What are the differences between gatekeeping and gatewatching?

Gatewatching is a term to describe the new form of news sharing in citizen journalism. It lies in contrast to gatekeeping, a commonly known term among professional journalists. The underlying theme of gatekeeping in journalism is a process of selection of what can be seen by an audience through the editing department of a news outlet (Hartley 2005, 94). Whereas with gatewatching, the only way of influencing ones opinions on a written piece is to comment on citizens blogs and websites. It does not restrict content, rather commenting allows for further socialising with people of similar interests, and well as building on research.

MySpace, up until now, is one website which could almost be described as a form of gatekeeping. This is a result of its closed network environment, where people could only interact with one another through the social website itself. Of course it is not really a journalistic approach, yet the same reasoning applies. Basically, the information written by users on the site could not be shared or added to any other website. However, MySpace is now interested in networking between websites and collaborating information, creating a user friendly environment where everything can be linked. MySpace has even joined in on the Data Portability Project and is therefore leading the way in the social networking domain. This is a key feature of gatewatching, where information (that users create) is free to be shared among the internet instead of being controlled by a centralised corporate organisation that owns the website containing the content. This example proves that gatewatching is not limited to any type of internet content. Gatekeeping however, exists where corporate business has the power to control (their) content.

Due to the pace of the internet, "gatewatching is iterative: the material passing through the output gates of news blogs is further watched as potential source material by other gatewatchers" (Bruns 2006, 16). Therefore, in allowing material to be accessed by anyone on the internet, you are basically publishing content that is open for feedback, that in some cases will be critical. You are opening a conversation through the digital medium, however some may see it as knowledge, whether it is fact or not. That is obviously why Wikipedia has received criticism for its unreliable output of information. Particularly its use of 'pedia', inferring that it is an encyclopedia, when traditional encyclopedias were published in book volumes and did have the editing process of gatekeeping involved. In turn, probably the biggest difference between gatekeeping and gatewatching is that gatekeeping is a formal, trusted practice and gatewatching is purely informal as well as being more common in the digital environment.

References

Bruns, A. 2006. The Practice of News Blogging. In Uses of Blogs, ed. A. Bruns and J. Jacobs, 11-22, New York: Peter Lang Publishing.

Hartley, J. 2005. Communication, Cultural and Media Studies. 3rd ed. London: Routledge.

Citizen Journalism and the power of free thought

Citizen journalism definitely has its benefits, as well as disadvantages. It is no surprise that many Journalists have criticized the concept, especially in its early days. Many of these criticisms were based around ideas that the information produced by amateurs was not of high standards, yet it was probably more of a fear of losing an audience. Yet the web has proved a success for traditional news companies as well and CNN and the BBC are among the leaders in embracing the technology of the internet. A common feature of news websites now includes blogging, so in fact journalists are welcoming web 2.0 and so they should. It could be argued that the news has become more user friendly with the internet and it has even saved the industry through its ability to spread information at a fast pace and interact with younger generations of audiences.

One of the facts about citizen journalism is that it enables anyone to give their point of view without having to worry about gatekeeping. This means that virtually any topic can be raised with all points of view covered somewhere on the web. The web is therefore a portal for free thought. Though without search engines to guide users to this free thought it is a lot more difficult to access because of the fact that there is so much content on the web. Which makes it hard to believe that so much more content is added everyday. Yet Google is one example of the expansive array of content on the web. This search engine has expanded with the internet, adding videos, images and maps to name a few of the added capabilities the company has created. And with more web 2.0 applications being tested and tried, more is available to create on the web. And that brings another issue of whether citizen journalism will still be relevant in the future. It is possible that blogs and whatever invention improves on this technology may mean that people do not want to just report on issues, they may feel that social writing is more relevant than a standard article. And web 2.0 allows some sort of freedom on this level which means that citizen journalists can update or add to their public writings. OhmyNews obviously believes in the power of citizens to create credible news, with money incentives giving the public more reason to communicate through the web.

One recent claim surrounding content on the web, particularly scholarly information, is that the web does not support this type of information, rather the web is catering to Wikipedia style information that cannot be relied upon for its accuracy. The idea is that there is a need for more scholarly based content, from written work to video lectures and interviews, so companies, including Google, are making plans on providing this content. Mahalo is a search engine that claims to find quality information, while Big Think is basically a You Tube specializing in the creation and publicity of ideas. Similarly, Google's Knol is an abbreviation for knowledge. Yet take SlideShare, for example, a powerpoint presentation sharing website and here is information sharing working at its best, providing resources, including those from academics for the rest of the world to share, if they choose to set their sharing to public. It seems that the future for university knowledge is perhaps to provide it through the internet, possibly even for free?

Doesn't it make you feel inspired?

The web has now been online for more than seventeen years, since Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web. This makes me feel reminiscent of the time when the internet was beginning to take off. Some of the first internet websites included. These times were exciting and even using email was fun and brightly coloured fonts were popular. This year (on April 30) marks fifteen years since CERN made the internet available in the public domain.

One of the first online multi-player games I remember is NetStorm and it differs from the Second Life game that is an icon of web 2.0. It was my older brother's favourite game in the late 1990's. To my surprise it still exists, which is a credit to the talented developers who created the game in 1997. This games multi-player version connects to the internet via a server and you can join with other users in challenge rings and advance to high levels based on the number of games won. Its basically a war strategy game yet its online aspect lets you chat with your competitors. It is 2D, yet still provides a unique web experience and held a community which was popular for its time. Despite being published originally by Activision, the game is available for free download and the NetStorm HQ site is community friendly and even encourages users to give their input into improving the game through patches.

Of course, nothing beats the success of Second Life and its ability to actually create a new and improved life in the virtual world. However, Gary Hayes writes about a web 3.0, where our lives truly revolve around our virtual presence. One Australian Gaming company believes that controlling games through our thoughts is actually possible and is developing a headset for the innovation. Apparently, web 3.0 is all about intelligence and how the internet can act as an extension of ourselves. As evolving as the internet might be, conversations about the next big thing are just as common.

Mobile internet is one of the latest trends that has not yet reached its full potential. Using the internet on our mobile phone sounds like a great innovation, yet it is hard to process as computer screens seem to be getting larger and we rely on the internet for so much of our lives. Is it really practical? Maybe it is the websites that just have not caught up with the technology. It is possible that websites need to adapt to cater for smaller screens. Perhaps this is the reason for the lack of mobile web popularity. For example, Asus has its new Eee PC and the problem with that is it requires so much scrolling. It is true that we have mobile internet applications designed just for our mobile viewing, though the amount of websites available is limited due to the screen resolution problem. This is obviously why it takes so long for new technologies to emerge. I will be on the lookout for when this technology really does mean that we have access to the internet in the palm our hands. Though there is one device that is starting to break the problem with resolution and mobile internet. The iPhone has contributed to an increase in mobile web usage this year which may be the start of the breakthrough mobile internet needs.

What are the differences between commercial production and community produsage?

Open source software is a good example of how a community can create a product without the use of a company. It is true that with the help of a company like Google and its resources a quality product can be produced. Although, which is more important, money or information? With the ability of the internet to communicate various types of information and knowledge in real time, the possibilities of open source software seem endless.

Mozilla Firefox has definitely proved popular among the web, targeting Microsoft's Internet Explorer. One of the reasons why this has proved popular is its ability to deliver a web browser that is simply more user friendly due to the input from regular web users. It makes you wonder why the large corporations cannot design software this good in the first place. One of the reasons is because of the slow process of developing a product because of all the departments and regulations involved. With open source, you have the knowledge of the whole internet community to gather a fully functional program together. One of the successes of open source is that it has changed the way that large companies work as they have to keep up with successful open source software.

However, there are also problems that exist in the current open source environment. It is difficult to advertise without money and therefore many open source projects would be hard to discover. Secondly, with the large companies like Microsoft and Adobe, with their exclusive features and file formats, it would be difficult to market an open source product as a standard or default program. Take Linux for example, the product started as its own operating system, as Microsoft and Apple were not open source, so to create an open source product, it needed to start from scratch. You have to give credit to the large companies like Microsoft though, as they did develop the original software and without that, open source would not have been able to produce software. Open source software could be thought of as a way to take advantage of any flaws in commercially developed software and it does have the added benefit of time and the ever increasing knowledge of web users.

I recently found an open source program called Miro, a project founded under the name of the "Participatory Culture Foundation". I have not actually used the program, though I am considering downloading it. It apparently lets you freely view television, a concept named open tv. With the success of YouTube, video is such a large part of internet consumption these days. So I Googled 'open tv' and it found 72,100,000 hits for me. Clearly, open source is a major part of the web and a great example of how the internet acts as a friendly community of sharing. Open source is really becoming highly competitive with commercial computer professionals. It is obvious that people really want to have a legal alternative to commercial production.

How is web 2.0 different from web 1.0?

While browsing the internet today, I have come up with some great examples of web 2.0. In simple terms it really is just socializing online. I could even so as far as stating that the internet is about sharing. And the great thing about the internet is that it is becoming more portable with its existence on mobile phones. Just this month, an American Masters student was able to use twitter to free himself from an Egyptian jail with the help of his fellow twitter friends. According to the article, although twitter was not intended for such use, urgent situations like this case are using micro-blogging as a means of communication.

The internet is continually changing its format due to social networking capabilities increasing with the help of technology and as well as large internet companies. Yahoo has just started re-organising their services around a social networking concept. The changes come after Yahoo recently inherited social websites del.icio.us and flickr. This is an example of how social networks are becoming the basis for the internet. However, the large corporations that seem to be controlling how we use the internet are only becoming more powerful. Although one of the questions that is hard to predict is the changing ownership of internet software. Currently, the largest of the companies include Yahoo, as well as Google, Microsoft, and Time Warner. These companies are all known for buying up other companies as well as building new software to keep up to date with innovation. Though it is clear that popularity of websites can change over time as new technologies enter the market. One current example is AOL and its decreasing popularity since Time Warner acquired the company. This explains the difficulties involved with keeping websites relevant competing with the leading technologies.

Apart from web 2.0 being about social networking and a constant update of everything, competition is a large part of web 2.0. Twitter has its rival, Jaiku, and Hulu provides competition to YouTube. One of the reasons why this is common is a result of the overall success of any social based medium on the web. Take a look at Cyworld and the answer is clear. Cyworld uses 'clubs' to network people with similar interests. These may be sport, entertainment, fashion or even political interests. The fact is, this is an example of how the internet is bringing back a focus on community. The great thing about using the web for this is that the network is so vast, it does not really matter how much of a niche area of interest, there will always be someone with interests like yours.

How do online communities organise themselves?

Facebook is one of those online communities that needs to organise itself better. A recent article on the Time website points out how closely linked the site is with spam. It seems the internet is growing larger in terms of web 2.0 and users are faced with more problems to waste their time with. Though, users of the website are protesting against this annoying facet of the site by apparently spamming a petition for Facebook to add a button to prevent being sent friend requests. So it becomes apparent that the users are happy with Facebook itself, they just want the ability to improve the site for their benefit. Why wouldn't the Facebook owners allow for such a request? After all, it is the community that makes the website so popular. And why wouldn't Facebook creators have thought of this idea in the first place? It is interesting that so many people would have once enjoyed these greeting cards and virtual presents until they just became so common and unimaginative. In this case we have a constantly evolving web 2.0 platform that needs to keep changing the interface in order to keep it relevant.

This brings the idea of produsage, a term defined by Axel Bruns as a "participatory environment which...enables all participants to be users as well as producers of information". This is how communities are formed on the internet. Though, they organise themselves based on the features of the interface that the community uses. While Facebook and MySpace are good examples of social networking sites, many online communities exist in virtual worlds like Second Life. Some other examples of virtual worlds include There and Kaneva. Most of these worlds appear to be a take off of The Sims, yet all these worlds have their own specific target audiences that they cater to. Take childrens communities such as Neopets and Club Penguin for example. Both these websites cater to children who want to have virtual pets that they can look after and both rely on children playing games to earn virtual money that they can use to care for their virtual pet. These sites are really just a child friendly version of the Second Life platform, which acts like a completely uncensored adult meeting place.

Apart from the communities that act as virtual realities, virtual fantasy game communities are also a large part of the internet's social side. These also use chat functions to communicate, though the main focus is your character and winning games to advance to high levels to achieve a high status among other gamers. There are many massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPG's) from sites such as outspark which offer free games and also the well known fee based games such as World of Warcraft and Everquest II. These games are so popular as a result of users produsing their own characters as they advance through different stages of the game. Overall, virtual communities do not really have a lot of organisation involved apart from gathering friends together and making new friends from similar interests or skills.

How do technologies become cultural technologies?

In present society, when the term technology is stated, most people probably think of the internet as their first example of what it encompasses. Yet most would not think about the network structure, convergence, connectivity or any of the ways that the internet connects us as a whole. In reality, that is what the internet is, a very large scale network that does in many ways act as its own culture. And within the network, many other tiny communities exist, most of which are a result of web 2.0. However these communities can act in very different ways from those that are formed through relationships based on people that we see face-to-face each day while working, studying and communicating through other social activities. In other words, virtual communities could almost be described as fiction, as we cannot be necessarily sure that these profiles have any sense of truth in them at all. For example, many children are using social networking tools including Myspace, Facebook and Bebo, even though there is minimum age of 13 years old on most of these social community websites. Perhaps the developers of these technologies thought that children were too naive about using the internet and that was the reason for implying age limits. This is not surprising, as security and identity fraud is a major issue surrounding the internet. However, cultural technologies are not just social websites. In fact, the whole internet experience could be described as a cultural technology.

Terry Flew speaks of re-purposing in terms of how media content can be reused and manipulated to fit with new emerging technologies (2005, 37-38). This is very much how technologies can be seen as a cultural experience. For example, when the internet was starting to emerge as a necessary technology for people to use in the 1990's, the internet was probably seen by most users as a separate function from other media sources such as newspapers and television. Yet in the current web 2.0 environment citizen journalism is thriving and in many instances convergence is apparent. One obvious example is newspapers using the internet as a popular platform of delivery. Therefore, cultural technologies are a result of how technology can alter people's lives.

Many would agree that the internet has improved our lives for the better. Certainly in western society this would be the case. In fact, I doubt that most businesses in western society would lack an email account. Having said that, email could be described as its own cultural technology. It is a breakthrough in communication and has just as much ability for communication with the rest of the world as a traditional telephone. However one is text based and one is voice based and the telephone costs more money. Although VOIP is beginning to break the barriers by allowing for a cheaper alternative to the phone.

References

Flew, T. 2005. New Media: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.