Fannin's Place

MMC6612, Fall 2010

Author Archive

blog post 12 comments

leave a comment »

Written by fanninchen

December 3, 2010 at 10:24 am

Posted in Uncategorized

11/17 presentation slide show

with one comment

Written by fanninchen

November 20, 2010 at 7:05 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

More than Crowdsourcing

with 9 comments

Among the 5 cases, I’m very interested in the “Brian Lehrer Show.” How does it make an impact on listeners and how does the result of the project show to us?

First of all, there is a problem of sampling. I found this article “Demystifying Crowdsourcing: An Introduction to Non-Probability Sampling” deployed that though it’s not representative to the whole population, but it’s an cost-efficient way to collect data, which decrease the time and effort to gather all the information. In the case of counting SUV numbers, it does save a lot of effort to build the map, but there is still a doubt that is the result representative enough. However, the drawback of crowdsourcing is sampling.

Second, does the credibility of crowdsourcing be an issue or crowdsourcing can gain credibility? As I looking through comments posted by listeners, I can’t help to doubt that “are these numbers reported being true?” I mean, it is easily for users to mess around, because there aren’t any proof to justify my reporting right? MENG conducted a survey in 2007, “shows companies effectively using crowdsourcing for real-world innovation.” The result showed that “80% of executives considered crowdsourcing was probable that opportunities exist to source this expertise from business and knowledge networks”, and it showed a great interest if these executives that using crowdsourcing to enhence their Research and Development. They had certain expectations to the data that crowdsourcing produced, and “84 percent rating this information as valuable or highly valuable.”

Third, as Muthukumarasway mentioned in the article that “audience attraction is a happy consequence” of crowdsourcing, how does it work? I found an article reported that the Netflix Prize attracted more than 50,000 teams join the contest they held. The contest was all about beating their existing movie prediction system- CinematchSM. I believe one of the reasons why there are so many participants in the contest is because of its Grand Prize– $1,000,000 (USD) Cash. However, the Brain Lehrer Show did not provide such rich prize; there were still an amount of participants. It showed the power of crowdsourcing, even without prize, people still participate!

Muthukumarasway put the Brain Lehrer Show into the category of Wisdom of Crowds in General-interest Reporting by Recruiting a General Audience. I think it’s suitable and appropriate, and it’s also a good example of crowdsourcing. Though it’s  a very “simple” crowdsourcing case, it still has the general concept of an aggregate of people who are in the virtual reality world contributing something all together in order to get the answer of the question, no matter the answer is right or wrong.

Written by fanninchen

November 13, 2010 at 3:10 am

Posted in Uncategorized

remix against copyright

with 7 comments

The basic spirit of internet is connecting and sharing. People cannot stuck in the copyright law and stop creating.

While intellectual property claims their rights and their money, its all about business. We forget the origin of the creation of internet. The authority sets laws to protect the creator, or prevent their money to be stolen. It hinders the creativity,also  the chance to make progress.

As this generation is full of criminals, who are stealing ideas all around, I suppose everyone is enjoying being a pirate.



Written by fanninchen

November 8, 2010 at 4:19 am

Posted in Uncategorized

Online Context

with 4 comments

The massive internet information flow is de-contextualized the meaning of discourse online.

The technology boom makes the internet produce more and more information in front of the users. Under such pressure, the way how we interpret the information, the texts, and the discourses becomes a tough challenge. According to Sandbote,

“Our reading is changing, hermeneutic sensitivity is being intensified, our reception of texts is becoming more intertextual.” (Mike Sandbote)

Meaning is being discussed and being interactively created, it’s changeable, and it might be interpreted as different point of view.

Though it creates the “chaos” in the information market, but

“When text is free to flow and combine, new forms of value are created, and the overall productively of the system increases.” (Steve Johnson)

Indeed, take Wikipedia for example, the value of texts is gaining by the adding and revising actions between users, pushing it to the summit of the ultimate “truth.” But how do we evaluate it? How do we know “this” description is better than others?

“In Wikipedia, no such objective signal of quality is available.” (Michael Nielsen)

Texts, discourses, they are not mathematical problems. They can’t be solved by a single answer. Furthermore, internet provides the forum of collecting dispersed information easily, through the “copy and paste” to form a new concept. Thus, we can only grab the scattered meaning in the texts on the internet, decontextualizing the paragraphs, developing discourses combine with our own point of view, sometimes constructing a totally new idea, different from the original one. The interaction of the creation of new meanings between online users also puts influences on the exchangeable internet content.

“information must be conceived as discrete bundles, physically decontextualized and fluidly moving. For ultimately, the control processes of complex systems are a matter of regulated feedback which requires that processes of communication be conceived of as exchanges.” (David Sholle)

The decontexualization on the internet makes everyone has the chance to deliberate their discourses, though might be broken. However, the internet provides a free platform for us to express our opinion, basically without consequences. There is no such ultimate principle to define the texts, which are fallen into pieces.

“In the networking activity the scientific institutions lose their interpretative and ruler positions and everybody has to relate to the pieces of the knowledge directly and personally, without any mediating and interpreting by the official experts of that piece of knowledge. This freedom to reach all the human knowledge seems to be a constraint, we are thrown into the freedom and nobody can save us. “ (László Ropolyi)

Written by fanninchen

October 31, 2010 at 3:02 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Tibet Activism

with 6 comments

The political organization I choose to compare with Move is Tibetan Youth Congress (TYC). TYC was founded in 1970, India. It’s a worldwide organization struggle for the restoration of complete independence for the whole of Tibet. According to the website, TYC has emerged as the largest and most active non-governmental Organization of Tibetans in exile. It has more than 30,000 members worldwide.

The website of TYC shows a totally different layout from the Move, TYC’s website is consist of a series of news, and it’s not easy to find a visual focus at the first glance. On the contrarily, Move is more comprehensive then TYC, it’s well categorized and it use different colors to make a clear distinguishability. However, TYC puts more tabs on top of the website, so users could browse content that interests them, and get more information.

According to Rohlinger and Brown (2009), there are three major benefits of join online political organization: 1) it’s a free arena to speak 2) the anonymous character on the internet 3) it has mobilizing potential (p.134~p.136). First of all, Tibet is struggling to independent under the pressure of China government for a long time, they need a way to express their thoughts and raise their activities as broad as possible, and through internet, it’s without broader and limits. They not only run the online business, but also set multiple branches in several countries, in the hope of gathering more attention and resources.

Secondly, the trait of internet avoiding repression is obviously fit in this circumstance of TYC. The China government imprisoned activisms of Tibet independent supporters who claimed China should not hole the Olympic Games until Tibet is free. The anonymity of internet is important for some of the participants who are afraid of the authority. To put in other words, they are under the invisible shield of internet.

Last, TYC do call upon people to join their activities in real life. As the TYC album showed, there are a lot of participants join their protests. The potential of mobile people in front of the computer to the street is possible. However, under the high pressure of China government, it is important for TYC to gather more active forces to know, to support, to stand up for Tibet. The internet is defenitely a good way they can display their ideas to the world, instantly, unlimitedly, freely, and kind of safer way.

Here is an interesting video clip discussing the Great Firewall of China.

Check it out!

Written by fanninchen

October 18, 2010 at 5:31 am

Posted in Uncategorized

Blog post 7 comments

with 2 comments

Written by fanninchen

October 12, 2010 at 11:16 pm

Posted in Uncategorized