Comments on: Anthropology 2.0: the Death of Hypermedia? http://savageminds.org/2006/03/13/anthropology-20-the-death-of-hypermedia/ Notes and Queries in Anthropology — A Group Blog Wed, 23 May 2012 23:55:04 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Uma volta por aí… « Comunidade Imaginada http://savageminds.org/2006/03/13/anthropology-20-the-death-of-hypermedia/comment-page-1/#comment-55286 Uma volta por aí… « Comunidade Imaginada Sun, 04 Mar 2007 12:51:50 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=404#comment-55286 [...] Anthropology 2.0 - [em Anthropology.net] What are your thoughts of Anthropology 2.0? What does this term mean to you and why is it relevant to the discipline of anthropology today? One of the first uses of the term “Anthropology 2.0” comes from the SavageMinds.org blog entry of P. Kerim Friedman dated March 13, 2006. Friedman is an assistant professor of indigenous studies at National Dong Hwa University in Taiwan, who uses the term Anthropology 2.0 when referring to: 1. the collaborative use of ICTs in contributing towards anthropological knowledge as a whole and2. the importance of a providing anthropological treatments of ICTs via more timely publishing venues than paper journals, which can take too long to publish, rendering new scholarship of ICTs outdated… [...] [...] Anthropology 2.0 – [em Anthropology.net] What are your thoughts of Anthropology 2.0? What does this term mean to you and why is it relevant to the discipline of anthropology today? One of the first uses of the term “Anthropology 2.0” comes from the SavageMinds.org blog entry of P. Kerim Friedman dated March 13, 2006. Friedman is an assistant professor of indigenous studies at National Dong Hwa University in Taiwan, who uses the term Anthropology 2.0 when referring to: 1. the collaborative use of ICTs in contributing towards anthropological knowledge as a whole and2. the importance of a providing anthropological treatments of ICTs via more timely publishing venues than paper journals, which can take too long to publish, rendering new scholarship of ICTs outdated… [...]

Report this comment

]]> By: Matter Out Of Place » The Anthropologists - Last primitive tribe on earth? http://savageminds.org/2006/03/13/anthropology-20-the-death-of-hypermedia/comment-page-1/#comment-15196 Matter Out Of Place » The Anthropologists - Last primitive tribe on earth? Thu, 20 Jul 2006 17:07:08 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=404#comment-15196 [...] A while back over at Savageminds Kerim Friedman pointed to the fact that anthropologists seem to miss out on the opportunities provided by social media and its adopters. Due to slow pace of publishing Friedman argues that anthropological literature on digital technology eg. context, content, processes, designers, and users always seem to lack behind. I couldn’t agree more. How ever while that being said, I think that the problem is a whole lot bigger than that. [...] [...] A while back over at Savageminds Kerim Friedman pointed to the fact that anthropologists seem to miss out on the opportunities provided by social media and its adopters. Due to slow pace of publishing Friedman argues that anthropological literature on digital technology eg. context, content, processes, designers, and users always seem to lack behind. I couldn’t agree more. How ever while that being said, I think that the problem is a whole lot bigger than that. [...]

Report this comment

]]> By: Savage Minds: Notes and Queries in Anthropology — A Group Blog » Welcome Guest Blogger: Michael Wesch http://savageminds.org/2006/03/13/anthropology-20-the-death-of-hypermedia/comment-page-1/#comment-4683 Savage Minds: Notes and Queries in Anthropology — A Group Blog » Welcome Guest Blogger: Michael Wesch Sun, 02 Apr 2006 14:02:40 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=404#comment-4683 [...] Mike was mentioned previously on SM in relation to his hypermedia project, Nekalimin.net. However, what caught our attention and led to him being invited on as a guest blogger was a news story about his innovative teaching practices. Specifically, a role-playing game he uses with his large intro-level courses: Wesch has created a “World Simulation” project, where students are placed into 15 to 20 small groups, and have to survive in their environment by building their own culture, as different components are discussed in class. [...] [...] Mike was mentioned previously on SM in relation to his hypermedia project, Nekalimin.net. However, what caught our attention and led to him being invited on as a guest blogger was a news story about his innovative teaching practices. Specifically, a role-playing game he uses with his large intro-level courses: Wesch has created a “World Simulation” project, where students are placed into 15 to 20 small groups, and have to survive in their environment by building their own culture, as different components are discussed in class. [...]

Report this comment

]]> By: Kerim http://savageminds.org/2006/03/13/anthropology-20-the-death-of-hypermedia/comment-page-1/#comment-4142 Kerim Fri, 17 Mar 2006 02:34:03 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=404#comment-4142 Fuji, My point was not that work isn't being done on cyberspace, but that by the time it is published, the nature of cyberspace has changed so much that the work is more interesting as history than ethnography. Of course, this might be true of any anthropological subject in a rapidly changing world, but the problem is that when one is teaching new technology in a course, one wants articles that discuss what is happening now, not what happened 5 years ago. Now, in those sciences where they need access to the latest publications, such as medicine, one can easily access online databases of unpublished research. Publishing in this way does not preclude publication in academic journals, and allows faster dissemination of new ideas. I confused the issue by combining this point with a discussion of hypermedia as an example of what I see as outdated paradigms for anthropological publication online. Instead, I should have probably talked about PubMed and saved my discussion of Hypermedia for another post... Fuji,

My point was not that work isn’t being done on cyberspace, but that by the time it is published, the nature of cyberspace has changed so much that the work is more interesting as history than ethnography. Of course, this might be true of any anthropological subject in a rapidly changing world, but the problem is that when one is teaching new technology in a course, one wants articles that discuss what is happening now, not what happened 5 years ago.

Now, in those sciences where they need access to the latest publications, such as medicine, one can easily access online databases of unpublished research. Publishing in this way does not preclude publication in academic journals, and allows faster dissemination of new ideas.

I confused the issue by combining this point with a discussion of hypermedia as an example of what I see as outdated paradigms for anthropological publication online. Instead, I should have probably talked about PubMed and saved my discussion of Hypermedia for another post…

Report this comment

]]> By: Fuji Lozada http://savageminds.org/2006/03/13/anthropology-20-the-death-of-hypermedia/comment-page-1/#comment-4140 Fuji Lozada Thu, 16 Mar 2006 19:35:24 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=404#comment-4140 Savage Minders: Interesting post about our shortcomings of the lack of both publishing and researching cyberspace. On the publication side, the political economy of web publishing discourages us from using a Web 2.0 type approach to our work -- when wiki's count for tenure, then more anthropologists would use this media. As for the researching side, there are a lot of us doing research on cyberspace -- I've written a piece myself, and I have lots of colleagues that are working on various aspects of cyberspace (one of the most interesting ones that I can think of is a colleague that is looking at secondlife.com). People have done cyber-fieldwork on such issues as matchmaking on the internet (Nicole Constable), diaspora ethnicity, and religion (Daniel Miller) for example. But you're right overall -- more work on cyberspace needs to get out there! Savage Minders:

Interesting post about our shortcomings of the lack of both publishing and researching cyberspace. On the publication side, the political economy of web publishing discourages us from using a Web 2.0 type approach to our work — when wiki’s count for tenure, then more anthropologists would use this media. As for the researching side, there are a lot of us doing research on cyberspace — I’ve written a piece myself, and I have lots of colleagues that are working on various aspects of cyberspace (one of the most interesting ones that I can think of is a colleague that is looking at secondlife.com). People have done cyber-fieldwork on such issues as matchmaking on the internet (Nicole Constable), diaspora ethnicity, and religion (Daniel Miller) for example. But you’re right overall — more work on cyberspace needs to get out there!

Report this comment

]]> By: Patricia http://savageminds.org/2006/03/13/anthropology-20-the-death-of-hypermedia/comment-page-1/#comment-4069 Patricia Tue, 14 Mar 2006 20:03:32 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=404#comment-4069 I seriously doubt the Wright brothers envisioned the space shuttle when they set up shop testing flying machines. I also doubt 19th century automobile inventors imagined Mars rovers. Although the "Web 2.0" buzzword is dead, the central ideas will influence internet development for some time. Like any new technology, there's good and bad applications. When the audience is ready, the platform and technology will appear. Those who don't adapt are left behind. Applying newer technology to calcified systems takes creativity, imagination, invention, and open mindeness. You Know You're Web 2.0 When... -You can easily comment on, or preferably, actually change the content that you find on a Web site. -You can label your information with tags and use them to find that information again. -Your Web page doesn't reload even once as you get a whole lotta work done. -You are actively aware of other users' recent activity on a site. -It's possible for you to easily share with others the information you're contributing on the Web site. -You can syndicate your information on a Web site elsewhere on the Internet through a feed like RSS or Atom. -You can pick and choose the pieces of a Web site that you like and then add that functionality to your own site. -There are easy ways to find out what content is the most popular or interesting at the moment. -You heard about a new Web site because a friend enthusiastically recommended it to you out of the blue. -There happens to be a mind boggling amount information and a lot of people on a site, yet it seems easy to find what you want and communicate with others. -Everything you ever added to a given Web site can be removed easily at your whim. -The Web site actively encourages you to share and reuse its information and its services with others. And it even provides a license to do so. From http://web2.wsj2.com/you_know_youre_web_20_when.htm Derived from Dion Hinchcliffe's Web 2.0 Blog: http://web2.wsj2.com/ I seriously doubt the Wright brothers envisioned the space shuttle when they set up shop testing flying machines. I also doubt 19th century automobile inventors imagined Mars rovers.

Although the “Web 2.0″ buzzword is dead, the central ideas will influence internet development for some time. Like any new technology, there’s good and bad applications. When the audience is ready, the platform and technology will appear. Those who don’t adapt are left behind. Applying newer technology to calcified systems takes creativity, imagination, invention, and open mindeness.

You Know You’re Web 2.0 When…
-You can easily comment on, or preferably, actually change the content that you find on a Web site.
-You can label your information with tags and use them to find that information again.
-Your Web page doesn’t reload even once as you get a whole lotta work done.
-You are actively aware of other users’ recent activity on a site.
-It’s possible for you to easily share with others the information you’re contributing on the Web site.
-You can syndicate your information on a Web site elsewhere on the Internet through a feed like RSS or Atom.
-You can pick and choose the pieces of a Web site that you like and then add that functionality to your own site.
-There are easy ways to find out what content is the most popular or interesting at the moment.
-You heard about a new Web site because a friend enthusiastically recommended it to you out of the blue.
-There happens to be a mind boggling amount information and a lot of people on a site, yet it seems easy to find what you want and communicate with others.
-Everything you ever added to a given Web site can be removed easily at your whim.
-The Web site actively encourages you to share and reuse its information and its services with others. And it even provides a license to do so.

From http://web2.wsj2.com/you_know_youre_web_20_when.htm
Derived from Dion Hinchcliffe’s Web 2.0 Blog: http://web2.wsj2.com/

Report this comment

]]> By: Judd Antin http://savageminds.org/2006/03/13/anthropology-20-the-death-of-hypermedia/comment-page-1/#comment-4068 Judd Antin Tue, 14 Mar 2006 15:58:36 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=404#comment-4068 Though the Wikipedia model is certainly one way to go for building a body of ethnographic work, I see more evidence all the time that's also deeply problematic. Even for open-minded folks, dealing with a purely democratic institution where everyone has roughly the same amount of power requires a giant refiguring of the rules of exchange. Take, for example, the recent hubbub over some Senators' staffers editing pages. I think it's interesting that the response to this has been to question the ethics of these few contributors, instead of to laud the fact that they were outnumbered a million to one by people who could just as easily revert their changes. Another example: a friend of mine was recently in a dispute about a Wikipedia article on a particular open voting method. The author of the method, unwilling to compromise and unable to convince his critics by logic, intellect, or threat, sort of 'ran home to mama' and decided to write long letters to the deans of the schools of two of the participants in the debate, asking for them to intervene. Unable to grasp the new power structure that Wikipedia provided he reverted to one he was more familiar with, hoping, I guess, that it would relieve him of the burden of proving himself or dealing with an alternative point of view. So removing 'authorial omnipotence' is a double-edged sword. Maybe that's not news to anyone. But I think it's fair to say that the balance of attention goes towards talking about how amazing and collaborative and democratic (i.e. Web 2.0-y) a Wikipedia-like model is, and not enough towards its challenges. I don't imagine anthropologists, as enlightened as we are () would find ourselves above those troubles. Though the Wikipedia model is certainly one way to go for building a body of ethnographic work, I see more evidence all the time that’s also deeply problematic. Even for open-minded folks, dealing with a purely democratic institution where everyone has roughly the same amount of power requires a giant refiguring of the rules of exchange. Take, for example, the recent hubbub over some Senators’ staffers editing pages. I think it’s interesting that the response to this has been to question the ethics of these few contributors, instead of to laud the fact that they were outnumbered a million to one by people who could just as easily revert their changes.

Another example: a friend of mine was recently in a dispute about a Wikipedia article on a particular open voting method. The author of the method, unwilling to compromise and unable to convince his critics by logic, intellect, or threat, sort of ‘ran home to mama’ and decided to write long letters to the deans of the schools of two of the participants in the debate, asking for them to intervene. Unable to grasp the new power structure that Wikipedia provided he reverted to one he was more familiar with, hoping, I guess, that it would relieve him of the burden of proving himself or dealing with an alternative point of view.

So removing ‘authorial omnipotence’ is a double-edged sword. Maybe that’s not news to anyone. But I think it’s fair to say that the balance of attention goes towards talking about how amazing and collaborative and democratic (i.e. Web 2.0-y) a Wikipedia-like model is, and not enough towards its challenges. I don’t imagine anthropologists, as enlightened as we are () would find ourselves above those troubles.

Report this comment

]]> By: Kris Hirst http://savageminds.org/2006/03/13/anthropology-20-the-death-of-hypermedia/comment-page-1/#comment-4067 Kris Hirst Tue, 14 Mar 2006 14:57:50 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=404#comment-4067 I ran across this article on Web 2.0 by science fiction writer Bruce Sterling recently, that you ought to read for the heck of it, if you haven't already: http://www.viridiandesign.org/2006/03/viridian-note-00459-emerging.html I've been contemplating Wikipedia a lot lately, and it seems to me that anthropologists, whether we like it or not, are going to have to turn over the control of some things. I'm not entirely comfortable about it, myself, because most of the interaction I've had with Wikipedia has been over stuff somebody has plagiarized from me. But it strikes me that to make advances in any given science, you have to let other folks comment on and grow your ideas. It may be analogous to the recent copyright fights over whatdoyacallit, when people use riffs of old music in new ways. The result of such an open source structure of any kind, using someone else's original concept and building on it into a different direction, is what the Internet is all about. The hyper-privileging of academically-trained anthropologists is going to be harder to justify in the future. I'm hoping we can find a way to be inclusive in a clever, blended way (rather than ceding complete control which is scary to me personally). But that's today. I'll probably feel differently tomorrow. Passwords, fie on 'em. Kris I ran across this article on Web 2.0 by science fiction writer Bruce Sterling recently, that you ought to read for the heck of it, if you haven’t already:

http://www.viridiandesign.org/2006/03/viridian-note-00459-emerging.html

I’ve been contemplating Wikipedia a lot lately, and it seems to me that anthropologists, whether we like it or not, are going to have to turn over the control of some things. I’m not entirely comfortable about it, myself, because most of the interaction I’ve had with Wikipedia has been over stuff somebody has plagiarized from me. But it strikes me that to make advances in any given science, you have to let other folks comment on and grow your ideas. It may be analogous to the recent copyright fights over whatdoyacallit, when people use riffs of old music in new ways. The result of such an open source structure of any kind, using someone else’s original concept and building on it into a different direction, is what the Internet is all about. The hyper-privileging of academically-trained anthropologists is going to be harder to justify in the future.

I’m hoping we can find a way to be inclusive in a clever, blended way (rather than ceding complete control which is scary to me personally). But that’s today. I’ll probably feel differently tomorrow.

Passwords, fie on ‘em.

Kris

Report this comment

]]>