This link
and here is another one, on the dutch Wikipedia

is part of a larger research assignment for the masters of media course in amsterdam, where new (and old) media are critically researched, viewed and responded on. Besides a theoretical approach, a very important part of this course is to also to ‘field research’; active generation and involvement in the new media landscape.

Currently, the ‘truth-value’ of wikipedia is researched. Where does knowlegde here come from, and who writes it? is it really the emergent ‘wisdom of the crowd’ or is it just a few nerds editing on everything? By creating semi-false, but true-linked wikipedia entries, one can find out how and how fast articles are checked, re-edited or discarded and, moreover, on what grounds and authority?

Despite the many pro’s and con’s on wikipedia form mainly the academic world (saying its truth-value is worthless, or at least inadequate), it is out there and used widely. The fear exists that knowledge in this way becomes ‘flat’ and can hold back science and knowledge spreading by creating a web of ‘read-believe’. On the other hand one might say that, even if most wikipedias are not your fully-grown academic research, it does get read a lot, spreading a web of common knowledge that may, in my opinion, raise the average of this common knowledge to a wide range of different cultures.

The two different wikipedia entries also represent another thing i am curious at: if localized wikipedia respond with the same speed and in the same manner? The dutch wiki-entry is about a new word, the first is about a dutch event. Both descriptions are ‘true’, only some minor ‘fact-bending’ is done.

In just one day the results are the following:

In contrast to my expectations, my dutch entry was removed within a day (while my English entry was only asked to be categorized), due to the following reason: “considered work in progress”, verdicted by a certain ArnaudH (a not-even-moderator from wikipedia, with which we as MoM students have encountered more problems these days). See this link for the whole comment.

To not enter the discussion of truth-value within wikipedia, the point I do want to stress out is that a) apparently, ‘local’ wikipedia is checked much sooner than the ‘international’ English part and b) that if so, it is ‘moderated’ by such few people, that one can almost speak of a dictatorialization of knowledge on a local scale; of deciding what is ‘good for wiki’.

Both point are heavily contrasting the goal of Wikipedia, being open, international ‘emergence’ of knowledge. Interested next step would be to check whether the Dutch moderators verify their comments and deleting-of-entries with their larger (thus probably more balanced) English counterpart.

This link:

Recapturing on last fridays new media theory lecture (which was quite overwhelming in amounts information transfer), I came across this project on wwmno:
In this very nice project, a kind of ‘magical interaction’ is established between user in- and output. In the same fashion as Douglas Engelbart’s “mother of all demos”, here a performance is given by a writer who, seemingly magical, transfers his thought onto paper: when sliding his finger, or pen, over the clean white paper, printed text emerges. How? he won’t tell… Why, to link the world of literature and the moving image. You can also cut-n-paste! a kind of real-time, off-screen hypertext..

I like it very much…

In ‘organized networks”, Australian media theorist Ned Rossiter states the urgency for new institutional forms, while ‘the uncertainties of labour and life within network societies and informational economies
have all too clearly exposed the limits of prevailing institutional systems and structures’ [Rossiter].

During the past 15-20 years, (western) institutions have experienced profound difficulties in adapting to a non-representational democracy. The translation of institutional democracy into a social-technical form of the Internet has proven to constitute a large amount of problems.
Not stating that the Net is democratic by nature, there is a ‘non-state public sphere’, where ‘ cooperation, sharing, common resources, knowledge, customs, experiences and habits make possible a non-representative democracy that no longer submits to the myths and rituals of sovereignty’ [Virno].
In this non-state public sphere, immaterial labour and moreover, disorganized labour has emerged. Unlike the statement of Hardt and Negri, that due to this ‘transnational’ sphere the influence of the nation-state is diminishing, Rossiter states that national institutions (the state) still has an ‘enormous influence on regulating the movement of people and things’ [rossiter]. The problem is that ‘the state’ is doing this via the old, institutional ways, failing to adept adequately to the new ‘grammar’ of labour and capitol; that of the informational networked age. (more…)

full article here

Veel vorm, weinig inhoud. Dát is het belangrijkste kenmerk van popjournalistiek op het internet. ‘Biedt interactieve media dan geen mogelijkheden om juist inhoudelijk betere journalistiek te bedrijven?’, vroeg ZXZW, het grootste festival in Nederland voor onafhankelijke cultuur, zich af. Popjournalist, mediasocioloog en docent Theo Ploeg neemt de proef op de som. Tijdens het festival experimenteert hij met interactieve media en journalistiek. Zijn bevindingen houdt hij bij op theoverslaatzxzw.wordpress.com.

Check this movie!

Continuing on the link between digital and physical realms, here is an example of translating physical input into digital data to be processed again as physical output; the last one being the major challenge in the field of tangible interaction.
Although this project finds itself a bit in the performance-art and DIY-corner, still it is a relevant research in linking different sensorial in- and outputs. Most important in this field is the question of mapping. Where most art projects mis the point by ‘just coupling something to something and now its interactive art thus cool’, the real quest is to look at what information is layed out onto what kind of interaction. where a pair of scissors clearly states its affordance, a mouse completely misses its point, due to the lack of mapping between what’s happening digitally in representation to its physical appearance. Here lies the true challenge for interaction designers as well as new media makers.

“Do i want to interact with my toothbrush? What’s the toothbrush of the future? A toothbrush that advertises that if you upgrade it you’ll get 20% more of the plaque removed. Nah! That’s boring. How about the new Apple iBrush? It takes pictures of the holes in my teeth and sends the images online. Do we want toothbloggers?” [Bruce Sterling at IDIF, potsdam]

In the act of re-sparking my blog again, this was food for thought. Do we want another new media blogger blogging about why the newest in new media is worth the blogosphere? Not to anwser that question just yet, I will consider this new attempt first of all as an information source, creating my own part of chaotic structure in the structural chaos called Web 2.0.

Concerning web 2.0, in the vast speculation of what web 3.0 might be, mr Sterling says the following:

“A computer interface for everything in the world: that doesn’t sound realistic but that’s because i’m a visionary, it’s not my job to be realistic! Something like that is going to happen. It’s going to be difficult but you’re going to do it. And you will be getting a lot of money when you succeed in doing a part of it.”

The ‘you’ in this story concerns designers, of course, who are again faced with the nice job to actually transfer theory into reality. Seeying myself as one, I know the difficulty in actually establishing something like an “internet of things” (and the upcoming Object Name Server of course). Still, in the persuit of de-alienating mankind from its computer screen, this is the (rewarding) step to make. More on this topic later.