Saying Goodbye

I've enjoyed writing this blog both as an aspect of this class and for its own merits. I'll do my best to continue posting here in the future, especially if there's a project for another class where a blog would be helpful. I'll see a good amount of my ISLT classmates in online classes later this month; I hope all of you were able to gain some insight through blogging.

We Will Use This In The Real World

As part of closing out the course, I wanted to mention the transferability of skills from the Web 2.0 Learning curriculum to real-world applications. At a recent job interview, I was able to demonstrate several skills that I either learned or improved during this course. The interviewers were very impressed with how Diigo works and VoiceThread is looking like a real possibility for uploading their Powerpoint presentations to make them webinars. Copyright also came up when we discussed the use of Youtube videos in their presentations; they hadn't even thought about using a Creative Commons license before.

Not every job in the instructional design field is going to use every skill we learn in every class, but it's reassuring that this particular class helped in an immediate fashion.

Caveat Productorem

This is something of a follow-up to my previous post on the closure of Blip with an added twist which applies to plagiarism and media ownership. There's a lot of Internet content provider politics going on in this Geek Juice Media* article, but the bottom line is that one Youtube channel was able to make money off of a competitor's videos through a copyright claim. 

Youtube has had numerous problems in the past with frivolous and malicious claims from content owners when it comes to reviewers. It's generally held that movie clips are fair use for purposes of commentary when under a certain length. From all appearances, this is a blackmail attempt for Network A to absorb Network B because Network B did a commentary on one of their videos. This does not entitle Network A to profit from that commentary video, which it did with this copyright claim until it was reversed. There's a lot of evidence from Network B's owner to demonstrate that Network A is acting maliciously including threats (admittedly hearsay) from Network B. 

The majority of online video content providers are returning to Youtube despite its copyright system flaws because of Blip's closure and the lack of other media tools. Does this count as plagiarism? On the one hand, the material in question is commentary and not the original product, but on the other, the money is going to the wrong person for work that they didn't do. Perhaps in the near future, better disclaimers about material ownership will be necessary for video projects.

Privacy and Intent

I certainly agree that privacy is difficult to maintain in the modern interconnected world. I'm curious about the type of person that would want to abuse a student's privacy in the first place. There's the possibility of hacking into that student's other networks to steal monetary information, but what about trolling and bullying? When you think about it, people are willing to put a lot of time and effort into gathering information just to mock somebody.

It's clear that bullying online needs to be deterred. While using the same punishments as real-life threats might be too harsh, there does need to be a way to hold people accountable. Otherwise, at the rate of trolling online increases, we'll end up raising generations of sociopaths.

Questioning Quora

I've been concentrating on Wikis this week because I found Quora, the other program discussed in Week 5, to be questionably useful at best. The only thing that seems to separate Quora from Yahoo Answers is a lack of trolling (which is admittedly the most fun part of using Yahoo Answers). I can understand the desire to get detailed, human answers to complex questions, but asking a more specialized community would likely get the same result as well as additional answers and links to previous, similar queries.

I suppose it has its uses, but I'll stick with wikis and forums.

Building A Better Wiki Part 3: C2.com

While researching wikis, I came across the very first one, C2.com, which was originally designed to assist in software development. It's mostly defunct these days with the last edit made in December 2014, but it exists as a testament to the program's development. The site's history page serves as an electronic museum and it's worth a read to see how far things have come.

Many of the improvements made to wiki programming over time are immediately evident. All of the links on C2 are done in CamelCase without any covering up to separate the words out. Apparently it didn't have user names until 2000 and page history saves until 2004! Those are some of the most important tools when it comes to using a wiki as an instructional resource and it's strange to think of a time when they weren't present. Additionally, comments are left directly on a page and signed rather than hidden in their own section, which is just odd to see.

Naturally, C2.com also hosted the first wiki edit wars, such as the "WikiMindWipe", in which an editor quit and damaged the community on the way out, both by leaving angrily and by messing with the software. No matter the era, personality clashes will always affect an online community.

Building A Better Wiki Part 2: TFWiki

Even though it covers a much smaller part of the Internet than Wikipedia or TV Tropes, TFWiki is a unique resource worth studying. It compiles every known facet of the Transformers toy franchise in a humorous manner that does not interfere with the delivery of information. With "nerd culture" on the rise, there are hundreds of wikis covering franchises from the obvious (like Star Wars' Wookieepedia) to the obscure (like the Robotech Wiki and the Macross Wiki, which actually cover the same Japanese anime in different formats).

What sets TFWiki apart is the comedy. Pictures on wiki pages are usually captioned with puns, while a tone of sarcasm often creeps into pages about negatively-regarded pieces of media. You would never see another wiki cover "B.O.T.", the worst episode of the original Transformers show, with such snark and vitriol. This is possible due to the strength of the Transformers brand and fanbase; the toys have been in production consistently since 1984 and generations of children grew up with it, with annual conventions starting in 1994. Some of the fans who attended and organized those conventions went on to start and own TFWiki, and their personal irreverence guided the site's formation.

The growth of the Transformers fan community forced the wiki runners to maintain strong standards as the blockbuster films brought more and more newcomers to the fanbase. Because the moderators are always on guard for vandals, misinformation and bad jokes, the overall lighter tone reduces the feeling that they are too oversensitive about the wiki. If you're designing a wiki as an informal tool and not an official source to be cited, taking this approach to writing the articles might reduce users' pressure and make the interface more pleasurable to use.