Friday, March 1, 2013

Talk 1b... My initial thoughts on Web 2.0

When Web 2.0 was first mentioned in the course handbook I had no idea what it meant, it was a brand new concept to me as I admit I am not the biggest computer genius out there!

After reading the "Professional Communication Technologise" reader I have came to realise that although I thought I had no clue what Web 2.0 was it turns out it is a huge part of my day to day life! Every time I log into Facebook, google to find auditions, upload a showreel to YouTube or research a song for my rep I am using Web 2.0 and I have to admit it has been a huge help to me with my career. For example without the help of YouTube and email I would not have been able to upload my showreel and send the URL address to countless amounts of agencies and employers while trying to obtain a job and further my career.

Another great advantage to social media is the networking opportunities. With Facebook for example I can "friend" casting directors and agencies etc which then allows me the freedom to search their page for auditions, and other useful information. Facebook has also been a huge advantage to me while working abroad on ships helping me stay connected with friends and family but also keeping me in the musical theatre networking loop so I don't loose track of what's going on while I am away.

I believe Web 2.0 can be successfully used to enhance and develop learning of new Technologise  which will in turn help us to become a better practitioner if we use the tools provided correctly and to our advantage. I think social media can be good for research and learning, it allows active participation and encourages creativity. This is backed up when we read Lorenz's txt where he talks of the advantages of Web 2.0 "you are not limited to receiving information - you can comment, collaborate and create your own content" This can also lead in to Bruns theory of "Produsage" where we are both producer and consumer of content.

However like everything else along with its advantages come disadvantages. I agree with Lorenzo when he talks of being "Net Savy"  and when he says "students need to understand that their freedom to publish whatever they want online comes with responsibility" I agree with this hugely with things such as Facebook if your employers or potential employers are able to access your Facebook, the information written on their can reflect badly on you if you are not professional,careful and selective about what is publicly written.

I also pose the question, is social media taking over our lives?  Although it is great to catch up with friends over a computer quickly, is it creating a new generation of people who are lazy and have lost the art of social communication, person to person meetings. I know personally I would rather meet up with my friend in Starbucks and discuss her boyfriend troubles rather then constantly send private mail messages back and forward over Facebook. I fear sometimes we are loosing real relationships and our personal identity over social media.

Also when being "net savvy" and using Web 2.0 we must realise when doing research not all information provided is positive and correct. We have the semantic web where all information is authorised and checked but we also have the social web like Wikipedia which is shared information from different sources and it may not always be correct or helpful to us.

In conclusion I think Web 2.0 is brilliant and I could not be without it now as I do use it daily for work,developing my career,networking and socialising etc but asking as we are "net savvy" and do not loose ourselves completely behind a computer screen we will continue to benefit from it greatly.

2 comments:

  1. Hi Lauren,

    Good post. One question. Where does truth reside?

    Your commentary suggests Wikipedia is not reliable or lacks validity. Perhaps an academic journal is a better source of truth? Or perhaps truth has features, features that are realised in different ways. So, if Wikipedia has many contributors, who ‘collectively’ agree on something, then some truth in terms of consensus can be established? An academic journal article may disagree, and its validity comes from the research evidence that supports it? So its validity is evidentially based. But then, in a specific context, the truth of the matter lays with the way in which something is applied, so the fact of the matter is only realised in an applied context and may vary from context to context?

    What I am driving at here is to suggest that there are no absolute truths that apply in all contexts consistently.

    One source could define Fidel Castro as a saviour of his people, another could see him as a terrorist and murderer. What is the ‘truth’. Possibly neither or both, depending on your perspective.

    So unless you are looking at natural science phenomena (scientific facts) I would tend to suggest we look firstly at where we (or others) are coming from when trying to make sense of the world, and to treat EVERYTHING with a small dose of circumspection.

    So I don’t for example, think a journal article is more or less truthful than Wikipedia, I treat both with equal suspicion!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Alan!

    Thank you for commenting on my blog and what you said really got me looking from a different angle and in the future I will not be so quick to judge and believe what is truth and what is not without further inspection and thought.

    ReplyDelete