Aside

How I met your mother is a highly successful TV show on CBS. The show has been on the air for a very long time; with just over 200 episodes spanning over nine seasons the show has developed a huge fandom. I have seen almost all the episodes with the expectation to the newest season. Through out the show you are slowly giving hints as to which the mother is however they always cut it short and mess with the audience. This has generated a major demand for to find out whom the mother is. Online I was able to find all sorts of transmedia. On twitter I was able to find accounts for each one of the main characters. On their pages they talk about what happened last week on the show and they live tweet during new episodes and commercial breaks giving people the feeling that the show is real life. In the show one of the main characters named Barney talks about his blog in the TV show on many occasion. I was not surprised when I was able to find “Barneys Blog” on CBS.com. “Barney” blogs about once a week, many times the blog is slightly relevant to the specific episode or it can be something that is totally off topic that is simply a new piece of information about the characters themselves. Based on Henry Jenkins, “Transmedia Storytelling 101” Barneys blog would be considered as an extension of media. Henry Jenkins describes an Extension of media as “Extension may provide insight into the characters and their motivations, may flesh out aspects of the fictional world, or may bridge between events depicted in a series of sequels”.

 

In more then just one specific episode of how I met your mother barney refers to books that he has wrote, one being “the Bro Code” and another being “the Playbook” after the episode that revolved around each of those books were eared, both of those books were made available to buy. Based on Henry Jenkins, “Transmedia Storytelling 101” these books are considered to be media consolidation. This is when the form of media is spread onto many different forms of media. This is also sometimes called synergy.

 

 

 

 

 

Photos:

http://www.cbs.com/shows/how_i_met_your_mother/barneys_blog/1001894/

 

http://www.cbsstore.com/bro-code-by-barney-stinson-paperback-book/detail.php?p=76719&v=cbs-howimetyourmother-barneys-man-cave&pagemax=all

 

 

Work cited:

Jenkins, Henry. “Transmedia Storytelling 101.” Confessions of an AcaFan. Genesis Framework, 22 Mar. 2007. Web. 02 Mar. 2014.

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                ImageImage

Advertisements
By jchef36
Aside

Angel Valencia

Is Wikipedia reliable? Is it considered a source? Is Wikipedia good or bad? Both? A lot of questions arise when it comes to Wikipedia. Many experts will say Wikipedia is not reliable, others say its just a quick starting point for research. But overall, can we trust the information that’s put on Wikipedia by “average people”? That’s one, if not the main question presented by the 2-parted article: Henry Jenkins’ “What Wikipedia Can Teach Us About New Media Literacies.”

The Wikipedia article I selected was Comedy Central’s Tosh.0. The show is considered controversial, shocking, and funny. Despite it’s infamous comedy style, the show is one of the most watched shows among adults (18-49) the night its aired, averaging millions of viewers (Tosh.0). I chose this page because of its history involving Wikipedia. Jenkins talks about collective intelligence, “the ability to pool knowledge and compare notes with others towards a common goal” (Jenkins). Just like the Tosh.0 page and others, people really do work together on Wikipedia to put together information for the common good. For example, the Tosh.0 page has had about 959 revisions, and 382 by top ten users. It averages about 16 edits a month, a slow average particular due to the page being locked to some. Most are minor, but Wikipedia and users do a good job at keeping the information relevant and accurate. Despite a control in user activity with the page, there’s can still be questions raised on true accuracy. 

Image

 

Image

 

Is the information on Wikipedia put by people assumed to be correct 100% of the time? One can argue that not all information is right. Jenkins raises the question by stating, “There are legitimate concerns about the credibility of online information and the breakdown of traditional notions of expertise which should be debated.”(Jenkins) The statement refers to concern of the younger generation not questioning the source of Wikipedia; instead, they rely on it, or have too much “faith” in it. Because a lot of non-scholarly experts write Wikipedia pages, it’s hard trust in its accuracy. I bring up this point because Tosh.0 has had a history with Wikipedia. In 2010, Daniel Tosh told his viewers to change up a “boring page” for the show, causing quite a stir. The page was severely vandalized for comical reasons, resulting in a lockdown for the page, and an “apology” by Daniel to Wikipedia (Wikipedia).

Image

 

Just like this page, if a student, referred by Jenkins, were to stumble upon wrong information on the page, would they question it? If a source of information can be altered and revised in a non-accurate way, is it still a true source of information? Yes and No. Its no surprise Wikipedia has suffered a lot of vandalism misfortune with its information. However, Wikipedia does its best to stop this kind of activity. For example it will lock up pages, so only a selected few can edit them. Such is the case with the Tosh.0 Wikipedia page that is still locked to the unregistered to this day. It is important to monitor activity on Wikipedia, since it is a source of information used by a lot of people. Even If the information is not scholarly, it is still information put together by people” towards a common goal.” Overall, Information should be questioned with Wikipedia, although it’s a still a good source for general knowledge, and not super-detailed, super-accurate knowledge.

 Image

Work Cited:

 Jenkins, Henry. “WHAT WIKIPEDIA CAN TEACH US ABOUT THE NEW MEDIA LITERACIES (PART ONE).” Confessions of an AcaFan. N.p., 26 June 2007. Web. 14 Feb. 2014.

 “Tosh.0.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 16 Feb. 2014.

 “Wikipedia in Culture.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 16 Feb. 2014.

Aside

Battle of Marjah

Chris Gillespie

Operation Moshtarak, otherwise known as the Battle of Marjah, was a critical point in time for Allied forces in the War in Afghanistan. The Wikipedia article about this conflict stays true to much of the content except for the cultural aspects regarding the names of towns, places, etc. My knowledge of this conflict as a participant and language translator, coupled with Henry Jenkins article titled “What Wikipedia Can Teach Us About the New Media Literacies” should make the argument that much of the historical knowledge of the event is based in fact.

Image

                In the statistics I gathered from the Operation Mostharak Wikipedia article, I noticed that the revision history shows the vast majority of revisions occurring in February 2010. This month was also the beginning of that conflict, and the number of revisions drastically drops after that month, even though the conflict continued well after that.

 

 

                The minimal number of contributions after March of 2010 remains constant through to the current date. Upon looking at the list of people that revised this article the most, the largest contributor was blocked, and the second largest contributor has a dead user page. However, upon looking at the third largest contributor, I found the user Jimmy De Grasse, who contributed to 40 revisions. Listed as Jimderkaisser, this gentleman certainly does have an extensive user page. Based on the subject matter of his edits, it seems that he mostly specializes in Canadian military offensives and weaponry. His page seems to allude to him having been involved in the conflict most likely as a Canadian military member. This subject is not readily accessible to simply anyone doing research on it (i.e. not much unclassified information is available on this recent conflict.) This, coupled with the drastic change in the number of revisions speaks to a theory that most of the revisions were done by military members or journalists that had access to knowledge about this conflict. Not to mention, I can tell by the language of the article that the writers have served at some point because they correctly identify units properly.

 Image

                With my participatory knowledge of Operation Moshtarak, I did notice biased and illogical information in one paragraph listed above regarding the state of the insurgency in June 2010. This part of the article has sources from BBC, and the LA times. It claims that the battle became somewhat of a cautionary tale for Western militaries in regards to counterinsurgency operations. This is not easily able to be proven, and the only information being used to support this is the fact that “the eruption of gun battles ‘almost daily ‘have been reported.”  Where is this information coming from? Additionally, why is there no information after June, 2010, when US forces continued occupying the city of Marjah continuing until my second deployment to the same city in 2011? It seems that there is a gap in the reporters’ hasty explanation of an event that they stopped writing on in the middle of the conflict.

 

Works cited

Jenkins, Henry. “WHAT WIKIPEDIA CAN TEACH US ABOUT THE NEW MEDIA LITERACIES (PART TWO).” Web log post. Confessions of an AcaFan. N.p., 27 June 2007. Web. 12 Feb. 2014.

“Operation Moshtarak.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 16 Feb. 2014. Web. 16 Feb. 2014.

Aside

Ziwen Li(1206794468)

Blog Post 1

FMS 110

 

 

 Wechat
wechat-e8ba81e29bf917aaf9e28b5ea537f5

 

Wechat is a free instant messaging application for smart phones which is launched by Tencent Holdings Ltd in January 21, 2011. By November 2013, registered user of Wechat has exceeded 6 billion. It is an application which has the most download records and users in the world. At the moment when Wechat emerged, a majority people considered this application is simply a substitute for QQ (a wonderful messaging application also deviced by Tencent Holdings Ltd 15 years ago). However, users of Wechat quickly observed the difference. QQ is a product of the PC era, and Wechat is specificly designed for mobile internet. The most typical characteristic of Wechat is that there is no ‘online’ concept because smart phones are always online. Wechat provides many new functions which QQ can’t provide such as online Wakie Talkie, sending current location and instant voice message, etc. (Gunning, p39) Everyone has the passion for quality, when people find out the brilliant quality of Wechat,they realized that it is the most amazing instant messaging application in the world. The number of users increased rapidly.

As I know, Tencent Holdings Ltd did not advertised much on Wechat. This application was merely promoted between QQ users. QQ users get reminder from Tencent Holdings Ltd. This manner is very useful, for example, when a QQ email user receive an email from anther user, there’s a small button in the email reminds the users that they can invite the other to chat on Wechat so they don’t need to check their email again and again to communicate. This kind of button also appears in the QQ application. However, the most effective advertisement is passing from mouth to mouth. As Wechat functions extremely useful,users cannot wait to recommend it to their friends and families. Wechat spreads like viruses.

 

Human beings are always interested in new technologies. (Gunning, p43)Apartment from the basic features which a normal instant messaging application has, Wechat has some amazing new features. It allows users to send instant audio and video messages and send their current locations to the other users. Users can use the online Wakie talkie talking to a group of friends. ‘Moments’ allows users to post some words and photos or some links to a place which can be seen by all the followers, followers can make comments to the other’s posts (the same as Instagram). Drift bottle allows users to chat with anonymous friends. ‘People Nearby’ allows users to know some new friends nearby. ‘Shake’ allows users to chat with someone who is shaking their phones at the same time. Etc. Tencent Holdings Ltd is still developing new functions to bring convenience for Wechat users such as using Wechat to call cabs and online shopping. In my opinion, high sense of responsibility is the reason why Tencent Holdings Ltd make such a successful product.

 

Different group of people have different opinions and understandings towards Wechat. As many students use Wechat in class, most teachers consider Wechat is a harmful for students. For teenagers who are still in the embryo stage of love, Wechat is a tool for them to understand the opposite sex because it provides vast amount of opportunities for boys and girls to chat. In most parents’ view, Wechat is a tool for their children to build their relationship with others. And in my view, it is an application which connects people closely to the outside world.

 

Wechat is,without doubt, an amazing epochal product. However, I think it is undergoing huge pressure. As we learn from the Tom Gunning(p39), every new technology eventually becomes old. In order to endure all the pressures, I think Tencent Holdings Ltd should continuously bring new technologies into Wechat. As the CEO of  Tencent Holdings Ltd said: no matter how strong you are in front of the mobile internet tide, a slightly mistake can make you capsize, so we should always respect the evolution of technology, cautiously perform all the duties and provide good service to users.

 

 

Works cited:

Tom Gunning P39

Tom Gunning P43

 

Wechat

By driftkinggeorge
Aside

Image

 

Skyla Taylor

Blog Post 1

FMS 110

            Spotify is an application that is one of the contributors to a change in how society is listening to music.  Spotify for Dummies describes it as a “magic act.” With Spotify you can practically pull music out of thin air (Gilmour Ch. 1). It requires no downloads and takes up very little space on your phone or computer. All you have to do is click search and a grand world of music awaits you.

            The man behind this “magic trick” is Daniel Ek. He had grown up loving both technology and music and had a deep understanding of both. From this understanding came Spotify. At first, those he talked to as potential investors were stoked. Social media was such a big thing and music has always been a huge part of people’s lives, so bringing these together intrigued people (Bertoni).  This fascination is similar to the fascination Gunning discusses in his essay. He says that new technologies “evoke a short-lived wonder” and “involve magical operations”, but then this dissipates to habit (Gunning 47).  Similar reactions were felt with Spotify.  It was exciting and evoked wonder, but now is a technology that has been around for six years. It is now habitual.  

            In their advertisements, Spotify drew on common conceptions of music such as it being for the people and a special part of life, but made those work in a way that made Spotify look magical. The below commercial places Spotify in the position of being the business who is saying yes to music when you want and how you want.. It shows a man crowd surfing over a large audience in order to show the public that Spotify is an object for the masses and will give you an exhilarating experience. Then the commercial  plays on immediacy of music in this commercial in order to make the audience understand how important it is to have an application that puts you in control. This all works together to convince the audience that Spotify is everything they’ve been waiting for.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-wbGBc4BuY

            Despite all the talk of Spotify being a magical innovation, it was not all alone a huge technological breakthrough, when you look at P2P technology. According to a case study on Spotify, “Internet and peer-to-peer (P2P) technology changed the way of music creation, delivering and consuming” (JU 120). So, even though Spotify is credited as ingenious for its relation of social media sharing and music, P2P technology is the original and the reason why Spotify can be what it is.

            Overall, Spotify is a technology that broke through barriers of what people thought was possible with music and due to this, created a sense of wonder.

 

Works Cited

Bertoni, S. n.d. n. page. <http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenbertoni/2012/01/04/spotifys-         daniel-ek-the-most-important-man-in-music/>.

Gilmour, Kim. Spotify for Dummies. John Wiley and Sons , 2011. eBook.   <http://books.google.com/books?id=eYHL7q13N4cC&dq=beggining of             spotify&lr=&source=gbs_navlinks_s>.

Gunning, Tom. “Re-newing Old Technologies .” . N.p.. Web. 2 Feb 2014.   <https://myasucourses.asu.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-8748043-dt-content-rid-            33138957_1/courses/2014Spring-T-FMS110-19727/Gunning_Re-  NewingTechnology.>.

Ju, X. n. page.

            <http://prijipati.library.usyd.edu.au/bitstream/2123/8133/1/DRPJournal_5pm_S1_            2010.pdf