenny Mizutowicz Tue, 24 Mar 2009 19:14:44 +0000 http://outsidethetext.com/arche/?p=95#comment-4703 Above all, Shirky’s "Here Comes Everybody" made me realize just how much my life is consumed by the Internet and social media. In fact, my “real life” and cyberspace have become so intertwined that it is hard to separate the two. For example, I talk to my mother multiple times on a daily basis, but the majority of our correspondences are via instant messaging or e-mail. Although I only see her once a week, there is no void or anything to catch up on because we have in fact been living our lives together and communicating through cyberspace. Shirky confirms this overlap by saying that “instead of becoming a separate cyberspace, our electronic networks are becoming deeply embedded in real life” (196). Shirky believes that the emergence of the Internet and social networking has without a doubt led to a profound change in the capabilities and interactions of society. He sums up this argument by saying that “when we change the way we communicate, we change society” (17). However, he also acknowledges that the Internet will never completely take over and replace human interaction because humans have a desire for real human contact. This is exemplified in Chapter 8 with the virtual Meetup groups. Six of the fifteen most active Meetup groups were group members who previously interacted online, but desired to meet each other in person (198). Another example of this drawn from personal experience involves my interaction with classmates via Twitter. I communicated with a few of my classmates on Twitter before we exchanged words in real life. While Twitter is a convenient medium of communication, it is unfulfilling in social situations. This left us with the desire to actually say “hello” and introduce ourselves in class. Above all, Shirky’s “Here Comes Everybody” made me realize just how much my life is consumed by the Internet and social media. In fact, my “real life” and cyberspace have become so intertwined that it is hard to separate the two. For example, I talk to my mother multiple times on a daily basis, but the majority of our correspondences are via instant messaging or e-mail. Although I only see her once a week, there is no void or anything to catch up on because we have in fact been living our lives together and communicating through cyberspace. Shirky confirms this overlap by saying that “instead of becoming a separate cyberspace, our electronic networks are becoming deeply embedded in real life” (196).

Shirky believes that the emergence of the Internet and social networking has without a doubt led to a profound change in the capabilities and interactions of society. He sums up this argument by saying that “when we change the way we communicate, we change society” (17). However, he also acknowledges that the Internet will never completely take over and replace human interaction because humans have a desire for real human contact. This is exemplified in Chapter 8 with the virtual Meetup groups. Six of the fifteen most active Meetup groups were group members who previously interacted online, but desired to meet each other in person (198). Another example of this drawn from personal experience involves my interaction with classmates via Twitter. I communicated with a few of my classmates on Twitter before we exchanged words in real life. While Twitter is a convenient medium of communication, it is unfulfilling in social situations. This left us with the desire to actually say “hello” and introduce ourselves in class.

]]> By: Tom Roome http://outsidethetext.com/arche/here-comes-everybody/comment-page-1/#comment-4695 Tom Roome Tue, 24 Mar 2009 10:25:52 +0000 http://outsidethetext.com/arche/?p=95#comment-4695 For Clay Shirky social networking is revolution for society just as the printing press was earlier in history. He makes the point the institution should not be the model in the way people work together, but it is collaboration that brings people together in working on a project. Basically, in “What Would Google Do?” by Jeff Jarvis, he makes a very similar statement that companies need to change their way of thinking and provide many different ways of networking with their employees and the customers. People in General, want to feel that they are involved on a project and not told what they must do on some project by a boss. Look at Second Life where people can come together with many different backgrounds in order to work on a big project. I am trying to develop an Island for a group, and working with many people with certain skills on this project. The owner of the island and the group is listening to many different people in the group for their ideas and wants for the Island. To me Second Life, is more interactive for me then other forms of social media like FaceBook or MySpace. On my MySpace page which I have not updated for months, I have some videos and music that came with the MySpace service. However, CNN every afternoon at 2 pm CST has a newscast; with Rick Sanchez that lets people on Twitter; FaceBook; and MySpace join in the conversation to ask questions and to express themselves. I don’t see this as a true exercise of collaboration between us and the network because someone still decides what commit or questions will be aired. I wonder why the other news networks don’t do what CNN is trying to do? I watched a video of Shirky giving a talk and he told a story of a little girl watching a new television and she was looking behind the television and when dad ask her what she was looking for she replied that she was looking for the mouse, so the youth is looking for things the be more interactive. For Clay Shirky social networking is revolution for society just as the printing press was earlier in history. He makes the point the institution should not be the model in the way people work together, but it is collaboration that brings people together in working on a project. Basically, in “What Would Google Do?” by Jeff Jarvis, he makes a very similar statement that companies need to change their way of thinking and provide many different ways of networking with their employees and the customers. People in General, want to feel that they are involved on a project and not told what they must do on some project by a boss. Look at Second Life where people can come together with many different backgrounds in order to work on a big project. I am trying to develop an Island for a group, and working with many people with certain skills on this project. The owner of the island and the group is listening to many different people in the group for their ideas and wants for the Island. To me Second Life, is more interactive for me then other forms of social media like FaceBook or MySpace. On my MySpace page which I have not updated for months, I have some videos and music that came with the MySpace service. However, CNN every afternoon at 2 pm CST has a newscast; with Rick Sanchez that lets people on Twitter; FaceBook; and MySpace join in the conversation to ask questions and to express themselves. I don’t see this as a true exercise of collaboration between us and the network because someone still decides what commit or questions will be aired. I wonder why the other news networks don’t do what CNN is trying to do? I watched a video of Shirky giving a talk and he told a story of a little girl watching a new television and she was looking behind the television and when dad ask her what she was looking for she replied that she was looking for the mouse, so the youth is looking for things the be more interactive.

]]> By: Nico Smith http://outsidethetext.com/arche/here-comes-everybody/comment-page-1/#comment-4693 Nico Smith Tue, 24 Mar 2009 09:02:11 +0000 http://outsidethetext.com/arche/?p=95#comment-4693 One of the more interesting notes to me was the concept of failure for free. “Open source software has been one of the greatest successes of the digital age.” (240) Shirky goes on to talk about how the world opened up, and not only could you trade information with others near you more easily, but you can open discussion across the world. This is fascinating point, but I think he’s slightly underselling what the technology age means. Once there is a renewable source of power (which will happen ultimately because of open source research) and then once there is more of a focus on tapping into the potential of under developed countries that are now (because of the renewable, cheap power) able to contribute to the worldwide conversation . . . then you will see the true outcomes of open sourcing. This is a concept, not just a web development tool. The lines of communication are now accessible. THAT is what open sourcing is truly about. The network is what makes that possible. Imagine having access to the intellectual power of the worlds’ poorest people. (Thank you Mr. Jarvis) THAT will be the true culmination of open source. Although, I’ll admit, Linux is cool. My second point is based in a conversation that I had just before reading the epilogue. A group of theatre professionals were discussing the usefulness of social networking when it came to the promotion of art. Suddenly one of the members, who had previously sat quiet, spoke up about his fear of social networking. “I’m not on facebook because I’m afraid that someone is going to see me at a bar at put up some status update about me being there when I’ve just told my boss that I can’t go to the cast party because I’m sick. I’m worried that if I get on these sites, I’m not only am losing my own privacy, but now it’s to the point that I don’t even have to be on these things for people to be causing me a loss of privacy. People can talk about me doing things that may or may not be true, and what am I supposed to do about it? What if my boss see your innocent tweet about a great time you had with me at a bar, and it turns into a mess for me to explain, and I didn’t even do anything. And what’s worse, is what if I didn’t even lie, but you did. What If I’m actually home sick, and one of you guys decides to be funny? What am I supposed to do?” Interesting point. Shirky would say that we no longer live in a world where we can solely prevent, and now we must react. “… the value of freedom outweighs the problems, not based on a calculation of net value, but because freedom is the right thing to want for society.” (306) I wonder at what cost? Obviously there are regulations (Shirky mentions the illegality of yelling fire in a crowded theater) but at what point does it simply become reduced to hoping everyone abides by the rules? Will this mad rush of free speech lead to the end of it entirely? Will human nature so consistently get in the way that over regulation occurs? Will we all quietly steal white bicycles until there are none left? One of the more interesting notes to me was the concept of failure for free. “Open source software has been one of the greatest successes of the digital age.” (240) Shirky goes on to talk about how the world opened up, and not only could you trade information with others near you more easily, but you can open discussion across the world. This is fascinating point, but I think he’s slightly underselling what the technology age means. Once there is a renewable source of power (which will happen ultimately because of open source research) and then once there is more of a focus on tapping into the potential of under developed countries that are now (because of the renewable, cheap power) able to contribute to the worldwide conversation . . . then you will see the true outcomes of open sourcing. This is a concept, not just a web development tool. The lines of communication are now accessible. THAT is what open sourcing is truly about. The network is what makes that possible. Imagine having access to the intellectual power of the worlds’ poorest people. (Thank you Mr. Jarvis) THAT will be the true culmination of open source. Although, I’ll admit, Linux is cool.

My second point is based in a conversation that I had just before reading the epilogue. A group of theatre professionals were discussing the usefulness of social networking when it came to the promotion of art. Suddenly one of the members, who had previously sat quiet, spoke up about his fear of social networking. “I’m not on facebook because I’m afraid that someone is going to see me at a bar at put up some status update about me being there when I’ve just told my boss that I can’t go to the cast party because I’m sick. I’m worried that if I get on these sites, I’m not only am losing my own privacy, but now it’s to the point that I don’t even have to be on these things for people to be causing me a loss of privacy. People can talk about me doing things that may or may not be true, and what am I supposed to do about it? What if my boss see your innocent tweet about a great time you had with me at a bar, and it turns into a mess for me to explain, and I didn’t even do anything. And what’s worse, is what if I didn’t even lie, but you did. What If I’m actually home sick, and one of you guys decides to be funny? What am I supposed to do?”

Interesting point. Shirky would say that we no longer live in a world where we can solely prevent, and now we must react. “… the value of freedom outweighs the problems, not based on a calculation of net value, but because freedom is the right thing to want for society.” (306) I wonder at what cost? Obviously there are regulations (Shirky mentions the illegality of yelling fire in a crowded theater) but at what point does it simply become reduced to hoping everyone abides by the rules? Will this mad rush of free speech lead to the end of it entirely? Will human nature so consistently get in the way that over regulation occurs? Will we all quietly steal white bicycles until there are none left?

]]> By: Rachael http://outsidethetext.com/arche/here-comes-everybody/comment-page-1/#comment-4690 Rachael Tue, 24 Mar 2009 06:45:47 +0000 http://outsidethetext.com/arche/?p=95#comment-4690 In rereading Clay Shirky’s book, I am having a really tough time discerning if his perspective on societal change is more evolutionary or revolutionary. After some thought, it seems torn or perhaps contradictory, though I think that is the point of his overarching argument. On one hand, he argues that group-forming is a basic human desire or instinct, since humans are social creatures by their very nature. He writes that group-forming is “literally primal” and it “gives society its particular character” (23). In this sense, the development of digital communication tools is a step — albeit a big one — in man’s natural affinity to form social networks. In other words, we have an essential social identity and we create tools to sustain that identity. From ancient hunting and gathering efforts to Evan Guttman’s use of technology to find the lost phone, people will form groups and will take advantage of tools that can help them. Before communication technologies, it was difficult to form groups. Now, “social tools [allow for] action by loosely structured groups, operating without managerial direction and outside the profit motive” (47). This is the same old tribal instinct, but cheaper and easier. Yet, Shirky is quite revolutionary-sounding at the end of his book. In fact, his last sentence is “the adoption [of social tools] is leading to an epochal change” (304). I think these two perspectives I am pointing out reveal his stance for what it is — he is unsure. Shirky is unsure about anything except that society is changing because the way we communicate is changing. He is not sure about what the change will eventually look like or how we can control it, nor does he care. He doesn’t care about these issues because they imply that humans can actually alter the course of change or stop it. “The dramatic improvement in our social tools makes our control over those tools much like steering a kayak” (300). The more a technology moves toward invisibility, the less control we will have in the river of change. There is no way to label this position revolutionary or evolutionary, since “when society is changing… the change looks different depending on where you sit” (207). In this way, Shirky shares the goal of Manovich — to capture the present moment of societal change instead of predicting future change or making value judgments about the change. In rereading Clay Shirky’s book, I am having a really tough time discerning if his perspective on societal change is more evolutionary or revolutionary. After some thought, it seems torn or perhaps contradictory, though I think that is the point of his overarching argument. On one hand, he argues that group-forming is a basic human desire or instinct, since humans are social creatures by their very nature. He writes that group-forming is “literally primal” and it “gives society its particular character” (23). In this sense, the development of digital communication tools is a step — albeit a big one — in man’s natural affinity to form social networks. In other words, we have an essential social identity and we create tools to sustain that identity. From ancient hunting and gathering efforts to Evan Guttman’s use of technology to find the lost phone, people will form groups and will take advantage of tools that can help them. Before communication technologies, it was difficult to form groups. Now, “social tools [allow for] action by loosely structured groups, operating without managerial direction and outside the profit motive” (47). This is the same old tribal instinct, but cheaper and easier. Yet, Shirky is quite revolutionary-sounding at the end of his book. In fact, his last sentence is “the adoption [of social tools] is leading to an epochal change” (304). I think these two perspectives I am pointing out reveal his stance for what it is — he is unsure. Shirky is unsure about anything except that society is changing because the way we communicate is changing. He is not sure about what the change will eventually look like or how we can control it, nor does he care. He doesn’t care about these issues because they imply that humans can actually alter the course of change or stop it. “The dramatic improvement in our social tools makes our control over those tools much like steering a kayak” (300). The more a technology moves toward invisibility, the less control we will have in the river of change. There is no way to label this position revolutionary or evolutionary, since “when society is changing… the change looks different depending on where you sit” (207). In this way, Shirky shares the goal of Manovich — to capture the present moment of societal change instead of predicting future change or making value judgments about the change.

]]> By: monaism http://outsidethetext.com/arche/here-comes-everybody/comment-page-1/#comment-4688 monaism Tue, 24 Mar 2009 05:52:37 +0000 http://outsidethetext.com/arche/?p=95#comment-4688 Clay Shirky believes that social tools are leading us to an epochal transformation as they dramatically change the ways we share, cooperate, and act together. Like many other theoreticians that we have studied this semester, he agrees that "when we change the way we communicate, we change society." (17) He addresses that human beings are social by nature, and their desire for congregation nurtures these new social communication tools. To Shirky, the positive outcomes of social networks include the ability to operate and act in loosely structured groups without common managerial directions or profit motives. (47) According to Shirky's "small world networks" syndrome, we, social network users, are all victims of amplification and filtration of information because these tools tend to gather similar interest groups and like-minded people. So the chances of us missing an important but irrelevant piece of news to our liking, is much higher in the online world than in a printed newspaper where we could only read the news unfiltered. Shirky seems to suggest that ‘bridging capital’ is the solution to this problem since "good ideas and creativity comes from the diverse groups you belong to." (231) Yet, isn’t ‘bridging capital’ almost impossible when online social tools typically draw homogeneity than diversity? Shirky suggests that social communication tools are the greatest technologies of the time (as are birth control pills) because nobody is in control of how these technologies are being used and by whom. (295) Although the role of social communication tools is significant in our contemporary culture but they are far from being free of control or supervision. What Shirky leaves unaddressed is that almost all social networks are being policed and managed, and throughout the book, he deals loosely in regards to issues of control and ownership. Clay Shirky seems to be a techno-determinist, believing in the power of social network tools. He portrays the future as bright as it can be and he makes it sound as if these tools will offer us means of unlimited freedom and unfiltered expression. He praises social communication tools' ability to form groups, meetups and at times even protests (e.g. immigration protests in California schools), but then he fails to address all the unnoticed injustice that is still happening in the world. Shouldn’t these social tools spread democracy and information more than ever? In short, I find him focusing on the enthusiastic facts and leaving out possible concerns and negative effects these tools are/will be causing in the society. Shirky states that we are steering a kayak in regards to social tools, and that “our challenge is not to decide where we want to go but rather to stay upright as we go there”. (300) I find this hard to agree with, in fact this statement frightens me.., are we really going to sit and watch where the new technology will take us? Aren’t we the active participants, and avid producers of these tools and in fact we decide on their future? Clay Shirky believes that social tools are leading us to an epochal transformation as they dramatically change the ways we share, cooperate, and act together. Like many other theoreticians that we have studied this semester, he agrees that “when we change the way we communicate, we change society.” (17) He addresses that human beings are social by nature, and their desire for congregation nurtures these new social communication tools. To Shirky, the positive outcomes of social networks include the ability to operate and act in loosely structured groups without common managerial directions or profit motives. (47)

According to Shirky’s “small world networks” syndrome, we, social network users, are all victims of amplification and filtration of information because these tools tend to gather similar interest groups and like-minded people. So the chances of us missing an important but irrelevant piece of news to our liking, is much higher in the online world than in a printed newspaper where we could only read the news unfiltered. Shirky seems to suggest that ‘bridging capital’ is the solution to this problem since “good ideas and creativity comes from the diverse groups you belong to.” (231) Yet, isn’t ‘bridging capital’ almost impossible when online social tools typically draw homogeneity than diversity?

Shirky suggests that social communication tools are the greatest technologies of the time (as are birth control pills) because nobody is in control of how these technologies are being used and by whom. (295) Although the role of social communication tools is significant in our contemporary culture but they are far from being free of control or supervision. What Shirky leaves unaddressed is that almost all social networks are being policed and managed, and throughout the book, he deals loosely in regards to issues of control and ownership.

Clay Shirky seems to be a techno-determinist, believing in the power of social network tools. He portrays the future as bright as it can be and he makes it sound as if these tools will offer us means of unlimited freedom and unfiltered expression. He praises social communication tools’ ability to form groups, meetups and at times even protests (e.g. immigration protests in California schools), but then he fails to address all the unnoticed injustice that is still happening in the world. Shouldn’t these social tools spread democracy and information more than ever?

In short, I find him focusing on the enthusiastic facts and leaving out possible concerns and negative effects these tools are/will be causing in the society. Shirky states that we are steering a kayak in regards to social tools, and that “our challenge is not to decide where we want to go but rather to stay upright as we go there”. (300) I find this hard to agree with, in fact this statement frightens me.., are we really going to sit and watch where the new technology will take us? Aren’t we the active participants, and avid producers of these tools and in fact we decide on their future?

]]> By: Clint Gunter http://outsidethetext.com/arche/here-comes-everybody/comment-page-1/#comment-4686 Clint Gunter Tue, 24 Mar 2009 05:34:01 +0000 http://outsidethetext.com/arche/?p=95#comment-4686 From the opening example of the lost phone, it seemed there was a minor detail underemphasized (and perhaps even overlooked altogether) by Shirky. People wanted to be drawn into the story of the lost phone because they wanted to see justice occur, and they participated on the website as a result. Furthermore, to cite a later example, people wanted to take pictures of the Mermaid Parade. They also wanted to share their photographs, and many used Flickr to do it. The common thread in both of these examples is that people wanted to do these things, and these desires existed before there was a digital network to carry them to (this particular form of) fruition. Unfortunately it seems that “want” is a potential limitation to a broader outworking of these concepts. A complex engineering project, such as the building of a bridge, wouldn’t happen under these principles, because there simply aren’t a lot of people sitting around doing bits of engineering and construction work in their leisure time. People do write thoughts, record events, and communicate all the time. These are things that most humans find pleasant, therefore they freely engage in them for leisure. Today that happens within the digital sphere in the form of blogs, tweets, digital photography, email, etc. These things occur for free, so the ingenuity lies in capturing them and putting them to use for some greater purpose. Flickr and Digg are good examples of this, representing a new form of entrepreneurism. But with all of this there are still many actions that aren’t taking place for free (broadly speaking, of course). Someone may be willing to create a LittleBigPlanet level without being paid as a game designer, but they aren’t willing to plan and construct a new road unless there is monetary compensation upfront. Perhaps it is the fact that something takes place in the digital realm that makes it more likely to occur on its own, free of charge? It is easier to build something in LittleBigPlanet than it is in real life, after all. It would be an interesting endeavor to compile a list of things people in our culture do on their own, for free, without anyone pushing them to do it, contrasting that with a list of things people are only willing to do if properly compensated in some fashion. Things that occur on both lists wouldn’t count, of course (sex comes to mind). From the opening example of the lost phone, it seemed there was a minor detail underemphasized (and perhaps even overlooked altogether) by Shirky. People wanted to be drawn into the story of the lost phone because they wanted to see justice occur, and they participated on the website as a result. Furthermore, to cite a later example, people wanted to take pictures of the Mermaid Parade. They also wanted to share their photographs, and many used Flickr to do it. The common thread in both of these examples is that people wanted to do these things, and these desires existed before there was a digital network to carry them to (this particular form of) fruition.

Unfortunately it seems that “want” is a potential limitation to a broader outworking of these concepts. A complex engineering project, such as the building of a bridge, wouldn’t happen under these principles, because there simply aren’t a lot of people sitting around doing bits of engineering and construction work in their leisure time. People do write thoughts, record events, and communicate all the time. These are things that most humans find pleasant, therefore they freely engage in them for leisure. Today that happens within the digital sphere in the form of blogs, tweets, digital photography, email, etc.

These things occur for free, so the ingenuity lies in capturing them and putting them to use for some greater purpose. Flickr and Digg are good examples of this, representing a new form of entrepreneurism. But with all of this there are still many actions that aren’t taking place for free (broadly speaking, of course). Someone may be willing to create a LittleBigPlanet level without being paid as a game designer, but they aren’t willing to plan and construct a new road unless there is monetary compensation upfront.

Perhaps it is the fact that something takes place in the digital realm that makes it more likely to occur on its own, free of charge? It is easier to build something in LittleBigPlanet than it is in real life, after all. It would be an interesting endeavor to compile a list of things people in our culture do on their own, for free, without anyone pushing them to do it, contrasting that with a list of things people are only willing to do if properly compensated in some fashion. Things that occur on both lists wouldn’t count, of course (sex comes to mind).

]]> By: Lacy Mahone http://outsidethetext.com/arche/here-comes-everybody/comment-page-1/#comment-4683 Lacy Mahone Tue, 24 Mar 2009 04:28:18 +0000 http://outsidethetext.com/arche/?p=95#comment-4683 Shirky's "Here Comes Everybody" was one of the more enjoyable reads so far, if not the one that made the most impact (even if it was because of readability - I was sure the meaning wasn't lost in translation). I found his outline (and tracing through history) of standard functional corporate structure to be very clear in chapter 2. I find that I notice companies online who use the traditional hierarchical corporate structure he describes to get the business done, but who incorporate many of the characteristics of social networking communities to keep their employees motivated. Etsy is a great example of this. They are a small online company that provides an outlet for users to sell their handmade goods. They are a profitable company, but each of their employees has a profile picture under their general job-title category. You see them doing their thing throughout the site and on marketing emails, and the result is an almost personal connection felt with them (similar to the avatar/online relationship phenomenons). A statement that I found particularly poignant was on page 79: "For a generation that is growing up without the scarcity that made publishing such a serious-minded pursuit, the written word has no special value in and of itself." I stopped to think this over and realized that maybe I didn't understand that the written word could have value "in and of itself" because I am part of that generation he is referring to? I can publish anything I want on my own blog, I can comment publicly on a high-traffic blog, I can even publish my own professionally printed book at any time without ever leaving my house. Another interesting observation by Shirky is that the "cost of finding like-minded people has been lowered and, more important, deprofessionalized" (63). This is all in the midst of his discussion on how many professions, by definition, are in jeopardy and how the rules are being redefined on how we deal with privileges allowed to those select few. This reminded me of an article I read in the past few months (likely in Wired or Scientific American Mind, though I can't seem to find it at the moment) that theorized, I think very accurately, specialization will be the key to success in the future job market. It will only matter that you are REALLY good at one piece of the puzzle, especially if there is little face-to-face/office interaction because of our new reliance on networking... like little machines that do the same thing all day every day? interesting/scary thought. Shirky’s “Here Comes Everybody” was one of the more enjoyable reads so far, if not the one that made the most impact (even if it was because of readability – I was sure the meaning wasn’t lost in translation).

I found his outline (and tracing through history) of standard functional corporate structure to be very clear in chapter 2. I find that I notice companies online who use the traditional hierarchical corporate structure he describes to get the business done, but who incorporate many of the characteristics of social networking communities to keep their employees motivated. Etsy is a great example of this. They are a small online company that provides an outlet for users to sell their handmade goods. They are a profitable company, but each of their employees has a profile picture under their general job-title category. You see them doing their thing throughout the site and on marketing emails, and the result is an almost personal connection felt with them (similar to the avatar/online relationship phenomenons).

A statement that I found particularly poignant was on page 79: “For a generation that is growing up without the scarcity that made publishing such a serious-minded pursuit, the written word has no special value in and of itself.” I stopped to think this over and realized that maybe I didn’t understand that the written word could have value “in and of itself” because I am part of that generation he is referring to? I can publish anything I want on my own blog, I can comment publicly on a high-traffic blog, I can even publish my own professionally printed book at any time without ever leaving my house.

Another interesting observation by Shirky is that the “cost of finding like-minded people has been lowered and, more important, deprofessionalized” (63). This is all in the midst of his discussion on how many professions, by definition, are in jeopardy and how the rules are being redefined on how we deal with privileges allowed to those select few. This reminded me of an article I read in the past few months (likely in Wired or Scientific American Mind, though I can’t seem to find it at the moment) that theorized, I think very accurately, specialization will be the key to success in the future job market. It will only matter that you are REALLY good at one piece of the puzzle, especially if there is little face-to-face/office interaction because of our new reliance on networking… like little machines that do the same thing all day every day? interesting/scary thought.

]]> By: Jeff Curry http://outsidethetext.com/arche/here-comes-everybody/comment-page-1/#comment-4681 Jeff Curry Tue, 24 Mar 2009 04:07:29 +0000 http://outsidethetext.com/arche/?p=95#comment-4681 Clay Shirky’s view of organization in Here Comes Everybody was very interesting. How the organizations structures in relationship to website is not very clear to me. Social websites are designed to focus on the interest of the user. Shirky in the sharing anchors a community uses organizational analysis to define the organization. He uses the David McCallum org chart and Coasean theory to analyze latent groups in potential and effort would have to be made to make latent groups into real ones by conventional mean. Was the change in a website a conscious change by the users? He calls user produced content evidence. Designer and programmers produce the websites to enhance the user experience. Did the designers and programmers design the website like flicker with destroying traditional media? This would be very interesting to Bolter and Grusin in relation to websites like Flick r and DIGG to replace print and traditional media. The websites like Flick r seem to give a user a customized experience where the things your focused on are collected and queried. Clay Shirky’s view of organization in Here Comes Everybody was very interesting. How the organizations structures in relationship to website is not very clear to me. Social websites are designed to focus on the interest of the user. Shirky in the sharing anchors a community uses organizational analysis to define the organization. He uses the David McCallum org chart and Coasean theory to analyze latent groups in potential and effort would have to be made to make latent groups into real ones by conventional mean. Was the change in a website a conscious change by the users? He calls user produced content evidence.

Designer and programmers produce the websites to enhance the user experience. Did the designers and programmers design the website like flicker with destroying traditional media? This would be very interesting to Bolter and Grusin in relation to websites like Flick r and DIGG to replace print and traditional media. The websites like Flick r seem to give a user a customized experience where the things your focused on are collected and queried.

]]> By: D. Hrisco http://outsidethetext.com/arche/here-comes-everybody/comment-page-1/#comment-4680 D. Hrisco Tue, 24 Mar 2009 03:47:11 +0000 http://outsidethetext.com/arche/?p=95#comment-4680 Comments on Clay Shirky D.Hrisco Shirky’s book shows various relationships among groups and the dynamics of groups. First, he states that group relations can be evaluated and managed through hierarchical management. Shirky talks about the railroads and the necessity for management of the rail traffic. This discussion of group relations and the dynamics of group behavior lead into empowerment of some group who choose to “share, collaborate, and make collective decisions.” The most difficulty of these group behaviors is the collective action, which requires social responsibility, and the possibility of unfavorable outcome. Also, Shirky states that once a technology is adaptive by society, the technology becomes ubiquitous and society is able to have the full benefit of the technology. Along with group interactions, Shirky discusses the individual’s ability to broadcast or publish with the communication tools available. Although one may have the Internet and a keyboard so one could publish or push a story, “the signal to noise ratio” has to be just right (Shirky SXSW09). In the book, Shirky explains the filtering processes, which takes place for publishing. The publishers set the signal and as the users push information through the filters, the members of the publishing community set the pulse for “what is to be published or consumes”. Shirky explains that the participatory nature of groups and communities only become possible when the network does not produce cost or the cost effectiveness is low enough that a community can embrace the cost. The signal is “at a good rate”. Comments on Clay Shirky

D.Hrisco

Shirky’s book shows various relationships among groups and the dynamics of groups. First, he states that group relations can be evaluated and managed through hierarchical management. Shirky talks about the railroads and the necessity for management of the rail traffic. This discussion of group relations and the dynamics of group behavior lead into empowerment of some group who choose to “share, collaborate, and make collective decisions.”

The most difficulty of these group behaviors is the collective action, which requires social responsibility, and the possibility of unfavorable outcome. Also, Shirky states that once a technology is adaptive by society, the technology becomes ubiquitous and society is able to have the full benefit of the technology.

Along with group interactions, Shirky discusses the individual’s ability to broadcast or publish with the communication tools available. Although one may have the Internet and a keyboard so one could publish or push a story, “the signal to noise ratio” has to be just right (Shirky SXSW09). In the book, Shirky explains the filtering processes, which takes place for publishing. The publishers set the signal and as the users push information through the filters, the members of the publishing community set the pulse for “what is to be published or consumes”. Shirky explains that the participatory nature of groups and communities only become possible when the network does not produce cost or the cost effectiveness is low enough that a community can embrace the cost. The signal is “at a good rate”.

]]> By: Allen Jung http://outsidethetext.com/arche/here-comes-everybody/comment-page-1/#comment-4678 Allen Jung Tue, 24 Mar 2009 02:59:38 +0000 http://outsidethetext.com/arche/?p=95#comment-4678 The layered structure of organizations is explained to be.. I guess one of the best ways to operate a large corporation without losing its profitability and efficiency. Clay does explain that there are limits however to how much one corporation can grow. Layered structure, as explained in the book, separates each tier from one another, so that information only really travels in one direction. To CEO to his managers.. to their supervisors.. to the rest of the employees etc. etc.. I find this to be an epic failure in structure of large corporations. Too many times CEO's gets the best end of the deal whenever business is blooming.. or even when it is going out of business, while the bottom tier employees, often times the most hard working are the ones who get shafted. I believe that the "bottom tier" of corporate ladder has more sense of community, since they are almost always exposed to one another in a confined room. They are constantly reminded of the size of the corporation and that they are not here for themselves, but to work with one another. Bottom tier is the pillar or foundation of the corporation. Top tier however, work in a different mentality. Confined in a large room by themselves, away from all the mess of the bottom tier, they are separated from the community. This separation is why you see enron, bear stearns, and AIG on the newspapers. It is not really about how the company can survive or not. But it is almost always how they can get the most out of certain situation with maximum benefit for themselves. While cutting everyone below loose. They are so severely separated away from the community, that he or she no longer think as a group but as an individual. Like Dave had mentioned in one of his lectures, it is the top class that sets the norm for the rest of the people in the world. Quite naturally, this business model suits the most wealthy. Just because there are billions and billions of people out in the world, let us not forget the importance and the value of One. The layered structure of organizations is explained to be.. I guess one of the best ways to operate a large corporation without losing its profitability and efficiency. Clay does explain that there are limits however to how much one corporation can grow. Layered structure, as explained in the book, separates each tier from one another, so that information only really travels in one direction. To CEO to his managers.. to their supervisors.. to the rest of the employees etc. etc.. I find this to be an epic failure in structure of large corporations. Too many times CEO’s gets the best end of the deal whenever business is blooming.. or even when it is going out of business, while the bottom tier employees, often times the most hard working are the ones who get shafted. I believe that the “bottom tier” of corporate ladder has more sense of community, since they are almost always exposed to one another in a confined room. They are constantly reminded of the size of the corporation and that they are not here for themselves, but to work with one another. Bottom tier is the pillar or foundation of the corporation. Top tier however, work in a different mentality. Confined in a large room by themselves, away from all the mess of the bottom tier, they are separated from the community. This separation is why you see enron, bear stearns, and AIG on the newspapers. It is not really about how the company can survive or not. But it is almost always how they can get the most out of certain situation with maximum benefit for themselves. While cutting everyone below loose. They are so severely separated away from the community, that he or she no longer think as a group but as an individual. Like Dave had mentioned in one of his lectures, it is the top class that sets the norm for the rest of the people in the world. Quite naturally, this business model suits the most wealthy. Just because there are billions and billions of people out in the world, let us not forget the importance and the value of One.

]]>