crowdsourcing can save a life, but it mostly takes cool ideas from people

I don't have much to write about for Chapter 6. It discusses more of Lanier's concerns and complaints. He better start giving us some suggestions because I'm finding myself saying, "I know, I know... We're doomed."

Lanier discusses how investors don't value human creativity by paying to create new content--tv shows, movies, books, and music--because they can crowdsource for free. They can rely on "the chattering of the crowd within itself" to create free content.

When content is crowdsourced, the creator essentially gives up all rights related to their content, and gives it to the parent website. The parent site has a lot to gain from the work of others, including profits. It can be argued that the “content would be worthless without the parent site, but to that same effect, the site would also be worthless without its content.” More rights issues come up when the content published online is turned into a book or used for other merchandise.

Jaremy Rich, from virology.com, says, “crowdsourced content is created by users with no likely desire for fame or fortune. It's the equivalent of volunteering at a church or non-profit. However, a company IS making a profit off of this content.” While it's true that, in many cases, people are participating because they enjoy being creative; however, sometimes the content is extremely profitable.

For example, the website - icanhascheezburger - relies on content from users: lolcats (funny pictures of cats with captions). There is also an interactive element with users ranking the photos. This website receives hundreds of submissions per day, while it only posts about a dozen. There are a number of successful books. There is also a network of related popular crowdsourced websites, including loldogs, failblog, failbook, and engrish funny. These sites have millions of hits per day, and there are huge revenues because of the user-generated content

There are ways user-generated content can be successful, profitable, but somehow less profit oriented.

One of my favourite websites is postsecret.com. Creator, Frank Warren, says it started in 2004 as a “creative prank” when he bought 3000 blank post cards and put his address on them with an invitation to “artistically share their deepest secret on a postcard and mail it to [him], anonymously.” Frank left them in random places all over the city, and he was surprised when he received 100 in the mail.

He had the first postsecret art exhibit and created his blog. He was surprised with the overwhelming response because after that, they kept coming in. Now, he has received millions of postcards, and his blog has received over 350 million hits. He has published five books and tours the world for postsecret art exhibits and events.

The user-generated content in this case is essential to the essence of the project. The act of sharing the secret is both healing and empowering to the creator. The secrets are inspirational for the readers and give hope to people who identify with them. The anonymity of the secrets is important because it creates a sense of unity within the online community.

The reason I say this very successful use of crowdsourcing is different than most is because Frank Warren donates hundreds of thousands of dollars to charities and help lines. His work creates awareness for many mental health issues. He reads a lot of dark secrets with themes of suicide, self-harm and depression, and he is doing everything he can to raise awareness and financially assist the channels of support offered.

One really inspiring example of how social media and readers of postsecret came together is when one secret said that the anonymous writer plans to commit suicide this summer by jumping off the Golden Gate bridge in San Francisco this summer. With no way to contact the anonymous writer, people created a facebook page called, “Please don't jump.” There are almost 20 000 members and 500 photos with the same message: please don't jump.

So, I mean, really the crowdsourcing using the internet isn't all bad. Yeah, you probably won't make money (unless you're somehow the lord of a profitable cloud). And yeah, don't give away your awesome content and time for free unless you're getting something out of it (like having fun or personal healing or marks for a class or something).

(The quote from Frank Warren is from the introduction of one of his books, PostSecret: Confessions on Life, Death & God.)

fragments & anonymous trolls

I came across this article this week, and it reminded me of Lanier's comment that technology is moving without considering all the effects and adapting as necessary.

I don't know if I'm surprised that children are more likely to own a cellphone than a book. It's sad, but with so many other distractions, it's hard to sit down with a book and read for a while. Manafy, an editorial director Information Today, suggests that if more children have phones, then “we need to be looking much harder at creating content optimized for this reading environment [...and create] a reading experience that coincides with their [...]shorter attention spans [...and] non-linear reading style.” Maybe parents, librarians and educators should celebrate technology like the iPad that is more conducive for reading. Hopefully, eBooks (or iBooks?) will become popular with kids, or we could be facing a wave of illiteracy in the future.

In Chapter 3, Lanier gives readers his thoughts on the perceived wisdom of crowd. We've all done it: googled a question or wikipediaed something. The idea is that the mistakes of people cancel each other out and there's correctness centred around the right answer (this is also pretty much all I remember about my stats class). The fragments we read online obscure the context and author. This ideology devalues authorship and individuality. Collectives can be just as stupid as any individual, and all collectives rely on the leadership of intellectuals and visionaries to lead them. Therefore, I agree with Lanier's opinion that quantity doesn't become quality. I can't help but think that there's about to be a whole lot more stupid questions and answers as facebook announces a new questions and answers application.

Anonymity can be one of the bad things about the internet. Not only does it reduce the cultural importance of authorship, but it also encourages trolling. People are not held accountable to what they say, and they are rarely punished or penalized for their online bullying. YouTube pseudonyms are easy to create and recreate for the purpose of posting mean comments on videos. Although there are a lot of stupid videos, it's stupider to watch them and then be mean about it! On a site like SecondLife people won't be as mean because the pseudonym comes with developed personality that isn't as disposable. It requires a lot of work to recreate.

This leads to one of the good things about the internet: online communities. For example, fan forums allow fans to communicate with one another about a shared obsession. These sites use online pseudonyms; however, they come with personalities and the people get to know each other. They are not fragments of people. Like Lanier said about the printing press, it “is not the mechanism, but the authors” who are important. The people make the forum (not the software). The software creates the opportunity, but people run and participate in the forum.

Lanier's ideas resonate with me. A number of years ago, during a special time for discussion among Harry Potter fans while we waited for the next book, I was involved with a Harry Potter fan site and forum. There were very few trolls there. I got to know people by their avatar, their username, and eventually, their REAL name. There needs to be more opportunity for this kind of interaction online. While anonymity is important for safety, too much of it gives people the freedom to let out their inner troll.
Facebook is a place where trolling has repercussions. People have to constantly manage their online reputations. After an in-class conversation about employers facebook creeping potential employees, it's clear that companies want employees who represent them well in public. In the past, this included the workplace only, and it didn't matter what employees did in their private lives as long as they did their jobs. However, many people have accepted that the online world is in the public domain. If it's online, it's not private anymore.

web 2.0 ideas aren't so bad

Without having seen the book, writing two 400-word blog entries a week seemed to be a very daunting task. Thankfully, Lanier has some interesting things to say.

“Web 2.0 ideas are stinkers” - These web applications that allow online interaction and collaboration, rather than passive viewing of the information have their faults, but I don't think they've “demeaned interpersonal interaction”. Web 2.o ideas aren't so bad. Yes, online identities “transform self-esteem and social self-perceptions”, but is that so terrible? Web 2.0 applications, such as social networks, blogs etc., appeal to the common need to belong and the collective self-esteem. Many people benefit from the connections they've made online.

Lanier questions the quality and the meaning of interaction online. In an extreme example of the power of Web 2.0 applications, Eva Markvoort (aka 65_RedRoses in the Cystic Fibrosis online community) recently passed away after years of battling CF and her body's rejection of a double lung transplant. In the award-winning documentary, 65_RedRoses, gives viewers a look into the lives of Eva and two of her online friends. Though they are unable to meet in person because of the possibility of spreading infection, they are able to provide vital support for each other through various web applications. In addition, Eva's blog created awareness for CF and organ donation as well as contributed to the growing CF community online. Now, her words and online identity live on and inspire others to help raise awareness (See Link to the cbc page where other related links can be found).

Somewhat related... I came across a crazy article this week about a service that deals with digital accounts after death: a web will. What would Lanier think of this?

On a lighter note, videosharing has changed the music industry and our notion of celebrity. One week after posting this video of his grade 6 talent show, Grayson Chance was signed to a major record label. He is expressing himself following a template and in the same way everyone does on youtube: uploading video. Although youtube has created a cult of amateurism, I think the fact that Web 2.0 tools gave him this ability to share his talent is amazing. Anyone can upload a video regardless of talent, so there are more videos that are crap, but occasionally there are some great discoveries. The Web 2.0 idea that user-generated content is valuable and relevant isn't true in all cases, but there are redeeming qualities to the Web 2.0 applications.

Another idea I found myself thinking about after reading the chapter was the idea of technology locking in. Since the launch of Friendster (2002), myspace (2003) and Facebook (2004), the idea of an online social network seems to be locked in. Facebook has become the dominant platform for social networking, and most people have a standardized presence on Facebook. It seems there will always be something performing the functions of Facebook. As Facebook becomes more integrated, people are less likely to want to switch over to another platform. It is trying to lock itself in as our one true login, and reinforce the idea that our Facebook profile is the centre of our online identity. There are other platforms working quickly to win over the masses (or in the case of myspace, win back the masses) and pitching themselves as facebook alternatives: myspace, Diaspora and Collegiate Nation are a few that I’ve read about.

Collegiate Nation – provides privacy to students by being a network for students only.

Diaspora – a private, open-source social network giving users power over personal data.

Myspace – making public attempts to show concern for privacy by changing settings.

So far, I've been checking out the Blog Herald and ReadWriteWeb.