Task 1b Professional communication technologies

Task 1b Professional communication technologies







Looking outward at how others have used the technologies and what they have said about the technologies some of the Platforms that have been catgorised as web 2.0 are Blogs, Facebook, Youtube and Wikipedia.

Due to my age and professional work experience within two very distinct periods of time, I have one foot routed in “the old” and one foot in “the new” with regards to communication technologies.

This gives me both practical perspectives and anecdotal evidence to help me form some initial opinions and findings on the above. Allied to this I have the incredible written resources/evidence/references available to me through the various media used to record them all from “the new” ways of communicating.

Moreover I have a, so far untapped into, for me, source of opinions and information from colleagues and with an inter generational strand perhaps, a rich vein of information from the young people I regularly work with. This work, perhaps more uniquely, takes place with very differing strands of ability levels, ages, disabilities and behavioural traits. It is important for me to mention this latter category as I would seek to prove that their social habits now, with regard to Web 2.0 may inevitably feed into their professional working life. Indeed, they are likely to be part of a next generation of professional communication technology users who develop further change. The main architects of web 1.0 and 2.0 were relatively young adults ie Tim Berners-Lee(www), Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook), you could also include other pioneers/entrepreneurs, such as Bill Gates (Microsoft) & Steve Jobes (Apple).

At this point I would like to define some features of a web 2.0 community, one of the most frequently used models for this is O`Reilly`s web 2.0 meme map. I will not attempt a definition of all the strands that make up the meme map but discuss the three competencies associated with web 2.0
　

Architectures of participation
 


I am seeking here to look for a practical everyday example to illustrate the general meaning of web 2.0. I have picked up on a number of comments from my blogging companions from the course who draw upon experiences garnered from their own professional practise or social life and varying situations they have encountered. Likewise I would like to draw upon an example from my own professional practise to define participation in relation to web 2.0. I am lucky enough to work frequently with young people in devising theatre pieces and rely upon, to almost an equal extent, the views and input of the “passive” observers (the young people watching). What we frequently do, is start with an initial interpretation of a situation, quite often communicating an idea with one or more moral values, communicated to the audience of passive observers by the “active” participants. In this situation each group of “active” performers will take turns to develop the original concept, through what they have learnt as “passive” observers. This could, in theory be honed and develop to an infinitesimal extent. The exact same could be said for interactions through web 2.0.

Re-mixable data and transformations

 


Is the reality that with web 2.0 ideas, materials, data etc can be multiply, re-arranged, placed in different formats and locations, altered. Justin Reich discusses, as an example, that whilst web 2.0 is in theory, economically a leveller, allowing larger amounts of populations, a platform or access to powerful communication tools, information could be remix able in ways to suit a distinct ideology, such as in China and monitored by agencies, to the detriment of the individual.

Bruns discusses the principle around Produsage, where the production and usage are fluid, one and the same, it often has copywrite properties attached to contributions and is continually evolving. Dr Bruns also talks about online gaming, where whole groups of gamers alter and shift the parameteres of games, not now working within rigid narratives and this has become an essential of that particular online experience.

Having read Colin Lankshear and Michele Knobel`s journal, in particular on role playing I find similarities of my earlier comments in this piece and a good explanation, in a different medium of remix able data and transformations.

Harnessing collective intelligences




　



Ullrich in 2008 talks about “Harnessing the power of the crowd” We now know the vast power for good or ill from collective intelligence, we only need to look as far as Wikipedia, which is accessed and changed by millions on a daily basis. We have come to rely on this as a source of information and curiosity and as human beings it is in our nature to be inquisitive, exploring, to develop fresh thinking. I am also of a trait that is similar to probably millions, in that I fall into modes of communication that are very easily accessed and cheap. Web 2.0 lends itself to this perfectly.

As a final thought, I have been listening to Dotun Adebayo`s radio 5 live programme and in a humourous piece on Sunday 25th Nov 2012 he talked about Eton students doing the "gangnam style" dance on youtube, as is happening all over the place, an example of harnessing collective intelligences,  remixing and transforming data, ie "the dance/song" picked up from a particular participation strand, in this case, youtube. It would be impossible for this kind of interaction previously and for it to be available on such a widespread scale.