Verbing Web 2.0

14 06 2007

I was chatting with Jeremy this morning and we were talking about the verbs associated with Web 2.0.  Well, really, I was thinking aloud and he was being skeptical.  I wondered if it’s more proper to say you “tweeted” something or “twittered” it.  This is of course related to the canonical Google:  “Go google it.”

Twitter:  tweet, or twitter (?). “I just twittered it.”
Flickr
: Flickr.  “I’ll Flickr that picture for you later.”
Blogs: Blog
Digg: digg
reddit: ??
del.icio.us:  ??
YouTube: ??

What others can we add to this list?  Or is it just another example of my own linguistic idiosyncracies?





I am an Omnivore

8 05 2007

(According to the Pew Internet & American Life Project, anyway.)

Members of this group use their extensive suite of technology tools to do an enormous range of things online, on the go, and with their cell phones. Omnivores are highly engaged with video online and digital content. Between blogging, maintaining their Web pages, remixing digital content, or posting their creations to their websites, they are creative participants in cyberspace.  (http://www.pewinternet.org/quiz/results.asp?c=0)

Where do you fit?





The dangers of clipping

16 03 2007

I’ve been using ClipMarks (my clips here) to excerpt & link webpages on my various blogs for a little while.  This past week, I ran up against some unintended effects of this practice of excerpting.  I had posted a clip of a UK Guardian piece about having kids vs. remaining child free to my LiveJournal.  In selecting the parts of the piece to clip, I was very careful to be even-handed in the excerpts (I made sure to include parts where the author is addressing the merits/drawback of both choices).  And yet, many of my readers reacted very strongly (and negatively) based just on the excerpts.  (I ultimately clarified my motivations for posting the excerpt and explained why I had found it interesting here.)

What caused the strong reactions?  (Besides the fact that it is a very polarizing issue upon which I have friends who are strongly on both sides.)  Was it a lack of familiarity with the technology?  Or did I run up against an interesting by-product of these excerpting-and-reposting technologies - namely, the ability to (in this case, unwittingly) change the meaning of another person’s writing Clearly my readers’ perceptions of the article were shaped by the portions that I chose to include in my repost.

What are the dangers of these technologies?  What are the advantages?  How are they changing the meaning of authorship?





Fascinating (if unsurprising) Similarities

24 01 2007

I recently read The Victorian Internet by Tom Standage.  The book was set up to draw parallels between the telegraph and the Internet, and it did so admirably.  The themes that emerge there certainly appear to be themes related to ICTs and their relationships to society.  Today, I read an article that filled in another gap in this pattern.  Chronologically, the telephone comes between the telegraph and the Internet.  Some excerpts from Stanley Aronson’s “The Sociology of the Telephone”.*

A discussion of the social effect of the telephone would, however, be incomplete were reference to its relationship to other modes of communication omitted.  In the absence of research one can only suggest these relationships through a series of questions: Does telephone communication lessen or increase total face-to-face communication?  Does it supplement or replace the latter?  How does telephone communication change the character of face-to-face and written communications?  What effects has use of the telephone had on the rate of use of the telegraph and on the letter writing habits of Americans?

These are all questions that have been, in one way or another, asked and answered about the Internet.  I’m not grounded enough in the literature on the telephone to know if they were answered in that arena (though I suspect there are probably answers in Katz’s Connections, which is sitting in the study with me right now - I read exerpts of it several years ago but haven’t revisited it recently).  Standage raised many of the same issues in The Victorian Internet as well, as well as touching on the effects of the telegraph on business (as Aronson does), as a mass medium (as Aronson does; I had never been aware of the use of the telephone as a mass medium, but it apparently was), and so on.

*Aronson, Sidney H.  1971.  The Sociology of the Telephone.  International Journal of Comparative Sociology 12(3): 153-167.





TV and the loss of the taboo

14 09 2006

The public and all-inclusive nature of television has a tendency to collapse formerly distinct situations into one.  In a society shaped by the segrgated situations of print, people may secretly discuss taboo topics, but iwht television,t he very notion of “taboo” is lost.

–Joshua Meyrowitz, No Sense of Place, p. 92

If taboos are lost on TV, what are they on the Internet?  ;)

In some ways I’m being glib, but there’s a more serious question here:  what’s the difference between TV and the Internet as far as this sort of thing goes?