Tuesday, March 29, 2011

I Read That Right After I Wrote That

I can say in all confidence that I will owe both my diploma and my bachelors degree to three distinct technological advancements and of course, my undying work ethic.

A quick list - Wikipedia, Easybib, Blackberrys

I find it incredibly annoying, unrealistic and stubborn when professors refuse to allow students to use Wikipedia. For one, they have now way of preventing me from doing this. I have other issues with citations and the absence of originality, which may be more accurately referred to as authenticity, but that is another discussion entirely. Perhaps not entirely so. Is everything on Wikipedia the distinct property of one person? Is anything? There is a wealth of information and knowledge in the world and Wikpedia has been referred to by Jimmy Wales as the "sum" of it. It seems to me that human knowledge is a continually growing item which will never be counted in its entirety.

In light of Wikipedias ability to highlight and link to other relevant information that can strengthen a paper or an argument, I must say that access to Wikipedia is not only a privilege, but a right of the sensible and modern student. If you want to live in a fantasy world where your pupils make daily trips to the library and read, then do it. I'll be elsewhere.

Wikipedia's Bad Rap

The little encyclopedia that could is finally getting the last laugh.


Since it's beginning, Wikipedia has had its share of controversy. From accusations of false information, to biased editing by big businesses and even Wikepedia themselves, to the continuing debate among educators and students on Wikipedia's relevance and validity as a legitimate source for information. This last issue is the one that I would like to focus on as it affects me the most. The main problem is that the majority of teachers don't recognize Wikipedia as a strong enough source for students to reference in their school work. The fact of the matter, however, is that the majority of students would classify it as one of the main sites they access first in order to get information on a topic. Wikipedia's limitless list of topics and adjoining paragraphs about each topic offer students a one-stop place to get the basic information on just about any subject quickly. Because of it's supreme convenience, many students would prefer to be able to use it as a source in their papers.

Although some teachers are slowly relaxing their strict restrictions on using Wikipedia as a source, this trend has not yet gained much prominence (at least not at Fordham). I think that over time, students will be allowed to cite Wikipedia as a source as there are many changes occurring within the corporation. Executives at Wikipedia have altered the site in such a way that the information is checked regularly for bias and falsity. Because of this Wikipedia is more accurate than ever. It would make life so much easier if Wikipedia was considered a valid academic source by educators.

click here to see Wikipedia's page on itself.

A New Digger

When I read the name Digg on our syllabus I have to be honest, I had 
never even heard of it before. This struck me as odd because I am very up to
date with new media and am pretty internet savvy. 
So being the slave
to new media that we all are, instead of just picking up our book and 
reading the chapter I jumped on my laptop and went to digg.com. On 
Google, the main header for digg.com was 'All Topics- The latest News 
Headlines and Videos. From what I gathered from the
short blurb was that it was an virtual space that provided all
types of news on politics, technology, recreation, etc. Upon entering
the site I was a little confused at first so then I decided to turn to my 
old media, good old print. After reading the Chapter on Digg I have 
gathered that it is a news site in which the importance of the news 
story is ranked by each individual Digger. I think this is very interesting
that now people are able to not only provide news through new 
media but also possibly affect the news that others get and see as important. 
Users literally dig FOR and THROUGH news.   


While containing a plethora of information, Wikipedia is still given negative spotlight by professors. However, I find Wikipedia most useful in answering my day-to-day inquiries. How do pineapples grow? Well, I can type “pineapple wiki” into my search bar and my question will be answered in about 5 seconds. Useful, quick, and simple are adjectives that describe this data monster. Although, we cannot always count on Wikipedia for resourceful information, when double-checked the facts presented on the site are almost always accurate.

Aside from “wikipedia-ing” common day curiosities, I use Wikipedia as a platform for academics. When my teacher introduces a new subject such as “Nicomachean Ethics”, obviously in the core class Philosophical Ethics, I can use Wikipedia to find out more about the subject. I can even access Wikipedia from my IPhone, yes I did buy the .99 cent app., making information even more simple to retrieve. Even though the facts presented may sometimes be incorrect, they are usually retracted quite quickly. Thanks to Wikipedia, I am a more informed being with the capability to have my questions answered in the palm of my hands.


Whenever you find yourself in need of random information, or need information about a paper you're writing, where do you turn? Many people would simply say "Wiki it," or "Wikipedia it." Well what is Wikipedia? Wikipedia is a revolutionary online database that was founded in 2001. Wikipedia is a collection of 'pages' or 'articles' that are titled and relate to specific topics; it's the world's largest online encyclopedia. Wikipedia is supported by a not-for-profit organization called the Wikimedia Foundation based in San Francisco. Co founder Larry Sanger coined the name "wikipedia" by fusing together the Hawaiian word for quick, "wiki," and the end of the word encyclopedia. This gives us the title of "quick encyclopedia," or Wikipedia as we know it today. Currently Wikipedia has over 3.5 million articles in English and over 18 million articles in other foreign languages as well. The main idea that separated Wikipedia from other online encyclopedias, was that it allowed the reader to contribute. If you have an account on Wikipedia, you can contribute to any of the articles. Despite the fact that this has led to pranks and other mischief, it revolutionized the idea of encyclopedias by allowing not just a select number of scholars or experts to contribute, but allowing anyone to contribute their thoughts. Another aspect of Wikipedia that makes it different from other online encyclopedias, is that because of the allowance of so many users to post and edit Wikipedia, articles appear on events that are current and up to date as if it were almost a newspaper article. This allows users a giant wealth of current event knowledge and material as well.
Wikipedia revolutionized the idea of encyclopedias and how they are published and distributed to users worldwide. Not only does it allow multitudes of people to add whatever material they deem pertinent, it allows very up to date articles that allow us to see our world as its changing around us.

Wiki Culture

I definitely think that Wikipedia lives up to its name. The prefix "wiki" means quick in Hawaiian. For me at least, wikipedia certainly serves as a quick reference source. I have found myself "wikipedia-ing" topics in the middle of conversations in order to look up something that has been questioned, or to learn more about what is being discussed in a quick and discreet manner. Now that wikipedia can be accessed from smart phones and there are even wikipedia apps, it makes the process even quicker. Even before that though, wikipedia typically comes up as one of the first results on Google when you search for nearly anything. I think people like that it is so convenient and easy to maneuver.

In terms of school and major research papers, I will typically use wikipedia as a general starting point. From there, I will research more about the specific facts I find on wikipedia to certify that they are correct and to also elaborate on them. Although I have been told by many teachers that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, I think that for the most part, the editors monitor the pages very well. A friend one time posted something on the Fordham sports page that was blatantly wrong just to see how long it would take for it to be removed. The erroneous fact was gone within 5 minutes of it being posted. I understand that if I am writing a paper I could happen to catch the page within the 5 minutes that it takes the editors to get to it, but I think the chances of this happening are probably slim.

My mom owns a complete encyclopedia set that consists of 29 books. We keep them on a shelf in our basement considering that they are now nearly obsolete. I remember using those books for projects and papers up until about 7th or 8th grade. After that I do not recall searching through them for facts, instead I probably "wikipedia-ed" the stuff I needed to know.

Editing of Wikipedia Articles

In Paul Levinson's book New New Media, he brings up the excellent point of editing Wikipedia articles. I believe that when he wrote this book, Wikipedia did not force users to create an account in order to edit the articles. Now, however, an account on Wikipedia is necessary in order to make edits. Before, administrators tracked users via their IP address, a set of numbers that are assigned to every computer in different locations, as a way of identifying with each computer user. Levinson says that once an account has been created, Wikipedia uses that to track users. But, neither of these methods are a good way to keep track of vandals. Anyone could create a different account name and easily have access. Or, especially those living on a college campus, can just go to another location (or building) and log in from there because their IP address is a different number (yet, this could prevent the person living in that location not to be able to edit if the editor gets banned.) As of right now, I don't know what could be a less foolproof method. Maybe tracking both the account and the IP address since that could give a lot of information (especially if they consistently have the same IP address.)

On another note, I did not know that editors/readers are allowed to view every single edit that was made to a Wikipedia article. I think that's a very useful tool because it allows readers and other editors to see what other people are looking for in terms of adding content (or even deleting it.) Great! Now, I have another way to procrastinate from doing my homework.


If you don't know what Wikipedia is by now, let me explain. It is a lazy man's life saver. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that is open to the world. Anyone can view it and anyone can get an account to become an editorThe great thing about Wikipedia is that nothing on the website is necessarily permanent. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for the people and by the the people. Personally, I love Wikipedia. I use all the time whether it's to check a quick fact for school, or to look up something that has been on my mind.
Wikipedia makes life too easy if you ask me. I mean if you type in a word to google chances are one of the first results to that search is a Wikipedia definition. To some Wikipedia is not reliable, and to that I have to disagree. For the most part, Wikipedia has editors who look through the changes made to the website and catch any purposeful mistakes made by tricksters. Wikipedia has never let me down and just like Colin Powell I think that world should rely on it more. All print media is inferior to online databases such as Wikipedia because Wikipedia has the ability to change and stay up to date on current events. Wikipedia is beautiful site that is very useful for my personal life.

Monday, March 28, 2011

Oh the Wonders of Wikipedia

Ever since high school, I have been told not to rely on Wikipedia because it is not a trusty source. You are not sure who posts this information and they may not be an expert on the subject. While this is true, I find myself using Wikipedia frequently throughout my day. It is so easy and so quick. You can literally Wikipedia anything! No matter what it is, there will be some sort of information on the topic chosen and this is why I love Wikipedia! I do not trust it for research projects but it is a great place to begin learning about a topic. Conveniently, I was recently assigned my term paper for my Psychology class which is all about Wikipedia. The assignment requires us to find a topic and after reading up on it using this site, to go further using scholarly articles to “fix” it and make corrections. It seems that my professor does not trust in the site and wants us to “correct” it. We will then be able to publish what we complete, educating others properly in the process.

Electronic Music : Younger Brother

Dear anyone interested in great electronic music:

YOUNGER BROTHER, is an electronic music duo that just came out with a new album they are touring for.
The album is called VACCINE and " sounds like no other record ever made, marrying top-quality, stadium like song craft to pulsing beats and a sound palette of full-tilt electronic music"

I highly recommend checking them out.

They will be playing in New York at Highline Ball Room Thursday April 7.


Wikipedia: quick

This video basically highlights the main aspects of Wikipedia. There are both advantages and disadvantages to Wikipedia. It has become a "quick" way to find information, however the validity is not reliable. Making changes to this site is accessible to anyone connoting the unreliable information. With a variety of authors, information can be developed in a positive way from all around the world. However, just like anything there are also negative aspects to this. When contributors add blatantly wrong information as a joke, it diminishes the positive aspects to this information sharing. I must admit, Wikipedia has been used for many of my essays and research papers from the start of middle school. Wikipedia is always one of the first links when searching on Google. Although it is never accepted by any teachers or professors. =( I personaly concluded that Wikipedia is a reliable source overall if you want to gain quick information. (Not to quote in an essay)My english professor would never approve!

To Cite or Not To Cite?

I feel like there is a constant battle when writing research based papers about whether or not Wikipedia is an acceptable source. Some teachers and schools support it, while others are very against it. Still, others advise you to use it as a general reference to find more reliable articles that might be cited in the Wikipedia post. But, if you are allowed to use it to get a list of articles referenced in it, why can't you just reference Wikipedia as a source since it ultimately contains the same information?

I understand that some of the information might not be reliable but, at least from my experience, most of the information you get from Wikipedia is general information readily available on other websites, and thus easy to fact check if necessary. I also feel that Wikipedia is typically used as a starting off point if you have no idea what your topic is about. So if you are just using it for general background information referenced later in your paper, why can't you use it? I feel as though students should be able to use is as a source as long as the information cited is supported by later facts. Obviously if the student pulls a fact from Wikipedia that has no logical backing and therefore contradicted later in the paper, the student deserves to get points deducted for not checking his or her facts. However, if you pull a date from Wikipedia that is supported on other websites and follows along the timeline you are referencing then you should be able to use it. I am not advising people to use Wikipedia as the go-to cite for major, extremely important, specific details. However, as an outline or general reference guide, I believe it is a fine starting point.

Did you know that there are few female editors on Wikipedia and they are trying to attract new Wikipedians?
Wikipedia editors met in Berlin

The Wonderful World of Wikipedia

I'm gonna be honest...when I sat in front of my computer and started to think about this blog post, the first place I turned to was Wikipedia itself. Yes, I looked up Wikipedia on Wikipedia. This just goes to show the immense reliance I have formed for the free web-based encyclopedia. While I am aware that anyone with internet access can edit the information on Wikipedia, I have confidence in the vigilant editors that the information is accurate. Furthermore, Wikipedia provides all of it's resources with End Notes, which are also useful when conducting research of my own. It is very convenient too that Wikipedia links various words in its articles that lead you to what else but another Wikipedia page on that topic! I could literally spend hours perusing the pages of Wikipedia. Any time I am curious about a person, an event, a thing, and idea, or a subject, I find Wikipedia even more useful then Google. I know it will provide an array of organized information with legitimate works cited.
Of course their have been controversies in which people have abused the system of information posting on Wikipedia. An American student invented a so
ftware scanner that reveals who edits all Wikipedia entries.

-Apple edited Microsoft's page to portray a more negative image. Bill Gates then edited Apple entries to make that company appear more negative.
-ChevronTexaco attempted to remove information about biodiesels and fines against the company.
-Dog breeding association removes informa
tion about fatal dog attacks on humans.
-MSN Search added in a line about being a "major competitor to Google"
-BBC changes Tony Blair's favorite drink from coffee to vodka, and his workout regimen from the gym to the bedroom. Another person from BBC changes George Walker Bush to George Wanker Bush on his page.
-Coca Cola, Nestle, Scientology, Exxon Mobil, De
ll, Fox News, and many more delete whole paragraphs of information that portray them in a negative image

These are just a few examples of faulty, biase
d editing that may occur do to Wikipedia's format. However, with this scanning technology, and a group of speedy and persistent editors, I find Wikipedia to be very reliable. Of course for a paper I will never quote or complete depend on Wikipedia. Instead, I found it a useful source to educate myself on the background of a topic before divulging in the details.


In today's world, anything at any time is knowable. If you have a smart phone, you can look up virtually any statistic or obscure fact on Wikipedia or google in a matter of seconds.

Anyone (who hasn't been banned) can contribute to Wikipedia. Although this allows for false information and pranksters, Wikipedia has a team of vigilant readers and editors who can quickly address these issues and fix the entries. Even with all this potential for abuse, Wikipedia is remarkably accurate; almost as accurate as Britannica.

Levinson asks "does Wikipedia make libraries unnecessary?" Former secretary of state Colin Powell claims that we don't need books anymore because of search engines and Wikipedia. I think that he is going a little too far saying that we don't need ANY books anymore. However, my need for books while doing research has gone down tremendously in the past few years. Over my entire college career, I've only needed to get a handful of books from the library. I was able to get almost all the information I needed online.

I think Wikipedia is a great site with a terrific format. If you need to know something about virtually any topic at all, Wikipedia is a good start. I can't see a site like Wikipedia dying anytime soon, and I plan on continuing to use it on a regular basis.

Here's a video with Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales, talking more about Wikipedia and what makes it so special.

Digg Disappointment

I must admit that Digg isn't something I paid much attention to during the height of its popularity let alone now that it's not doing as well.

In one of my other classes, a student presented about how he uses Digg to get websites and articles for his tech interests and how it allows him to be able to get the information he needs right away. Dr. Levinson's chapter and supplementary lecture about the website definitely sparked my interest in it since I do a lot of reading about the soccer team I support, and Google News simply lists everything. While that's great for finding news, it's difficult to sift through what information is reliable and what should remain unread. So the concept of Digg was definitely appealing to me since it would queue up results that other fans think are worth a read. Another advantage of it is that the way everything is set up is very clean. There are not a lot of images or ads that get in the way of results and it's easy to just see the headline.

Unfortunately for my purposes, Digg has been a bust. I guess the Liverpool following on Digg isn't that prevalent and the results that come up tend to be more random than Google's. Most of the sites dug more than once are also just some fan videos of goals. It wasn't the news aggregating powerhouse I expected (as it is in the front page), at least for the topic I am interested it.

While the concept is pretty good and for certain topics and current events it could be good, I think I will stick to the more traditional media outlets and blogs I already follow for news. It was disappointing, but it wasn't a big part of my internet time in the first place.

No digg big deal.


So I went on Digg for the first time, and I have to say, I wasn't all that impressed. Letting the users choose which links they like or dislike is a cool idea, but I can't see myself returning to this site many more times. It seems like it tries to capture the best websites, articles, and other links the world wide web has to offer, but I didn't find most of their recommendations interesting, (although it's also helpful how you can choose a variety of topics at the top to narrow your results).

Maybe I would have found the site more useful a few years ago, before I used Twitter and Facebook. I find that between Twitter and Facebook, there are countless links, videos, and articles that friends post that are worthwhile.

Wikipedia Contributors Less Than 15% Women

After reading Levinson's chapter in Wikipedia, I had the greatest reaction to the discussion on what is deemed permissible as an entry and what is not. I think that all entries, including those on fictional characters, that adhere to the established format should remain on Wikipedia. Someone, somewhere will find value in it, and because we are talking about text, which is very small in comparison to images or video, bandwidth is not much of a concern.

As Levinson writes, "all Wikipedians are equal, but some are more equal than others." Sure, there must be those who edit and delete entries or vandalism plagued by "mental maliciousness,"(Levinson 86) but how editors arrive at what is relevant or not is very subjective. For an online encyclopedia that reaches out to so many people, someone will always find value in one aspect of a topic that someone else does not. Ideally, all Wikipedians should be able to contribute on a level playing field. Somewhere along the line the scale has lost its balance and now leans toward a specific type of contributor.

According to an article published in The New York Times this past January, "less than 15 percent of its hundreds of thousands of contributors are women." Noam Cohen's article entitled "Define Gender Gap? Look Up Wikipedia's Contributor List" continues to explain that the Wikimedia Foundation conducted a study which found that Wikipedia's contributors are barely 13 percent women. The foundation has set a goal to raise the number of women contributors, not for the sake of diversity, but to ensure that Wikipedia is as good as it can be.

Why diversity ensure a quality encyclopedia? Males and females are each able to emphasize certain topics that their genders are more familiar with. With contributors representing gender-specific subjects, Wikipedia can expand upon its already wide range of entries. Cohen compares the Wikipedia entries for two shows that relate to each gender: Sex in the City for women and The Sopranos for men. Cohan explains that Sex and the City has only "a brief summary of every episode." The Sopranos, however, has lengthy articles about every episode.

The lack of women contributors is explained by the OpEd Project, a group that monitors the gender breakdown in public thought-leadership forums. They claim that a rate of 85 men to 15 women is common when looking at public forums, such as Congress or even The New York Times. If online resources like Wipedia, which are frequently referenced by so many people are unable to capture the thoughts of the entire population, how can we rely on them as neutral sources of information? An author's voice usually shines through the text, putting a spin on the information. Levinson references I.A. Richards to say that the writer's intentions "have no real connection to the impact of the text. All that should count...is the text itself" (89).

Entries cannot appeal to one gender over another and content cannot be geared toward one type of person while neglecting the interests of others. In order for Wikipedia to be a reliable source, the articles must neutrally represent a diverse spectrum of people.

Sunday, March 27, 2011


For the past month or so, I decided to try another form of social media: Foursquare. For those of you who do not know what this is, Foursquare is meant for a smartphone with either WiFi capability or a data plan because it tracks and shares you're location with your friends. The more places you "check-in" to, the more chances you'll unlock badges. You get points for going to a new location like a park or a restaurant. There's also a mayor for each location. If the mayor happens to be in the location when you "check-in," then you get even more points.
Foursquare is similar to Facebook in which you can have friends, post statuses, makes comments, upload pictures, and even check into a location. However, I find it kind of strange to announce every location I go to. I understand if there's a nice restaurant that you might want you're friends to check out, but there's no need to know you're home, at the park, or at a grocery store. Even you're friends really wanted to know where you are, they would either call or text you. As a default setting, all of locations and comments are public information. If you are worried about someone knowing you're location, you can set it to friends only, but that may also make you lose friends.
There is one benefit to using Foursquare and that is the special deals that are offered. Certain stores or restaurants have discounted rates or may even give away things for free just by checking into their location. For example, the Checkers located on Fordham Rd will give you a free small milkshake for every 3rd check-in. Some stores give you a discount only when checking in for the first time. Also, being the Mayor of a location can give you even more opportunities. At Checkers, every time the mayor checks in, he/she can get a free small milkshake.
If you're interested, this may be something you want to check out. For more information, you check out Foursquare's website here.
Keep in mind that not all locations have WiFi, which obviously makes having a smartphone much more useful for this. If you do check it out, let me know what you think!

Friday, March 25, 2011


Hey all!

I just want to let you know about a great opportunity coming up for those of you who are current juniors and Communication and Media Studies majors.

I and another student, Katie Corrado, have been actively working with Dr. Hardenbergh to start a chapter of Lambda Pi Eta, the official communication studies honors society of the National Communication Association here at Fordham. We have finally done it! Applications will be e-mailed out either next week or the early the following week, so don't ignore those mass e-mails! We intend to make this a mentoring program and also hope to host events where Fordham faculty volunteer to speak to the students about current issues in the media today, how students can use their degrees in the future, and even research that they are doing or have completed. There is a written application that will have to be submitted to our Lambda Pi Eta e-mail (fordham.lambdapieta@gmail.com). If you have any questions feel free to e-mail that address or post them on here.

We also have a twitter account: http://twitter.com/#!/FordhamLPE

Here is the website for Lambda Pi Eta: http://www.natcom.org/LambdaPiEta/

Lastly, if you went to the event for Comm majors yesterday afternoon and already received the application, there was a mistake on the cover letter regarding the e-mail address. We have also decided to only accept applications electronically, so feel free to discard the hard copy (since you are going to be getting it via e-mail within the next few days anyway).


Tuesday, March 22, 2011


Prior to this chapter in Paul Levinson's book, if someone mentioned "Digg", I would believe they were referring to something to do with mother nature.
 After todays chapter and lesson I am introduced to this ...

a new form of social media. To me, Digg seems quite similar to Twitter with current events.
However, Digg is not as popular as it once was in 2008. Twitter has seem to taken over the world of Digg. After learning about Digg, it is sad to see Digg declining in use. I think there are a lot of positive aspects to this social media site. Digg can be used to promote your own personal blogs, it keeps you informed on current events, and it allows you to use the "bury" button. This button allows opinons to be displayed on Digg. This bury button would be similar to the "un-like" button that does not yet exist on Facebook (however it should)!
Digg is just one of the many social media sites that will gain popularity and then slowly decline because of our ever changing culture. 


I have never used Digg but I've seen it on various websites. I first saw it on StumbleUpon. After reading the article I stumbled on, it said "Digg this". What is Digg? How do I Digg something?
Digg is a social news website, consisting of letting people vote stories up or down, called digging and burying. The readers get to decide what the stories are by "digging" the story up. Digg was originally popular because of it's creation of other social networking sites with story submission and voting systems. It has inspired other social networking websites, like Facebook, to add the "like" button - which is very similar to digging something.
After finding out what Digg is, I think it would be a great tool for procrastination and boredom, much like StumbleUpon and Facebook.


Sorry for the obnoxious title, but does anyone remember this?

Shaq is just ridiculous.  But back to Digg

Digg What?

Prior to reading this chapter in New New Media, I had only briefly heard people mention the website Digg. I had no idea what it was or how it worked, because quite frankly, I didn't need to. After reading the chapter and investigating a little bit, I found Digg to be quite interesting, to the point that I actually got my own Digg account. It proved to be a useful way to browse headlines and see what's new and find some interesting articles to read.
Digg is a user generated content site where people post headlines and links, and other people can either 'Digg' it and vote it up or 'Bury' it and vote it down depending on whether they like it or not. Their is no 'friending' like you can on Facebook, however like Twitter you can become a 'Fan' of someone and follow them. Also like Twitter if the person who you are following decides to become a fan of you too and follow you back, you can send messages, called 'Shouts' to each other, another Twitter like concept. You can also provide a small profile with your name, picture, location, and description of yourself as Digg is still nonetheless a social site. You can also add links to your other social sites or websites that you my have too. Digg can also be connected with you Facebook, Twitter and Google accounts as well.
Digg proved to be much more of a help than I thought it would be at first glance. It offers a constant news stream that is more than just a monotony of song lyric statuses on Facebook, or Charlie Sheen's latest Tweet, if offers more relevant and useful information to the world around us.

Ya Dig?

I first joined Digg back in my freshman or sophomore year of high school after a tech-savvy friend of mine told me about it. Back then it was a pretty cool site to use in order to find interesting stories or articles--and it still is. Before there was "liking" on Facebook, it was fun to agree with something by "Digging it," or even giving 5 stars to a Youtube video (bring the stars back! Stop making everything like Facebook!) Over the years Digg has seen some changes, but it has largely remained the same, which is why I still like it and go on regularly. There aren't many sites out there that I can say I visited 5 or 6 years ago and still visit, but Digg has a winning formula that isn't broke, and ain't been fixed.

I think that Digg's roots can be tied to the mentality held by the early pioneers of the Internet. Before the World Wide Web, the Internet was a very different place. People shared programs, users had coding skills, and modifying or tinkering around with source material was encouraged. People communicated on bulletin boards and were eager to show each other interesting things. Digg recalls this eagerness to share interesting and cool information with other people, and the community of Digg users gets to determine what is most valuable. But this only works in an ideal situation.

Digg is not meant to be complicated or time consuming. It is a quick and easy way to see what other people think is worth looking at. That is why, "gaming" as Dr. Levinson describes it in New New Media isn't allowed. Artificially promoting stories to the Top News page interferes with Digg's ability to naturally bring attention to topics people agree are interesting. Much like the ideal, level-playing field that the pioneers had in mind for the Internet, Digg functions properly when people don't try to beat the system in order to promote their own agendas.

Is Burial in Digg's Future?

Prior to reading New New Media, I did not know about Digg either. I do not know anybody that uses Digg, but I do think that the concept is pretty cool. I think that, contrary to a regular newspaper, it gives the people the power to decide what stories are most important to them. I think that this website is a sort of shortcut. It is one general place to go to learn about different topics, news, issues among many different categories with ease. I definitely think that our society values ease and speed these days so I think Digg is a great place for this. However, now that news websites are starting to incorporate videos and links to other pages, I wonder how different Digg actually is from a normal newspaper website.

I don't know if I just missed the Digg era, but it is interesting to think about why Digg didn't catch on and become as popular as other sites such as Facebook and Twitter. Is it saying something about our society? Do we care more about being social, looking at people's profiles and finding out what our "friends" are doing, more than we care about real events and news that is occurring? I would like to think that this is not true, but judging from the popularity of Facebook and Twitter over Digg, I think that it actually may be a possibility.

I found this article about some changes being made at Digg: http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-20045598-2.html

dirt to digg

Digg is an online index for all news published on the web. It is a combination of stumble, facebook, and twitter. The user on Digg can search for information or news articles that pertain to their interests. Digg selects articles that fit your interests automatically. Digg also allows the user to have "friends" just like you would on facebook or twitter. Digg shows common interests between you and your friends and connects articles that interest both of you.

Personally I don't think Digg is all that useful unless you are using it for your job or school work. I just don't see how being connected to people for what news articles I'm interested in is really that big of a deal. I think that although it is an interesting idea, I just don't ever see myself using this website regularly. Digg flat out isn't facebook or twitter. It's purpose isn't to connect people for social reasons but to connect people based on what news articles they like. That being said, I just don't think this type of new new media is life changing or worth my time. Google is an easier and more popular web search that finds interesting articles as well and I just don't see Digg ever surpassing that.

Digging Up the Truth

I think the concept of Digg is a good one. It makes news more interactive and it allows the popularity of a story to remain in the hands of the public. If a story is placed on the front of a newspaper, that is what people see and that is what they talk about (typically). With Digg, what shows up first is up to the people; it is almost empowering. It allows for smaller stories with significantly less coverage, although of no less importance, to be featured. The public has a chance to get the truth when certain media outlets may keep it from them. The news today has changed, there’s no doubt about it. We focus on celebrities like Charlie Sheen and want to know more, more, more. We then focus less on the small town news company who is struggling to survive while writing about the importance of events similar to what occurred in Wisconsin. Digg gives the small paper's story the potential to be read by a large amount of people. With Digg the uncovered stories can get out. Then people can talk about them, commenting back and forth and really generate buzz about the topic. Interactivity is one of the beauties of new new media, but Digg is in a sense giving people the power to choose what news they see. Yes there is shouting and bury brigades, but if the topic is a worthy one, why not get a group to "shout" and get it to the front of the site?

What do you think is going to happen to good old Charlie Sheen? Anyone apply to be his intern?

Monday, March 21, 2011

i Digg it

I was not familiar with the site Digg before reading Levinson’s book but found this chapter to be very informative. After visiting the site myself, I found many different stories that I was interested in and was surprised on how easily accessible they were. They are categorized into topics such as Entertainment, Science, and Sports, which made the site very easy to navigate.

In comparison to other social media sites, I would not consider this a great site to have “Friends.” The concept that one person can follow another like Twitter does not really make sense to me because I feel you should both agree to being “friends” together. While they are not true friends, I do like the idea that your “friends” have similar interests to you just as you would in real life. This keeps you connected and forces you to keep up with each other so you can find out more things going on in the world. You can keep each other updated on current events and this is a very positive part of this site. The site is always refreshing which keeps everyone informed at all times.


i Digg it

I was not familiar with the site Digg before reading Levinson’s book but found this chapter to be very informative. After visiting the site myself, I found many different stories that I was interested in and was surprised on how easily accessible they were. They are categorized into topics such as Entertainment, Science, and Sports, which made the site very easy to navigate.

In comparison to other social media sites, I would not consider this a great site to have “Friends.” The concept that one person can follow another like Twitter does not really make sense to me because I feel you should both agree to being “friends” together. While they are not true friends, I do like the idea that your “friends” have similar interests to you just as you would in real life. This keeps you connected and forces you to keep up with each other so you can find out more things going on in the world. You can keep each other updated on current events and this is a very positive part of this site. The site is always refreshing which keeps everyone informed at all times.