Storify: Does your job make you want to get up in the morning?

Greetings!

My last post for COMM 2F00 is the Storify assignment. For the first ever attempt utilizing the media of Storify, I was quite surprised by the ease in which I was able to complete my story. I enjoyed using this tool and will continue to search for ways it could be applied in my work world.

The subject I chose to write about is how leadership can fail to engage employees in the workplace and what are some simple steps a leader can take to engage and excite employees. My recent experience with poor leadership was the catalyst for choosing this topic. The results of a restructuring indicated it must have been a shell game exercise with the only goal being to fill ‘seats’. It left a lot of people shaking their heads wondering ‘what were they thinking?’.

The link below will take you to my Storify article on Leadership Engaging Employees. (Click on the title of the article.)

I hope you enjoy!

Link: Does Your Job Make You Want to Get up in the Morning?

Module 6 Summative Post. Citizen Journalism in action: Quebec De-Railment in Online News

This week we reflected on how social media presents opportunities for us to become citizen journalists and involved in online activism. The comments I received both echoed and cautioned the sentiment I had expressed in my blot post; that social media platforms provide easy access encouraging citizens to become more active online however credibility can be questioned. I further suggested that this active participation will heighten interest and awareness of global events hence broadening knowledge. Alenasaric commented “I definitely agree that active participation will heighten. Furthermore, social media and its opportunities are still in the early stage.”
Little Fish commented that “New social network technology not only brings freedom to citizen journalism, but also mixes with unreliable information. Sometimes the news that appears on Twitter just makes us hard to believe.” This was more evident to me today than ever before.

As I sat down to write this summative blog, I was amazed to see the massive reach of online citizen journalism and how Twitter activity jumps when breaking news occurs. I went to CBC News website to read about the devastation caused by the oil cars derailing in Quebec. There it was, an article entitled:

“Social media fills official information gap in Lac-Megantic disaster”! – by Tanya Birkbeck, July 8, 2013, 2:48pm
The CBC News website and its “Your Community Blog” carried the following information:
“People desperate to know the whereabouts of friends and family have flocked to social media, but it’s been hard to know what is fact and what is hearsay. But citizen-initiated sites quickly became more popular than official sources.”
“By Sunday, journalists such as the Globe and Mail’s Les Perreaux, were sharing this link — with some reservations. “Remember when I said the information vacuum left by the SQ would be filled? Can’t vouch for authenticity of this. supportlacmegantic.com/index.php”

This was a perfect example of how the social media platform “Twitter further extends the potential participant base for citizen commentary. No one individual Twitter user is responsible for compiling, collating, and curating the available information on any given topic. Instead, it becomes a thoroughly collaborative exercise.” (Bruns, Highfield, 2012, p10-11) “Twitter effect allows you to provide live coverage without any reporters on the ground, by simply newsgathering user-generated content available online” (Hermida, 2012 p663)
The learning I had with this module really came to life with this social media breaking news interaction. How absolutely cool it was to see and experience! My sympathies to the loss being experienced by the families of Lac Megantic.

Module 6 Post: Citizen Journalism

With technological advances of social media there are new opportunities for citizen journalism and social activism. The accessibility and ease of technology allows citizens to participate as much or as little as they desire. Although this is the case today it was not always this way as evidenced in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists article where an analysis was performed on how traditional and new media covered three nuclear accidents. During the 1979 Three Mile Island journalism coverage reporters “had to scramble for phone access, standing in lines at telephone booths or paying local residents to use telephones to report back to editors or news directors.” (Friedman, 2011, p57) Radiation reporting was incomplete as “reporters did not know enough to ask the right questions” and the “language gap among the engineers, government officials and journalists.” (Friedman, 2011, p58) Fast forward to 2011 and the Japan Fukushima nuclear disaster and we see a completely different style of journalism occurring. Social media gave readers “links to and updates from other web and social media resources; readers’ comments were posted online, giving feedback to journalists and enabling dialogues that included opinions, answers to questions, and suggestions for other website s to view.” (Friedman, 2011, p60) The social media facilitated expert input to address knowledge gaps. The ease of technology permitted visuals that the average consumer could comprehend. The new citizen journalist created a win-win situation where news producers and consumers were satisfied.
The social media platform “Twitter further extends the potential participant base for citizen commentary. No one individual Twitter user is responsible for compiling, collating, and curating the available information on any given topic. Instead, it becomes a thoroughly collaborative exercise.” (Bruns, Highfield, 2012, p10-11) “Twitter effect allows you to provide live coverage without any reporters on the ground, by simply newsgathering user-generated content available online” (Hermida, 2012 p663) this was clearly evident in the Fukushima incident. Furthermore, when Bruns and Highfield carried out an analysis to identify the quantity of activity during breaking-news it identified that tweets and re-tweets increased 60% from normal usage. This statistic remained “constant regardless of the total number of unique Twitter users contributing to each hash tag”. (Bruns, Highfield, 2012,p19) The downside to utilizing Twitter and other social media is the effect on “newspapers in that they are downsizing and consequently buying out or laying off many specialty reporters.” (Freidman, 2011, p63)
So yes, opportunity abounds as citizens can actively participate in news discussions. “Journalism is evolving into a tentative and iterative process where contested accounts are examined and evaluated in public in real-time.” (Hermida,2012, p1) I suggest that this active participation will heighten interest and awareness of global events hence broadening knowledge. I finish by pointing you in the direction of Egypt and the now ousted leader Mohamed Morsi to see active citizen journalism in practice.

References:

Bruns, A. & T. Highfield. (2012). Blogs, Twitter, and breaking news: The produsage of citizen journalism. pre-publication draft on personal site [Snurb.info]. Published in: Lind, R. A. ed. (2012). Produsing Theory in a Digital World: The Intersection of Audiences and Production. New York: Peter Lang. p15-32.

Hermida, A. (2012). TWEETS AND TRUTH: Journalism as a discipline of collaborative verification. Journalism Practice. 6:5-6, p659-668.

Friedman, S. M. (2011). Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima: An analysis of traditional and new media coverage of nuclear accidents and radiation. Bulletin Of The Atomic Scientists, 67(5), 55-65.

Module 5 Podcast: Six Reasons Your Best Employees Quit You

This week I did my first ever podcast and was absolutely amazed at how smoothly it went! My blog is focused on ‘Leading to Engage Employees’ hence I focused the podcast on an article called “Six Reasons Your Best Employees Quit You” by Louis Efron, contributor to Forbes e-zine.

Module 5 Podcast: Six Reasons Good Employees Quit You

Module 5 Summary

What I found most thought provoking and interesting for this module blog was the insight into Chinese activities with respect to piracy.  One of my fellow bloggers is from China and spoke in his blog and response to my blog about the piracy activity in his homeland.  LittleFish identified with the article “Cultures of music piracy: An ethnographic comparison of the US and Japan”.  Specifically he spoke of the Japanese anime which “As a fan of Japanese anime I didn’t pay for watch them after I was 10.  It is the benefit that new technology brought to us.”  The Japanese “anime world provided the example of taking a lenient attitude towards copyright.” ( Condry, 2004,p354)  and that was to post online anime episodes as soon as they were broadcast.  LittleFish agreed with that approach “Like you said ‘get the most possible stuff for the least possible money.  That’s kind of common sense for everybody.  If we can watch Japanese anime on a free website, then no one will bother to think about the copyright.”

Alenasaric articulated what we all know but really haven’t stated “There are no rules, laws or regulations that one can impose to eliminate this technology.”  Basically, we shouldn’t waste time debating how destructive technology is; “embrace this new technology and develop new alternative compensation systems.”    LittleFish concurred with that idea “We have to find a balance point that can satisfy side, the music producers and the consumers.” 

Alenasaric was completely aligned with me on “If you purchased the music, you should have a right to copy it to as many mp3 as you would like as long as it’s for personal use.”  What I did find very interesting was the final thoughts Alenasaric wrote in the response to my blog “I think in some ways the industry is trying to be too strict which is causing many people to revolt”.  I believe there is truth to that statement when you read the four motivations to pirate is “(1) to share culture/content, (2) to sample, (3) the inability to afford content and (4) to undermine the current copyright regime.”  (Steinmetz,Tunnell, 2013,p56) The honesty provided by my fellow student from China supports this research.

In conclusion, I found my blog post as well as all who commented were in agreement that the copyright issue is in need of an overhaul that is fair to both producer and consumer.

Module 5 Initial Blog: To share or not to share?

“Young people, using computers to download digitized intellectual property, are today’s pirates.”  (Steinmetz, Tunnell, 2013, p.53) While many of the pirates may be young people I would suggest a significant number of ‘older’ more seasoned computer pirates exist too!   To provide evidence for that statement I direct you to observe the clientele at a Best Buy or Future Shop on a Saturday!

Reading through “Under the Pixelated Jolly Roger:  A Study of On-Line Pirates” by Steinmetz and Tunnell I learned “four motivations for engaging in piracy… (1) to share culture/content, (2) to sample, (3) the inability to afford content and (4) to undermine the current copyright regime.” (Steinmetz,Tunnell, 2013,p.56) From the perspective of a typical university student, “Sampling is particularly important to young people…  Sampling allows them to make discretionary decisions on how they spend their limited funds.” (p.59). Now this makes sense to me!

In the article “Cultures of Music Piracy” by Ian Condry, I identified my family in the discussion referring to “sharing of music without exchange of money.”  (p345)  Not only us, but majority of people like to “get the most possible stuff for the least possible money.” (p348) I had never thought we were doing anything illegal when music is purchased, downloaded onto the family computer and then copied to a MP3 player.  Didn’t we buy the music? Aren’t we allowed to copy it onto our mobile devices?  This type of behaviour has brought about legal aspects such as the “Recording Industry Association of America initiated lawsuits against its own consumers.” (p343)  Is this having an impact on consumers?  “Are lawsuits changing file-sharers’ behaviour?” (p350)  A 2004 survey “estimated that the lawsuits convinced around 6 million former down-loaders to stop, but also estimated that 5 million new users started up in the same period (Rainie et al., 2004).” (p350)

An analysis of the Japanese anime and the concept of the “fansubs” should be performed.  The fansubs have allowed “some copyright infringement” but it has not “caused the ‘fall of the anime industry’.”  In fact, there is speculation it “may well have contributed to its world-wide popularity” (p355)

I absolutely agree that we should teach “‘respect for property’ while building a healthy music market in the digital age.” (p344) however it’s time to catch up with technology and “develop new alternative compensation systems” (p344).

 

Condry, Ian. (2004). Cultures of Music Piracy: An Ethnographic Comparison of the US and Japan. International Journal of Cultural Studies. 7 (3), pg. 343-363

Steinmetz, K., K. Tunnell (2013). Under the Pixelated Jolly Roger: A Study of On-Line Pirates. Deviant Behavior. 34 (1), pg. 53-67

Module 4 Short Video

A media remix/mash-up of ’employee engagement’.

Module 4: And now, the summary of “Online Consumption”

In my initial post I identified an example of how Chris Hadfield, Canadian astronaut, utilized social media to increase awareness of Space science.  The type of media productions compared in kind to the early cinema attraction.  Teresa Rizzo talks about how viewers are confronted “with moments of novelty, curiosity, or sensationalism and invites them to stop and stare.”  By the amount of time we indicated we spend online I think Rizzo is on to something!

Looking at the posts we did and our replies to each other we all indicated we spend more time online than what is truly required.  We all know it yet do not have the will power or desire to try and change that aspect of our lives.  This week directed us to do critical thinking on what the purpose of our online activities is, does it involve community or commerce and should there be restrictions.  Also, for me, the awareness of how much copying goes on was surprising.  Kirby Ferguson’s four part video series opened to me the idea of how easy and how often copying, transforming and combining has become.

What did surprise me is how majority of blog replies would like to see some restrictions.  I expected most would not like to see restrictions however the opposite proved true.  My blog-mates see the need for restrictions due to the few who can spoil the cultural and commerce commons.  Yet they also know it can curtail creativity and do not wish a complete lock-down.  Little Fish posted copyright “restrictions from the law would tie our hands”.  He hopes “the law won’t bother us at all” as he enjoys seeing “remix and re-production of those classic pieces.”   Alenasaric posted that people such as Chris Hadfield use YouTube and twitter “for a positive purpose, however, there are many that choose to use it for a negative purpose such as to spread discrimination or hate messages. I think that the challenge going forward will be to use this great ability to bring forth positive change.”

Online Consumption? Space Oddity sucked me in!

YouTube videos, Facebook, Wikipedia, search engines, retail websites, chat/discussion forums….wow, how many more venues can you name that consume your time?  I thought I really didn’t consume much online content; after re-tracing my steps for the past few days I was surprised at how much of my life I hand over to online viewing.  It was a not a gross amount of hours; what was disturbing was the fact that majority of the consumption was not critical to daily living.

Daily interaction with online activity was for viewing purposes.  I produce very little online content.  Producing for me comes in what I generate on Facebook (FB) and now, COMM 2F00 course blog,  FB content is very minimal as I prefer private life to stay mostly private, it consists of sharing key events or news with family and close friends.  Time, lack of creativity and not wanting to splash myself in the public domain limit what I wish to produce for online content.

I found Teresa Rizzo article “YouTube: the New cinema of Attractions” (Journal, Vol. 5, Number 1, May 2008) very interesting.  Her opening paragraph was the proverbial ‘light bulb’ going off in my head where she identified “early cinema is an exhibitionist cinema where the spectator is overtly acknowledged and invited to look.”.  A Canadian that kept coming to mind while reading Rizzo article was astronaut Chris Hadfield.  You bet we, the world, was invited to look at the International Space Station by Chris Hadfield.  Rizzo talks about how viewers are confronted “with moments of novelty, curiosity, or sensationalism and invites them to stop and stare.”  Who couldn’t stop staring when Chris Hadfield sang a revision of David Bowie s single, from 1969, Space Oddity?  This 5 minute YouTube clip garnered 15,664,440 views!  (Chris Hadfield Space Oddity ) The clip is a remix of a previously recorded song being sung in an unusual location.  Isn’t that what Rizzo identifies in her article “these clips operate as an attraction …through the novelty of referencing and reworking..subject matter captured by early cinema.”?    The Chris Hadfield Space Oddity YouTube clip definitely created a “very interesting new communication situation:  a conversation around a piece of media” (Lev Manovich, March 10, 2008)

There are a significant number of Chris Hadfield YouTube video clips which provides evidence to support Lev Manovich statement, from “The Practice of everyday (media) life” article, that “inexpensive software tools enable people to share their media” .  We have at our finger tips YouTube videos showing Chris Hadfield singing with the Barenaked Ladies, describing how to barf in space, clip nails, how eyesight is affected in space, brushing teeth and more.  It is an “explosion of user-generated ‘content’”  (Lev Manovich, March 10, 2008)

Well, I must confess, I just spent a significantly longer time writing this blog than I normally do as I ventured off course watching a lot of YouTube videos about Chris Hadfield!  (Really, you should check out Space Oddity if you haven’t already seen it!)

“Wikipedia, do I trust you?”

Motivation:  wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivation

Given the process of creating a Wikipedia entry, how reliable is the information found therein?

(Image credit: Larry Press for aNewDomain.net)

 

  “Wikipedia, do I trust you?” That is the question I ask today of the well-known online source we all use to look up information; Wikipedia!  Today, I will be investigating the Wikipedia website ‘motivation’ to check out just how reliable is the information provided.  During this editorial I will reference various articles and blog comments of other COMM2F00 investigative journalists such as myself.

 The article “What’s on Wikipedia, and What’s Not…?”  (Royal, Kapila, 2009) opened my eyes, and mind, to just how comparable or credible Wikipedia is in comparison to Encyclopaedia Britannica.  A study referenced in the article identified Wikipedia “level of accuracy is close to that of Encyclopaedia Britannica (Giles, 2005)”.  (Royal, Kapil, 2009, p139)  Would I have thought this before reading the article?  Absolutely not!  I have a new appreciation or should I say, at least, a little knowledge to test the waters of accuracy.

 Being a casual user of Wikipedia I was intrigued and surprised by the structure of its articles.  “Each article has a “Page history” which contains a “Page view statistics” link showing the number of visits to that page for every day since December 2007.” (Jensen, 2012, p1166) Richard Jensen’s article, ‘Military History on the electronic Frontier:  Wikipedia Fights the War of 1812” identified measures that are in place to aid accuracy of information.  “Wikipedia’s NPOV rule:  all articles must reflect a Neutral point of View, and POV, or bias, is a misdemeanor that is regularly removed.”  (Jensen, 2012, p1169)  Jensen elaborates that “The Wikipedia community uses kangaroo courts” and “the severest penalty is a ban for a period of time or permanent”.  The approach for self-governing is unique and puts the onus on you and I to challenge accuracy.  That is pretty cool that we have the power to question and challenge!

Taking this new found knowledge I tested the waters of Wikipedia and went to the subject:  Motivation. Well, motivation turned to revelation! The beginning of the article has a disclaimer “this article needs additional citations for verification. (August 2012)”.  I’d say that sentence gives you a pretty clear statement that validity is lacking in the article!

 The ‘Talk’ was just about as long as the ‘Motivation Article’ itself.  Counting the number of edits, one finds that there have been 27 modifications, including a “kick in the ass” edit which recommended the motivation article be deleted.  The most recent modification was 29 May 2013 at 19:09.  Motivation appears to be a subject that motivates individuals to write about it more than once! I like how Van Dijck and Nieborg identify the online editor:  “anonymous users who define their own informational, expressive and communicational needs, a process touted as ‘mass creativity’ or ‘peer production’.”  In the Wikipedia article I researched I found one individual titled his/her edit “SHOUTING WILL NOT BE TOLERATED” in reference to CAPITAL letters used in an edit/post.  (Sounds to me like a temper tantrum!)  Alas, I found one editor whose name was woven throughout several edits.  This individual appeared to be coaching editors to make reliable statements by including sources, quotes and more than one viewpoint.  In regards to the numerous editors on the war of 1812, Jensen recommends, at the end of his article, “set up short training programs for them at a research library”.  (Jensen, 2011, p1182) Maybe there should be a Wikipedia editor training e-module that must be successfully completed before entrance to the editor world is granted!

The ‘Motivation’ Wikipedia article has a ‘Quality’ rating of ‘Start’ assigned to it meaning the “article is developing, but which is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources”.  (wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivation) A second ‘Quality’ rating was assigned from the perspective of business articles and given a “B” rating; meaning “The article is mostly complete and without major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards.”  Now I don’t know about you but before reading the Wikipedia rules and article ‘Talk’ page I was totally and completely ignorant of the rating system and how sub-par the article actually was.  

Editing suggestions on the Wikipedia Motivation article ‘Talk’ page state “Providing references to reliable sources should come first; the article also needs substantial improvement in content and organization.”  Readers provided their input and the summary posted on the ‘Talk’ page of the Motivation article identified that the readers with this article: “Provides some meaningful content, but most readers will need more”.

Did Wikipedia share this with my Professor?  What? I will need more references than Wikipedia?!  Preposterous!  Yet, sadly, it is true as I cannot confirm reliability and validity of my Wikipedia article.  Like my fellow blogger alenasaric “I always used Wikipedia. I used it casually for general information and I also used it academically for general information. I would never use Wikipedia as a source.”  http://as08yl.wordpress.com/ Classmate adanc2013 concurs stating “Wikipedia should not be used as a lone source for research projects, but it can be used to enhance personal information about various topics.”

Wikipedia, you’ve come a long way baby!  Like blogger Little Fish “if I like to read something interesting and enhance my knowledge, I will definitely choose Wikipedia.” http://yujiaying816.wordpress.com/  There are definite flaws but at the same time something indescribable, almost alluring that begs us to just ‘check it out’!  Hope you give Wikipedia a test drive today!