Finishing up with Jenkins

[AlexReid]

It doesn't seem like the Jenkins book as generated much conversation. Maybe it's because of the end of the semester. I'm not sure. However I think there are some really crucial issues to consider here.

In this week's reading, there was a chapter about Harry Potter fan fiction. You probably know that for many kids, maybe just a little younger than you, Harry Potter has been and continues to be a way into reading. In short, kids love these books. My daughter (9) has read all of them. They really jump-started her interest in reading, which had started to grow but was super-charged by Rowling's work. Through fan fiction, these kids get to turn their reading interest into a writing interest. Jenkins goes into the furor surrounding Potter and fan fiction from issues of copyright to the use of Potter by educators and librarians to the reaction of conservative Christian groups.

Jenkins writes

As we can see, the conflicts that gave rise to the Potter Wars do not reduce themselves to evil censors and good defenders of civil liberties. The churn created by convergence culture does not allow us to operate with this degree of moral certainty. All of those groups are struggling with the immersive nature and expansive quality fo the new entertainment franchises. In the age of media convergence, consumer participation has emerged as the central conceptual problem: traditional gatekeepers seek to hold onto their control of cultural content, and other groups--fans, civil libertarians, and the Christian discernment movement--want to give consumers the skills to construct their own culture. (204)

Where do you stand on this? Not just on Harry Potter or even on the issue of children and media, but more generally and for yourselves. It's easy to say if consumers or fans "want to" participate in fan fiction or discussion boards or whatever they should be allowed. That's much like saying "everyone has a right to his/her opinion." Maybe that's true but it isn't interesting. Nor does it mean that all opinions are created equally or that some might not be erroneous, misinformed, hateful, or otherwise destructive.

As you envision where our culture is headed--politically, economically, socially--do you see a world where it will be important for citizens to participate more? As we have seen from Shirky and Weinberger, social media networks create the technological opportunity for everyday Americans to organize into groups, produce information, and share that information on a global scale. Is this something that we have a social obligation to do? Of course in asking that question, maybe I should first ask if you think you have social obligations. Assuming that you think you do, is this kind of participation an important part of what we need to give as citizens?

[Bwhisman]

I personally have a hard time sharing my opinion on the Internet. I really don't think anyone cares about my opinion because I don't care too much about other peoples opinion. I know that seems a little harsh for me to say but I am only speaking in a informational manner. When I am looking for information on a certain topic, I want it to be precise. I want the information I am reading about to be an accurate account. I have done numerous research papers this semester for class and I find it frustrating that many searches I do result in blogs. I do not consider that factual information and I would not put that in a research paper.

I believe that in the USA we have enormous blessings to share our opinion very freely where as other countries do not that the privilege of doing so. Sometimes I think people take this too far. It is fine to share opinions and learn from them but just as Prof. Reid says they sometimes are erroneous or misinformed. I worry that people take these blogs seriously and don't really give them a good critique.

I don't think that we have a social obligation to share out thoughts. That is one's choice that can be made up on their own. If people want change in their government then yes, they need their voice to be heard. However we as a nation will never come to an agreement we all agree on. Therefore, people must choose whether they want to voice their opinion for change, or deal with whatever the outcome is.

[Ed Blackford]

I think u might care about other peoples opinions in the form of like product reviews. Most people check to see if a product is shitty before they spend money on it, especially now. If you are trying to find factual information for a research paper, I would agree with you somewhat about getting information from blogs.

[Alyson Best]

I find it easier sharing my opinion online than I do in person. The only people I really open up to about everything are the people real close to me and I have to be completely comfortable around them. If there is a threat of any sort I tend to pull away. Online I feel like there is this wall that protects me from what I say. I can put my name on something or even a picture but it is still anonymous because people don’t know who I am.

I feel like we do have a social obligation but not to tell the world every single little thing we do. We don’t need to tell everyone that we are over at our friend’s house hanging out then going to a party later. Nor do we need to then blog about what happened last night and write down everything that happened from the minute we walked in the door to when the person we hate the most walked in wearing the same shirt as our friend to the minute we walked out. I feel like if we know factually information about something then we should share it with others, but if we don’t then the amount of information we share online should be limited.

[AlexReid]

I agree Alyson. We need to be rhetorical and purposeful in the information that we share and the identity that we establish for ourselves through these networks.

[Will]

"We don’t need to tell everyone that we are over at our friend’s house hanging out then going to a party later."

This is soooo true! I don't care about anyone's facebook status! Seriously though, as Alex points out the rhetoric is what needs to be expressed. Content should be emphasized.

By the way, Will Harklerode is awesome...

^that was a really dumb joke...lol

[Lauren]

I most definitely see a world where it is imperative that citizens participate more.Citizens should take it upon themselves to at least dabble in the latest technologies in order to feel involved with what the rest of the media savvy world in looking into. It should be a priority for informed citizens to participate in the things that matter to our country and to therefore their own intrinsic world. I think participation in a political matter most definitely involves voting, but on a deeper level I think that it is also tuning into news channels or just simply visiting a website. It doesn't even have to be cnn.com. My homepage is msn.com and I can get all of my vital information about the state of the world in just one shot by looking on this page.
Social Obligations most definitely exist when it comes to being considerate of one another, having an obligation to the other people of the world that are just trying to get by. You know, this sense of paying it forward. I think that that should and is a social obligation. In the form of technology, I think that this same type of obligation exists. It exists through blogging and by responding to thoughts and observations in positive and knowledgeable ways. It is simple things like going on amazon.com and writing a review for a product that could potentially sway or push away someone else from buying a product. It's going on iTunes and writing an extensive review for the new Coldplay cd. It is these little things that in the whole contribute to a minute kind of social obligation to be helping each other out, in small but effective ways.

[Ed Blackford]

I think that people should be allowed to view/read/listen to whatever they want. I know that statement was short and to the point and that's what I wanted it to be. The only people that should be allowed to regulate what someone else watches is their family or the person who owns the material that was created. Parents should regulate what their child watches/reads. A wife can make her husband not watch internet porn. A youtube poster can regulate who sees the video he just posted. I think everyone is entitled their opinion and can tell people that they should not watch something but never force someone not to be involved in some media.

Also I see our culture needing citizens to particpate more and I think that is already happening. This is happening a lot over the internet. Citizens create blogs and post stories to inform other people of events. People review items for other people on shopping sites. They let other people know that online businesses are fake on ripoffreport.com. I don't really see how we have an obligation to do this but it is nice and people are helping each other. I think most people are just good hearted in general and want to help each other.

[Will]

"Maybe that's true but it isn't interesting. Nor does it mean that all opinions are created equally or that some might not be erroneous, misinformed, hateful, or otherwise destructive.
"

I know it's a cliche, but no opinion is a destructive one, just like no question is a stupid question. Seriously though, there are few opinions out there that can have a detrimental effect on society. Most reasonable opinions, which may be conflictual, have validity. I think it's more in how we react to these opinions. I may not like something that someone writes, I may absolutely hate what someone writes and hate their opinion, but it doesn't mean I have to act like a bafoon and respond like a caveman. Meaning, if I am calm, cool, and collected, I can possibly talk with the person to better understand his/her plight. Perhaps I can even inform him/her how I feel, and alter his/her perspective. My point is, just because you disagree with someone, doesn't mean you throw their opinion out the window.

[Isaac Wheeler]

I do believe that people have a social obligation in certain situations. When it comes to Harry Potter I don't think that the whole christian thing is as big as people make it out to be. Harry Potter books have gotten many people to read that otherwise have not been interested in books. If these types of books are engaging individuals to read then I don't see a problem with them. I personally have not read any of the Harry Potter books but have heard many good things about them. I also know someone that has read all of them and he has never liked reading so I do think the books are a good thing.