The Colbert Space Station Wing?

Apparently NASA decided to dabble in crowdsourcing to name their new wing, and the results were somewhat startling. A new wing is being built on the NASA space station, and instead of naming it themselves, they opened their doors to the public to submit and vote on names for the wing. Stephen Cobert, from The Colbert Report - who has repeatedly asked his fans to vote for him in similar venues (on the ballot in South Carolina, named a Hungarian Bridge, and repeatedly messes with Wikipedia) won this time. According to CNN.com, "Colbert" pulled in 230,539 of the more than 1.1 million submissions in the contest, according to NASA spokesman John Yembrick.

So - his name should be on the wing, however, NASA maintains control of deciding to use the name or not and they haven't made a decision yet. The name that came in second and nearly 40,000 votes behind was "Serenity". Apparently, "the contest rules say NASA reserves the right to "ultimately select a name in accordance with the best interests of the agency. ... Such name may not necessarily be one which is on the list of voted-on candidate names."

This bridges back to Jenkins and how companies are working with new media and the producer/consumer relationship. It seems that NASA is trying to embrace this new model of interaction and inclusivity - yet is really unwilling to relinquish control to "the crowd". What complicates this even further is that NASA is publicly funded - and the tax dollars that are being used to pay for the space station wing come from people who may not necessarily love "The Colbert Report". Even more complicating is the fact that Colbert is a media personality and able to amplify his voice over others - so how democratic is the process when his role as a media personality has so much to do with the votes? So, what should NASA do, and even more importantly - what does this tell us about embracing the new relationship of prosumers? Is this really a crowdsourcing model if NASA maintains control - or is this crowdslapping as we have seen in the Chevy Tahoe ads?

It seems that the model is not as democratic as once touted, specifically since mass media still have a hand in setting the agenda.

Facebook and community

So over the past week I decided to track my facebook use along with the students I assigned the task to. It was interesting to hear their responses to their tracking and compare it to my own experiences. Several students keep facebook open while they are at work, most use the status updates and chat functions and it is really a tool that extends their social networks. I have found these experiences to be similar to my own. Over the past seven days I spent a grand total of 4 hours and 40 minutes on facebook. Most of my use is in 10-15 minute increments, or the occasional 30 minutes when I happen to catch up with an old friend and IM, or rat hole on pictures of old friends, their new babies, and the occasional update on ex's (pretend like you don't do it).

For the most part, I agree with the quantitative study "The benefits of facebook 'friends'". I believe social networking sites are used to increase social capital and can act as extensions to empower our relational selves. On the other hand, however, I have to ask how authentic these relationships on facebook really are. I have gotten into the habit of simply reading my friends' status updates, profiles, and posted pictures and feel like I am "maintaining our relationship" by simply keeping up with what is going on in their life through facebook. So, are these relationships authentic?

I suppose it is helpful to understand what exactly authenticity is and more importantly, how it works in interpersonal relationships. Authenticity in interpersonal relationships is often equated with genuine care, kinship, and "realness". So, how real are relationships that require less interaction and depend more on the avowed self than on shared and lived experiences. Furthermore, are authentic relationships even possible when consciousness is split between online and face to face interaction. As Bugeja notes, our identity and consciousness is split between two places therefore never allowing us to be fully present in one or the other. For example, as I sit here writing this blog, I am also watching television, texting a friend, and I have facebook open to read random comments and status updates. Is authenticity contingent on being "present"? Or are the makeup of relationships changing to the point where it is expected that you will be divided between "worlds"?

Ultimately, my biggest question is in how this dual consciousness influences community involvement. If I am split consciously between spaces - which communities should I identify with, and how connected can I ultimately be to one or the other?

Ideas for blog topics

So, I have noticed that the slacker factor has taken affect for about half of the class on getting these blog posts up and going so I thought I would post a few ideas that might help encourage the thought process. I also want to remind everyone that blogging is a public space and ask the question of what responsibilities we have when posting ideas in a public sphere? As we have discussed stereotypes in race and gender, the idea of language and how we use language is a constant concern for communication scholars. As you contribute in these spaces you are socially constructing and reifying ideas, identities, and relationships. Be reflective about what you are posting and how you are using language to construct your reality and how that reality can be constructed for others.

Now...IDEAS!

1. Create an avatar on second life and spend a little time in the virtual environment - then reflect on how that process fits with your theme. How is your virtual identity similar to or different than your own? Do these realities enable or disengage citizenship and public participation? How might virtual environments create and divide communities. This week is a virtual world week - so doing this might be of interest.

2. Track your ICT (Information Communication Technologies) use for a 24 hour period - make a log and reflect on your results. How long are you on your cell phone, the internet, playing a video game, watching digital TV and DVD's? How does the time you spend doing these things relate to your theme? Does it enhance or disrupt your friendships/romance? Who is part of your community and who is not based on your use of ICT's? How "aware" are you of political issues and how does your use of ICT's interrupt or enhance that? How much of your own identity is wrapped up in your use of ICT's? Are you an I-phone or blackberry person, do you prefer console video games to MMOG's?

3. Do some research of your own on any of the following topics in relation to your theme - then write about it:
1. Goldfarming/Leveling
2. Crowdsourcing
3. Digital divide - in relation to a particular community
4. Massively Multiplayer online games
Look at youtube videos, blogs, news articles or academic research to learn more about these areas and see how well they connect/disconnect from what you have already read in class.

4. What is going on in the news when it comes to new media? Twitter has been popular this week - Barack got to keep his Blackberry - The white house does a weekly podcast - Utah downloads the most porn - Google maps track those who contributed to prop 8 - facebook changed their user agreement, then changed it back - Facebook is being used to market "The People's Bribe". Read the news and write about it in relation to some of the things we have read/talked about.

I hope some of these ideas can help you all get started. The blogs need to start coming for you to post and respond in the time allotted, form groups, and present final presentations. Remember blogs need to synthesize your outside research, your experience, and readings from class with your ideas. They should be equivalent to 2-3 written pages. I look forward to your ideas!

Digital Divisions

After revisiting Warschauer's article this week - I wanted to reflect on the different areas that I see as most relevant when it comes to digital divisions. We have seen how one laptop per child has lacked vision and inclusivity by placing responsibility of digital participation on having the hardware. This plan did not account for social inequity between students at home and differing educational needs. Though well intended, the technologically deterministic assumption that having the technology will "fix" inequity was problematic, because it only pays attention to one dimension of a multi-dimensional problem. Having access to the hardware is only one piece of the puzzle. An ignorance to inequities in education, language, social value, cultural acceptance, accessibility, total cost of ownership, and time all need to be considered for a real solution to be proposed. Even bigger than "fixing" the digital divide is coming to understand it as a symptom of larger systemic problems, than a problem in and of itself.

As I continue to focus on new media literacy as a plausible solution, there are several areas that need to follow suit. First, public education needs to be valued again in this country. With the average K-12 teacher lasting less than 5 years at an average salary in Utah of $28,000 - how can we ever expect teachers to get students prepared to compete in a global economy? The saying, "those who can't do...teach" only echoes the ignorance and unvalued work that teachers actually do. Most people have no idea how high the workload and time commitment is to teach, as well as the emotional investment. Teachers are criticized for the work they don't do,and unacknowledged for the work they produce. Most people (university students included) have no idea how the educational system works, which only amplifies the lack of investment in our communities, children and future.

The idea of "buying out" of public education with vouchers guised as "opportunity" has only continued to amplify white flight in areas where schools are "failing" according to NCLB (No Child Left Behind). Whatever happened to buying in to the idea that children need more than hardware to be successful - they need community support that isn't just derived from the immediate parents, but from locals who commit time and energy to their support. It is so easy to say that education is the key - yet no one wants to invest in that venture because the rhetoric tells us that the return is solely based on the individual. Why pay for a system when success is entirely up the individual? Unfortunately, it is a combination of both - and until we start talking about education as OUR problem - instead of "Theirs" we will continue to be far away from closing the gaps between who can and who can't - who has access and who doesn't - who has a voice, and who has been silenced.

So - how do we create a more equitable system in a democratic capitalistic society? Where are the opportunities and what needs to change? Before we can educate, we need to decide what the goals are. Before I teach a class, I have to sit down and decide what the learning goals are, and the material, assessment and evaluation criteria we will need to get there. Back to basics people - what are the goals of public education? To continue our workforce..... Where is the workforce headed digitally and what do we need to continue to produce and maintain growth? What we need to begin to grow again has been successfully devalued and taught out of us - CREATIVITY

Check out this video from Sir Ken Robinson on creativity and education - it's long, but inspiring!

I propose that we start to look at digital divisions for what they really are. Instead of being "new problems" we should be thinking about how they are "new symptoms" of a system that is no longer serving the best interests of newer generations.