Provide some closing thoughts about the course and the material we
covered. Was there anything that surprised you? What did you find the
most interesting topic and why?
I think that the majority of what I knew about social media has just a refreshment to what social media is through social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter and etc. I think there were some interesting topics that we discussed that I did not know about such as how powerful social games have become, the anonymous group, Wikileaks and the impact it has to us. I am surprised by the amount of social media platforms that exist in the world. During one lecture, I was surprised that girls play more video games than man do in the U.S. I think the most interesting topic to me has been between the anonymous group and the social gaming class. The social gaming, especially the role playing games because I enjoy playing them, so I can relate to the language and the way people communicate in games. And the power that the anonymous has on people and the way they are changing the perspective on how we get our information.
How has your viewpoint and perception of social media changed/or not from the first class until last class?
I think I am in the middle to the viewpoint of social media. Obviously there are many advantages into communicating through social media and being able to communicate to your friends/family and your "followers" instantly. But the disadvantage is what you say. Despite that it may be an interest to you on what you say, people might find what you say offensive and could cause some bad reactions. Overall, I think this class has taught me that social media is a great way to communicate, but it is a warning on how you communicate, and the result of it.
Wednesday, 5 June 2013
Kony 2012
Provide a response to the incentive of raising awareness of LRA Leader Joseph Kony.
I think that the incentive of raising awareness of Joseph Kony was huge at the time when the video was posted. Kony had been terrorizing and been torturing people in Congo and other parts of Africa for such a long time, and the reason this issue came up was because people did not have the resources at the time to actually tell people about it. Social media is considered new to many people, so addressing the issue earlier was hard. Traditional media sources never covered it until it was covered by social media, via Youtube. This was great for this guy to raise awareness because it has been long overdue to what Kony has done, but it is hard to raise an issue where nobody did not know about Kony until the video was posted. As far as the incentive of donating money to this cause, many people did believe that by donating money, it would help solve the issue. To this day, this issue is unresolvable. So it does question, not only this issue, but issues that are happening around the world, and whether or not the money people are donating is actually helping these issues, or is easy money for people who are telling us about the issue.
What are some things that struck you as relevant to the course and what we’ve been discussing?
What struck me as far as what I learned about the course and in discussion to this video is how powerful social media has become. This video has over 97 million views on Youtube, and when the video was first posted in March of 2012, it has roughly 20 million views in the first week. So it is easy to become an instant sensation by expressing your opinion on an issue that no one knows about. And this is how the anonymous group has become famous because they are showing us an a idea that no one has heard of.
What are some benefits and constraints of this social media incentive?
Some benefits of social media incentive is of course the popularity you become from posting an idea and getting people to buy into this idea. Another benefit for social media incentive is to grow on this idea and possibly develop different ideas that will help you. There is also the comments that you might receive from some people that will encourage you to express yourself more. The constraint into social media incentives is freedom of speech because you can only express yourself to a point where if you say something that may be rude or incorrect, people will react bad to it. There is obviously many laws and rules people have to go through when posting things on the internet, so it does scare people to expressing themselves on the Internet, knowing that people are monitoring what your saying.
Give some thought and provide some commentary on Zuckerman’s blog post. Also, have a look at the comments that were posted at the end of his blog entry. What are the responses like? What kinds of arguments are made, what positions are taken?
If I would of read this post a year ago when the video came out, I probably would of ignored what this guy has said. But now looking back at it, and finding understanding the actual message of the video, obviously the idea of over simplicity is the main reason as to how this idea faded out. The comments were negative at the time because people did not have enough information about KONY2012. Today, people have realize that yes he is a dangerous man, but he is not the main problem in Uganda and in other parts of Africa. They never made an argument about this blog. People just basically said what this guys wrong and his claims were flawed. Well the information that he has provided does provide rightfully claims about KONY2012 and the message it brings.
Find additional criticisms (or conversations) about/of KONY2012, post the link/s and discuss as well.
How has this incentive changed how we think about social media and the global community? What happened to the outcomes of this incentive? Could this have worked?
The only additional criticism I have about KONY2012 is the person who actually made it, Jason Russell. After people were finding out that the message he was sending was not up to what he had hoped, he suffered a meltdown, which then affected the KONY2012 because he was not an a reliable person to listen to. The most part, the criticisms have been about the video being a US audience with their own specific solutions, but no solutions that could solve the problems in Uganda. I think this has changed the global community because people started to realize that there are more problems that Uganda face than just Kony, and that even solving this problem, would not cause any relief there. The incentive to me seemed as though that this filmmaker was more about capturing Kony than solving the "real" problems in Uganda. The outcome from this was not what the filmmaker expected to get, people eventually tuned out the idea of capturing Kony and just moved on from it.
What has happened to the campaign and the incentives since the most recent media events surrounding the film maker? Should this matter? Does the incentive lose credibility? Why/not?
The campaign still existed on Facebook and Twitter, but obviously it does not have the same popularity as it did a year ago. The filmmaker was in the spotlight for his mental breakdown, but has not ever since. The incentive to raising awareness and helping people realize about Kony has diminished and other problems in other areas across the global has arise. I think that it has lost its credibility because people did background information on the campaign and people realized that the campaign is not to what they saw on Youtube.
What role do you think the Kony 2012 played more broadly in the use of social media for collective action?
I think it played a huge role at the time it was popular. It was trending worldwide on Twitter and there were alot of shares and views on both Facebook and Youtube. People around the world took action when this became a trend because everyone wanted to get involved. Especially when people expected to purchase those packages that were supposed to help stop Kony. In the end, the KONY2012 will still be remembered, but not in the way that the filmmaker expected it.
I think that the incentive of raising awareness of Joseph Kony was huge at the time when the video was posted. Kony had been terrorizing and been torturing people in Congo and other parts of Africa for such a long time, and the reason this issue came up was because people did not have the resources at the time to actually tell people about it. Social media is considered new to many people, so addressing the issue earlier was hard. Traditional media sources never covered it until it was covered by social media, via Youtube. This was great for this guy to raise awareness because it has been long overdue to what Kony has done, but it is hard to raise an issue where nobody did not know about Kony until the video was posted. As far as the incentive of donating money to this cause, many people did believe that by donating money, it would help solve the issue. To this day, this issue is unresolvable. So it does question, not only this issue, but issues that are happening around the world, and whether or not the money people are donating is actually helping these issues, or is easy money for people who are telling us about the issue.
What are some things that struck you as relevant to the course and what we’ve been discussing?
What struck me as far as what I learned about the course and in discussion to this video is how powerful social media has become. This video has over 97 million views on Youtube, and when the video was first posted in March of 2012, it has roughly 20 million views in the first week. So it is easy to become an instant sensation by expressing your opinion on an issue that no one knows about. And this is how the anonymous group has become famous because they are showing us an a idea that no one has heard of.
What are some benefits and constraints of this social media incentive?
Some benefits of social media incentive is of course the popularity you become from posting an idea and getting people to buy into this idea. Another benefit for social media incentive is to grow on this idea and possibly develop different ideas that will help you. There is also the comments that you might receive from some people that will encourage you to express yourself more. The constraint into social media incentives is freedom of speech because you can only express yourself to a point where if you say something that may be rude or incorrect, people will react bad to it. There is obviously many laws and rules people have to go through when posting things on the internet, so it does scare people to expressing themselves on the Internet, knowing that people are monitoring what your saying.
Give some thought and provide some commentary on Zuckerman’s blog post. Also, have a look at the comments that were posted at the end of his blog entry. What are the responses like? What kinds of arguments are made, what positions are taken?
If I would of read this post a year ago when the video came out, I probably would of ignored what this guy has said. But now looking back at it, and finding understanding the actual message of the video, obviously the idea of over simplicity is the main reason as to how this idea faded out. The comments were negative at the time because people did not have enough information about KONY2012. Today, people have realize that yes he is a dangerous man, but he is not the main problem in Uganda and in other parts of Africa. They never made an argument about this blog. People just basically said what this guys wrong and his claims were flawed. Well the information that he has provided does provide rightfully claims about KONY2012 and the message it brings.
Find additional criticisms (or conversations) about/of KONY2012, post the link/s and discuss as well.
How has this incentive changed how we think about social media and the global community? What happened to the outcomes of this incentive? Could this have worked?
The only additional criticism I have about KONY2012 is the person who actually made it, Jason Russell. After people were finding out that the message he was sending was not up to what he had hoped, he suffered a meltdown, which then affected the KONY2012 because he was not an a reliable person to listen to. The most part, the criticisms have been about the video being a US audience with their own specific solutions, but no solutions that could solve the problems in Uganda. I think this has changed the global community because people started to realize that there are more problems that Uganda face than just Kony, and that even solving this problem, would not cause any relief there. The incentive to me seemed as though that this filmmaker was more about capturing Kony than solving the "real" problems in Uganda. The outcome from this was not what the filmmaker expected to get, people eventually tuned out the idea of capturing Kony and just moved on from it.
What has happened to the campaign and the incentives since the most recent media events surrounding the film maker? Should this matter? Does the incentive lose credibility? Why/not?
The campaign still existed on Facebook and Twitter, but obviously it does not have the same popularity as it did a year ago. The filmmaker was in the spotlight for his mental breakdown, but has not ever since. The incentive to raising awareness and helping people realize about Kony has diminished and other problems in other areas across the global has arise. I think that it has lost its credibility because people did background information on the campaign and people realized that the campaign is not to what they saw on Youtube.
What role do you think the Kony 2012 played more broadly in the use of social media for collective action?
I think it played a huge role at the time it was popular. It was trending worldwide on Twitter and there were alot of shares and views on both Facebook and Youtube. People around the world took action when this became a trend because everyone wanted to get involved. Especially when people expected to purchase those packages that were supposed to help stop Kony. In the end, the KONY2012 will still be remembered, but not in the way that the filmmaker expected it.
Wednesday, 29 May 2013
Consuming the Social
How has the relationship between consumer & corporation and customer/business changed?
The relationship between consumer and corporation and customer/business has changed because people are starting to realize that they have the power to deny what companies do when they are selling the products. In one of my class that I had last year, I professor discussed that we have moved in a relationship era, where consumers have the opportunity to build relationships with sale associates. Companies innovate their own products based on what the consumer would want in their product. Even though the majority of what people buy is a product made by a manufacturer, people are starting to realize that they do not have to buy one certain product. People have the choice.
How many people in the class actively review products & services?
Personally, I do review certain products and services. Usually it is for video games from like EB games and supplements from Herc's. I usually review about what people have said about the products and what critics say about it. It does help me on whether or not I want to purchase that product.
Gamification & Social Media – In what ways is social media shaping user behaviours for consumption?
I think that gaming is making social media more competitive because they are constantly are trying to reward people whenever they are online. And it makes consuming more easier, though it does become addicting, and we do not even know it. So I believe that user behavior is very competitive because there are so many choices to make, and we only have one of them, and that choice does affect our future purchases.
User Reviews – What is the new role of consumer in the consumption process?
Today, the consumption process is more about comparing and critique about the service than the actual product. Products today are becoming more and more similar, but it is based on the price and what company has the better deal. I think that the consumer process is not about yes or no about buying a product. You are going into a store no matter what, knowing that you are going to buy a product, it is just based on which product you buy.
Do these examples challenge or reinforce theory of culture industries?
I believe that it challenges the culture industries because people are always critiquing a product or service and it does affect the way people behaviors are when looking into buying a product. As moving into a relationship era, it is up to companies to create a loyalty with their customers and be able to show that they can maintain that relationship with the quality of their products and service. Examples such as reviews and promotions within a store does help a consumer process their buying process much easier, but it truly up to how a company can create a loyalty with a customer through communicate, that will show if the customers comes back or not.
The relationship between consumer and corporation and customer/business has changed because people are starting to realize that they have the power to deny what companies do when they are selling the products. In one of my class that I had last year, I professor discussed that we have moved in a relationship era, where consumers have the opportunity to build relationships with sale associates. Companies innovate their own products based on what the consumer would want in their product. Even though the majority of what people buy is a product made by a manufacturer, people are starting to realize that they do not have to buy one certain product. People have the choice.
How many people in the class actively review products & services?
Personally, I do review certain products and services. Usually it is for video games from like EB games and supplements from Herc's. I usually review about what people have said about the products and what critics say about it. It does help me on whether or not I want to purchase that product.
Gamification & Social Media – In what ways is social media shaping user behaviours for consumption?
I think that gaming is making social media more competitive because they are constantly are trying to reward people whenever they are online. And it makes consuming more easier, though it does become addicting, and we do not even know it. So I believe that user behavior is very competitive because there are so many choices to make, and we only have one of them, and that choice does affect our future purchases.
User Reviews – What is the new role of consumer in the consumption process?
Today, the consumption process is more about comparing and critique about the service than the actual product. Products today are becoming more and more similar, but it is based on the price and what company has the better deal. I think that the consumer process is not about yes or no about buying a product. You are going into a store no matter what, knowing that you are going to buy a product, it is just based on which product you buy.
Do these examples challenge or reinforce theory of culture industries?
I believe that it challenges the culture industries because people are always critiquing a product or service and it does affect the way people behaviors are when looking into buying a product. As moving into a relationship era, it is up to companies to create a loyalty with their customers and be able to show that they can maintain that relationship with the quality of their products and service. Examples such as reviews and promotions within a store does help a consumer process their buying process much easier, but it truly up to how a company can create a loyalty with a customer through communicate, that will show if the customers comes back or not.
Monday, 27 May 2013
Social gaming
Star Wars The Old Republic, is a browser MMO game that revolves around the Republic and the Empire at war. It features many forms of social networking, such as having twitter and facebook accounts. They also involves communicating with other players through social chatting online and forums offline. Candy Crush Saga, is an Facebook game which involves crushing candy together and completing levels and obstacles. It involves allowing people to chat and invite people to help you out with certain levels.
How does each game frame the ‘social’? What do you think the meaning of social is in these two games?
SWTOR or Star wars, frames social by allowing people to communicate with each other. Besides the aspect of being a role-playing game, it also revolves around strategy, which can be shown through instances, that involves several players, and player vs player, which involves team vs team killing, and you must create a strategy to beat the other team. The meaning of social for this game is to get everyone involves and to get people helping you, and you helping them. Candy Crush Saga involves little communicating in the game, majority comes from it on Facebook. There is also inviting people to help you with levels as well. The meaning of social for this game involves your friends, even less, only to people who play the game, is involves when communicating.
What kinds of social things are you able to do and not do with your friends? Are there options to play with strangers and make new friends?
What I cannot do while playing SWTOR is to go on social networks, because it involves launching it and it takes you to a different screen. So it takes away from communicating with your friends. Also friends may not be playing the same game that you are and may not be able to talk to them. With Candy Crush Saga,it could be annoying for people to get those invites and do not reply, which takes away the social communicating aspect of it. But everything else I can communicate while I am playing, since it is run on Facebook, and virtually all my friends have it. For SWTOR, you can add them as a friend only on the game, but not through social networking, whereas with Candy Crush, you can because it run on Facebook.
Outline and describe these measures/metrics of social and interaction.
With SWTOR, the measure and metrics of social and interaction is big because it is a public area, but it is limited because there is little to no social networking. I think it is because it is focused more on the role playing of the game itself than actually focus on the communicating itself. Communicating in most MMO compliments the actual game game. With Candy Crush Saga, it involves only your friends and who plays it, especially since it is on Facebook.
What kinds of assumptions are these social measures based on?
I think based on these two games, that the measures are based on how the game is functioned. With SWTOR, as a MMO and including RPG and collaborating with other people in a social environment and playing in a group, where they engage in an imaginative storytelling moment. Candy Crush Saga does not have the features of actually role playing, it instead involves solving puzzles and beating levels. SWTOR measures based on the people in an instance or another way of saying it, how many people are in that public server. Whereas with Candy Crush Saga, it is a global game run on Facebook and it is measured based on the friends who play it.
Consider constraints and affordances for these social aspects – what works – what doesn’t? With what kinds of implications?
Some constraints is the purchasing process for the game, the features that are not included in the actual game without making a purchase. it does take away the experience of playing it. It does freeze because the connection may not be perfect and it does affect how much time I play on it. Some affordance it what you get from being socially active through instances and pvp, such as achievements and being able to purchase social items with credits you earn in the game. With Candy Crush Saga, there is no achievements for being social, I feel that being able to communicate can be rewarding, but this game does not grant people that. Affordances can be the invites, because people do actually help out, and using social networks to help you in the game.
What kinds of incentives does each game have to be social?
As mentioned earlier, some incentives for being social in SWTOR including achievements, and the ability to purchase with credits when obtaining social points through out the game. With Candy Crush, it does not really involved actual rewards, but it help communicate with people and getting to know people better.
How are relationships in these games framed? Camaraderie? Competition? Etc
In the relationships framed in SWTOR, there really is not a whole lot of actual relationship building because you are only inviting them to a group to finish a quest, but it doesnt not involve social networking. It does have social networking accounts, but does not include them in the game. If they include social networking sites, it could make the game more popular in my mind. So if they can involve social media more, then it could create stronger ties in creating relationships. With Candy Crush, is it less about competition, and more about trying to get people to communicate. But I think that they should use another way of communicating about the game besides invites. Facebook should incorporate Facebook chat with games, but that is just my opinion.
Why are ‘social’ games so popular? Offer some critical commentary.
I think they are so popular is because of the graphics and how the game is presented to an audience. Every year, games are being presented through fairs such as gaming conventions and launch parties.I think that social games are more about what a person can actually do in a game rather than how they can communicate. Game developers and working to incorporate social networking and communicating with their games, but people still feel that the graphic and design make up the performance of the actual game. People do communicate through other devices such as their cellphone, computer etc. on a game, and people still get in a habit of doing two things at once. The time will come when you can do everything, from social networking, messaging, and playing a game, all on one game.
How does each game frame the ‘social’? What do you think the meaning of social is in these two games?
SWTOR or Star wars, frames social by allowing people to communicate with each other. Besides the aspect of being a role-playing game, it also revolves around strategy, which can be shown through instances, that involves several players, and player vs player, which involves team vs team killing, and you must create a strategy to beat the other team. The meaning of social for this game is to get everyone involves and to get people helping you, and you helping them. Candy Crush Saga involves little communicating in the game, majority comes from it on Facebook. There is also inviting people to help you with levels as well. The meaning of social for this game involves your friends, even less, only to people who play the game, is involves when communicating.
What kinds of social things are you able to do and not do with your friends? Are there options to play with strangers and make new friends?
What I cannot do while playing SWTOR is to go on social networks, because it involves launching it and it takes you to a different screen. So it takes away from communicating with your friends. Also friends may not be playing the same game that you are and may not be able to talk to them. With Candy Crush Saga,it could be annoying for people to get those invites and do not reply, which takes away the social communicating aspect of it. But everything else I can communicate while I am playing, since it is run on Facebook, and virtually all my friends have it. For SWTOR, you can add them as a friend only on the game, but not through social networking, whereas with Candy Crush, you can because it run on Facebook.
Outline and describe these measures/metrics of social and interaction.
With SWTOR, the measure and metrics of social and interaction is big because it is a public area, but it is limited because there is little to no social networking. I think it is because it is focused more on the role playing of the game itself than actually focus on the communicating itself. Communicating in most MMO compliments the actual game game. With Candy Crush Saga, it involves only your friends and who plays it, especially since it is on Facebook.
What kinds of assumptions are these social measures based on?
I think based on these two games, that the measures are based on how the game is functioned. With SWTOR, as a MMO and including RPG and collaborating with other people in a social environment and playing in a group, where they engage in an imaginative storytelling moment. Candy Crush Saga does not have the features of actually role playing, it instead involves solving puzzles and beating levels. SWTOR measures based on the people in an instance or another way of saying it, how many people are in that public server. Whereas with Candy Crush Saga, it is a global game run on Facebook and it is measured based on the friends who play it.
Consider constraints and affordances for these social aspects – what works – what doesn’t? With what kinds of implications?
Some constraints is the purchasing process for the game, the features that are not included in the actual game without making a purchase. it does take away the experience of playing it. It does freeze because the connection may not be perfect and it does affect how much time I play on it. Some affordance it what you get from being socially active through instances and pvp, such as achievements and being able to purchase social items with credits you earn in the game. With Candy Crush Saga, there is no achievements for being social, I feel that being able to communicate can be rewarding, but this game does not grant people that. Affordances can be the invites, because people do actually help out, and using social networks to help you in the game.
What kinds of incentives does each game have to be social?
As mentioned earlier, some incentives for being social in SWTOR including achievements, and the ability to purchase with credits when obtaining social points through out the game. With Candy Crush, it does not really involved actual rewards, but it help communicate with people and getting to know people better.
How are relationships in these games framed? Camaraderie? Competition? Etc
In the relationships framed in SWTOR, there really is not a whole lot of actual relationship building because you are only inviting them to a group to finish a quest, but it doesnt not involve social networking. It does have social networking accounts, but does not include them in the game. If they include social networking sites, it could make the game more popular in my mind. So if they can involve social media more, then it could create stronger ties in creating relationships. With Candy Crush, is it less about competition, and more about trying to get people to communicate. But I think that they should use another way of communicating about the game besides invites. Facebook should incorporate Facebook chat with games, but that is just my opinion.
Why are ‘social’ games so popular? Offer some critical commentary.
I think they are so popular is because of the graphics and how the game is presented to an audience. Every year, games are being presented through fairs such as gaming conventions and launch parties.I think that social games are more about what a person can actually do in a game rather than how they can communicate. Game developers and working to incorporate social networking and communicating with their games, but people still feel that the graphic and design make up the performance of the actual game. People do communicate through other devices such as their cellphone, computer etc. on a game, and people still get in a habit of doing two things at once. The time will come when you can do everything, from social networking, messaging, and playing a game, all on one game.
Friday, 24 May 2013
Google yourself
Google yourself – who are the many faces of you on the internet? Any interesting Doppelgangers?
There are many faces of me on the internet. When I typed in my name on Google, I am a judge, a web designer, an actor, a criminal, a travel agency I believe and several other links that include my name in it. There was also links to my name on social media platforms. Alot of these doppelgangers are interesting, but I am not surprised, Steven Cahill is a awesome name. The branding of my name is made popular because these people made it popular. The most interesting one to me is the actor because I feel that this name alone makes me well known now on Facebook because this guy is famous for his work.
How do you manage your identity online? What is your ‘personal brand’ & how do you maintain it? What makes you different?
Whenever I am online on Facebook or twitter or any other social media platform, I tend to look at stuff that interests me. In my tweets, I tend to type when I am in the moment, or retweet tweets that interest me or what I find hilarious. My personal brand is all about sharing and connecting with people who have the same interests as me. What makes me unique is getting to know people and share what my interests are and hopefully they share their interests with me. I maintain this by performing the same routine everyday and communicate with my friends and family. What makes me different is adjusting to how people communicate with me. Whenever I get a different vibe off of someone, I try to adjust because I do not want them to get a bad impression of me. I still provide them my interests, but I do it in a way that there comfortable to communicate to me.
In what ways does your social media use reflect elements of early lifecasting?
Social media reflects the elements of early lifecasting based on how I communicate with an online audience. And based on my thoughts and actions, I have redefined who I am as a person through social media and branded myself as a person that everyone can respect. Social media has made it easier for everyone to express themselves, and I find it easier to express myself to my online audience.
There are many faces of me on the internet. When I typed in my name on Google, I am a judge, a web designer, an actor, a criminal, a travel agency I believe and several other links that include my name in it. There was also links to my name on social media platforms. Alot of these doppelgangers are interesting, but I am not surprised, Steven Cahill is a awesome name. The branding of my name is made popular because these people made it popular. The most interesting one to me is the actor because I feel that this name alone makes me well known now on Facebook because this guy is famous for his work.
How do you manage your identity online? What is your ‘personal brand’ & how do you maintain it? What makes you different?
Whenever I am online on Facebook or twitter or any other social media platform, I tend to look at stuff that interests me. In my tweets, I tend to type when I am in the moment, or retweet tweets that interest me or what I find hilarious. My personal brand is all about sharing and connecting with people who have the same interests as me. What makes me unique is getting to know people and share what my interests are and hopefully they share their interests with me. I maintain this by performing the same routine everyday and communicate with my friends and family. What makes me different is adjusting to how people communicate with me. Whenever I get a different vibe off of someone, I try to adjust because I do not want them to get a bad impression of me. I still provide them my interests, but I do it in a way that there comfortable to communicate to me.
In what ways does your social media use reflect elements of early lifecasting?
Social media reflects the elements of early lifecasting based on how I communicate with an online audience. And based on my thoughts and actions, I have redefined who I am as a person through social media and branded myself as a person that everyone can respect. Social media has made it easier for everyone to express themselves, and I find it easier to express myself to my online audience.
wikipedia
Note the wikipedia article/entry that you’ll be talking about and post the link to your blog
I have researched on the Boston marathon bombings and here is the link to it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_bombings
Read the article and comment on the content and tone. Is there anything that stands out?
What stands out about the article is the style they used. It seemed ad though that it was a story being told and each section had a breakdown of the article. The Boston bombings was a tragic story and people that have endured this tragedy. This story is still new and it is still developing each and every day.
What kinds of things are people talking about regarding the contents of the article?
In the article, they discussed what happened, the cause, the reaction, the people who were involved with it and the investigation that took place after the event. The constantly discussed the idea of terrorism since these two individuals had made these bombs, which was influenced by Islamic beliefs, which has been what the United States has focused on since the 9/11 attacks. This tragedy might not have had the exact same impact that the 9/11 attacks had, but this story had made an impact to the hearts of Americans, especially in Boston, who continue to grieve from this.
Are there any common themes regarding the type of changes or the type of content that is discussed?
Some of the themes based on the type of changes or the type of content being discussed is the involvement of suspects in this investigation and the history of these suspects. It first started as two suspects, but now the list has expanded. They have also updated the history of both the main suspects from other incidents they have had prior to this one.
Who is having these conversations? Can you learn anything about the people engaging in these discussions?
It seems as though these conversations are between the people who wrote this article and the people who were gathering information. The conversations between people such as the FBI to the public or what the father said to the public about his sons are conversations that provide people information about the topic of discussion. What I have learned through these conversations is how much they got on these suspects in such short period of time. Technology today has made it easier for people to get information and to get what we want.
Are there any ‘voices of authority’ that you can see in these discussions? What is the tone like?
There are officials from the FBI, CIA and other government departments who have been involved with this case. There were other people that were involved in this case that were important as well. The tone was professional and they knew what they were saying when they had information that they can show on Wikipedia.
How do we judge the value of contributors when we really don’t know who they are?
Society views the value of the contributors based on their title. People assume that based on their title, that there information is valid. The Boston bombings though has a lot of evidence to back up what has happened. Many people have come up with ideas as to alternatives as to what has happened. But they do not enough evidence such as the people in this article.They knew that they had enough time to tell the people exactly what happened, truthfully.
Have a look at the development of the article from beginning to end – how did this article develop?
It started with a general overview of the article. From the beginning, it started with what was going on before the event happened. The article discussed people checking the area for bombs before the marathon, and then leading up to the climax of the article, where the bombs exploded. After this, began the middle part of the article where they discussed searching for both of the suspects, until it reaches the end of the article where one suspect was killed and the other suspect was captured. The remainder of the article, which is like the prologue of the article, discussed additional information about the story, such as other suspects, other cases where these suspects were involved in, their motives etc.
What kinds of changes were made to the article? (ie grammar to content themes)
As far as grammar is concerned, there has not been any changes to article. This story is a month old and the information is still fresh to people.
What kinds of information are tolerated and accepted as wikipedia entries, and which ones aren’t?
Based on the contributor of the entries, based on what is accepted and what isn't. The entries for this article seem legitimate because the contributors are people that are valid. Many of the references were from television corporations such as CNN,FOX,CBS, that reported what happened in Boston. Other sources were also part of this article and they were also viable.
Who are the contributors to the content of the article? Same group of people or different individuals?
Based on the references of the article, the majority of the contributors were traditional media sources. There were also several newspaper companies who had input on this article as well. As far as people who inputted on this article, it seemed that they were different people, but they were inputting the same content into this article. They came from all over the world, which has made it possible through social networking and the connections that people have with people.
How often do you use wikipedia? How do you use it – Reader or contributor? What kinds of issues have you seen (before the week’s lecture) regarding wikipedia? Has your opinion of wikipedia changed at all (or the article that you chose) with this exercise?
I use it every so often to look at stories, but mostly people. Whether it be people that I saw from a movie or from a music video, I use it to get some history about them. I am a reader when it comes to looking at it on Wikipedia. Some issues I have seen regarding Wikipedia is the info being put in an article or the history about a person. Some of the info may not be as accurate. My opinion of Wikipedia still has not changed before this exercise. I think that Wikipedia is a viable source to get information from, but it should be a primary source to receive information because they information may not be accurate. Social media has made receiving information much easier to get because it is instant. Though the info on social media is raw, it is more reliable because it is from people who are part of a problem that is happening.
Provide some thoughts about the Wikileaks Documentary we viewed in lecture, reflecting on the issues offered in the film.
Some issues include what Wikileaks can protect and what government agency should allow for Wikileaks to protect. Government documents are private and having an organization like Wikileaks to protecting these documents, there is going to be some problems to arise. Whether it be what the employees are doing with these documents, to the actual technology, it must be able to protect these documents and not create any tension.
I have researched on the Boston marathon bombings and here is the link to it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_bombings
Read the article and comment on the content and tone. Is there anything that stands out?
What stands out about the article is the style they used. It seemed ad though that it was a story being told and each section had a breakdown of the article. The Boston bombings was a tragic story and people that have endured this tragedy. This story is still new and it is still developing each and every day.
What kinds of things are people talking about regarding the contents of the article?
In the article, they discussed what happened, the cause, the reaction, the people who were involved with it and the investigation that took place after the event. The constantly discussed the idea of terrorism since these two individuals had made these bombs, which was influenced by Islamic beliefs, which has been what the United States has focused on since the 9/11 attacks. This tragedy might not have had the exact same impact that the 9/11 attacks had, but this story had made an impact to the hearts of Americans, especially in Boston, who continue to grieve from this.
Are there any common themes regarding the type of changes or the type of content that is discussed?
Some of the themes based on the type of changes or the type of content being discussed is the involvement of suspects in this investigation and the history of these suspects. It first started as two suspects, but now the list has expanded. They have also updated the history of both the main suspects from other incidents they have had prior to this one.
Who is having these conversations? Can you learn anything about the people engaging in these discussions?
It seems as though these conversations are between the people who wrote this article and the people who were gathering information. The conversations between people such as the FBI to the public or what the father said to the public about his sons are conversations that provide people information about the topic of discussion. What I have learned through these conversations is how much they got on these suspects in such short period of time. Technology today has made it easier for people to get information and to get what we want.
Are there any ‘voices of authority’ that you can see in these discussions? What is the tone like?
There are officials from the FBI, CIA and other government departments who have been involved with this case. There were other people that were involved in this case that were important as well. The tone was professional and they knew what they were saying when they had information that they can show on Wikipedia.
How do we judge the value of contributors when we really don’t know who they are?
Society views the value of the contributors based on their title. People assume that based on their title, that there information is valid. The Boston bombings though has a lot of evidence to back up what has happened. Many people have come up with ideas as to alternatives as to what has happened. But they do not enough evidence such as the people in this article.They knew that they had enough time to tell the people exactly what happened, truthfully.
Have a look at the development of the article from beginning to end – how did this article develop?
It started with a general overview of the article. From the beginning, it started with what was going on before the event happened. The article discussed people checking the area for bombs before the marathon, and then leading up to the climax of the article, where the bombs exploded. After this, began the middle part of the article where they discussed searching for both of the suspects, until it reaches the end of the article where one suspect was killed and the other suspect was captured. The remainder of the article, which is like the prologue of the article, discussed additional information about the story, such as other suspects, other cases where these suspects were involved in, their motives etc.
What kinds of changes were made to the article? (ie grammar to content themes)
As far as grammar is concerned, there has not been any changes to article. This story is a month old and the information is still fresh to people.
What kinds of information are tolerated and accepted as wikipedia entries, and which ones aren’t?
Based on the contributor of the entries, based on what is accepted and what isn't. The entries for this article seem legitimate because the contributors are people that are valid. Many of the references were from television corporations such as CNN,FOX,CBS, that reported what happened in Boston. Other sources were also part of this article and they were also viable.
Who are the contributors to the content of the article? Same group of people or different individuals?
Based on the references of the article, the majority of the contributors were traditional media sources. There were also several newspaper companies who had input on this article as well. As far as people who inputted on this article, it seemed that they were different people, but they were inputting the same content into this article. They came from all over the world, which has made it possible through social networking and the connections that people have with people.
How often do you use wikipedia? How do you use it – Reader or contributor? What kinds of issues have you seen (before the week’s lecture) regarding wikipedia? Has your opinion of wikipedia changed at all (or the article that you chose) with this exercise?
I use it every so often to look at stories, but mostly people. Whether it be people that I saw from a movie or from a music video, I use it to get some history about them. I am a reader when it comes to looking at it on Wikipedia. Some issues I have seen regarding Wikipedia is the info being put in an article or the history about a person. Some of the info may not be as accurate. My opinion of Wikipedia still has not changed before this exercise. I think that Wikipedia is a viable source to get information from, but it should be a primary source to receive information because they information may not be accurate. Social media has made receiving information much easier to get because it is instant. Though the info on social media is raw, it is more reliable because it is from people who are part of a problem that is happening.
Provide some thoughts about the Wikileaks Documentary we viewed in lecture, reflecting on the issues offered in the film.
Some issues include what Wikileaks can protect and what government agency should allow for Wikileaks to protect. Government documents are private and having an organization like Wikileaks to protecting these documents, there is going to be some problems to arise. Whether it be what the employees are doing with these documents, to the actual technology, it must be able to protect these documents and not create any tension.
Saturday, 18 May 2013
Twitter and micro-blogging reflections
Note the people & interests you followed – who/what? Reflect on
the people & interests you followed & why: How do your friends
tweet? What did you learn about them? What did you learn about their
interests? What did you gain/learn about your ‘interests’? How is this
different than traditional media?
Based on the people I follow, the majority of them are people I know, being close friends or just people from school. I also follow professional athletes from my favorite teams and actors and actresses from either my favorite shows or movies. This week alone I have followed roughly 6 new twitter accounts. Most of these accounts are parody accounts and I follow these accounts because I find there tweets very funny. My friends tweet based on what there doing and they also tweet at other people about what they are going to do today. They also do alot of retweeting and they retweet people that I follow, which shows that we have alot of similarities. They also retweet people that I do not follow, and I though to myself why. Once I looked through various twitter accounts, I gave in and just followed them just because my friends follow them as well. I think what I learned the most is that my friend have many different interests than me, which is okay because I get to finally understand who they are as a person and what they find interesting. It is different from traditional media such as the radio, television and phone because these are not immediate things you can get from your friends. Social media is instant and it allows people to connect to anyone that they choose.
How did you go about searching for your topic/issue of interest? What did you learn? How is this information/knowledge different than what you might find traditionally about your topic/interest
I actually found some interesting topics that I had no idea about. Once was the earthquake that hit Ottawa, which was surprising because nothing on the news really talked about it or mentioned it. Another news story was about rob ford and him being involved in a crack cocaine video, which has become viral. Both stories were immediately shown on social media through twitter accounts such as global, chch news and city news, which has moved into a different direction into not only presenting it through traditional media, but through social media as well.
What trending topic did you decide to investigate? What did you learn about it? What do the trending topics say about our culture or society?
I investigated the #earthquake topic that hit Ottawa and Toronto. What I learned through tweets made by people that what people say can affect what other people say as well. There was a twitter picture of lawn table and chairs and one of them fell over, and on the top it said "we will rebuild, toronto earthquake", and as soon as that picture was tweeted, people began making other funny tweets as well about this "earthquake". Even one of my friends made a funny tweet about it saying "was that an earthquake or rob ford getting out of bed", which I then favorite it. What it says about society is that we can overreact to something that is not merely as important, but we do this because we want to express ourselves and voice what we think other people might find amusing and would want to favorite or retweet it.
Reflect on your own twitter identity & tweeting; How and what did you tweet? How did you decide what image or identity to present? How did you use twitter most often – via web or on smart phone – why?
During this week, most of my tweets were on the Monday, when then leafs played. Through the night, I would tweet about the game and how well they were doing, until they lost, which in that point my tweets were more defensive towards other people. Besides that, my tweets were mostly what I am doing and how I am feeling. I decided to image myself as someone who I think I can be proud of when tweeting and interacting with other people. If I am at home, I usually tweet on my computer. If I am on the go, I usually tweet with my Ipod or my phone because it is simple and easy to do. I think it is just a habit that whenever I'm out or not on my computer, I just use my phone or Ipod to tweet.
Overall, what are your thoughts about your own tweeting experience? Positive/Negative, useful or not for you – why?
I think it has been a positive experience to be able to express what is going on in my life and to share my interests to my followers about what I find interesting. Twitter has been useful because you can get another perspective on stories that might of been seen on traditional media sources. Social media has given people a voice behind the computer screen or cellphone and makes communicating with people much easier for us to do.
How has reading & writing changed with micro-blogging practices? (think about the structure of tweeting & language used).
Not really, whenever I write a paper or an a assignment, I use the writing skills that have been taught to me by my teachers. The practices that I have taught myself through micro-blogging has made writing easier whenever I tweet or text my friends. But they differ from writing at school because I separate work from play. I figured that the micro-blogging practices that I learned by my own I would not use in a paper because the language and structure is not correct by society. But more and more, people use these micro-blogging practices in there papers, which is why many people do not get the grades they were expecting to get.
What are some of the benefits & constraints of twitter, tweeting, or micro-blogging practices overall?
Benefits for twitter is of course being able to connect with other people, share things with them about yourself and be able to get immediate raw stories than through traditional media. Society wants information easily and as quickly as possible, and as stories become faster for us to get, time feels faster for us, which makes it a constraint for people because as much we love to get things to us asap, we want to live in the moment. Other constraints is the 140 characters we can only express in a tweet, and the inability to show our emotions and feelings through f2f, instead its through screen-to-screen.
Based on the people I follow, the majority of them are people I know, being close friends or just people from school. I also follow professional athletes from my favorite teams and actors and actresses from either my favorite shows or movies. This week alone I have followed roughly 6 new twitter accounts. Most of these accounts are parody accounts and I follow these accounts because I find there tweets very funny. My friends tweet based on what there doing and they also tweet at other people about what they are going to do today. They also do alot of retweeting and they retweet people that I follow, which shows that we have alot of similarities. They also retweet people that I do not follow, and I though to myself why. Once I looked through various twitter accounts, I gave in and just followed them just because my friends follow them as well. I think what I learned the most is that my friend have many different interests than me, which is okay because I get to finally understand who they are as a person and what they find interesting. It is different from traditional media such as the radio, television and phone because these are not immediate things you can get from your friends. Social media is instant and it allows people to connect to anyone that they choose.
How did you go about searching for your topic/issue of interest? What did you learn? How is this information/knowledge different than what you might find traditionally about your topic/interest
I actually found some interesting topics that I had no idea about. Once was the earthquake that hit Ottawa, which was surprising because nothing on the news really talked about it or mentioned it. Another news story was about rob ford and him being involved in a crack cocaine video, which has become viral. Both stories were immediately shown on social media through twitter accounts such as global, chch news and city news, which has moved into a different direction into not only presenting it through traditional media, but through social media as well.
What trending topic did you decide to investigate? What did you learn about it? What do the trending topics say about our culture or society?
I investigated the #earthquake topic that hit Ottawa and Toronto. What I learned through tweets made by people that what people say can affect what other people say as well. There was a twitter picture of lawn table and chairs and one of them fell over, and on the top it said "we will rebuild, toronto earthquake", and as soon as that picture was tweeted, people began making other funny tweets as well about this "earthquake". Even one of my friends made a funny tweet about it saying "was that an earthquake or rob ford getting out of bed", which I then favorite it. What it says about society is that we can overreact to something that is not merely as important, but we do this because we want to express ourselves and voice what we think other people might find amusing and would want to favorite or retweet it.
Reflect on your own twitter identity & tweeting; How and what did you tweet? How did you decide what image or identity to present? How did you use twitter most often – via web or on smart phone – why?
During this week, most of my tweets were on the Monday, when then leafs played. Through the night, I would tweet about the game and how well they were doing, until they lost, which in that point my tweets were more defensive towards other people. Besides that, my tweets were mostly what I am doing and how I am feeling. I decided to image myself as someone who I think I can be proud of when tweeting and interacting with other people. If I am at home, I usually tweet on my computer. If I am on the go, I usually tweet with my Ipod or my phone because it is simple and easy to do. I think it is just a habit that whenever I'm out or not on my computer, I just use my phone or Ipod to tweet.
Overall, what are your thoughts about your own tweeting experience? Positive/Negative, useful or not for you – why?
I think it has been a positive experience to be able to express what is going on in my life and to share my interests to my followers about what I find interesting. Twitter has been useful because you can get another perspective on stories that might of been seen on traditional media sources. Social media has given people a voice behind the computer screen or cellphone and makes communicating with people much easier for us to do.
How has reading & writing changed with micro-blogging practices? (think about the structure of tweeting & language used).
Not really, whenever I write a paper or an a assignment, I use the writing skills that have been taught to me by my teachers. The practices that I have taught myself through micro-blogging has made writing easier whenever I tweet or text my friends. But they differ from writing at school because I separate work from play. I figured that the micro-blogging practices that I learned by my own I would not use in a paper because the language and structure is not correct by society. But more and more, people use these micro-blogging practices in there papers, which is why many people do not get the grades they were expecting to get.
What are some of the benefits & constraints of twitter, tweeting, or micro-blogging practices overall?
Benefits for twitter is of course being able to connect with other people, share things with them about yourself and be able to get immediate raw stories than through traditional media. Society wants information easily and as quickly as possible, and as stories become faster for us to get, time feels faster for us, which makes it a constraint for people because as much we love to get things to us asap, we want to live in the moment. Other constraints is the 140 characters we can only express in a tweet, and the inability to show our emotions and feelings through f2f, instead its through screen-to-screen.
Saturday, 11 May 2013
Reflections of My Network
Is there a particular type of ICT (landline, cell phone, email, IM etc)
that you use most often in your network? Does it vary across different
strengths of relationships?
The particular type of ICT that has been used most often in my network was the cellphone. I think that it does vary because the cell phone has the ability to do anything. It can connect to the internet, including with facebook, twitter etc. Of course, it can be used to text people, including your close friends and family to acquaintances.Through my network, it does vary because of the strength of each relationship. My close family and friends I do use my cell phone more when communicating with them, while with others, I rarely use my cellphone to communicate with them.
How often do you see people in your network face to face? Does it matter if they are very close or an acquaintance?
Based on the role of each member in my network, it does reflect on how much I see people in my network through face to face. I will obviously see family members everyday because we all live in the same household. Friends is based on the relationship that you have with them, whether they are close or not, it distinguishes how much you see them face to face. Based on my network, the close friends that I have I do get to see them a lot. I think it does not matter if your close to them or not, it is just whether or not you are able to communicate with them and interact with them. And it has made it easier for people to connect with the Internet. With more and more people connecting, it is becoming less and less clear as to face to face and the relationship with people even matter anymore.
What role do social media play in your network? How is it used to maintain your relationships (or not)?
Social media is becoming a more important role in society. It makes communication more easier and faster when having a conversation with someone. Social media does play a role in my network because I do have a lot of friends and I have the ability to connect with them. But my parents and members of my family that still live in the generation of communicating through face to face, do not use social media because they just do not have the sense of understanding it. It does maintain relationships with people who have used it, while with other people such as my mom and dad or my grandparents, they would not understand the use of social media, and would continue the traditional way of communicating.
Why are some of your networks very close, somewhat close or acquaintances? What frames those meanings of closeness? How does the placement of your networks on the rings/circles work with measures of closeness?
I think these networks are based on how much you communicate with them and how close you are to that person, whether they understand who you are and how much they mean to you. This can be determined based on interaction through face to face and even through ICT's, because form of communication does have the same impact as face to face, but we still live in a world where face to face is the conventional way of communicating. What frames the meaning of closeness is based on the relationship you have with them and how much they mean to you. The role that the person has it also another way of determining the closeness that you have with a person in a network of people. My network does have my somewhat friends being more close to me just like my very close people because I talk to to a small group of friends. They are important to me despite the role they have as being somewhat. If there were more spaces in very close, I would have them in there, but based on this experiment, I could only have 5. And with my family members always being there for me, I cannot deny them from being out of my network for very close. My network might show my friend being in the second circle, but they are part of my inner circle because of how long I have known them.
How diverse is your network in terms of roles, occupations? What kinds of skill sets or knowledge can you draw upon in your social network? What kinds of ‘connections’ do you have?
My network is diverse. I have family members, close friends, friends that I generally see once in a while, work friends, acquaintances etc. The skill sets/ knowledge that is drawn upon in my social network shows that relationship that I have with them shows that they have more knowledge and skill set towards me and they are important to me than people who may not have the same relationship or connection with me. these connections can be based on the role that they have. But to me, that all of these connections that I have with the people in my network are important because they have given me the opportunity to meet new people. This network only allowed to have 15, but I have met hundreds, even over a thousand people in my lifetime and I have made connections with those people as well.
How diverse is your network in terms of demographics (age, gender, ethnicity etc)? Do you think you share similar worldviews or opinions or are some very different from you?
Most of the people in my network are mostly in the same age group, if not a year young or older than me. There are some people like my parents, and people at my work are much older than I am. Gender does not play a role because I am friends with both genders. In my network, it does show that I know more males than females, but this just came from the top of my head and generally my good friends are typically male because they are my bro's and we have done many things together. It is weird that all of the people in my network are Caucasian, which may be based on geographic, but I do know people outside of my network that are not Caucasian, I have no reason why they are not in my network, I guess it is just the way people think I guess. I think where people live in the world would have different worldviews or opinions within there network. People I know might have a similar network in mine, others might be completely different. It is based on how that person feels about what there connection is with that person and if they can maintain that connection.
Who can you call on in times of need? Consider the social support your network offers; does the kind of support offered and given vary depending on the type of relationship (VC/SWC/Acq) or their role?
I think that I could call on anyone in a time of need, it depends on the situation. I think that if they trust me into doing something for me, that they can also return the favor (reciprocity). I know that my family members would do anything for me, especially my mom, who has been there to support me through everything. I think that my close friends would help me as well cause I have done a lot for them. My acquaintances though might not because I might not be a top priority for them if I ever need there help. The role that they have does support the reasoning as to who is most likely to help and who isnt. It is not entirely sure with the type of relationship though. Not all family members will help me if I am in dire need, but if they are close family members they are most likely to help me. Somewhat close friends could bail on me and acquaintances may help me after all, but it depends on the relationship that you have with people that makes it easier to determine if they would help me or not.
What kind of reciprocity exists in your relationships in terms of giving & receiving help or advice? Is it balanced or not? Why?
I think that as far as my social network is concerned, the majority of it is balanced on receiving and giving help. It is hard to know if I give them help and they would return the favor in the same way. But they would most likely return the favor in a different way. I know that a few people would help me if I help them, such as my mom, dad and maybe my sister. It is hard to know because the connections I have with these people are always changing and it is hard to say if these connections are strong. Relationships do have implications, and it is whether I and a member of my network can overcome them. I think that the role that they were given is balanced, but it is unbalanced because of the actual connection with them.
The particular type of ICT that has been used most often in my network was the cellphone. I think that it does vary because the cell phone has the ability to do anything. It can connect to the internet, including with facebook, twitter etc. Of course, it can be used to text people, including your close friends and family to acquaintances.Through my network, it does vary because of the strength of each relationship. My close family and friends I do use my cell phone more when communicating with them, while with others, I rarely use my cellphone to communicate with them.
How often do you see people in your network face to face? Does it matter if they are very close or an acquaintance?
Based on the role of each member in my network, it does reflect on how much I see people in my network through face to face. I will obviously see family members everyday because we all live in the same household. Friends is based on the relationship that you have with them, whether they are close or not, it distinguishes how much you see them face to face. Based on my network, the close friends that I have I do get to see them a lot. I think it does not matter if your close to them or not, it is just whether or not you are able to communicate with them and interact with them. And it has made it easier for people to connect with the Internet. With more and more people connecting, it is becoming less and less clear as to face to face and the relationship with people even matter anymore.
What role do social media play in your network? How is it used to maintain your relationships (or not)?
Social media is becoming a more important role in society. It makes communication more easier and faster when having a conversation with someone. Social media does play a role in my network because I do have a lot of friends and I have the ability to connect with them. But my parents and members of my family that still live in the generation of communicating through face to face, do not use social media because they just do not have the sense of understanding it. It does maintain relationships with people who have used it, while with other people such as my mom and dad or my grandparents, they would not understand the use of social media, and would continue the traditional way of communicating.
Why are some of your networks very close, somewhat close or acquaintances? What frames those meanings of closeness? How does the placement of your networks on the rings/circles work with measures of closeness?
I think these networks are based on how much you communicate with them and how close you are to that person, whether they understand who you are and how much they mean to you. This can be determined based on interaction through face to face and even through ICT's, because form of communication does have the same impact as face to face, but we still live in a world where face to face is the conventional way of communicating. What frames the meaning of closeness is based on the relationship you have with them and how much they mean to you. The role that the person has it also another way of determining the closeness that you have with a person in a network of people. My network does have my somewhat friends being more close to me just like my very close people because I talk to to a small group of friends. They are important to me despite the role they have as being somewhat. If there were more spaces in very close, I would have them in there, but based on this experiment, I could only have 5. And with my family members always being there for me, I cannot deny them from being out of my network for very close. My network might show my friend being in the second circle, but they are part of my inner circle because of how long I have known them.
How diverse is your network in terms of roles, occupations? What kinds of skill sets or knowledge can you draw upon in your social network? What kinds of ‘connections’ do you have?
My network is diverse. I have family members, close friends, friends that I generally see once in a while, work friends, acquaintances etc. The skill sets/ knowledge that is drawn upon in my social network shows that relationship that I have with them shows that they have more knowledge and skill set towards me and they are important to me than people who may not have the same relationship or connection with me. these connections can be based on the role that they have. But to me, that all of these connections that I have with the people in my network are important because they have given me the opportunity to meet new people. This network only allowed to have 15, but I have met hundreds, even over a thousand people in my lifetime and I have made connections with those people as well.
How diverse is your network in terms of demographics (age, gender, ethnicity etc)? Do you think you share similar worldviews or opinions or are some very different from you?
Most of the people in my network are mostly in the same age group, if not a year young or older than me. There are some people like my parents, and people at my work are much older than I am. Gender does not play a role because I am friends with both genders. In my network, it does show that I know more males than females, but this just came from the top of my head and generally my good friends are typically male because they are my bro's and we have done many things together. It is weird that all of the people in my network are Caucasian, which may be based on geographic, but I do know people outside of my network that are not Caucasian, I have no reason why they are not in my network, I guess it is just the way people think I guess. I think where people live in the world would have different worldviews or opinions within there network. People I know might have a similar network in mine, others might be completely different. It is based on how that person feels about what there connection is with that person and if they can maintain that connection.
Who can you call on in times of need? Consider the social support your network offers; does the kind of support offered and given vary depending on the type of relationship (VC/SWC/Acq) or their role?
I think that I could call on anyone in a time of need, it depends on the situation. I think that if they trust me into doing something for me, that they can also return the favor (reciprocity). I know that my family members would do anything for me, especially my mom, who has been there to support me through everything. I think that my close friends would help me as well cause I have done a lot for them. My acquaintances though might not because I might not be a top priority for them if I ever need there help. The role that they have does support the reasoning as to who is most likely to help and who isnt. It is not entirely sure with the type of relationship though. Not all family members will help me if I am in dire need, but if they are close family members they are most likely to help me. Somewhat close friends could bail on me and acquaintances may help me after all, but it depends on the relationship that you have with people that makes it easier to determine if they would help me or not.
What kind of reciprocity exists in your relationships in terms of giving & receiving help or advice? Is it balanced or not? Why?
I think that as far as my social network is concerned, the majority of it is balanced on receiving and giving help. It is hard to know if I give them help and they would return the favor in the same way. But they would most likely return the favor in a different way. I know that a few people would help me if I help them, such as my mom, dad and maybe my sister. It is hard to know because the connections I have with these people are always changing and it is hard to say if these connections are strong. Relationships do have implications, and it is whether I and a member of my network can overcome them. I think that the role that they were given is balanced, but it is unbalanced because of the actual connection with them.
Tuesday, 7 May 2013
How social am I?
Hello, my name is Steven Cahill. I am currently in my second year at Brock, going into third year after this spring class. The reason I took this class was because I was short a class and I had the option of taking this class in the spring or wait to take in during the Fall. I am from Niagara Falls, Ontario. It is just 10 minutes away from St.Catherines. I am a huge leafs fan, well more of a Toronto fan, but the leafs are my favorite. I went to Saint Paul High school in my hometown, a lot of good memories there. Hopefully though when I am done at Brock, I might enroll in another university or college because I want a secondary degree that will help make my resume better when looking for a job. In the future, I would like to have a job in the business field, particularly in marketing or in public relations
When it comes to being social, I am generally quiet. When I do have the opportunity to speak about opinions about what is going on in the world, I try to get others to make sense as to what I am trying to say. Whether it be through this blog, or through social platforms, even through face to face conversations, I try to get people to understand what my opinion is. I am more social through the web because their are no barriers that regulate what I want to say. Being social today is important into getting other people's feedback on stuff and making corrections. And since we are becoming more and more connected, it is easier for people to get that feedback.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)