Monday, April 16, 2007
Friday, April 13, 2007
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Friday, April 6, 2007
Bonus Mission #2: Just Another Game?
With the recent rise in technology, the thin line separating the real and virtual world is consistently blurring. Nowadays, what’s virtual could very well be as real as taking a walk down orchard road or grocery shopping at Cold Storage. This is especially true for the online gaming age, which we seem to be very caught in as we indulge in Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games, or MMO. In addition, the more time we spend in cyberspace and living our virtual lives, the more real the virtual world becomes to us.
Computer games today are no longer as simple as the concept of Super Mario on Nintendo but have progressed to a level of sophistication even higher than we could ever fathom. Online games today allow players to infuse their personalities and traits into the virtual world, which makes the online experience more real than just virtual. Some examples of such Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games are World of Warcraft and Second Life.
As the name of the game suggests, Second Life allows the player to bring his life into the virtual realm and literally live out his “second life” which is only separated from him by a computer screen. To many, Second Life may just be yet another online game for the gamer with too much time to waste. However, what many do not know s that Second Life is really more than just another game. What if people knew that avatars could be custom-made to look just like them and that they can take on roles or jobs which they really own in reality? What if Second Life is really the world but only trapped within the computer screen? What if real relationships can be forged and business dealings can be discussed and clinched in Second Life? Would Second Life still count as being a mere online game to help pass the time?
The truth is, Second Life is larger than life and players can see so much of themselves in the game. Second Life is an extension of one’s life. According to Steven Levy (2006), for millions around the world, a game like Second Life is “more than a game – it’s an escape, an obsession and a home.” Players can express the way they want to express their true self in the Second Life realm. The sense of repression can be released in this unique form of life. Through Second Life, players even forge social bonds and there have even been instances where players do get married in real life after getting to know each other better on Second Life. Business dealings have also been made and not only Linden dollars but also real currency have been exchanged. This is a virtual world, which transcends age, distance, and nationality. In this 3D virtual world, “[r]esidents can explore, meet other residents, socialize, participate in individual and group activities, create and trade items and services from one another” (Second Life, 2007).
Finally, mere computer games are made in ways in which the player’s personality does not have much opportunity to shine through. Ethics and morals are usually unheard of and the only way to behave is in accordance to the rules of the game. Second Life however, allows people’s real values and personal choices to shine through. This feature alone makes Second Life more real and adds to the human touch. With relation to the other popular Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game, World of Warcraft, which “is a fantasy world, [where] the interaction between guilds and individuals relies on human choices and morals” (Steven Levy, 2007), Second Life too allows the social norms and rules in reality to be applied to the virtual world.
Thus, with so much of reality weaved into Second Life, I find it almost ridiculous to classify Second Life under the category of “just another game” because it really is so much more. In addition to it being a game, Second Life encourages freedom of expression and self-experimentation through the different ways of self-portrayal. It also doubles as a social network backed up by strong social bonds and real human relationships. It is no wonder then to see people taking their lives on Second Life so seriously. If relationships, ethics, morals, economy and so much more elements of our real world are explored through Second Life, how can we still call it “just another game”?
References
Second Life. (2007, April 4). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved, April 6 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Life&oldid=120268909
Levy, S. (2007). In World of Warcraft: Is It a Game. Retrieved April 6 2007, from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14757769/site/newsweek/page/3/print/1/displaymode/1098/.
Computer games today are no longer as simple as the concept of Super Mario on Nintendo but have progressed to a level of sophistication even higher than we could ever fathom. Online games today allow players to infuse their personalities and traits into the virtual world, which makes the online experience more real than just virtual. Some examples of such Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games are World of Warcraft and Second Life.
As the name of the game suggests, Second Life allows the player to bring his life into the virtual realm and literally live out his “second life” which is only separated from him by a computer screen. To many, Second Life may just be yet another online game for the gamer with too much time to waste. However, what many do not know s that Second Life is really more than just another game. What if people knew that avatars could be custom-made to look just like them and that they can take on roles or jobs which they really own in reality? What if Second Life is really the world but only trapped within the computer screen? What if real relationships can be forged and business dealings can be discussed and clinched in Second Life? Would Second Life still count as being a mere online game to help pass the time?
The truth is, Second Life is larger than life and players can see so much of themselves in the game. Second Life is an extension of one’s life. According to Steven Levy (2006), for millions around the world, a game like Second Life is “more than a game – it’s an escape, an obsession and a home.” Players can express the way they want to express their true self in the Second Life realm. The sense of repression can be released in this unique form of life. Through Second Life, players even forge social bonds and there have even been instances where players do get married in real life after getting to know each other better on Second Life. Business dealings have also been made and not only Linden dollars but also real currency have been exchanged. This is a virtual world, which transcends age, distance, and nationality. In this 3D virtual world, “[r]esidents can explore, meet other residents, socialize, participate in individual and group activities, create and trade items and services from one another” (Second Life, 2007).
Finally, mere computer games are made in ways in which the player’s personality does not have much opportunity to shine through. Ethics and morals are usually unheard of and the only way to behave is in accordance to the rules of the game. Second Life however, allows people’s real values and personal choices to shine through. This feature alone makes Second Life more real and adds to the human touch. With relation to the other popular Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game, World of Warcraft, which “is a fantasy world, [where] the interaction between guilds and individuals relies on human choices and morals” (Steven Levy, 2007), Second Life too allows the social norms and rules in reality to be applied to the virtual world.
Thus, with so much of reality weaved into Second Life, I find it almost ridiculous to classify Second Life under the category of “just another game” because it really is so much more. In addition to it being a game, Second Life encourages freedom of expression and self-experimentation through the different ways of self-portrayal. It also doubles as a social network backed up by strong social bonds and real human relationships. It is no wonder then to see people taking their lives on Second Life so seriously. If relationships, ethics, morals, economy and so much more elements of our real world are explored through Second Life, how can we still call it “just another game”?
References
Second Life. (2007, April 4). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved, April 6 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Life&oldid=120268909
Levy, S. (2007). In World of Warcraft: Is It a Game. Retrieved April 6 2007, from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14757769/site/newsweek/page/3/print/1/displaymode/1098/.
Friday, March 30, 2007
QotW9: Stomp
As the world gets more heavily involved in the Internet, it is apparent that whatever people do in reality is now practiced online too. That includes news write-ups or discussions about current affairs and societal issues. The freedom people get in cyberspace however, is the power to do or say things that, given their status or qualifications, they would not have been able to carry out in reality. An example of the restrictions we have in reality is the inability to exercise free speech or make known our experiences and thoughts to the public without getting ourselves into too much trouble with the press or government. Today, to counter that, we have this amazing thing called “citizen journalism”.Citizen journalism, also known as “participatory journalism” is termed as the act of citizens "playing an active role in the process of collecting, reporting, analyzing and disseminating news and information" (Citizen journalism, 2007). In essence, it is about normal people like you and me playing journalists and reporting the latest happenings that could be of interest to the public. According to Gillmor (2004), this is only possible “because of new publishing tools available on the Internet”. Today, we have access to the Internet from our desktops at home, laptops when we are outdoors, and even mobile phones when we are out without a laptop. The only other thing we need for citizen journalism to take place is a platform for sharing news. With the emergence of the Internet and more social networking sites such as web logs, message boards, chat rooms, mobile computing, and Wikis, participating in citizen journalism is now made so easy that almost anyone can practice it. So much so, it has become "Every Citizen is a Reporter" (Oh, 2000).
STOMP is an example of such an online community in Singapore, which clearly shows that “[t]he Internet has enabled citizens to contribute to journalism, without professional training” (Citizen journalism, 2007). Stomp is like a chatroom and a forum as well as announcement centre merged into one. It caters to the local population and even have different sections for people with different interest areas. Some examples are “the gym” for people interested in fitness, “vain pots” for people interested in beauty and fashion, and “foodie groupie” for food lovers. With this in place, people can then report on anything at all and and have others responding or adding on to their reports or comments. Because STOMP is highly interactive, people find themselves getting involved at a higher level and start having the desire to contribute too.In addition to getting involved, since these citizens are normal people like you and I, the reported news tend to be crafted in a more personal style taking the perspective of the witness. This makes the news very different from the “crafted” news from official organizations in the media. According to Edward M. Fouhy (1996) of the Pew Center for Civic Journalism, "It is an effort to reconnect with the real concerns that viewers and readers have about the things in their lives they care most about -- not in a way that panders to them, but in a way that treats them as citizens with the responsibilities of self-government, rather than as consumers to whom goods and services are sold. It takes the traditional five w's of journalism -- who, what, when, where, why -- and expands them -- to ask why is this story important to me and to the community in which I live?"; the news becomes less intimidating and more friendly, it becomes something we as citizens can relate to better.
Although STOMP appears to be quite an ideal form of citizen journalism for Singapore, it has potential for growth and further development. I have discovered that people talk about anything at all and sometimes, there can be not much of a focus and that read becomes a mere waste of time. Thus, I feel that perhaps moderators could monitor the reports more closely and more often to ensure smoother and more satisfying discussions as well as information update. In addition to that, more exposure could also be given to other bloggers with interesting reads instead of just focusing on the same old handful of bloggers like XiaXue and Dawn Yang. Perhaps normal citizens could have their blogs published for others to read and find out more too. The lack of freedom within STOMP prevents it from being more than what it could be.
References
“Citizen Journalism” (March 29, 2006) From Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Retrieved March 29, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_journalism
Gillmor, D. “We the Media: Grassroots Journalism by the People, for the People” (July, 2004). Retrieved March 29, 2007 from http://download.nowis.com/index.cfm?phile=WeTheMedia.html&tip
STOMP (2006) From Singapore Press Holdings
Retrieved March 29, 2007 from
http://www.stomp.com.sg/
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Qotw8: Blogs – Highway to Democracy?
As we dabble in cyberspace and bring our lives to the “second life”, we engage in online chats instead of phone calls, blogs instead of written diaries, emails instead of the tradition of sending handwritten letters. With all these going on, it isn’t surprising to see serious topic of politics jumping onto the bandwagon and going online too.
The Internet today is place for everyone and reaches out to all kinds of people of all demographics and from all walks of life. Thus, it is essentially the most important tool today for anyone to get his or her message across to an audience. In the advent of the growth of cyberspace and the explosion of the Internet age, politicians and government bodies have taken the initiative to bring their campaigns as well as thoughts online to reach a wider spectrum of audience.
Although Singapore has only recently caught the “political blogging” wave, one local blogger, mrbrown, has already carved out a name for himself in the blogosphere. He is already one of the top bloggers in Singapore and is loved by many for his wit and satires poking fun at social issues as well as the government on his blog (http://www.mrbrown.com/) entitled, mrbrown: L'infantile terrible of Singapore.
The person hiding behind the pseudonym of mrbrown, is actually Lee Kin Mun. He used to write a weekly opinion colunm for the TODAY paper in Singapore but got fired after writing the article, titled "S'poreans are fed, up with progress!" with regards to the rising costs of living in Singapore. Prime Minister Mr, Lee Hsien Loong responded to this by saying that "mrbrown had hit out wildly at the Government and in a very mocking tone", and that the government had to respond to such criticsms for fear of them eventually being treated as true (mrbrown, 2007). He felt that it was not the job of journalists or newspapers to campaign for or against the Government. Also, the Government was very unhappy that mrbrown’s opinions were circulated in a mainstream newspaper rather than on his blog, which has a much narrower and more limited audience” (Giam, 2006).
Mr Brown is widely loved by Singaporeans and his podcasts “attracts some 20,000 downloads per day” (mrbrown, 2007). It was no wonder why so many Netizens held a protest in favour of Mr Brown when he was dismissed from TODAY. Fortunately, no further action was taken against mrbrown and he continues to blog and has been at it for years since his first entry on February 27, 1997.
With a citizen blogger like mrbrown contributing to insights on politics and the societal issues of Singapore, more people who seldom read the papers are now more informed of current affairs and also of the political scene in Singapore. There is no doubt that such blogs like mrbrown’s allow for more freedom of speech and discussions of poliyical issues and also increase awareness of the political scene in Singapore. But the question is, do blogs allow for greater democracy in Singapore?
It is great that citizens can air their thoughts freely in cyberspace but sadly, there is a limit to this. Citizens may be able to use their blogs for discussions of political issues or rant about how unhappy they are with the government; it seems that we can write almost anything in our blogs! However, we need to remember that our very own private blogs are also accessible to millions of people out there and who may both agree or disagree with our opinions. To have greater democracy is to have greater “political or social equality; democratic spirit” (Democracy, 2007). Blogs may give us more space to rant but it does not necessarily lead to greater democracy. People whom the government may see as a threat may still receive warnings by the government on their blogs. Recently, the government has even taken the initiative to surf citizens’ blogs and leave comments anonymously to defend the government or dissuade a blogger from thinking in a certain way.
Despite disputes over this matter of freedom of speech, citizen rights, or the government being accused of being sneaky, there really is no wrong or right to this issue. Power to the people may sound like the ideal, however, we have to acknowledge the fact that the government is after all, ultimately the one in control. Thus, another blogger, Dharmendra Yadav, has suggested self-regulation and a blogger’s code of ethics as a solution to this problem. However, “Netizens were against the idea of any sort of regulation or code of ethics on a platform which some saw as the “last bastion of truly free expression” in Singapore” (Giam, 2006).
My take on this? I just think it’s going to be very hard to strike a balance with regards to this issue of “freedom of speech”. Blogs may encourage freedom of speech, but will this freedom of speech lead to more havoc and disruption here in Singapore? Blogs may be a tiny steppingstone to bring us one step closer to greater democracy, but there is more to it than this. Will another blogger get arrested for saying something on his blog thinking that he is protected by the unspoken rule of “freedom of speech” and democracy? We’ll just have to wait and see.
As for the matter of internet election voting, I may be a little concerned about the aspects of privacy and safety. Honestly, I feel that some things, are better done the old fashioned way.
Reference
Democracy. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved March 24, 2007, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy
Giam, G. (2006). “The politics of Singapore’s new media in 2006.” Retrieved on March 24, 2007 from http://theonlinecitizen.com/2006/12/31/review-the-politics-of-singapores-new-media-in-2006/
Mrbrown. (2007, February 25). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 08:03, March 24, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mrbrown&oldid=110772983
The Internet today is place for everyone and reaches out to all kinds of people of all demographics and from all walks of life. Thus, it is essentially the most important tool today for anyone to get his or her message across to an audience. In the advent of the growth of cyberspace and the explosion of the Internet age, politicians and government bodies have taken the initiative to bring their campaigns as well as thoughts online to reach a wider spectrum of audience.
Although Singapore has only recently caught the “political blogging” wave, one local blogger, mrbrown, has already carved out a name for himself in the blogosphere. He is already one of the top bloggers in Singapore and is loved by many for his wit and satires poking fun at social issues as well as the government on his blog (http://www.mrbrown.com/) entitled, mrbrown: L'infantile terrible of Singapore.
The person hiding behind the pseudonym of mrbrown, is actually Lee Kin Mun. He used to write a weekly opinion colunm for the TODAY paper in Singapore but got fired after writing the article, titled "S'poreans are fed, up with progress!" with regards to the rising costs of living in Singapore. Prime Minister Mr, Lee Hsien Loong responded to this by saying that "mrbrown had hit out wildly at the Government and in a very mocking tone", and that the government had to respond to such criticsms for fear of them eventually being treated as true (mrbrown, 2007). He felt that it was not the job of journalists or newspapers to campaign for or against the Government. Also, the Government was very unhappy that mrbrown’s opinions were circulated in a mainstream newspaper rather than on his blog, which has a much narrower and more limited audience” (Giam, 2006).
Mr Brown is widely loved by Singaporeans and his podcasts “attracts some 20,000 downloads per day” (mrbrown, 2007). It was no wonder why so many Netizens held a protest in favour of Mr Brown when he was dismissed from TODAY. Fortunately, no further action was taken against mrbrown and he continues to blog and has been at it for years since his first entry on February 27, 1997.
With a citizen blogger like mrbrown contributing to insights on politics and the societal issues of Singapore, more people who seldom read the papers are now more informed of current affairs and also of the political scene in Singapore. There is no doubt that such blogs like mrbrown’s allow for more freedom of speech and discussions of poliyical issues and also increase awareness of the political scene in Singapore. But the question is, do blogs allow for greater democracy in Singapore?
It is great that citizens can air their thoughts freely in cyberspace but sadly, there is a limit to this. Citizens may be able to use their blogs for discussions of political issues or rant about how unhappy they are with the government; it seems that we can write almost anything in our blogs! However, we need to remember that our very own private blogs are also accessible to millions of people out there and who may both agree or disagree with our opinions. To have greater democracy is to have greater “political or social equality; democratic spirit” (Democracy, 2007). Blogs may give us more space to rant but it does not necessarily lead to greater democracy. People whom the government may see as a threat may still receive warnings by the government on their blogs. Recently, the government has even taken the initiative to surf citizens’ blogs and leave comments anonymously to defend the government or dissuade a blogger from thinking in a certain way.
Despite disputes over this matter of freedom of speech, citizen rights, or the government being accused of being sneaky, there really is no wrong or right to this issue. Power to the people may sound like the ideal, however, we have to acknowledge the fact that the government is after all, ultimately the one in control. Thus, another blogger, Dharmendra Yadav, has suggested self-regulation and a blogger’s code of ethics as a solution to this problem. However, “Netizens were against the idea of any sort of regulation or code of ethics on a platform which some saw as the “last bastion of truly free expression” in Singapore” (Giam, 2006).
My take on this? I just think it’s going to be very hard to strike a balance with regards to this issue of “freedom of speech”. Blogs may encourage freedom of speech, but will this freedom of speech lead to more havoc and disruption here in Singapore? Blogs may be a tiny steppingstone to bring us one step closer to greater democracy, but there is more to it than this. Will another blogger get arrested for saying something on his blog thinking that he is protected by the unspoken rule of “freedom of speech” and democracy? We’ll just have to wait and see.
As for the matter of internet election voting, I may be a little concerned about the aspects of privacy and safety. Honestly, I feel that some things, are better done the old fashioned way.
Reference
Democracy. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved March 24, 2007, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy
Giam, G. (2006). “The politics of Singapore’s new media in 2006.” Retrieved on March 24, 2007 from http://theonlinecitizen.com/2006/12/31/review-the-politics-of-singapores-new-media-in-2006/
Mrbrown. (2007, February 25). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 08:03, March 24, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mrbrown&oldid=110772983
Friday, March 16, 2007
QotW7: Twitter Fest!
Online communities are taking the world by storm and that certainly is not an exaggeration. Humans form and join online communities in cyberspace for the same reasons why they form cliques and join interest groups and clubs in reality. As stated by Cooley (1983), all normal humans have a natural affinity for community. One of the reasons being that humans have a strong need to feel accepted and be with people similar to them. People need to feel a sense of belonging in cyberspace as much as they do in reality. Because of that, “the online world of computer- mediated communication (CMC) is one of those new ways for humans to relate to one another, and it is growing rapidly” (Fernback & Thompson, 1995).
An online community consists of “a group of people that may or may not primarily or initially communicate or interact via the Internet” (Virtual Community, 2007). Online communities also focus and depend on “social interaction and exchange between users online. This emphasizes the reciprocity element of the unwritten social contract between community members” (Virtual Community, 2007). Some examples of online communities are blogs, forums, chatrooms, and online social networks like Friendster or My Space.
There are countless online communities in cyberspace which function very differently and possess their very own characteristics and mechanisms. These almost endless lists of virtual communities operate on different levels and we have to personally explore them to know what they really are about. According to Amy Jo Kim, despite the numerous numbers of virtual communities, there are essentially only two different types we see online, namely, the traditional structure online communities, and the more individual-centric, bottom-up sort of interaction (Virtual Community, 2007).
Traditional structured online communities consist of message boards and chat rooms, which usually involve the online population more often. Community members also rely on gift-giving and reciprocity to establish reputation as well as to keep the community going. More individual-centric forms of online community interactions on the other hand, consist of blogs, instant messaging and buddy lists, which place more emphasis on the individuals and not the public.
After discussing so much on what an online community is, I believe it is time to pass the verdict – Is Twitter an online community? That has been the question on our minds for the past week and countless speculations have been made. Here is my two cents worth. I feel that Twitter is indeed an online community. It possesses all the characteristics of online communities, be it traditionally structured or more individual-centric ones.
Twitter is a social network consisting of groups of people bound by a common trait (for us, it’s none other than our COM125 assignment) and people can get together to discuss about issues that interest them. What I have noticed too is that Twitter maybe classified as a social network but it is in fact somewhat like a private chatroom where only people identified as friends can join in the activities and discussions. In essence, Twitter is a combination of both traditional structured online communities and the individual-centric form of online communities. Besides just casual chatting and common interests among a particular twitter group, gifting also occurs. Sometimes our fellow classmates will respond to questions posted by another classmate or contribute by making suggestions or leaving comments. These are forms of gifting and of course, reciprocity is key too. Help from anyone in the group is expected to be offered in return when someone needs it.
Thus, as Van Vliet and Burgers (1987) argue that “communities contain the following elements: social interaction, a shared value system, and a shared symbol system”, I stand by my argument that Twitter is indeed an online community regardless of how different it may seem from conventional virtual communities.
References
Cooke, P. (1990). Back to the Future. London: Unwin-Hyman. Cooley, C. H. (1983). Social Organization: A Study of the Larger Mind. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
Wellman, B. & Gulia, M. (1996). "Net Surfers Don't Ride Alone: Virtual Communities as Communities." Retrieved March 13, 2007 from http://www.acm.org/%7Eccp/references/wellman/wellman.html
Wikipedia (2007). Virtual Community. Retrieved March 15, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_communities
An online community consists of “a group of people that may or may not primarily or initially communicate or interact via the Internet” (Virtual Community, 2007). Online communities also focus and depend on “social interaction and exchange between users online. This emphasizes the reciprocity element of the unwritten social contract between community members” (Virtual Community, 2007). Some examples of online communities are blogs, forums, chatrooms, and online social networks like Friendster or My Space.
There are countless online communities in cyberspace which function very differently and possess their very own characteristics and mechanisms. These almost endless lists of virtual communities operate on different levels and we have to personally explore them to know what they really are about. According to Amy Jo Kim, despite the numerous numbers of virtual communities, there are essentially only two different types we see online, namely, the traditional structure online communities, and the more individual-centric, bottom-up sort of interaction (Virtual Community, 2007).
Traditional structured online communities consist of message boards and chat rooms, which usually involve the online population more often. Community members also rely on gift-giving and reciprocity to establish reputation as well as to keep the community going. More individual-centric forms of online community interactions on the other hand, consist of blogs, instant messaging and buddy lists, which place more emphasis on the individuals and not the public.
After discussing so much on what an online community is, I believe it is time to pass the verdict – Is Twitter an online community? That has been the question on our minds for the past week and countless speculations have been made. Here is my two cents worth. I feel that Twitter is indeed an online community. It possesses all the characteristics of online communities, be it traditionally structured or more individual-centric ones.
Twitter is a social network consisting of groups of people bound by a common trait (for us, it’s none other than our COM125 assignment) and people can get together to discuss about issues that interest them. What I have noticed too is that Twitter maybe classified as a social network but it is in fact somewhat like a private chatroom where only people identified as friends can join in the activities and discussions. In essence, Twitter is a combination of both traditional structured online communities and the individual-centric form of online communities. Besides just casual chatting and common interests among a particular twitter group, gifting also occurs. Sometimes our fellow classmates will respond to questions posted by another classmate or contribute by making suggestions or leaving comments. These are forms of gifting and of course, reciprocity is key too. Help from anyone in the group is expected to be offered in return when someone needs it.
Thus, as Van Vliet and Burgers (1987) argue that “communities contain the following elements: social interaction, a shared value system, and a shared symbol system”, I stand by my argument that Twitter is indeed an online community regardless of how different it may seem from conventional virtual communities.
References
Cooke, P. (1990). Back to the Future. London: Unwin-Hyman. Cooley, C. H. (1983). Social Organization: A Study of the Larger Mind. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
Wellman, B. & Gulia, M. (1996). "Net Surfers Don't Ride Alone: Virtual Communities as Communities." Retrieved March 13, 2007 from http://www.acm.org/%7Eccp/references/wellman/wellman.html
Wikipedia (2007). Virtual Community. Retrieved March 15, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_communities
Monday, February 19, 2007
QotW5: The Power of Online Identities
To many, the Internet is God sent. It has made our lives so convenient and has drastically changed the way we live. Shopping has been taken online, socializing and meeting new people can be done online, even such a personal and high security activity like banking can be done online today. However, can we really go about doing all our activities via this medium, which disallows us from seeing or knowing for sure whom the other party across the net really is? Perhaps what is lurking at the back of our minds while we lead our virtual lives today, is the question of identity – The online identity. This paper will discuss the issues of reputation and deception with regards to the freedom and ease of creating online identities.
In the physical world, it is easy to recognize and acknowledge people as themselves when we see them due to their physical attributes. However when interacting online, people need to create a certain character or personality to create a presence. In instances where Internet users rather not use their real identities, they create for themselves an online identity, which is a “social identity that network users establish in online communities” (“Online Identity”, 2007). Two types of online identities are pseudonyms and avatars. In lieu of their real names, Internet users use pseudonyms, which are like aliases that people use online. These pseudonyms “reveal varying amounts of personally identifiable information” of the users (“Online Identity”, 2007). Avatars on the other hand, are not names or words but icon-sized graphic images that Internet users can use to represent themselves visually.
Identity plays a key role in virtual communities (Donath, 1996). Everyone of us who owns an email account, owns an online identity. With blogs, forums, and social networks like Friendster and Myspace, being all the rage these days, many people are taking on different online identities when they enter different online sites. This is because, usernames are needed when signing up for an account at a new website and the information required to be given is often the user’s email address. The username is the equivalent to one’s name and email address the equivalent to one’s home address of sort. Thus, one can easily adopt a brand new identity by merely creating another account with a different username.
So, what exactly is the danger of people having the freedom of creating multiple different identities for themselves? I believe the main purpose to that is none other than to deceive. Owning a “fake” online identity gives us the power to trick others into believing what we want them to believe or perceive us to be. Examples of false identities are rampent in IRC chatrooms. Most people log onto IRC and join chatrooms, identitiable only by their nicknames or pseudonyms. Such pseudonyms can be considered what is termed as, conventional signals. According to Donath (1996), “Conventional signals are open to deception” where the user of that particular pseudonym need not possess the trait in order to make the signal which in this case, is his or her own chat room nickname. A nickname like “Boy_19” would suggest the user to be a 19-year-old male, and “Ballerina_87”, a 20-year-old female who loves ballet. However, all these attributes we assume to be true may be merely a scam and part of the other party’s plan to trick or deceive us.
In the physical world, it is easy to recognize and acknowledge people as themselves when we see them due to their physical attributes. However when interacting online, people need to create a certain character or personality to create a presence. In instances where Internet users rather not use their real identities, they create for themselves an online identity, which is a “social identity that network users establish in online communities” (“Online Identity”, 2007). Two types of online identities are pseudonyms and avatars. In lieu of their real names, Internet users use pseudonyms, which are like aliases that people use online. These pseudonyms “reveal varying amounts of personally identifiable information” of the users (“Online Identity”, 2007). Avatars on the other hand, are not names or words but icon-sized graphic images that Internet users can use to represent themselves visually.
Identity plays a key role in virtual communities (Donath, 1996). Everyone of us who owns an email account, owns an online identity. With blogs, forums, and social networks like Friendster and Myspace, being all the rage these days, many people are taking on different online identities when they enter different online sites. This is because, usernames are needed when signing up for an account at a new website and the information required to be given is often the user’s email address. The username is the equivalent to one’s name and email address the equivalent to one’s home address of sort. Thus, one can easily adopt a brand new identity by merely creating another account with a different username.
So, what exactly is the danger of people having the freedom of creating multiple different identities for themselves? I believe the main purpose to that is none other than to deceive. Owning a “fake” online identity gives us the power to trick others into believing what we want them to believe or perceive us to be. Examples of false identities are rampent in IRC chatrooms. Most people log onto IRC and join chatrooms, identitiable only by their nicknames or pseudonyms. Such pseudonyms can be considered what is termed as, conventional signals. According to Donath (1996), “Conventional signals are open to deception” where the user of that particular pseudonym need not possess the trait in order to make the signal which in this case, is his or her own chat room nickname. A nickname like “Boy_19” would suggest the user to be a 19-year-old male, and “Ballerina_87”, a 20-year-old female who loves ballet. However, all these attributes we assume to be true may be merely a scam and part of the other party’s plan to trick or deceive us.
Because of the bad reputation IRC has earned itself, thanks to the “baddies” preying on impressionable young girls seeking fun online, it is the first thing that comes to mind when we speak of deception and online identities. What doesn’t occur to us however is that problems pertaining to false online identities and deception are not only pertinent to IRC chat rooms; web logs, forums and online social networks are not spared either. The one online identity I am most familiar with would have to be the identity reflected via my very own personal blog.
My blog is essentially the tangible version of my character and personality. It reflects so much of me, and I guess you can say, “Sam, I can read you like an open book!” when you browse through my blog. Like most bloggers, my blog consists of my photographs, memories, experiences, my likes and dislikes, and even personal thoughts. Important dates, people, places and activities are also listed in there. It has come to a point where one wouldn’t even need to meet me to know me. It is simply because of that, I am aware that my online identity could easily be stolen. What reputation I have built, and image that I have established, could be destroyed by someone armed with a computer and the luxury of some free time.On top of reading my profile and blog entries, a third party could find out even more about me by reading my friends’ blogs, which I have linked to mine as well as skim though my tag board which displays interaction between my friends and I. With all the essential information about me, that identity “thief” could pose as me at other online sites or forums that I frequent. The danger here, lies in the scary fact that while posing as me, these thieves could interact with my friends online and in turn retrieve even more of my personal information. With the information obtained, “reputation theft” would be as simple as ABC.
“As a new and specialized form of identity theft, "reputation theft" could occur when someone successfully hijacks the reputational characteristics of another” (Kaye, 2004; Newitz, 2003). With that, the thief could assume my identity and practice “reputation theft” in one of the forums I frequent and also possibly pull off a Troll under my identity.
Identity deception is exactly what the game of trolling is about, “albeit one that is played without the consent of most of the players. The troll attempts to pass as a legitimate participant, sharing the group's common interests and concerns” and is made to leave when the newsgroup members have identified him as one (Donath, 1996). As I have established a reputation in some of the forums I frequent, it would be a nightmare to find my identity stolen and end up being accused of trolling. As Donath (1996) has stated, “being branded a troll is quite damaging to one's online reputation.” Besides being labeled a troll, the reputation that I have established in those forums would be destroyed and I would have to go through the trouble and agony of creating a brand new account with a brand new username and start building up my reputation from scratch again.
This situation may be hypothetical but should not be dismissed as ideas of an overly imaginative or paranoid person. In the virtual world, these concerns are definitely relevant and thus, we should look out for our safety and learn to protect our identities and ourselves while we continue to dwell in cyberspace.
________________________________________________________________
References
Donath, J.S. (1996) “Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community” Retrieved February 16, 2007 from http://smg.media.mit.edu/people/Judith/Identity/IdentityDeception.html
Masum, H and Zhang, Y.C. (2004) “Manifesto for the Reputation Society” Retrieved February 16, 2007 from http://smg.media.mit.edu/people/Judith/Identity/IdentityDeception.html
Newitz, A. (2003) "Defenses lacking at social network sites," Retrieved
February 19, 2007, from http://www.securityfocus.com/news/7739
Online identity. (2007, February 15). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 09:28, February 17, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Online_identity&oldid=108207999
Thursday, February 8, 2007
QotW4: No Such Thing As a Free Lunch? Get Free Gifts Instead!
We humans are a skeptical bunch and choose to believe that there is no such thing as a free lunch in this world. What people give, they expect double in return – be wary of others! That is the way we have been taught by our parents and society to believe since the day we could decipher words and meanings. Could the human race be turning so cold, selfish and unfeeling? Are we turning into creatures devoid of the need to be interdependent or bonded to each other? Or are we simply afraid of losing out? This paper will discuss the gift economy, its mechanics, limitations, and its effects on our lives.With the advancement in technology, more people are tuning in to the virtual world and spending even more of their time there. When more people get together online, they slowly discover that many others out there in the virtual space share their very same interests. When that happens, people start to form virtual communities and forums, which are the equivalent of the many interest groups we see in reality. Interaction in such virtual communities and forums is part of a gift economy. According to Rheingold (1993), a gift economy is a place “in which help and information is offered without the expectation of any direct, immediate quid-pro-quo.” This gifting is deemed as altruistic without the implicit expectation of reciprocation and thus, is not to be confused with the concept of a gift transaction.
It is easy to confuse the concept of “gift transaction” and a “commodity transaction” as there is only a very fine line that sets them apart. In order to explain this, we first need to know exactly what a gift is. Carrier (1991) defines a gift as the obligatory transfer of inalienable objects or services between related and mutually obligated transactors. The important factor that sets these two concepts apart is the existance of a “relationship” between the giver and the receiver. A friend who gifts does not expect anything in return but the friendship/relationship is sustained by the genuine desire, on the part of the receiver to give back. A “commodity transaction” however, consists of no obligation at all after the exchange is consummated (Kollock, 1999). In essence, “gifts are exchanged between individuals who are part of an ongoing interdependent relationship [while] in a commodities transaction, the individuals are self-interested, independent actors” (Carrier, 1991).
As stated earlier on, online communities are a huge part of today’s gift economy. I personally enjoy participating in discussions in several forums and online communities. Being a part of these communities allows me free access to a pool of information which is relevent to my life and also provides me with a sense of belonging. One of the online communities I frequent is DanceForums.
At DanceForums, dance enthusiasts from all over the world come together to discuss their common passion – Dance. Dancers post questions or updates in the dance scene, which are then responded to by other members of the forum. People can interact and learn more from each other about via discussions in the forum. After all, the gift economy, in this case, forums, can be viewed as an outlet where people can come together "to learn, to understand, to change and take charge of the world" (Pollard, 2005). At DanceForums, there are even subgroups to accommodate the different dance genres. The genres range from a diverse mix of classical ballet, hip hop, Irish, jazz, all the way to belly dancing. People can seek help with choreography, dance music, and even discuss dancewear brands. Such discussions are very useful as the suggestions and advice contributed are mostly the result of experience. Often, the people who contribute the most are more recognized in the forum and are well respected by other members. These people who are more highly involved in contributing to the forum by “offering advice and information [also] seem to receive more help more quickly when they ask for something” (Wellman & Gulia, 1997; Rheingold, 1993).
As we can already see, a gift economy really works in a cycle, which has the contributor on the receiving end too at some point in time. For the relationships that exist among members of an online community to thrive, people need to both give and take. After all, it all boils down to ‘synergy’, where the sum of the parts adds up to more than the whole. By balancing giving and taking, the gift economy can be taken to a higher and more promising level.
References
Bandura, Albert (editor). 1995. Self-Efficacy in Changing Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kollock, Peter (1999). 'The Economies of Online Cooperation; Gifts and Public Goods in Cyberspace" Retrieved February 8, 2007 from http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/kollock/papers/economies.htm
Pollard, Dave (2005). "The Gift Economy" Retrieved February 8, 2007 from http://blogs.salon.com/0002007/2005/04/17.html
Rheingold, Howard. 1993. The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. New York: Addison-Wesley.
Wikipedia (2007). Gift economy. Retrieved February 8, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
QotW3: Making Copyright Laws Work For Both Parties
As technology advances and the world becomes more globalized, more information can be found online. These forms of information also comprise of property – Intellectual property. Nowadays, people no longer have to visit the cinemas or purchase music CDs to enjoy their favorite films or music. These forms of entertainment can now be readily found on the net for free. This may be good news to movie buffs and music lovers but bad news to the people and organizations that own the copyright to these forms of intellectual property. In this paper, I will attempt to address the problem of legislation rules on copyright and piracy, as well as suggest a plan to accommodate both interests of the content creators and the public good.
The problem with the readily available online music and movie files is that most of them are pirated; they are mere copies of copyrighted works and no royalties are being paid to the people who own the rights to the files. For example, we download music files for free on the Internet and share them with people all over the world. The organizations and artistes who own the rights to the files do not get a single cent from the sharing of these music files. This gave rise to the music industry putting the blame on file sharing for their recent decline in sales (Sherman, 2003).
According to Koleman Strumpf and Felix Oberholzer-Gee, “In 2004, there were more than nine million simultaneous users on the major peer-to-peer (P2P) networks” (Oberholzer-Gee and Strumpf, 2005). From that statistic, we can easily gauge the alarming rate in which pirated songs are being shared via the Internet all over the world. That is just how relevant piracy is in the world we live in. Content creators are greatly enraged by this phenomenon and have started suing members of the public caught in the act of illegal file sharing over the Internet. Congress has also planned strategies to stop illegal file sharing.
Because the public can download music files for free via the Internet, and not face a high risk of getting caught due to the vast number of participants, it would be hard to eradicate piracy and file sharing all together. Congress may have set up rules against illegal file sharing but millions of people around the world are still engaging in file sharing and will continue to do so. Likewise, chances of getting caught are also not high when people illegally duplicate copyrighted intellectual property for their personal use, as seen in the example of a teacher’s use of resources she finds on the Internet, in part three of Litman’s paper (Litman, 2003). From the perspective of the “pirate”, piracy saves us money, time and much hassle; chances of getting caught are also slim. So, piracy seems to be the most practical and low-risk thing to practice when needed. As such, the solution is really not to add to the number of already existing anti-piracy rules. Perhaps, content creators and the public coming to a compromise would be more feasible than merely slapping more copyright rules and regulations onto the public.
First, we need to address the main idea behind copyright. According to Litman (2003), copyright serves the purpose of “[encouraging] the creation and mass dissemination of a wide variety of works”. However, some researchers have come to realize that copyright laws may instead stifle creativity because “creativity depends…on some measure of anarchy – a lack of control” (Vaidhyanathan, 2004). According to Vaidhyanathan, professor of communications studies at New York University, “culture works best when there is minimal authority and guidance…[anarchy] has its limits as a governing tool” (Manjoo, 2004). With that, I would like to suggest a possible method to strike a balance between the interests of content creators and the public good with regards to file sharing over the Internet.
Since file sharing appears to be impossible to eradicate, copyright owners could turn the tables around by using file sharing to their advantage. Copyright owners could attach a certain tracking system to their copyright files so they can keep track of their “property” when the public indulges in file sharing. With that, copyright owners can then collect their due royalties. At the same time, the musicians can also get free exposure and advertising among the public, which comes along with the file sharing process. This system would allow both content creators and the public to do what they do best and still benefit from it. With file sharing made available and legal, budding artists can continue drawing inspiration from the files they download and come up with their own works of innovation.
With this scheme, copyright laws would then be able to protect copyright owners and still serve its purpose of encouraging innovation in a creative culture, accommodating both interests of content creators and the public good.
References
Litman, J. (2003). Sharing and Stealing [Electronic Version], 1-5, 37-74. Retrieved 23 November 2003 from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=472141.
Manjoo, F. (2004). The Mouse Who Would Be King [Electronic Version]. Retrieved 31 January 2007 from http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2004/04/08/copyright_culture/index.html.
Robertson, G. (2006). The RIAA vs. John Doe, a layperson's guide to filesharing lawsuits. Nova Scotia.
Strumpf.K and Felix Oberholzer-Gee. (2005). The Effect of File Sharing on Record Sales: An Empirical Analysis [Electronic Version], 2-5, 35-37. Retrieved June 2005 from http://www.unc.edu/%7Ecigar/papers/FileSharing_June2005_final.pdf.
Vaidhyanathan, S. (2004). The Anarchist in the Library: How the Clash Between Freedom and Control Is Hacking the Real World and Crashing the System. New York: Basic Books.
The problem with the readily available online music and movie files is that most of them are pirated; they are mere copies of copyrighted works and no royalties are being paid to the people who own the rights to the files. For example, we download music files for free on the Internet and share them with people all over the world. The organizations and artistes who own the rights to the files do not get a single cent from the sharing of these music files. This gave rise to the music industry putting the blame on file sharing for their recent decline in sales (Sherman, 2003).
According to Koleman Strumpf and Felix Oberholzer-Gee, “In 2004, there were more than nine million simultaneous users on the major peer-to-peer (P2P) networks” (Oberholzer-Gee and Strumpf, 2005). From that statistic, we can easily gauge the alarming rate in which pirated songs are being shared via the Internet all over the world. That is just how relevant piracy is in the world we live in. Content creators are greatly enraged by this phenomenon and have started suing members of the public caught in the act of illegal file sharing over the Internet. Congress has also planned strategies to stop illegal file sharing.
“Legislation pending in Congress seeks to deter consumers from engaging in peer-to-peer file sharing. Meanwhile, representatives of the music, recording and film industries have sued the purveyors of peer-to-peer file sharing software, the Internet service providers who enable consumers to trade files, and more than 5000 individual consumers accused of making recorded music available to other consumers over the internet.”
(Litman, 2003)
Because the public can download music files for free via the Internet, and not face a high risk of getting caught due to the vast number of participants, it would be hard to eradicate piracy and file sharing all together. Congress may have set up rules against illegal file sharing but millions of people around the world are still engaging in file sharing and will continue to do so. Likewise, chances of getting caught are also not high when people illegally duplicate copyrighted intellectual property for their personal use, as seen in the example of a teacher’s use of resources she finds on the Internet, in part three of Litman’s paper (Litman, 2003). From the perspective of the “pirate”, piracy saves us money, time and much hassle; chances of getting caught are also slim. So, piracy seems to be the most practical and low-risk thing to practice when needed. As such, the solution is really not to add to the number of already existing anti-piracy rules. Perhaps, content creators and the public coming to a compromise would be more feasible than merely slapping more copyright rules and regulations onto the public.
First, we need to address the main idea behind copyright. According to Litman (2003), copyright serves the purpose of “[encouraging] the creation and mass dissemination of a wide variety of works”. However, some researchers have come to realize that copyright laws may instead stifle creativity because “creativity depends…on some measure of anarchy – a lack of control” (Vaidhyanathan, 2004). According to Vaidhyanathan, professor of communications studies at New York University, “culture works best when there is minimal authority and guidance…[anarchy] has its limits as a governing tool” (Manjoo, 2004). With that, I would like to suggest a possible method to strike a balance between the interests of content creators and the public good with regards to file sharing over the Internet.
Since file sharing appears to be impossible to eradicate, copyright owners could turn the tables around by using file sharing to their advantage. Copyright owners could attach a certain tracking system to their copyright files so they can keep track of their “property” when the public indulges in file sharing. With that, copyright owners can then collect their due royalties. At the same time, the musicians can also get free exposure and advertising among the public, which comes along with the file sharing process. This system would allow both content creators and the public to do what they do best and still benefit from it. With file sharing made available and legal, budding artists can continue drawing inspiration from the files they download and come up with their own works of innovation.
With this scheme, copyright laws would then be able to protect copyright owners and still serve its purpose of encouraging innovation in a creative culture, accommodating both interests of content creators and the public good.
References
Litman, J. (2003). Sharing and Stealing [Electronic Version], 1-5, 37-74. Retrieved 23 November 2003 from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=472141.
Manjoo, F. (2004). The Mouse Who Would Be King [Electronic Version]. Retrieved 31 January 2007 from http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2004/04/08/copyright_culture/index.html.
Robertson, G. (2006). The RIAA vs. John Doe, a layperson's guide to filesharing lawsuits. Nova Scotia.
Strumpf.K and Felix Oberholzer-Gee. (2005). The Effect of File Sharing on Record Sales: An Empirical Analysis [Electronic Version], 2-5, 35-37. Retrieved June 2005 from http://www.unc.edu/%7Ecigar/papers/FileSharing_June2005_final.pdf.
Vaidhyanathan, S. (2004). The Anarchist in the Library: How the Clash Between Freedom and Control Is Hacking the Real World and Crashing the System. New York: Basic Books.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
COM125 WEEK2: Linking The World With Technology
"A user interface should be so simple that a beginner in an emergency can understand it within ten seconds" - Ted NelsonThe world today is extremely globalized with people and organizations linked together from all parts of the earth. This has been made possible by the advancement of technology and the Internet. Technology has advanced so far to the point that almost anything of existence in the tangible real world, can be brought onto the Internet for our convenience. We chat online, write to each other online, read e-books online, and even shop online. With so much exposure to the Internet, all of us would know what the Internet is in general. But, the question is, what exactly are the mechanics behind it that make our lives so much more convenient? This paper will delve deeper into the mechanics of the Internet and explore the little parts behind this amazing technology.
So, what exactly is the Internet? It is “the worldwide, publicly accessible network of interconnected computer networks that transmit data by packet switching using the standard Internet Protocol (IP)” (Wikipedia, 2007). According to Paul Baran, packet switching works in a way whereby “messages [are] broken into units of equal size and the network route these message units along a functioning path to their destination where they would be reassembled into coherent wholes" (Rheingold, 1993). To put simply, the Internet comprises of groups passing on parcels of information from one group to another. These parcels are then opened up, taken apart, and put together again, then sent to yet another group for the transmission of information. The tool used to surf the net and view the WebPages is the Web browser. Web browsers communicate with web servers primarily using HTTP (hypertext transfer protocol) to fetch webpages that we ask for.
Model for Packet-SwitchingAbove mentioned is the simplified model of what the Internet is. However, many of us, including me, have one more nagging question in mind, and that is, “How is it possible that just one blue highlighted or underlined word from a webpage could link you to another totally different page?” This process seems almost like magic to a layman. The secret behind it, is really the “hyertext”, which is a word coined by American sociologist, philosoper and pioneer of information technology, Ted Nelson in 1963 (Wikipedia, 2007). The hypertext has made surfing the net a breeze and almost idiot proof for the not-so-internet-savy. In essense, the hypertext is “a linked series of texts that could automatically summon other texts for viewing” (Rheingold, 1993).
According to Rheingold (1993), “When you come across a reference or footnote in one document of a hypertext database, you can point at it and instantly see the source document cited, then go back to the first document, if you wish, or continue to explore links forward, to other documents.” That is how easy it is to trace web pages and information you want to take note of without the worry of getting that very first web page lost in cyberspace. For example, I may be reading up on shoes in a particular web page but I can also click on the word “shoes” and be taken back to the original page on “fashion” if the hypertext link were provided.
Hypertext ModelHyperlinks can link any unit of information to any other unit of information over the Internet and is thus, integral to the creation of the World Wde Web. This technology has enabled us to surf for things we are interested in with much ease as just one page could link us to hundreds and thousands of relevant sites. As such, hyperlinks are widely “used in emails, text editors, PDF documents, word processing documents, spreadsheets, Apple’s HyperCard and many other places” (Wikipedia, 2007).
Today, companies market themselves and their products online on other web pages with the help of the hypertext, linking the user back to the company’s main page. Bloggers who own online auction items can also use hypertext to link their blog readers to their auction sites and increase the chances of bids for their items. The best thing about marketing your goods in this manner is that it is free and convenient for both the seller and consumer. The only thing one would have to do when dealing with a hypertext is simply to click and arrive at a page; no typing or much thinking is required at all.
With such brilliant technology made easy for us and at our disposal, it isn’t a wonder why most people spend majority of their time in front of their computers surfing the web. Pen pals can save on postage and email each other instead. Shopaholics can save on their bus fares to downtown shopping malls and indulge in online shopping, students can be spared the hassle of making trips to the library and do their research online instead, and the list goes on. With that, maybe there is just one last question we should ponder on, “What would we do without the Internet?”
References
Rheingold, H. (1993). Visionaries and Convergences: The Accidental History of the Net. The Virtual Community. New York: Perseus Books. Retrieved from http://www.rheingold.com/vc/book/3.html
Wikipedia (2007). Internet. Retrieved January 26, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet
Wikipedia (2007). Online Shop. Retrieved January 27, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_shop
Wikipedia (2007). Ted Nelson. Retrieved January 27, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Nelson
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Getting to know you...getting to know all about you
I am Samantha and I'm the proud owner of this brand new blog!
Anyway, here's more about me. I love dancing and have been dancing ballet since I was 8. Jazz is another dance I practice and I am absolutely in love with it. I love performing...being on stage makes me feel alive. Besides being interested in the performing arts, I also enjoy visiting museums and art galleries. And because I'm Singaporean, I was born to love food. I LOVE ALL KINDS OF FOOD!!! If there's anything I'm adventurous about, it would have to be food. Trying different cuisines originating from all over the world is a cultural experience in its own right and could be a refreshing change for the less adventurous locals who only swear by their Katong Laksa, chicken rice and maybe the yummy but oh so sinful prata (because they’re oblivious to the other exotic fare out there).
Being the foodie that I am, I also enjoy cooking and baking, though I've always wished cleaning up and dish washing never existed. I know, you must be thinking, "I thought ballerinas and dancers alike are all anorexic, hate food, and absolutely skinny". Well, there are always exceptions. Of course, I hit the gym regularly (yes, I’m a self-confessed gym rat) to off set my unusually insatiable appetite...and, I use my good old uZap to stay in shape!
I’m just giving a special mention to Osim’s uZap because I emerged the winner in a competition last year and am now the product ambassador for uZap. You may see me in the uZap promo videos at some of the Osim outlets around Singapore, posters in Malaysia as well as in past copies of 8 Days Magazine, I-weekly magazine and the TODAY newspaper.The whole experience has been very exhilarating, with me having been able to work under one of the world’s top modeling agencies, meeting local celebrities and getting phone calls for interviews. But, I’m nowhere near to being a celebrity, really. The only people who recognize me on the streets are…my friends. I really am still an ordinary girl slogging hard to earn herself a degree. *sob*
I believe most girls probably don’t have the chance to experience what I got to experience at my age and it’ll be fun to tell my future grandchildren stories from my younger days. Thus, the modeling/publicity stint is something I’d be able to smile back upon in the future. As for my career, I’d love to land myself a job as a radio DJ or a TV presenter (a TV presenter for a lifestyle/FOOD program would be ideal!) Hmm..Let’s see what blogging can do for my dream career! :)
Links:
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=610220316
http://www.friendster.com/2743999
Anyway, here's more about me. I love dancing and have been dancing ballet since I was 8. Jazz is another dance I practice and I am absolutely in love with it. I love performing...being on stage makes me feel alive. Besides being interested in the performing arts, I also enjoy visiting museums and art galleries. And because I'm Singaporean, I was born to love food. I LOVE ALL KINDS OF FOOD!!! If there's anything I'm adventurous about, it would have to be food. Trying different cuisines originating from all over the world is a cultural experience in its own right and could be a refreshing change for the less adventurous locals who only swear by their Katong Laksa, chicken rice and maybe the yummy but oh so sinful prata (because they’re oblivious to the other exotic fare out there).
Being the foodie that I am, I also enjoy cooking and baking, though I've always wished cleaning up and dish washing never existed. I know, you must be thinking, "I thought ballerinas and dancers alike are all anorexic, hate food, and absolutely skinny". Well, there are always exceptions. Of course, I hit the gym regularly (yes, I’m a self-confessed gym rat) to off set my unusually insatiable appetite...and, I use my good old uZap to stay in shape!
I’m just giving a special mention to Osim’s uZap because I emerged the winner in a competition last year and am now the product ambassador for uZap. You may see me in the uZap promo videos at some of the Osim outlets around Singapore, posters in Malaysia as well as in past copies of 8 Days Magazine, I-weekly magazine and the TODAY newspaper.The whole experience has been very exhilarating, with me having been able to work under one of the world’s top modeling agencies, meeting local celebrities and getting phone calls for interviews. But, I’m nowhere near to being a celebrity, really. The only people who recognize me on the streets are…my friends. I really am still an ordinary girl slogging hard to earn herself a degree. *sob*
I believe most girls probably don’t have the chance to experience what I got to experience at my age and it’ll be fun to tell my future grandchildren stories from my younger days. Thus, the modeling/publicity stint is something I’d be able to smile back upon in the future. As for my career, I’d love to land myself a job as a radio DJ or a TV presenter (a TV presenter for a lifestyle/FOOD program would be ideal!) Hmm..Let’s see what blogging can do for my dream career! :)
Links:
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=610220316
http://www.friendster.com/2743999
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
