"They" edited it!

I was quite proud of my contribution to the Wikipedia page of my favorite basketball player, Mike Dunleavy Jr. I was glad to have been the one to add the fact that he ended his playoff drought of 9 long years as a Golden State Warrior and as an Indiana Pacer.

I've been checking back on the page to see if anyone would take out the information, although I was confident that it would stay because I had sources to back up my entry.

I'm currently watching the Indiana Pacers - Chicago Bulls game and I had an inkling to check Dunleavy's page. To my surprise, my paragraph was edited by an anonymous poster. Reading through it I saw that whoever it was simply condensed it and made the language more consistent with the rest of the page. I didn't mind it, and I was actually impressed that someone actually visited that page in the first place!

So as I watch my Pacers struggle to hold on to another lead against the powerful Bulls, at least I know that people are starting to take notice of the tight group of players Larry Bird has put together. I'm just hoping I won't have to edit Dunleavy's page in the off-season saying that his contract wasn't renewed!

Second Life

"Second life is not a game. It is a multi-user virtual environment. It doesn't have points or scores; it doesn't have winners or losers... Exactly everything was the same... except I could fly"

-Dwight Schrute

I first heard about Second Life from The Office clip provided above. At first I thought it was made up, but after a quick Google search, found out that it was not only a functioning application, it was immensely popular.

Being the curious and (trying to be) tech savvy kid that I was, I decided to try it out and convinced one of my friends to try it as well. At first we were incredibly confused. We didn't really know what to do, we looked exactly the same and wore just the default clothes. As we walked, ran, and flew around the Second Life world, we were mocked and laughed at by countless users for being "noobs." As Jim said "Oh... there are losers." Unfortunately, in that world, we were the losers.

A couple of days in, we stuck with it and actually found the Second Life version of New York City. We were finally able to customize our avatars and made use of the free items available. We weren't quite sure what, why, or how the money there works, but to our surprise, people actually use real money to get Second Life money. That was probably the most shocking thing about it for me that people would spend money just so they could buy a 3D outfit. Now we weren't going to start shelling out money just so some chump can make fun of us for not wearing the latest clothes, but we did want to get some money.

So I got a job. A Second Life job. It was pretty simple, really. I checked in, and I sat under a tree. Every 10 minutes, I would get 5 of whatever currency they used. It seemed simple enough, so I began leaving the program on while I was in class and started earning some decent money.

Before I knew it we were hanging out in the hottest clubs in Second Life New York with outrageous outfits. After about a week of trying it out, the novelty of the whole thing wore off and we stopped playing.

It was entertaining to learn the whole thing, but it didn't really appeal to us since there wasn't really any clear objectives to the game and we weren't about to spend real money to access new features.

As I said, the most surprising thing about it for me is the fact that people actually make and spend money off this. Even more surprising was that I had to put this in practice in my internship. It wasn't Second Life, but it's a site just like it called IMVU. I had to create an avatar and then go to various clubs and sell virtual t-shirts. As ridiculous as I thought the whole thing was, I was actually selling some fake t-shirts over this program at $3 a pop! It was crazy and I was amazed that people actually did this.

I guess I'm just not the target of the program and I don't think I will ever understand it completely. I can appreciate why people like it and why it's popular, but it's just not for me. Interesting stuff, though and I'm actually glad I tried it. I've always wanted to fly.

Wikipedia: Use with caution

Earlier on, I wrote about my disappointment with Digg as far as its inability to provide me with the information I needed when it came to soccer.

Wikipedia is completely different. It's tough to argue that Wikipedia is possibly the best resource for soccer information providing player and team histories, biographies, statistics, and facts. Early on in its life, the information was dodgy as best and rival fans usually have their most hated player die of some odd disease. There wasn't much moderation or control back then, but the website has improved exponentially and is now a pretty reliable resource for all my soccer information needs. The best thing about it is that almost all the information is cited and I can easily find the sources of the statements. When I want to find something out about a certain player, "player name wiki" is automatically the entry on my search query.

I guess translating to school, the subject of Wikipedia is a bit more controversial. Like the entries below, I have had professors who have banned us from using Wikipedia as a resource while others frown upon it. I still find it as an important resource as it provides a jumping off point to what I am researching as it aggregates multitudes of sources into several paragraphs. The footnotes allow me to go straight to the unabridged resource.

A moment that stands out is my freshman Philosophy of Human Nature class wherein one of the first statements my professor said was that he will know if we use Wikipedia and Spark Notes and that he wouldn't hesitate to fail us. While I tried to grind out the readings of Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas, the mix of old timey language, complex vocabulary, and my general laziness and resistance to accept that the class is part of my core as a business student, just made their words go over my head. I decided to use Spark Notes and Wikipedia to aid my reading and they definitely made the experience more tolerable. The midterm came, went, and was returned - 98/100. Interesting stuff... So the unreliable Wikipedia would lead to a failing grade? I don't think so.

Unfortunately, the strong outing in my midterm made me cocky and I began to rely solely on Wikipedia and Spark Notes to satisfy all my philosophical needs. The second test came, went, and returned - 84/100. While it is still perfectly respectable and I was still in the higher end of the class curve, it wasn't the 98 I was expecting. I went back to reading the book and using Wiki to supplement everything I didn't understand. I finished the class with a solid B+. Given my lack of interest in the class, I'll take that as a win.

So I guess my point is that Wikipedia isn't the knowledge killer that some professors see it as. It is a very useful resource that anyone can use to complement whatever they are reading. While you can't take what it says as gospel, those in the upper echelons of academia shouldn't be too quick to scoff at it.

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.

MYSPAAAACCCCEEEE

Remember the MySpace kid? Click at your own risk. Warning: foul language NSFW.

Anyway, I think besides the sheer hilariousness of the video, a statement made by one of the older brother's friends were nothing less than prophetic. "Wait till you see this when you're a senior in high school and MySpace doesn't even exist anymore!"

This video was uploaded in 2008. Assuming the kid was about 12 at the time, he should be 15 or 16 by now... That would make him a sophomore probably. MySpace as a social media site has been left in the dust of Facebook. MySpace is now hanging out with Friendster and Multiply as they bitterly watch Facebook and Twitter rule cyber space. What are Friendster and Multiply you ask? Exactly.

It's tough to comprehend how quickly technology evolves. MySpace saw its best days around 2005-2008 until Facebook finally overtook it. MySpace is still a great place for artists to post their music, but Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Soundcloud can take care of that as well. I wasn't even aware that MySpace was rebranded as "My___ - Social Entertainment." Good stuff I guess, but we're probably seeing its final desperate breaths. News Corp spent too much money on this monstrosity to let it go too easily.

What's fascinating is wondering how much longer Facebook has before it burns out or fades away. Is there any significant advancement in social media to even challenge it? MySpace spent about 3-4 years as a huge digital superpower. Let's say Facebook is probably at year 2 of it becoming a worldwide phenomenon. Will the next 2-3 years bare a worthy challenger and possible replacement to Facebook, or will Facebook roll with the punches better than Myspace?

It's just crazy to me how fast these profound elements of our media come and go now. Didn't it take several hundred years between the printing press and radio? A few decades between radio and TV and TV and the internet? Now the internet seems to be a wild west of opportunities in the media. I guess we are too deeply engrained in the whole thing to decide whether the rapid evolution of media now is exciting or frightening.

If it's important, it'll be on Twitter

That's a joke my friends and I have. If something is important enough these days, you don't watch CNN or go to the BBC website... You definitely don't read the newspaper. Jokingly, although sadly half-meant, we think that is something is newsworthy, it will trend on Twitter.

While there are the usual nonsensical #hashtag trends as well as the occasional promoted topics, but for the most part, if it's one of the top trends on Twitter, it'll be the main headline on CNN.

Twitter has allowed anyone to express their opinions in 140 characters or less. I think the character limit is what makes Twitter very appealing to people. You don't have to write lengthy articles in a blog, and the complications of Facebook or Myspace don't come into play. Twitter is simple. You create an account and you post away, simple as that.

To be honest, I became aware of a lot of news items because of Twitter. Everything from the latest NBA trades to celebrity deaths (or hoax deaths), even the latest on the Middle Eastern protests, I've gotten from Twitter. I think it's a great resource and it's fun to use once you get familiar with all the features.

It's probably the most direct way to keep up to date with your favorite celebrities as well. I know some people say that they don't care what an actor ate for breakfast, but I've gotten free concert tickets from responding to a celebrity Tweet. Celebrities like Olivia Munn also keep close contact with their fans, usually inviting them to some event. Munn invited the first however-many followers to join her in ringing the closing bell of the New York Stock Exchange earlier today. I also mentioned in an earlier post how Twitter helped me launch a blog and get an endorsement from the owner of Liverpool Football Club.

I personally enjoy, like, and use Twitter regularly. I think it's an entertaining, and sometimes educational resource.

@nymrtz

Facebook

Honestly, I held off on writing about Facebook for this blog simply because I really wasn't sure what to write about.

Levinson's book provides a good overview of what it is, how it works, and who it affects. I could have easily just regurgitated what he has written and commented on how much Facebook has grown since Levinson wrote his book. I could have written about my daily interactions with Facebook and how it's a fun and exciting way to connect and reconnect with people.

I just didn't feel like writing about those nor did I feel like writing about Facebook until I watched the Oscars last night.

I think The Social Network's Kevin Spacey (executive producer) made a very good point in that social media seems to have allowed people to find a voice.

Critics and pessimists will say that it just fuels our narcissistic tendencies and actually creates a disconnect between us and the real world. They will argue that it reduces human beings into brands. Self-branding is at the heart of Facebook. The mere fact that they think that I can define myself into a small box to tell people "About Me" and show my personality based on things I "like" and "people who inspire me" does seem to be over-simplifying how we define ourselves.

Apologists will argue that it has revolutionized the internet. It has brought about new ways to connect with people, it is a new business model, and like Spacey mentioned, it's a way for people to find their voices. It was an integral part in spreading information during the Iranian elections a while back, and it has played an important role (along with Twitter and blogs) in the current goings-on in the Middle East and North Africa.

Perhaps the difficulty I had of writing about Facebook is brought about by the fact that it has been so firmly engrained in my life. It's just a daily occurrence for me that it has provided little inspiration when it comes to writing material. Something crazy happening in my life is a lot easier to write about than writing about how I drink water everyday. Perhaps it is a scary or worrying thing that Facebook has become a regular part of my life that it isn't even a habit anymore. It's something that has become a huge part of many people's lives as well, and it's baffling to see how it only took a few years for this to happen.

Facebook is many things to many people. Sure it has its dark side, but there's no denying the cultural impact it has had in our generation.

YouTube

I guess if ever we needed any example of how quickly the internet business moves, YouTube would be a perfect case study. The company has gone from this maverick upstart website where people can watch grainy 5-part reruns of shows they've missed (or miss) to pretty much a household name.

The fact that the company was sold to Google Inc. for almost $2 billion is mind-numbing. The way it has impacted society as we know it today is probably even more astonishing.

Whether it's used as a political weapon, a platform to launch a career, or simply as a place to store memories, YouTube has, in less than a decade, ingrained itself as an integral part of society.

Many artists, both musical and visual, have used YouTube to get their name out there. It is a place where, it can be argued, that fame has been democratized. A viral video can get you a front page splash on a news website more than winning a Nobel Prize these days. Justin Bieber has gone from this preteen jamming on guitar to possibly winning a Grammy award. Whether YouTube has served as a tool to trigger a cultural renaissance or if it is an insult to creativity is a whole other debate.

YouTube has also served as an important political tool. Both parties have used the website to broadcast whatever they need to with limited cost. It was an important part of the last Presidential and midterm elections, as people were able to watch interviews, speeches, and even smear campaigns on their own time. It has made information readily available in a matter of clicks.

Still, majority of the material on YouTube is a potpourri of user-generated-content ranging from laughing babies to how-to videos to short films. It is a place to, pretty much, escape reality by living vicariously through other people's realities. We can be at a Lady Gaga concert one minute, to watching the first ever Superbowl the next, and finally swimming with some sharks the next.

YouTube has proven to be a very important part of our lives. Whether we've wasted hours watching people eating hot peppers or getting information about the war in the Middle East, it is tough to deny that we haven't integrated the website into our day-to-day living.

It is not without controversy, though. As usual, copyright issues are at the forefront. Luckily for the entertainment industry, they were a lot quicker in responding to this than when they were pushed (and eventually crippled) by Napster. The use of online advertising and required prerolls before watching videos have become important parts of any entertainment company's business model.

YouTube has pushed the boundaries of what we can watch and when we can watch it. They have even integrated 3D technology. The company has been able to create a powerful tool that is readily available to all of us, and it is exciting to speculate on what more is to come.

Not all blogs are created equally

At least from my experience.

The basic set-up for a blog is simple enough. We coughed this one out during class in a matter of minutes. However, establishing a powerhouse blog that people return to everyday for whatever it is you're blabbering about has become somewhat of a rare art form. Sure, there are tons of popular blogs and bloggers out there, but the ratio between them and the regular blog that gets that solitary impression everyday (possibly from the creator himself) puts the Perez Hiltons and Michelle Malkins in a fairly elite group.

I feel like I'm a fairly intelligent and interesting person who could possibly write a couple of articles a day and hopefully monetize it, so once upon a time, I decided to give it a go.

The first big decision was what I would write about. Do I write about celebrity gossip like Perez? Well I don't exactly have great sources other than... well... Perez Hilton and TMZ.

Should I do political commentary like Malkin? No, that wouldn't work either. Again, my sources are limited, and while free speech is a basic right, the idea of a "citizen journalist" sends chills up and down my spine particularly because they wouldn't be held accountable for what they say, unlike actual trained journalists. While the practices of the current crop of journalists is fairly questionable, at least they can be held accountable. Plus, real journalists have the sources, networks, and access to information that bloggers can never get... unless they become actual journalists... but I digress.

So politics is out. How about sexy girls? I'm sure that would be a hit. Sure, but I'd have to invest money to get copyrights to images... it's a whole process... not worth it... not my style... silly idea.

Food/travel/culture blog? I'm not a chef although I do cook, my travels consist of day-long flights between JFK and Albuquerque Sunport, and I'm not exactly a film expert. I like music and TV, but I don't feel like I'm in any authority outside of my circle of friends and The Ram to topple the Roger Eberts.

Sports! I love sports. Football, in particular - the European version - is a topic I am incredibly passionate about. But again, what gives me the right to be the go-to person for Liverpool fans? I live across the pond and I've never been to Anfield, Liverpool, or England for that matter.

Then this happened:

John W. Henry, Liverpool FC owner posted that on Twitter. An open challenge to Liverpool supporters everywhere to aggregate and grab statistics (what he's known for with the Red Sox) from the numerous publications who post rumors about the club.

This was my shot.

I retweeted, accepted the challenge, and my journey to blog fame began. He posted that at around 8 PM, and I had "Red Rumours LFC" live by 10 PM. I created a Twitter page, and announced the arrival of "Liverpool's Media Watchdog." The concept was simple enough. I had an algorithm and everything. Just copy all the rumors I find on the internet, plug them into Excel, and at the end of the year, get percentages. Good to go.

By midnight, my email inbox began exploding. My personal Twitter account went from about 7 followers to about 50. The blog's Twitter had over 500 followers within the first 30 minutes. By midnight, I had a team of over 14 people worldwide who volunteered to help out. We had geographic zones, departments, and everything. We were on our way to becoming a blogging giant!

And then this happened:

John W. Henry retweeted my blog for what was one of possibly the quickest promotions I've ever seen in my life. This was at around 3 AM ET. My shot-in-the-dark ambition was manifesting before my eyes. I got the seal of approval from the guy who owns the freaking team.

By 4 AM ET, around 9 AM in England, the Twitter account had well over 5,000 followers. No turning back now. My team got to work. Everyday, we'd post rumors, who said them, etc. Turns out it's difficult to manage a global team of people you don't know and can only chase via email.

By Christmas, the blog was all but dead. I was down to 4 staff members plus myself. The amount of articles being published was in the thousands, and we couldn't keep up. We have put the blog on hiatus since, we've missed the last transfer window, and we've faded into obscurity. We're working on addressing many flaws we've made from the choice of using Blogger instead of Wordpress, to the day-to-day collection of data, to RSS/Atom promotion, Pings, etc. We're planning a relaunch in the summer, but that's wishful thinking if we get it back up and running at all.

Moral of the story is that while it is easy to start a blog, it is definitely tough work to get it at a level that would meet demand. We were getting about 9,000 impressions a day, and several hundred emails, and we were swamped. We lacked the resources to even just keep up with tabloid rumors, let alone independent websites, fanzines, and other blogs.

The experience allowed me to respect the process of blogging, and big kudos to those who have found success. It's a tough thing to do, but I'm definitely still going to try and get my own blog out there. It's just a matter of really putting in a good strategy, time, and a ton of effort to making sure every detail is executed properly.

On New New Media

At 22 years young, I always find it incredibly disturbing how technology evolves at such a rapid pace. I always catch myself, as well as my friends, complaining about how old we feel and how seemingly out of touch we are becoming with the latest fad online. While we're comfortable with Facebook, it took us a while to get used to Twitter. Heck, I still remember having a MySpace and even a Friendster account from about seven years ago. While seven years doesn't seem like a long time, it seems as if technology lives in dog years as MySpace has struggled to compete with the hipper Facebook, and Friendster is seemingly obsolete.

I've spent most of my college years studying new and social media. It is something I am very fascinated with, and the rapid pace of evolution with this "new new media" guarantees that there is always something new to learn.

Perhaps the most meaningful contribution of new new media is the fundamental shift of roles. Prof. Levinson wrote about this - how anyone can be a producer - not only a viewer. Perhaps this is where most of the debate lies when it comes to new new media, and this is perhaps the main reason why I am so intrigued by the subject.

Has "new new media" brought about a cultural renaissance, or is it destroying our culture as we know it?

On the one hand, one can argue that one of the largest contributions of new new media is user generated content. As mentioned, anyone can be a producer, and anyone with a dream now has a platform to at least have a shot to reach it. Musicians such as David Choi, Alyssa Bernal, and JR Aquino have found success through YouTube. Sean Kingston, Kate Voegle, and Colbie Caillat found their big break through MySpace. On a grander scale, Justin Bieber has gone from viral video to worldwide superstar and Grammy nominee.

Those are only some of the few artists who have gained notoriety through this new new media.

On the other end of the spectrum, though, for every OK Go, there are about a thousand terrible Beatles covers. Is the glorification and opportunity of the amateur hurting culture? Andrew Keen brings forward the monkey-typewriter theory in his book The Cult of the Amateur - How Today's Internet is Killing our Culture. He writes that if you give an infinite amount of monkeys an infinite amount of typewriters, one of them will produce a masterpiece everything else is just garbage that isn't worth our time (8). He asks, "What happens... when egoism meets bad taste, meets mob rule? The monkeys take over" (9). For him, "amateur hour has arrived, and the audience is now running the show" (34).

Perhaps he takes an incredibly pessimistic view on this, but he does raise a legitimate concern. Levinson brought up how Wikipedia has challenged the encyclopedia. It makes me wonder if information like that should fall in the hands of possibly an eighth grader who is good with the internet. Wikipedia may democratize information, but it does raise doubts that it would allow the same eighth grader to be held with the same merit as a tenured college professor.

I guess the reason why the study of new new media is that it involves a lot of unanswered questions. It is constantly advancing and changing at an incredibly rapid pace and we are right in the heart of it. At the same time, we neither have the foresight nor the hindsight to decide whether new new media is good for our culture or not. It raises a lot of debate, which makes it an even more interesting subject to delve into.

Marty Mercado

@nymrtz