This is totally how Wikipedia should be used.
Maybe I am going to be wrong about this, but if Marshall decides to use a light bulb as his example for something that lacks content but creates an instant environment, does that mean I can take anything and apply these principles? I guess everything in the world somehow has a "social effect", but it must be dependent on the society, right? Because some cultures still do not use light bulbs and wouldn't be subject to the light bulb theory ... but maybe they use fire, so does that count too?
And as for me?
I don’t see my habits changing very much. Regardless of the shift that will take place there is always a niche in information and society that will cater to my needs-the long articles, the heavy researched pieces, the kind of article you spend an hour reading and know that person worked hard. There is always “somebody for everyone”, I just have to go out and find it.
So I am supposed to be thinking about 2014. First of all, I don’t know, something about the idea that this could be 2014 doesn’t quite sit well with me. The date doesn’t seem far enough off for me to consider it the “future” of sorts, but it is close enough to make me uncomfortable that there is potential for it to be true. The video lists all these dates, inventors, and creations that have happened during my time and the most I can do during this time is to shrug and say to myself, yeah, that happened. I remember that. Oh yeah, that happened then didn’t it? At the same time I say to myself, okay … so? Maybe I wasn’t smart enough at the time to recognize that something “large” and “beyond my control” that would “forever shape society and my future” was taking place? Amazon.com was created in 1994 and I should have recognized it for being more than just a place to buy books and DVDs?
Okay, so I accept that during my lifetime I have undergone a radical change as a human being; by that I mean the ways I which I communicate, gather information, produce information, and become a member of society. Did I really have a choice? I’m not sure I did. I was born during a time when computers still meant you had to have a lot of money and not many people used it. I wrote things out by hand, called you from my house phone, had to know the direction of where I was going when I got in the car, and couldn’t be found unless I told you where I was going ahead of time.
With that being said, computers, all of this journalism stuff and e-governance, everything we have kind of been talking about was placed on me by outside forces. Teachers made me type up assignments. Schools expect me to be on e-mail all the time, and so does work. Journalists saw a shift in the way they work and so they began to flock towards the new standards in order to stay relevant. All of these things were beginning to take shape as I grew up. I really wasn’t in position to either participate in this change or create something that catalyzed the change.
In 2014, all of almost 4 years away now, I will be in a position to be able to participate and to shape. Well, I can both of those things if I want to.
So what might 2014 look like? Well maybe you will see some stuff like this, called spot.us. This looks kind of interesting to me, but the fact of the matter is I don’t think I would participate. This website asks you to either submit ideas or want to write a submitted idea. The website approves it after you fill out that form. And heck, you can get paid too! Here is what the website says about itself:
We are an open source project, to pioneer “community funded reporting.” Through Spot.Us the public can commission journalists to do reporting on important and perhaps overlooked topics. Contributions are tax deductible and if a news organization buys exclusive rights to the content, your donation will be reimbursed. Otherwise, all content is made available through a Creative Commons license. It’s a marketplace where independent reporters, community members and news organizations can come together and collaborate.
I think this has major 2014 potential. I do believe that journalism is taking a more participatory route in the future. The evolution seems logical. Journalism, through the revolution of technology, has expanded into completely unforeseen realms of bloggers, citizen journalists, hyper local websites, new forms of news media, and truly specialized websites on particular issues. Everywhere you turn there is some form of participation-comment boards, message boards, videos being sent in, websites being made in response of something on a news website, people are being citizen participants or paid local content suppliers. Spot.us merely capitalizes on two very smart things. First, the idea that people grow increasingly introspective and want to know about things directly affecting them. Two, people want to be a part of helping to solve the problem by reporting or presenting information/ideas.
So maybe the New York Times won’t exist, but maybe it will. Maybe it will be something like this.
But what is Creative Common license? I like that idea. I think that will be around also. Information in the year 2014 might be more prevalent, but I do think someone will still own it. I don’t think it will be “owned” in the sense that this is a New York Times article, but in the sense that the author owns the creative content inside the work-professional or not. I think there might be more of a loose connection/network of people work in the field of what we call “journalism”, but not under a specific “roof”. Well here is what the website provides as a definition:
Creative Commons is a nonprofit corporation dedicated to making it easier for people to share and build upon the work of others, consistent with the rules of copyright.
We provide free licenses and other legal tools to mark creative work with the freedomthe creator wants it to carry, so others can share, remix, use commercially, or any combination thereof.
Creative Commons is a nonprofit organization
We work to increase the amount of creativity (cultural, educational, and scientific content) in “the commons” — the body of work that is available to the public for free and legal sharing, use, repurposing, and remixing.
Well there we go again, this idea of nonprofit. I think this is important for a few reasons. People who work in the world of fundraising know how difficult it is to get you to part with a dollar. Just a single dollar. Most times, we want much more than that. We won’t be paying for newspapers in 2014, right? Online content will probably be free because we have figured out how difficult it is to keep information secret. Well not “secret”, but the idea that specific content will be found in one particular place and you must go to that place to get it. It will get leaked, stolen, hacked, redone, or simply one person pays and passes it around.
So why will a nonprofit work if it requires some money after all. It works because you love it. You love it so much you are willing to use the money you would have spent on a newspaper and donate it. You think it’s a worthy cause. You think you are doing the right thing, getting good information. Embedded in the idea of a nonprofit organization is the “will to do good” or “to make the world a better place”. You have a hard time giving your money to a big corporation, to a place you know makes tons of profits. You have a difficult time giving money because some place in your mind you know that even though the big media news outlet might say it has your best interest, want to give you the honest news, tell you what you deserve to know as a citizen-you know they have a bottom line, whatever that might be: board members, share holders, political influence, or financial reasons. But a nonprofit doesn’t have to worry about money or making people happy. A nonprofit says to you “I love this topic so much, I am so passionate about what we are writing that I am going to do it for no money, next to no money. I am going to find the best sources and information because I care, because I want us all to be better people.”
People love nonprofits. They want to say they stood up for something, helped something. And even though they might not write, they will be loyal. The audience will return, will give back. A nonprofit can get their hands a little dirtier. A nonprofit can spend more time on something. Passion and drive can be more powerful than anything else.
Doesn't this seem like something you would find on bad Saturday morning Infomercial at the gym?
and Michelle Obama might not be friends anymore
