One man's trash is another man's treasure

While I did enjoy reading Mr. Shirky’s book, I found much of it to be redundant.  I liked that I was a heck of a lot easier to comprehend than Benkler's book and I thought that the opening and epilogue chapters were strong; I found the stuff in the middle quite repetitive of the last chapter.  But upon thinking about it, this could have been a means of driving the collaboration point home. 

In this last reading we did I thought there were some unique points made.  I liked the small world part because it is true that this happens in life all the time.  This ties in then to how it is about how many kinds of people you know and not just who you know.  When we have these small world happenstances we then have the opportunity of broadening our network to people other than just in our area of expertise. 

Another valuable bit related to these connections was the whole “one man’s trash is another man’s treasure” concept.  By knowing people outside our field we can talk about various things and share ideas to where we can collaborate to make the idea a reality.

Finally, it must be important, because Shirky brings up the publish then filter idea again.  And this time what I took away from it is that the whole collaboration concept allows for redefinition and enhanced knowledge of certain sites.  From this I thought of Facebook and how it started out as just a thing for Harvard students then eventually grew to the world.  I’m sure Zuck knew it could be big just not how big.  The Facebook team is always putting stuff out there and testing the water and then adjusts its site according to feedback from users among other things.  However just because it is new doesn’t mean it is better.

Here Comes Everybody

After reading the first few chapters in Clay Shirky’s book the only questions I had thus far stemmed from the case in the first chapter

1  Why wouldn’t Ivanna just have the first phone disabled if she had the information back from the phone company.  (and sidenote why would you only have your wedding plans in your phone?)

2  Yeah there probably were some ethical problems that came up with the website and what not but where do you turn to when the police wont help?

I like reading about cases and what the outcomes were and if there were ethical concerns. I am not sure if there are more scattered through out the reading but it was a pretty good hook to start the book. 

I also think the title is pretty interesting “The power of organizing without organizations”  Generally I think that most people like to participate and share things when it is on their own time, something they care about or when they want to have a voice and be heard.  I think this might be the point of his book but I guess I will have to read more to find out!

The Wealth of Networks2

I wish I could say that I have some comments on the points that Benkler is making.  However, I don't understand this book, it is a real thinker, like the Stitch Bitch article we had to read in Motley's class.  I wish i could keep up with what he was trying to say and I think that discussing it in class will help a lot.

One of the main things that I got from the reading is economics.  Benkler seems to assume that we are all economists or at least have a good grasp on the idea.  I however do not fall in to this assumption.  Economics and I do not get along, you could say we have a mutual dislike for each other.  This I think is where my main problem of not understanding lies.  I think it would have been best for Benkler to include an example  of what he is talking about by putting it in terms other than economics.  I can appreciate that he understands economics and wrote a scholarly book but I like the idea of designing for the lowest common denominator like what we learned in the other theory class--just because you don't use big words doesn't mean you are not smart.

Anyway, stepping down from my preaching stand, I did find the part about Wikipedia kind of interesting.  Wikipedia gets a bad rap for being inaccurate because it is and editable encyclopedia.  And sure it is not always good information but it is a good starting point for research.  I like the idea of Wikipedia because it is editable by anyone and in the sense of creative commons, this way we can get an idea of how society collectively pieces together information rather than having someone tell us what it is (even though there is merit to that too); there is value to collectively defining life.

The Wealth of Networks

Well from first glance of this book it seems to have several good reviews.  I am assuming that the book is about how technology has grown and changed so much and has changed our society.  I get the feeling that this author intends to show how this "wealth of networks" our society is so involved in is a good thing.  I really enjoyed the quote from John Stuart Mill in the beginning about how human nature isn't a set thing it is always changing, I really think that this helped set the tone for the book.  By looking at the contents of the book, I gather that Benkler is planning on showing the pros and cons of how media/networks has affected various parts of society like economy, freedom, justice etc but then potentially show how the pros could outweigh the cons.

ARG-it isn't just pirate speak

Well after some time researching what an Alternate Reality Game is I have found that I am still pretty unclear.  Like does World of Warcraft count as an ARG? is Second Life an ARG? or are they just MMORPGs? or just some virtual world that poses a social environment? My assumption is that most ARGs offer an educational value like http://willyoujoinus.com/energyville/ a game that offers education on oil resources and the environment.

However I did see some games that were more entertainment value rather than educational.  For instance when I Googled alternate reality games, well a lot of definitions came up, but I stumbled across an ARG for the show LOST.  It was basically just another way to market the show but for avid Lost watchers it is a way to become more active viewers and participate in the show.  The Lost ARG, and the Halo ARG both featured hidden codes on sponsoring commercials where fans and players alike logged on to wherever and entered the code for the next clue.

I guess my final thought, or question rather would be are ARGs synonymous with simulated reality?

Arguing Reality

While I have a hard time seeing Jane McGonigal's point on many things, and it was a struggle to come up with, I was able to see her point, somewhat, about the benefits of games (however this was before she tried to justify saving the world by playing 10, 000+hours of World of Warcraft)
1. I can see how games can be good team building and motivating experiences and opportunities
2. I agree that games can satisfy one of our basic needs for happiness
3. Games are good mental stimulators--a workout of the mind
4. Games can promote a healthy competition and create bonds between family and friends
5. Games can make mundane activities go by faster

Where I think she lacks some is...
1. I cant see how sitting in a room playing W.o.W can cure obesity
2. How will playing a massive single player online game (what she talks about in the end) or playing an MMORPG in your room alone, help facilitate social interaction?
3. how will playing games help solve world hunger or poverty, perhaps if she gave more example or showed results or something it might help clarify
4. how will failing in the virtual world, where there are no consequences and you can regenerate a new life if you die, help us learn from our mistakes we make in the real world and how we deal with those consequences?
5. how will spending so much time online gaming affect the family/home life?

"Spit, Spot!"

Mary Poppins, the originator of turning work in to a game to make it go by faster. 

While I haven’t agreed with much of what McGonigal has said thus far, finally I can agree with her, and Mary Poppins of course, that by making something a game or playful competition, we are more likely to do the work rather than view it as an unpleasant chore.  But it is not all fun and games and some tasks should be not be taken lightly, obviously but at least now I can see one point to her argument.

Fixing Reality

I think what kind of makes me not really like this book is that she really seems to dislike the real world.  All of her fixes seem to be about why the real world sucks and that if we all lived in a make-believed utopia we would all be happier. Well duh! of course if we had a utopian society where fun and games were daily life we would all be happy but we don't live there.  Games do help make life easier but it shouldn't consume our active lives.

Fix 1: I disagree that reality is too easy, with her implication that games are more challenging. However I do agree that games are challenging and put our strengths to use to solve the puzzle/problem/task.

Fix 3: I disagree that reality is unproductive.  I would amend this 'Fix' to say that "reality is unpredictable and games are predictable with clear missions and stuff to do; but it is how they are designed to be challenging and how you chose to solve the obstacle, with in the constructs of the rules, that make the game unpredictable and stimulating"

Fix 5: Yeah, I disagree...
Yes you do meet people online but it is the social, real time interactions that games will cause gamers to miss out on.  Sure you may have 100+ friends on a social networking site or game or what have you, but you may not know the person or ever interact with them in real life putting you back in square one-alone.

Fix 7: I can semi-agree with her in that the real world is hard. However under her "fix" when she defines and/or explains her thought is where I stop agreeing with her.  she even says "...the less we fully participate in our everyday lives, the fewer opportunities we have to be happy" (p 124) exactly my point.  if we play games for 40+ hours how can we participate in our lives and interact and have chances to be happy.

Fix 8: Reality is not pointless nor unrewarding.  Sure, gaming has a certain uses and gratifications element that we get pleasure from and yes we can feel rewarded or like we accomplished something when we level up or beat a high score, but there are goals and rewards in life too.  In school you get marks for doing well; in life aka "the real world" there are opportunities for job positions, pay raises, promotions and bonuses for working really hard; and we can even set personal goals and rewards for completing small tasks as a self-motivation.  For example, if you read like 200 pages or complete a certain part of homework you can take a short TV break or whatever.  If you finish a project, or do work to get ahead you have the bonus of going shopping, having a free weekend or what have you.

"Reality" Response

I enjoy an escape from the pressures of our day-to-day lives as much as the next person.  I am a TV and movie junkie and I indulge in playing the Wii and online games like Solitaire or Bejeweled.  However, I feel that there must be a balance between life and gaming.  I consider it an addiction when you spend more time plugged in to the virtual world playing games to the point where it affects your job or home life. That said, I do think that there is a slight difference to online gamers and console gamers.

I think that to offer the idea that the "gamer reality" is more motivating than the real world is false.  Maybe this is because I don't play MMGs like World of Warcraft, but I like being in the real world and interacting with real people.  I do agree that games are a good escape and distraction from some of the hard realities we face, but when you spend 40+ hours a week dedicated to game play, i think you have an addiction.  I disagree with her opinion that gaming fulfills genuine human needs; if anything it gives people a false sense of reality of the reality that they think they have.  Meaning that people have all of these friends and connections in the virtual game world but then what happens in the real world? how do they react?

I do like her concepts of games and rules and how having rules that put limits on how to achieve your goal allows for creative thinking.  I also agree that games do add fun to life and can enhance the values of teamwork and creativeness and learning however I feel that this doesn't necessarily apply to virtual gaming.  And again I suppose I feel this way because I don't play W.o.W or have a Second Life so I can say that I don't really understand them but I do agree that games add more than just an escape.  On page 33, Tal Ben-Shahar says "We're much more happier enlivening time rather than killing time" and I think this drives home the point that we like being productive and I think that this slightly contradicts virtual gaming.  For instance, games like puzzles, help with mental stimulation and i support her opinion in that games are important but when she stated that people dedicated practically a work week to playing that seems more like a waste of time rather than enlivening time.

Reality is Broken: Question

In the introduction of her book, where I suppose she is setting the premise of her book, I am quite unclear on her third idea of a proposed world that we should strive to live in.  I understand the two extremes of living in a world where you spend the majority of your life/time gaming and the other of living in a world where people, like the government, try to squelch so much gaming by making higher taxes on game or whatever to make the 1st world an unaffordable lifestyle.  Finally her proposal for a middle ground between the two extremes seems to put forth the idea living our real lives like gamers (pg 7).  So where I am confused is does she mean for us to go out in to the real world and live life imagining that we live in a game and that to get ahead we have to strategize to get to the next level (or maybe a world similar to the Matrix ??) or is she merely putting forth the idea that we should be applying ourselves to our real lives more the way we play in our virtual lives?