Hacking & Open Source Culture Digital Poster Session

This Wednesday, I had the opportunity to attend one of the Open Access Week's events. During this Digital Poster Sessions, students present their work and studies on hacking and open source culture. This event closely correlates with our Collaborating in Online Communities class, especially since we have been closely focusing on Open Access.

As stated on Open Access Explained, open access is the free, immediate, online availability of research articles with full re-use articles. This debate of open access falls into the areas of music, entertainment, media production, art, photos, and much of the content online. This video, as well as one particular presentation during this event, focused specifically on Open Science. Open Science, as defined in the students' presentation, is a movement to make scientific research freely available.
Prior to this class, the idea of scientists and publishers charging money for access to their work seemed rational to me. Years of dedication, time, and money deserve some profitability and they should be able to do as they wish with their work. At the same time though, I found myself very unwillingly to pay any money to subscribe to a research article and would simply move on to another article that provided similar information. This reaction of mine was probably very similar to that of other average internet browsers and scholars on tight budgets. On the other hand, scientists and professionals who are looking to expand on their on research may find this system irritating, just like the speaker of Open Access Explained did.

"It's so irrational to think that these scientists like [him] are paid by taxpayers to do research and to discover things and distribute that, and then two years of work by twenty people is going to be compressed into a paper and not made available."

Some may see Open Access as a violation to one's work and as a missed opportunity to profit, but that's not what science is about. For people to grow on a scientific concept and expand on research, they need other research. Scientific discoveries should be collaborative: people's mistakes lead to others using their own knowledge to tweak, and so on until they arrive at extraordinary findings in the long-run. A very big part of the potential audience of a scientific journal is deterred due to the fees, so publishers might as well make this knowledge open to promote collaboration and the building upon science.

"Science spreads when there's no restrictions, and openness accelerates that."

As previously mentioned, this topic of Openness is applicable to many areas. Another poster I found very interesting was about the Youtube to MP3 converter resource. This group of students focused on the liability of these functions; if a certain song was converted and did not have open access, is Youtube or the converter liable? If it's on Youtube, should it be automatically open to anyone? In a way, the converter is taking an available file and simply changing the type of file. Sites as big as Youtube protect themselves with their Terms & Conditions Agreement when users upload their videos, but converter sites are evidently not as protected, so they are currently suffering from legal issues. I have personally used these type of sites myself and believe that if it's free to view on Youtube it should not be problematic to change the file type. I'm intrigued as to where this particular debate goes and believe that these types of issues will be inevitable if the idea of Open Access is not accepted.

Overall, attending this Poster Session was a very interesting experience. I had never personally seen online posters, especially as a poster session event. From what I saw, they are a mix of PowerPoint slides and paper posters in that they're very simple and visually appealing, and can range from one to multiple slides. Collaboration was essential at this event because a lot of research went into every presentation and group members took turns in speaking about their areas of expertise to build on others' topics when presenting.

Tucson Pumpkin Toss 2016

This past weekend, I had the opportunity to attend the 6th Annual Tucson Pumpkin Toss on the UA Mall. Although we were introduced to it in our class, I found their Facebook page and their personal site especially helpful and collaborative. With 252 people having liked their Facebook page, the local organizers of the event allow collaboration by having a Contact tab with their information, as well as Suggest Edits, and Share tabs. Throughout the past few years, locals have been posting their pictures, articles on catapults and related events, comical memes, questions and more on the event's profile. That way, other people that hold special interest in the Pumpkin Toss competition can elaborate, contribute, and/or answer any questions.

At the arrival of the event, I was a bit confused about the rules and regulations of the events. I decided to ask a few of the attendants about how the competition works.

In short, every pumpkin toss is measured for distance and accuracy, and then combined for their score. Since this event is of very open access, the age range and experience levels variate a lot. With that said, the organizers work towards making the standards fair by having each group state the distance of the target they are aiming for.



Although this is annual event celebrates the commencement of the season, the tradition is highly educational and collaborative. The event is split into categories, those being middle schools, high schools, and open class. People are able to work in their groups to explore the arts of trebuchets, onagers, and the physics that are incorporated with it. These groups came to be in different ways. There were some families, clubs, schools, and other organizations. For the most part, these were secondary groups that are more goal-focused and less intimate (with the exception of the family groups, among others). They are also self-organizing, founded groups in that their creators most likely remain in the group to contribute and align their activities with the other members in a cooperative system of interdependence. Lastly, I would say they're task groups, because they're very goal-focused in this non-employment environment; they are interested in succeeding as a group and it is not a conjunction of strict regulations.

Orlando from the Bit Buckets 4183 Team

At the event, I had the opportunity to speak with Orlando from the Bit Buckets team. I inquired about the time and preparation for the event. He said they used materials from last years competition and that for the last three weeks, the group members have been actively gathering at a warehouse to make corrections. I was also curious as to how their group came to form. Orlando explained that Bit Buckets members are interested in Robotics and attend events in that general area. Since the Pumpkin Toss involves science and physics, it is also an event they enjoy coming together for. Additionally, he explained that the group gatherings are mostly limited to their goals and work, but that there are a couple of members that are there through their personal family members, such as one of their very involved mentors, Mr. Forbes. One last thing about this particular group is that they not only used collaboration in the way they worked interactively to create the best mechanical system possible, but they also attracted the collaboration of external sources by fundraising in order to financially achieve their goal.

Overall, going to this event and watching the competition through the lens of what we focus in our Collaborating in Online Communities class had me think about aspects that I would not have otherwise. For instance, one of the groups was a family of home-schooled children. As I watched them during the preparation stage, it was interesting to see the small kids tweaking and collaborating together. They would work with their parents and even take notes. It is easy to infer that although they may not know the physics aspect of the project, they are still able to collaborate by using their manual labor and the adults' knowledge.

Here is a video of a particularly successful throw: 

 

Overall, I am very glad to have gotten the opportunity to attend this event and look forward to attending next year. It is truly amazing to see Tucson locals come together in such a collaborative, festive and educational manner. Besides the competitors themselves, the event would not have been as successful and as coordinated if it was not for the organizers, commentators reporting the scores and instructions, and for the audience providing their excitement and support. One can see the genuine interest of the participants through their contribution which is also extended to the online aspect of the event.

Lawrence Lessig & the Laws that Broke Creativity

This week in Collaborating in Online Communities, we discussed the Copyright issues that have become apparent due to the advancement and accessibility of technologies. Relating back to my previous post about Steve Jobs and tweaking, we have come to a point in our world where all creations are based on tweaking and previous inventions with room for improvement. It is impossible (and unreasonable) to think of an invention in this century that came from a blank slate. With this being said, Lawrence Lessig's TED Talk on Copyright laws was very interesting to me and raised insightful viewpoints that I would like to share on this particular post.

Source: interviewly

There's a lot of growing and extreme controversy regarding copyright issues. One side of the spectrum calls for the use of new technologies to be more restrictive and automatic in the impediment of copyright. On the other side of the spectrum lies a much more liberal perspective that rejects all laws attempting to prevent open use of information online. Lessig calls for a balance between the two. For this balance to be reached between (a) the law that's trying to regulate, (b) businesses trying to profit from their creations, and (c) consumers trying to use current information to elaborate or expand on, he believes that there is a needed change in perception. Authors and creators need to embrace that their work is being utilized and appreciated by the public and see it as an economic potential. This is not to support the discrediting of their work, but simply allowing it to spread more freely, although with some restrictions (not being able to be used for profit, own sale, etc).
This speaker also brings up John Philip Sousa's famous quote about phonographs in the early 90's,

Source: cylinder.de

"These talking machines are going to ruin the artistic development of music in this country. When I was a boy... in front of every house in the summer evenings, you would find young people together singing the songs of the day or old songs. Today you hear these infernal machines going night and day. We will not have a vocal cord left."

We are at a point where we can no longer expect online information to stop growing nor for it to be exclusive. As Lessig mentions, society needs to think of our kids today, in today's conditions, and not the way Sousa underestimated the beneficial power of certain innovations. Lessig closes his speech by requesting for our online community to "open for business," allow the democracy of online information to be spreadable in order to be able to expand, progressed, and improved as a community. This man emphasizes his concern about today's children and implores that having grown to see only technology, there is no rationality in restricting them in their usage of what's available online. 

Lowering the barriers to information and diminishing copyright limitations would not make us a read-only culture. We are a read-write culture that produces and consumes, just not the traditional way people used to "read and write." Memes, opinion articles, remixes, mash-ups, parody videos, are only a few of the many examples of compositions that require creativity and that promote a sense of community and collaboration between users all around the world. Copyright would only limit this development of information and like Lawrence Lessig says, "strangle creativity."

Source: planetsave

Steve Job at his Job

Up until this week, I had thought of Steve Jobs as a legend, who was innovative through his simplicity in the way he designed and invented the original designs of Apple products. Like many other members of the general public, I had thought of this man as a technology God.

(Source: talentdevelop)

Although I still see him with great admiration, Malcolm Gladwell's article, "The Tweaker: The real genius of Steve Jobs," compelled me to alter my view of Jobs. Gladwell discusses Job's tendency to "tweak" rather than invent. In other words, instead of having the ability to create something from zero, this man needs to visually analyze something, see what's wrong with it, and then give it a unique touch of improvement.

"I'll know it when I see it." - Steve Jobs

There are various instances where Jobs tweaked something in existence that he thought needed improvement. With a few touches, this man converted such inventions into much better and profitable products. Many critics of this man saw it as a lack of creativity, plagiarism, etc. To me, it is a debatable subject, specially with the knowledge I have gained in Collaborating in Online Communities. After reading this particular article, I did not seem to hate the idea of tweaking, quite the contrary. Jobs was collaborating and using information available to him to advance our technology community. By using others' personal contributions, individuals are able to refine them, and that way the community can benefit and advance as a whole.

(Source: betanews)

This article also made me think about the legal aspect of collaboration and copyright. On the one hand, collaboration is what allows for invention. It is previous mistakes that enhance creativity and allow for analysis to further improvement. But on the other hand, is it fair for Jobs to take an invention, which took time, money, and many other resources, slightly tweak it and make significantly more profit? It seems immoral to completely discredit the inventor of the tweaked invention, but at the same time everything around us today are collaborative results of tweaking. We didn't arrive at environmentally friendly LED dimming light bulbs by suddenly "inventing" them from scratch. It comes from tweaking after tweaking, from the start with wax candles.

(Source: knxtoday)

In conclusion, the advancing technologies and collaborative communities will inevitably and exponentially continue to raise questions regarding copyright and legal issues with new innovations, and it will be a challenge to control or solve this issues. With this said, online communities have to become acceptable of the idea of Open Source, allowing free access to others' information as long as you do so in an appropriate way. In class, we talked about how failure is essential for improvement, you can't improve if everything is done perfectly. This process would be inefficient if the failure, tweaking, and work towards success was al left to one individual. As I mentioned before, our world is improving as a result of tweaking collaboratively.

Pro-Ana Communities

This week, our class took Online Collaborations out of our usual context. We explored Pro-Ana communities. These communities were created through the shared identification of many of the authors and viewers. Lili Steffen talked about these communities, what they stand for, how they interact with each other, and what the consequences are like.

Source: theproanalifestyleforever.wordpress.com/

One aspect of the lecture that really stood out to me was that there is a lot of social and political controversy regarding this community, since these bogs/sites can either trigger or alleviate the disease. In other words, people that have recognized their eating disorder as a problem can go online and gain support and catharsis simply by reading comments, looking at pictures, articles by people that have overcome the disease, etc. An important advantage to this is that it's all in the privacy of their own home, where they do not feel judgement or a certain stigma. On the other hand, the sites can have the completely opposite effect. People emphasize that these disorders are a lifestyle, a choice and not a disorder. With this, many post images promoting that physique and those behaviors. Since they see that the Pro-Ana community is huge and has users all over the world, they think that it is acceptable and can lead them to expanding their eating disorders even more. Someone that may have been concerned about their health, may look at the online communities and leave the computer feeling feeling more supportive of their "lifestyle."

Now, with Pro-Ana online communities spreading throughout sites like Tumblr, these online platforms have began to intersect worrisome behaviors. For instance, if a user searches for "suicide" or "anorexia," Tumblr responds with the image shown below prior to showing search results. With these interventions, social networks can serve as a support and impede suicides or health preventive behaviors by looking at people's searches and browsing.

Source: safeandsoundsocial

A concept I kept thinking about during her talk was Communities of Practice. To refresh some memories, those are groups of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an on going basis. Now by definition, this would be more like soccer moms discussing the school board during their children's' soccer game. But in a way, Pro-Ana communities also cultivate COP in the way in which they share their passion through blogs and support each other that way. Most of them may not know each other personally or even what they look like, but as Lili said, that is often better, since they are not worried about their mental disease being disclosed to their friends and families.

Collaborating during Unit #1 Project

Source: cincinnati

For our initial project in Collaboration in Online Communities, we were given the opportunity to work in groups in order to create a website and utilize online tools to develop a timeline of a certain piece of content that was recently spread collaboratively across various digital spaces.

My group created our project based on Harambe, the gorilla whose life was terminated by the Cincinnati Zoo in order to save a boy who had accessed the ape's exhibit. This particular topic was very interesting to me because when I initially heard about the incident over the summer, it was a shame, but I would have never thought it would be the kind of news to spread across so many social and news platforms and for such a long period of time.

Source: marketingland

One big contributor to the spread of this particular event was Reddit. Prior to this class, I had never accessed this network, but it is astonishing how fast one document or post can spread through here. Since people upvote to increase the popularity of the post, it creates a sort of escalating chain reaction, where more and more people see it at an increasing rate as more people upvote. This being such a controversial topic of discussion, (who was wrong, how should the zoo have responded, etc.) Reddit fastened the spread of Harambe. In Reddit, people are also allowed to discuss, speak out their opinions, and inclusively respond to other comments. This was only one of the various players that our group explored, but I think it was the most effective one, given the vast amount of responses and upvotes still increasing until this day.

Source: nymag

After most news channels, media, and networks like Reddit spread the news, the general public responded via Twitter, Facebook, blogs, protests, and trends such as "Dicks Out for Harambe." Although it raised serious environmental, animal protection, and legal concerns, this popular event also gave people the incentive to create humorous "memes" and jokes.

In terms of the tools we used, our team collectively agreed on using Photoshop to develop the timeline. We could have gone with Prezi or several other programs, but there is something very visually appealing about a simplistic vertical timeline. We were careful not too add too much information that it became overwhelming and were also sure to include images to make it visually appealing. With timelines, viewers are not necessarily trying to attain in-depth information about every event, but a chronological, general idea of a specific time period.

Another aspect of this group that I would like to bring up is the way in which we designated different roles, but also practiced collaboration. At the beginning of our group work, we got together and spoke out potential ideas. After we had picked one, we created a Google Document where we could all simultaneously and interactively contribute to the textual content of our site. At this time, we were each also given a specific section to focus our research on. Although we were each focusing on one idea, we were all allowed to go back on others' work, read it, and give personal inputs on ways to improve or modify certain sections.

Overall, I was very content with the way in which Myles, Klaudia, Noelle, Karen, and I worked as collaborative group. One particular thing from our class' readings that has stood out to me is that leaders are not necessary for a group to be successful. By having a uniform organization and roles, a group can flourish to a great extent. In this group, we all used our skills to make our Unit 1 Project the best that we could.