I chose to upload my video to YouTube. The audience that I was trying to reach with
my project was not only my classmates, but also others in the public who have
or had struggled with “tough times” in their life. I wanted to reach a mass number of people and
YouTube was the only outside source that I was familiar with enough to upload a
video onto.
Trying to get the word out about any project is a
challenge. To reach the masses these
days it seems that the only way is to get an insane number of views (on
YouTube) or by a light speed word of mouth.
To advertise my video I decided to start with the people closest to
me. These people were the people that I
have added on Facebook. I linked my
video from YouTube to my wall. My hope
was that the people who could view it through Facebook might like it enough to
link it to their friends who might link it to theirs and so on. The sort of advertising I was hoping to
achieve was word of mouth. Except now in
a Web 2.0 era it could almost be changed to word of keyboard.
In an excerpt by Henry Jenkins titled, Why
Participatory Web Culture is Not Web 2.0: Some Basic Distinctions,
Henry Jenkins states, “…Participatory cultures, which may or may not be engaged
with commercial portals, and Web 2.0 which refers specifically to a set of commercial
practices that seek to capture and harness creative energies and collective
intelligences of their users…Web 2.0 is a business model…” The previous is Henry Jenkins’ definition of
Web 2.0. Tim O’Reilly defines Web 2.0 as
such in a web article titled What is
Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of
Software as a concept that harnesses collective intelligence and
includes a rich user experience by user interaction. He includes a diagram of Web 2.0 and on the
diagram there are lined connecting to sites such as Flickr, Gmail, and
Wikipedia.
YouTube has millions upon millions of videos on the
site. Some of these videos generate
money and some YouTube stars become partners of the site. Under the Terms of Use section, there
is a blurb about addressing payment and refund.
It states:
YouTube accepts payment by credit
card, Google Wallet account, and any other form of payment that we make
available to you. You agree to (i) pay for any Pay Content that you order
through the Service and that YouTube may charge your credit card or other form
of payment that you indicate for any Pay Content ordered, along with any
additional amounts (including any taxes), and (ii) abide by any relevant Terms
of Service or other legal agreement…
Henry
Jenkins’ stated that Web 2.0 is a business plan and it is apparent from the
terms of use on the site that YouTube is a business plan that is generating
income from the creative intelligence of others.
While
Henry Jenkins believes that Web 2.0 and the term participatory culture should
not go together, every Google search result includes both Web 2.0 and
participatory culture in the titles of the links. Web 2.0 is participatory culture. In a slideshow
presentation by Martha Hardy and Nicole Theis-Mahon from the University of
Minnesota reiterate that Web 2.0 is a collaboration among users. They also include O’Reilly’s fact that Web
2.0 includes rich user experiences.
Participation is defined by Dictionary.com
as,
— vb (often foll by in ) to take part, be or become actively involved, or share (in)
Collaborations
are the work of at least two or more people and user experiences mean that
others have become involved with a site.
Web 2.0 is participation. Under
the YouTube Community Guidelines
page one of the heading titles is YouTube
is a Community. A community means
that a group of people interact with each other and their surroundings. They participate. YouTube allows users to participate by
allowing comments and video responses. By calling the site a community, they
are implying user participation.
YouTube may
have an motive to generate an income, but they also have millions of users and
videos. For this reason alone I decided
to upload my video onto their site. I
felt that it was the best platform to reach a large public audience and I
believe that YouTube is a helpful site that is an easy example of Web 2.0 and a
participatory culture. I hope my audience enjoys my video.
Author’s Name Sarah Kelly Reviewer’s Name Stevie Lynch
ReplyDeleteAssignment:
Does it meet the requirements?
1. Must have a Major Argument (underline it), introduction, and conclusion_yes_____
2. Contains a solid definition of Web 2.0/participatory culture__yes____
3. Required in class and outside sources cited properly __yes____
4. All claims must be supported with concrete evidence___yes___
5. Approximately 500-750 blog post __yes____
What do you recall from the course readings that are connected to what this person is
saying?
The focus of Web 2.0 (allowing the creator as well as the people to have a voice. “O’Reilly
Introduction:
How does the introduction catch the reader’s attention?
She gives direct detail of where and why she put the production on YouTube
Paragraphs:
Which paragraphs are clearest and most interesting to read, and why? Paragraph 2 it
explains distribution
Which paragraphs need further development? Well Written
What kinds of information seem to be missing? Well Written
Conclusion:
Does the draft conclude in a memorable way, or does it seem to end abruptly or trail off
into vagueness? What suggestions do you have for improvement of their conclusion?
Needs a smooth ending,Give a closing on conclusion statement
Overall Response:
What are the main strengths and weaknesses in the draft?
The cited resources and detailed information
How does the draft connect to a larger social context?
It deals with a current issue people deal with everyday
What could be done to improve the draft? Add a conclusion statement