Jenkins Ch. 1
Jenkins studies online communities, specifically spoilers for the show Survivor. Some qualities of these communities:
Collective intelligence is ability of virtual communities to leverage combined expertise of members. The can utilize these powers against media producers. Jenkins believes that “new knowledge culture” is changing societal structures, now that it’s easier to make communities based off of interest regardless of geography. These groups are sustained by constant manufacturing and engagement with knowledge. The danger now, however, is that misinformation can be easily spread as well.
One belief is that these communities are central to restoring democratic citizenship. Jenkins hints at the potential spoiling would have on a political level.
Spoiling traces back to early years of internet, when baseball games played at different times according to different time zones. People on internet began posting the results, spoiling the results. This also happens with TV shows.
Jenkins begins detailing the structure of an online community forum, Survivor Sucks, and its hierarchical structure, with its system of brain trusts and valued members. Also interesting to note is the involvement of Mark Burnett, the series producer, in crafting information to throw off fans. Thus, there is an interesting interplay between forum participants and the creators’, very aware of the extremity of the fans’ detective work. Also disruptive to the fan community was the input of fan poster ChillOne, whose info was surprisingly accurate, but whose identity and sources of information and motivation was suspect.
Jenkins determines that what holds a collective intelligence together is a constant interplay and testing of the groups’ social ties. Thus, there are always debates on “acceptable” data and re-evaluations of the function of the board.
The relationship between internet fans and the producers is an interesting one, it that they have different interests which may or may not overlap.
Jenkins Ch. 6
In this chapter, Jenkins discusses the role of audience in relation to media and how they are interacting with it.
Three trends he notices: 1) New tools available for consumers to archive, re-appropriate, re-circulate media content. 2) Subcultures promote DIY media production 3) Economic trends favoring horizontally integrated media conglomerates encourage flow of images, ideas, across multiple media channels.
On Collective Intelligence, Jenkins discusses the proliferation of online communities as an extension of Levy’s model of cosmopedia, as these groups are gathered by interest rather than geography.
Levy distinguishes between collective intelligence (information available to community) and shared knowledge (information known by community). This interplay between information and community members has broader connotations and effects. Levy then discusses how the internet constitutes a turning point in collective intelligence, communication could now occur at a faster rate.
The impact of the online communities has been undeniable, representing a voice that has always been there, but never has it been so potent. One of the questions, however, is how much control will users have? There are positives and negatives with the emergence of grassroots communities promoting distribution of media for free.
As a response to mainstream media controlling the majority of content, activists, called jammers, created DIY methods of creating alternative media and alternative methods of distribution. With the advent of digital, this has spread, though among the populace are those who see the potential of mainstream media for re-appropriation, etc. and . Jenkins views bloggers as those who facilitate communication of the stream of media, rather than jamming it, in the web by putting up links and personal opinions on content.
Comments:
Jenkins' piece on Survival "spoilers" is a fascinating study on the phenomenon of online communities impacting actual media content. Concerns, however, with this opening up of information includes an invasion on the private lives of others. It was kind of scary to read to what lengths fans went through to find out information about the participants of the show.
1 comments:
Good points about the interplay between consumers/fans and producers, and how that relationship can shape what gets made for television, for example. Very business-oriented, don't you think?
Post a Comment