a comment on Stephanie's blog

Answering 'Citizen Photojournalism - a form of Produsage.'

I very much enjoy your style of writing; you manage to be concise, thorough, while still remaining personable. This post captured my attention because I wrote my own on citizen journalism - it was interesting to read about the same concept, from a photographical point of view. Your post had a really readable form, it flowed from one concept to another nicely. The titles throughout helped, too.

In regards to what you posted: I would have liked to see more of an emphasis placed on the negative connotations of citizen photojournalism in regards to professional journalism. You state that ‘professionals still exist but are competing with the amateurs.’ I would be interested in hearing both your perspective, and scholarly perspectives, on whether traditional photojournalism is under threat from amateurs. I know that in regards to citizen journalism, there is a strong voice that feels that media journalism is under threat, many a dire prediction of the death of journalism, etcetera. An equally strong voice assures the doomsayers that news media will always be needed, if not just to be the standard setters for ethical, unbiased, reputable reporting. Is this the case for photojournalism?

You seem to be optimistic and quite certain that the citizen photojournalism movement will only grow: ‘Give it a couple of years and we will all be walking around with cameras in our hands.’ What will this mean in regards to professionals? Will they be displaced, replaced? Why will we possibly need traditional photogs if everyone can be a photojournalist? You reference Dan Gilmour’s article ‘The Decline (and maybe Demise) of the Professional Photographer.’ I feel you could have utilised this article a little more, expounded further. Do you think that professional photographers have a place in the fragile Web 2.0 ecosystem? It would have been interesting to read an exploration of this.

another student blog comment

Responding to 'What is Second Life?'

I found this post massively interesting, engaging and thorough; I enjoyed your concept of secondlife as a second chance.  Even though I have not played the game before, I’m still familiar with elements relating to secondlife that you discussed so concisely: hiding behind a virtual character, finding success in the online world when it’s lacking in the offline world, etc.  I’m glad you clarified that secondlife is also seen as a social tool and a niche online community, in a sense, and THEN made your statement regarding secondlife as a second chance.

Even as a non-player, this post was fascinating.

I would have liked to see more exploration, and more of your view, regarding your conception of the virtual world as a second chance.  Do you think that it’s healthy for users to “hide away?”  In a sense, I can understand WHY a player would choose to do so, especially ones that “have no interest in how the real world runs,” as you said, but it’s difficult for me to accept that this is healthy behaviour. 

You state that secondlife “builds confidence on users who lack self confidence.”  Does this confidence have real worth though, if it's all generated in a virtual world?  “Secondlife hides the negative appearances or internal behaviour.”  Again, I can understand why a person struggling socially or personally would want to “configure a new behaviour and appearance” online, but in the long term, I feel this is damaging rather than healing - masking a problem through a secondlife persona, and effectively ignoring it.  Feel free to disagree with me!

a comment I left on a student's blog

In response to 'Why do online communities organise themselves?'

I appreciated this blog for its conciseness, briefness and directness. A very thorough, clear explanation of how and why online communities develop and grow. However, I would have liked to see more of YOUR perspective here - a bit more exploration and analysis, rather than straight explanation perhaps.

In the lecture Axel outlined both the advantages and benefits of online communities. Your post seems to solely discuss communities in their IDEAL form. In my opinion, your post would be strengthened if you outlined some of the negative aspects and possible tendencies of online communities, for example, their potential to be insular, or 'echo chambers' (Axel, 2008). I am interested in hearing your thoughts on the negative aspects of online communities.

When does information become scholarly? You said 'an answer can expand and grow into a term that could be used scholarly.' Do you think evolving information circulating within and through a community is always reliable? How are we to judge the validity of information? Your post could have moved in this direction, going on to explore how communities evaluate quality, which I feel would have been a natural and interesting progression.

References

Week Six lecture notes