The Facebook Effect - Part 1

David Kirkpatrick gives an in depth story of how the creator of The Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, brought this revolutionizing social network to life. Starting off in his dorm room at Harvard University, Zuckerberg was constatnly finding new projects to develop. The idea for developing an internet social network for Harvard was something that he had been considering for a while. "Zuckerberg went online and paid Register.com thirty-five dollars to register the web address Thefacebook.com for one year. This site borrowed ideas from Course Match and Facemash as well as from a service called Friendster" (pg. 27). With just a merely cost of thirty-five dollars, he had first launched a website that would forever change his life. When reading this section of the book it reminded me of when I had gone to the Texts From Last Night event. The creators of the website TFLN had no idea that it would be such a success when they paid someone only two hundred dollars to design their website. Before TFLN, there were many sites similar to it such as FML.com, and same goes for Facebook, whose competitor was Myspace. Essentially, in the beginning Facebook and Myspace were similar in the sense of social networking. However, Facebook offered limited functions and a plain white profile page, while Myspace allowed you to customize your page. Facebook was also more secure, at first only allowing Ivy League students access to it. Unlike Myspace, Zuckerberg had created a social network where individuals were allowed to keep their profiles private and only viewed by friends they accepted, therefore allowing people to share more information when using the website. "Facebook is profoundly, centrally, about people. It is a platform for people to get more out of their lives. It is a new form of communication, just as was instant messaging, email, the telephone, and the telegraph" (pg. 16). There is no doubt that Facebook has become a great new way of connecting with friends, acquaintances, and sometimes even strangers.
Zuckerberg became a CEO of a billion dollar company at the age 20. It's crazy to think how someone my age could invent something so unique and hold all that responsibility, but clearly it can be done. When developing The Facebook, Zuckerberg took ideas from many other social networking websites and combined and used them for Facebook. Zuckerberg was also sued by his fellow classmates for allegedly taking ideas from "Harvard Connection," a project which he worked on for 10 hours, with no contract, and was never paid. (pg. 84). The book goes into detail about several of the lawsuits, and I know the recent film "The Social Network" was loosely based off of them as well. Even though I never saw the movie, from what I've heard and seen from the commercials, it portrays Zuckerberg in a bad light, while the book shows him in more of a positive light. Whatever the case may be, the many ideas that Facebook uses were already out on the internet, he just managed to bring them all together. I honestly do believe that Zuckerberg deserves the credit that he receives for the initiation of Facebook. However, is Facebook the social networking site that he sought out for it to be and a beneficial part to our society? Well, that could be questionable.

Wikipedia Audit Blog Entry

I've used Wikipedia for many years, and I always find it to be a reliable source when I'm in need for quick pieces of information. Whether it be for an academic purpose or pop culture fact, Wikipedia definitely has evolved as the internet encyclopedia of our time. However, after auditing and evaluating my group's Wikipedia article on Decriminalization of Cannabis in the United States, I realized many things regarding the validity of Wikipedia. There were many cited sources that lead to dead links or third party websites, which completely discredited that section of the article. The primary and secondary sources that were cited were valid, but much of the information taken from them was taken out of context. Bias was definitely present in the article, which is expected when talking about such a highly controversial subject such as marijuana. Overall, in all honesty I don't think Wikipedia should be used as a scholarly source, especially not one to be cited for academic purposes. The beneficial aspect of Wikipedia is that it allows users to research an array of topics. Its weaknesses are that many of the information presented on the site can be changed by anyone, some of it is out of context, and in some cases it is contradictory or not accurate at all. Technology has such an immense influence on American culture, which can be a good and bad thing at times. By relying on Wikipedia we are allowing ourselves to take in information that in some cases may not be accurate, or not portray the full aspect of a subject, and be misinformed. However, many people still use Wikipedia, generally because it's quick, easily accessible, and best of all free. This idea of quick and easily accessible has become very prominent in our culture, and most probably why we are so reliant on technology (even if it may harm us). In the end, I learned that Wikipedia should not be the first or only source of where I get my information. However, I will most likely succumb to the easy access of technology and use Wikipedia again, but this time being fully aware that it is most probably not a reliable source. 

Thought this was interesting!

One of my Facebook friends just posted this and it came up in my mini-feed. I thought it was an interesting video, and relevant to our class discussions...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2n8Ma7y4-I

Made to Break: Technology and Obsolescence in America Part II

The next three chapters in Slade's novel I found to be sort of confusing and almost irrelevant. Chapter 4 went into a very detailed chronological order of how new innovations of radio manufacturing and broadcasting were the beginning to the development of product obsolescence in the industry of computer electronics. Then Chapter 5 went on to discuss how the invention of "nylon would soon make Japanese silk obsolete" (pg. 123). This is where i started to lose my focus. I understand that onset of World War II and the use of nylon "symbolized America's creative industrial capability as well as its determination to do without Japanese silk" (pg. 127). However, the detail that Slade went into I felt was a bit overwhelming and unnecessary. I also didn't see the connection of obsolescence between the choice of nylon over silk. Slade goes on to talk about how silk is still used today, but the context of how we think about it is different. Nowadays people think of silk as a luxury item, mostly used for sheets and intimate or expensive clothing. Nylon was less expensive and therefore companies preferred to use it over silk, which doesn't necessarily make silk obsolete, but just less favored in use during mass production. However, I can see in some sense how clothes and certain fabrics become obsolete when fashion trends fade in and out. In Chapter 6, the fifties and sixties were all about planned obsolescence. Companies made good products and induced people to buy them, but then deliberately enhanced these products so the next year they could market them and make the old ones obsolete, solely to make money (pg. 153). It is definitely clear that companies have not lost this mentality with all the new devices that come out every year - iPhone, iPod, Computers, TVs, etc. Obsolescence in this form makes more sense to me than when Slade was talking about the switch from silk to nylon stockings. Companies are driven by the sole desire to make money every year with their new products, where some aren't even that much different than the year before. In these three chapters Slade discussed the development of obsolescence in America through the war, and 50s and 60s, and it certainly shows that the ideas and tactics that were followed in the past are still present in culture today.

Made to Break: Technology and Obsolescence in America Part 1

Let me just start off by saying that out of all the books we have read so far, Made to Break by Giles Slade is definitely the one that has captured my interest the most. In his novel he discusses how Americans have become accustomed to this idea of obsolescence in many aspects of their lives. As Slade states, "we invented the very concept of disposability itself, as a necessary precursor to our rejection of tradition and our promotion of progress and change" (pg. 4). Technological advances and innovations lead to the first phase of product obsolescence, where newer appliances replaced older ones. Then came the second phase known as psychological, progressive, or dynamic obsolescence, where companies used the marketing mechanism of changing their product style as a way to manipulate customers into repetitive buying. Planned obsolescence was also another technique that came about, where manufacturing companies artificially limited the durability of their products in order to induce customers to continue buying their items (pg.5). Looking at American culture today, there is no doubt that we have become obsessed with the idea of obsolescence. It's easier to use a product, and then once it has served its purpose, then to just throw it away. There are thousands of companies that manufacture disposable products such as paper cups, paper plates, paper towels, disposable contacts, disposable cameras, and so much more. We repetitively buy these disposable products because it is more convenient, and the very idea of thrift or durability is not as much of a concern. Desk top computers, laptops, cell phones, iPods, and cars are all products that generally when people buy they consider them to be durable for at least a few years. However, with the marketing mechanism of psychological obsolescence, companies stimulate consumers to repetitively buy these electronic products by coming out with newer models every year. The annual model change for cars is one very good example, or the many iPods that have came out within the decade. As a personal example, I've been using the same laptop computer for about four years now. However, I've been looking into getting a new one, not because mine doesn't work, but it's "outdated" and I would rather have a newer model. Were all guilty of thinking this way about the electronic products we own, but I'd blame this mentality on product manufacturers. There's always newer and faster products coming out every year, with more applications and functions, making our old products seem useless. I've been using the same phone for about three years now as well, and it still does exactly what I want it to do - call and text people. However, I wouldn't mind getting a new iPhone or something of the sort, to able to go on the internet and have all these new applications. Then there is the problem of what to do with all these computers and phones that still function, but are just too outdated for anyone to want to use then. Disposing of these items has become a problem already, and will probably be a bigger issue in just a few years to come. While reading this novel it was eye opening to realize how much American culture has and still is being driven by this constant necessity for the newest and best products out on the market, and just makes me wonder how much worse it will become in the next few years.

The World and Wikipedia: How We Are Editing Reality Part 2

"First reason why we love Wikipedia. We love it because it's a virtual nation, or rather virtual world...the people of this virtual world, can be as shy and anonymous as we like, and yet our work, good and bad, is listed and others can explore it. We may seldom speak to one another, yet our paths cross unforeseeably" (Dalby 120). The internet has allowed our whole world to connect with each other through websites, blogs, social networks, and so much more. These various internet sources have given people the ability to express their thoughts and opinions to friends, and even anonymously to strangers. Perhaps this is one reason why Wikipedia is so popular, because anyone can anonymously create a Wikipedia topic page or edit and make changes to established pages. People in our society today are more likely to be less inhibited when interacting on the internet, probably due to the fact that there is no actual face to face interaction. Therefore, many 'Wikipedians' as they call themselves, create and edit Wikipedia articles to share knowledge on topics that others want to know about or research. The problem with using Wikipedia as a source of information is that "the articles, which are supposed to become definitive and stable, are in reality endlessly mutable" (pg. 164). The way I see it, a Wikipedia article is basically an ongoing collection of data that various people wrote about because either they have found data on it or claim to have knowledge of it. "Articles get longer because it's easier to go on writing than to compress what one has written; it's easier to write than to edit what others have written; and it's easier to write than to get into a dispute over deleting what other people have written" (pg. 181). Hence, Wikipedia articles turn into a hodgepodge of information, but this could also be something that attracts users to keep using Wikipedia. "Reading Wikipedia is just like using the web...We read half a page, we see a blue link, we click on it and start reading another page" (pg. 216). The fact that so much information is available on one site is definitely a major reason in why I and probably many other people use it as well. Wikipedia has introduced itself as one of our society's major internet research source, and we should embrace it for what it has to offer, but also take into consideration that it shouldn't be our main or only source of gaining information.

The World and Wikipedia: How We Are Editing Reality Part I

In all honesty, Wikipedia has become one of my "go to" sites when I am searching for information on a topic and need quick and easy access to it. That probably is the best part about Wikipedia, is the convenience of attaining that information, even though being fully aware that all of it might not be accurate. As author Andrew Dalby states, "Wikipedia is a good first stop to get the basics in a hurry, especially for tech and pop culture topics that probably won't ever make it into Britannica" (pg. 91). The first half of the book goes on to discuss how Wikipedia came about. In earlier days encyclopedias were used as a source of information and to obtain knowledge about certain topics. However, printing and creating updated versions of encyclopedias was a tedious and expensive task. Then came the next solution, electronic encyclopedias on a CD-ROM. As this new phenomenon emerged, there were many different electronic encyclopedias sold, however, "Encarta was sold cheap and bundled liberally. It swept the market" (pg. 30). When I read that I laughed, because I actually remember back in the day when I used Encarta as a source for most of my information on school projects. So instead of researching in encyclopedias or checking out books at the library, electronic encyclopedias allowed people to find information in the comfort of their own home at their own computer. It also didn't hurt that the CD-ROM was reasonably priced as well. This is what our society is most obsessed with today, convenience and money, and another reason why Wikipedia is so popular is because it's free and easily accessible. However, the fact that information on Wikipedia can be edited by anyone is it's greatest downfall, but that doesn't seem to outweigh the benefits because millions of people still use it. "'Neutral point of view' is probably the most practical aim for collaborative project like Wikipedia" (pg. 78). However, much of the information on Wikipedia generally tends to be liberal, showing a slight bias against right-wing views. Anyone can use Wikipedia, and therefore anyone can anonymously edit the information presented on topic, so therefore filtering out opinions and biases is not an easy task. Then there is also the problem of citing. Who is given credit for the information posted on Wikipedia? We discussed this in class a few weeks ago how the definition of plagiarism is changing or becoming hazy because of all these sites like Wikipedia. If a student uses a certain website for a school project, but cannot site who the author is, is it plagiarism? If these are the problems were facing with internet sites today, then i can only imagine the problems we'll face in the future. Internet sites have the ability to spread like a viral plague. The problem with our society is, once it catches up to us we get attached and accustomed to it, and by then we don't know how to work without it. We know Wikipedia is not the best source to gain our information, but we still use it anyway. It has become the best alternative to quickly find the information you need, all in one place.