via DocMara on Twitter:

     While I don't use my Facebook page frequently (I don't believe I've been on my page for about two months now), I was very curious about how Mark Zuckerberg would handle what has become a PR nightmare for Facebook.  This instance also helped show how important good PR is.  I followed the story because I am interested in seeing how the web has facilitated the dissemination of information.  If a situation like this happened in the past, there may or may not have been a public outcry.  And if there was, it is very possible that this voice of outcry would have been dispersed throughout the country and the world. 

     The legal jargon of Facebooks' new TOS appears to indicate that we don't really post the information we put on the site.  While Zuckerberg was quick to clarify, saying that the information we put on the site is our own, these words sound empty as the fact remains that if we cancel our accounts, the information remains on the site's servers.  Because we are dealing with virtual information that resides in virtual places, I am at a loss in finding a real-world equivalent.  It's almost like buying something and then not being allowed throw it away by the company that sold it to us.  Then, upon hearing the complaints that would naturally follow, it is as if the company went out of our way to remind us that the item that we bought in question is still our own.  I believe the technical term for this is double-talk.

    UPDATE: Facebook has since reverted to its old terms of use, which are more reasonable.  They can be viewed here.

     Unfortunately for Zuckerberg, the life-blood of his business, the increasingly networked nature of online communication, became the bane of his existence for a time.  This network of people, which has allowed Facebook to become the juggernaut that it has, was dealt a huge blow by this very same network.  I find it ironic and comedic at the same time.    Had we all not been so well connected via Facebook, Twitter, Wordpress, and the like, the reservations that few had would not have been brought to light by the many. 

     When I was first introduced to the idea that wikis and other forms of socially-mediated media could help spread meaningful information in the past, I was skeptical.  I was college-educated, and was loathe to look to the masses to guide me without the watchful eye of such regulatory bodies as university presses and editorial boards. But events like the Facebook debacle have shown my prior thinking to be flawed. 

     The flashlights of many have been brought to bear on the shady deeds of those in control of information, and have been met with encouraging results.  I hope informed citizens everywhere will use this example to blow their whistles whenever they see those in control of our information displaying less-than-ethical actions, and work to expose them. 

Joe

In Maps of the Imagination:  The Writer as Cartographer, Peter Turchi uses mapping to show how the construction of all information is embedded in perception.  Through discussions of literature, Turchi explains how these perceptions have translated to writing and calls readers to consider their own values, along with the values of those preceding them, as readers follow with their own works of fiction and poetry.

 

1)  Turchi claims, “The purpose of a story or poem, unlike that of a diary, is not to record our experience but to create a context for, and to lead the reader on, a journey…at some point we turn from the role of Explorer to take on that of Guide” (12).  The sharing of our perceptions and experience is not limited to the genres of poetry and fiction, and the Internet empowers anyone who desires to publish their writing to an infinite audience.  Does the vastness of this audience and our removal from face to face interaction more often free us to speak our minds or are we even more likely to “edit, revise, and suppress” in an effort to make sense?  (142)  In either respect, what is the risk of the information we publish as a result of such perceptions? 

 

As an extension of the above, how do we define our audience in online communities, and in our attempts to find our place within these communities at the same time that we try to think beyond them, how do we evoke “complexity-bordering-on-chaos” in such a way that elicits progress and not misinformation?  (And what is misinformation if there is ultimately no truth?)

 

2)  Turchi discusses the concept of “fractal geometry” where successive iterations of images become increasingly elaborate, emphasizing the inexhaustible nature of realism.  Turchi claims, “In order to find something new, we simply have to be willing to look more closely, more carefully” (207).  Are we applying a similar concept in the construction of our class blog?  Facebook or Twitter?  (Do such online applications have their own “natural” points and boundaries?)  How does the way we read in these forums influence how we build upon information to reach an understanding?  (For example, blogs, email, and twitter display the most recent posts at the top.  We’re conditioned to read from top to bottom—are we more inclined to go against the structure of these applications and scroll to read from the bottom up or do we adjust the way we read/comprehend, recognizing we’re beginning with the end of a conversation?)  What does either approach reveal about our understanding of information’s construction?

 

3)  Turchi uses an image of the upside down world map to show the disorientation that results when we are faced with what we understand to be deviations from supposed correctness (100-101).  What unwritten “rules” do we abide by in our participation and writing online?  Who establishes these rules and when is it appropriate (and perhaps necessary) to contradict them?

 

4)  Following his discussion on the bombardment of information we receive from the television alone, Turchi discusses mental mapping (136).  If our own trains of thought are actually tornados as Turchi suggests, how do we attempt to sift through these thoughts to make sense of the information to formulate what others would understand as working knowledge?  

 

5)  As students studying in the writing arts department, how are we reading like cartographers as opposed to “mere map users”?  (220)  How do we attempt to determine the value/validity of works past and, using them as a basis to move forward, what is the “realism to come”?  (232)

Wired published today an article detailing the machinations of a group of determined Nordic websites who wish to see the speedy demise of Internet Explorer v. 6.  The short article explains that IE 6 is a nightmare for both users and designers.  This, coupled with IE's well-documented security issues, should cause many to take notice, and to consider upgrading their web browsers.  Much has been made on Twitter on the issue, and you can check the #IE6 tag to follow the discussion.  The article's a quick read, and worth your time. 
 


Firefox says: "Internet Explorer ver 6 tastes like a giant blue mint." 
Firefox's breath is now minty-fresh!

Image courtesy of the IE6 Warning Campaign Facebook page. 


  I used Internet Explorer v. 6 in the past, but haven't used it recently.  After taking a web design class over the summer with Prof. Wolf, I learned the value of using Firefox for various reasons.  For anyone interested in building sites, definitely use Firefox.  I hear Chrome is good, but I haven't tried out it yet. 

Hope you got a kick out of the pic. 

Joe

Peter Turchi's Maps of the Imagination: The Writer as a Cartographer was probably my favorite reading so far.  I found the book to be not only informative, but extremely thought-provoking.  It forced me to think about not only literature and writing, but my own thought-processes as well, in a whole new light.  I want to present a few questions that are aimed at sparking discussion in Monday night's Information Architecture class.

1)  Early on, Turchi discusses the concept of "blanks" within the borders of maps.  I'd never put much thought into it before, but he brings up the great point that "blank spaces" can represent information that is deliberately withheld for a variety of reasons (including ignorance, the information being deemed "unimportant", or sometimes to build suspense).  This made me think of the concept of "negative spaces" in art, and how powerful a tool it can be.  Do you think that intentional omissions in writing (or "negative space") can hold the same amount of power as the given details?  Does it sometimes enhance it?

2)  On page 75, Turchi brings up "Conventions of the Illusion" and mentions the French impressionists' struggle for acceptance, citing that their work was "rejected for decades, not only by the Salon, and by many of Europe's leading museums, but also by the public."  He goes on to quote T.S. Eliot who says, "The existing monuments form an ideal order among themselves, which is modified by the introduction of the new work of art among them. The existing order is complete before the new work arrives; for order to persist after the supervention of novelty, the whole existing order must be, if ever so slightly, modified."  Can this concept be applied to the ever-changing and evolving technologies that are being developed today?

3) On page 139, it is revealed that we may have limited perspective and understanding, but each of us has our own world that we must map; one that includes hometowns, vacations spots, etc.  We compile mental maps that are skewed, but make sense to us.  Are networking tools such as Twitter, Facebook, Myspace, etc, really just a way for us to glimpse into the "mental maps" of others?

4) Turchi devotes a section of the book to the idea of the "distortion formula of realism" in which artists used perspective to demonstrate how they perceived things, even though the images often defied what was real (i.e. to depict proper perspective of a road disappearing into the horizon, the two sides must meet at a vanishing point on the canvas.  In reality, the two sides of the road never touch, they just appear to.)  With the advent of blogs and citizen journalism due to new technologies, are we seeing more of this "distortion formula" in the way we receive our news and information?

5) On page 90, Denis Wood is quoted as saying: "How to choose?  This is the question, for the answer determines the way the earth will look on the map...The selection of a map projection is always to choose among competing interests, to take...a point of view."  Basically, he is saying that no map is truly "objective", or "accurate".  Could we also say that this applies to the written word; That no written document or literary work (whether it be novels, blogs, news, etc) can be truly objective due to the fact that its author has biases, opinions, and points of view that come through in their writing?

6)  I wanted to add one more question that struck me while reading this book.  When I hit the section entitled
"A Rigorous Geometry", the discussion about measuring the earth really got my brain working.  I couldn't help but think that the entire basis for determining the dimensions of the earth is based on human-made mathematics.  We created numbers and equations (as well as words and concepts), and utilize them to determine truths on a daily basis.  But can there be a "truth", or is it only derived from systems that we have invented and implemented to make sense of the world around us?  If we take a newborn and tell him all his life that the sky is purple and 1 + 1 = 12, then his entire "world" and every truth he finds is now different from the norm, but yet perfectly in sync with his concepts.

My friend introduced me to his new girlfriend last week.  One of the first things I asked him was, "How did you two meet?"

My friend explained.  A few months ago, he was in San Francisco for a seminar with his new manager.  He and his manager were getting to know one another, speaking about their personal lives.  My friend told the new manager he was single, and the manager offered to introduce my friend to his cousin, who was also single.  He took his manager up on the offer.  So he met his manager's cousin at an office function (which his manager brought her to) and the two hit it off rather nicely.  They had been dating ever since.

Based on past experience, and on what I have read in books, articles and magazines, I feel pretty confident in saying that this is how we meet most people-not just for intimate relationships, but also for business relationships.

The admission of social networking sites such as Facebook and My Space into our cultural lives has rearranged this practice.  I can meet a life partner on these sites through a friend (or a friend of a friend of a friend...you get the idea), but don't even have to involve them.  I am in essence, cutting out the "middle-man".

Now we have something that is taking networking a step further.  Ning is a site that allows a user to create his or her own social networking site based upon a specific topic or need.  If I am an architect in St. Louis, I could create a social networking site for all architects.  Even a better idea (and more practical), let us say I suffer from a mental or emotional disorder and I am looking for a social network of others who suffer similar disorders, I can create a social network of support for it.

I found this interesting because based on what I have seen in the past, what is happening in the present, and what seems to likely happen in the near future, we are adopting technologies that allow us to be apart of a huge (used by billions of people) global information ecology (like the world wide web); however, at the same time we can take part in another global information ecology (like a social network for sufferers of anorexia) which is much smaller in comparison.  Our technologies allow for communication at speeds unheard of year before, while giving us much more control with which to choose what kind of information ecologies in which to be a part.  It also gives us more choices about how we interact with the information ecology as well.

Think about this, before the Internet and WWW, the social networks we were a part of were limited to what we came across in our daily lives.  John, who lives in NYC is unlikely to hear about a men's support group in Houston for those recovering from prostate cancer.  Now that is all changed; he can either search for a social network of men who are in a support group for that topic or create one of his own on line.

As I sit here and think about it, I am astounded at the possibilities.  At the same time, I am realistic in knowing that these possibilities may or may not occur.  It is our choice whether or not to use these (what could be called micro-social networks).  Individually, I may see the potential for others to use micro-social networks in such instances as group therapy sessions and recovery.  But, some therapists and sufferers may think an on line micro-social network can't replace the face-to-face interaction of someone who knows how you feel, and suffered in similar ways you have suffered.  I know I believe a friends words of advice and encouragement much more if I know that they have been through what I am suffering at that moment.

Do you think these micro-social networks will be used for these types of situations I mentioned?  Please let me know, because I am honestly curious.