Mobile Networking: The Next Generation

This is my final blog post for the year, so I thought I'd turn my attention to the future of social networking and what is predicted for the years to come.

First, we social networked through computers, which are fast but not always accessible. More recently, the iPhone has made computers an optional extra in the ability to get on social networking sites, with more and more people updating their statuses through texting.

Now, according to Times Online and TechCrunch blogs, it looks like the mobile phone is going step up another notch. Proximity technology (like mobile phone GPS) + Social networking (like Facebook) = The new generation of social networking.

You walk into a party and can't remember someone's name. No hassle. Just pull out your trusty mobile, which can detect satellites and other mobiles around you, and look the person up, along with other stats.

You walk into a party and don't know anyone. No problem. Pulling out your mobile, bang! you discover you have a mutual friend or a common interest with someone 10m away from you. Conversation sorted.

You walk into a party and are hoping to meet someone single. Not a worry. Pull out your mobile and look it up. It's easy.

This mobile-centric version of social networking definitely seems like the logical step for social networks. But there are definite limitations that I can see. People will want to join to be part of a community, but the community's success depends entirely on having enough people on it to make it worthwhile joining... kind of a vicious cycle. Additionally, privacy is a big issue. Do you really want any random on the street being able to look up your personal details?

And I have to say, Mike Harvey in the Times Online article makes a lot of sense when he suggests:

...in the end, are mobile social networks not just a nerdy replacement for people simply talking to each other? As one blogger put it: “I am pretty sure that an actual conversation will do the same thing. Is this the evolution of geek dating?”

Well... what do you guys think? Is this the future of social networking? Anyone heard any other theories?

Web + Uni Standards = ?

Disclaimer: While most of my posts have been dealing with social networking and other online communities, this post was inspired by our recent class which dealt with plagiarism and online content. So, a slight switch of gears.


Websites are to referencing what Marmite is to spreads. Vastly inferior.

That's what my uni career so far has shown me, at least. When it comes to referencing, almost anything is preferred to websites -- books, journals, newspapers, conference papers, edited books, papers, even films. Over and over again, my tutors have drilled into me that websites should be used sparingly, if at all, as references, and if they are, they must be "reputable".

I'm not saying this is unreasonable. Anyone can publish a website; you can write whatever you want, filter-free. Ripping information from a website is also much easier with copy and paste functions (although it's still not recommended; people still can find out, it's just less obvious). Books, on the other hand, aren't like that, and nor are newspapers, or journals, or conference papers, or films -- you can't plagiarise them easily, and they are a much more definitive source of credible information. It makes sense that websites aren't indiscriminately taken as gospel.

It's interesting to think that in a world where most people are informed by the web, the web is considered the least academic -- and arguably the least reliable -- source of information. I think I speak for most people when I say that, if I have some information I'm looking for, nine times out of ten I will go to an online source like Google, rather than borrow a book. Yet this information is, to educated people, considered the least reliable of any source.

How does this affect what we know? Will there one day be a system in place of "reliable" websites and "non-reliable" ones, rather than the hit-and-miss system of today where you guess the best you can whether a site has reliable back-up? Any thoughts?

Social Media Users Anonymous

"Social media crack". You heard it here first. 

I found an article by Sharon Gaudin which asserts that we are so addicted to social networking that there will be hell and public outcry if we don't get it. After Twitter was knocked offline by a distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack in August 2009, the website went down and millions of people were unable to tweet for two hours. In response, social networkers fled to their Facebook pages to write strongly-worded statuses about their inability to use Twitter, but some Facebook pages were also slowed by the connection problems, leaving many social networkers simply more frustrated.

As Gaudin writes:

When Twitter went offline yesterday, 45 million users -- including a growing number of older users -- were affected. And they were vocal about their feelings about it. One Facebook user noted, "Suffering tweet withdrawal." Another posted, "Wanting Twitter - NOW."

I was about to say "this is surprising", but it's not really. I'm not into Twitter, but I'll confess to having had times where I've been annoyed at slow connection or "page unavailable" errors when I've been trying to get on Facebook. I check mine every day, at least once a day and usually more. If that's addiction, then I guess I'm addicted.

It's interesting to think that only twenty or even fifteen years ago, social networking wasn't even a part of our lives, at least not our everyday interactions. When you consider how long things like paper, printing presses, telegrams, telephones and other forms of communication took to develop and -- then -- to take off, this is actually amazingly fast.

I am addicted to social networking... even if I hope never to use the phrase "tweet withdrawal".

Assignment 3, Pt 1

Image from http://worldsstrongestlibrarian.com

December 2009


After 40 years of popularity, as well as winning the prestigious Caldecott Medal in 1964, Maurice Sendak’s Where the Wild Things Are is truly a children’s classic. Before seeing the movie, it’s a book everyone should read.

Max is a boy who loves getting up to mischief. After Max has been jumping down stairs, talking back to his mother and chasing the dog, Max’s mother finally sends her son to his room without supper.

No sooner is Max alone in his room than strange things begin to happen. A forest grows in his room, the walls disappear and Max finds himself sailing across an ocean by private boat. The place he lands is an island populated by Wild Things – huge and terrible creatures with terrible claws and rolling eyes. But Max is not afraid, taming the Wild Things, who quickly hail Max as their king. Max leads them in a wild rumpus of mischief and mayhem, until he begins to miss his mother and he decides home isn’t so bad after all.

Maurice Sendak is both the author and illustrator of the book. There are big pictures, sometimes taking up the whole page. Some younger readers may find the Wild Things frightening, but very few readers fail to enjoy Max’s wild adventure of imagination. This book would probably suit readers from Kindergarten to grade 3.

A movie of Where the Wild Things Are will be coming to theatres in December, with Spike Jonze directing and featuring Max Records, Catherine O’Hara, James Gandolfini and Forest Whitaker. The book is so massively popular that it would be a very big task to take on an adaptation. But the film is already getting plenty of recognition for its combination of puppetry, voice performances and animation, and it looks to be one of the biggest movies of the year. While the film looks a little creepy (it’s rated PG, so it may have some scenes that younger viewers may find scary), it’s definitely set to be a treat.

Before seeing the movie, remember to read the original classic!


Where the Wild Things Are
by Maurice Sendak
Red Fox Books, 1963
Ages 4-8

Assignment 3, Pt 1: Articles for KidsReads

Hi everyone -- I chose to do my articles for KidsReads, a site dedicated to reviews of children's books -- since I did some children's lit in my undergrad and really enjoyed it.

There are many sections of the site. My first article was pitched for Harry Central, the specifically Harry Potter-oriented section of the site. My second article was for the Features section of the site, inspired by a brief article about Where the Wild Things Are in the Books Into Movies page.

-CM

NEW HARRY THEME PARK

Ever since Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone first hit the shelves of bookstores across the world, Harry Potter fans everywhere have dreamed of visiting Hogwarts, playing Quidditch and visiting Diagon Alley.

But the chance to visit Harry’s world for real may soon be here. The Wizarding Worlds of Harry Potter theme park is expected to open in Universal Studios in the US in 2010, a “theme park within a theme park” that will bring the magic of J.K. Rowling’s magical and popular series to life, according to Universal Studio Orlando Resort's official site.

J.K. Rowling has given a seal of approval to the plans. “The plans I've seen look incredibly exciting,” she says to BBC News. “I don't think fans of the books or films will be disappointed.”

Expectations are very high. According to WA Today, the books have sold over 400 million copies in both adult and child editions, have been sold in over 200 countries and are available in 67 languages. Films of the books have grossed over $1.3 billion worldwide and have featured such star power as Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith, Richard Harris, Michael Gambon, John Cleese, Timothy Spall, Jim Broadbent, Helena Bonham Carter and Gary Oldman. The phenomenon of the books is destined to endure for years to come, with the books already considered classics.

Anyone who has read the books will know that the task of recreating the boy wizard’s world is a huge one. But Tom Williams, chairman and CEO of Universal Parks and Resort, promises that the park will live up to the hopes of fans, as he tells WA Today. "All of the action and adventures of Harry Potter's world will come to life here at Universal Orlando Resort," he says. "The Wizarding World of Harry Potter will be unlike any other experience on earth."

To stay true to Rowling’s books, the creative team for the park will be led by Stuart Craig, who is an Oscar-winner for production design and has worked on the Harry Potter movies. J.K. Rowling herself has also worked closely with the designers to make sure Harry’s world is as true to the books as possible. “Our primary goal is to make sure this experience is an authentic extension of Harry Potter's world as it is portrayed in the books and films,” Craig told BBC News.

The park will be full of activities for Harry readers to enjoy. Fans can treat themselves to Butterbeer at a replica of the Three Broomsticks, shopping at Hogsmeade, as well as have a chance to ride a Hippogriff in one of the many planned theme rides. Braver visitors will also be given a chance to give Quidditch a try, competing in the excitement of the Triwizard Tournament.

“Harry Potter continues to spark the imaginations of fans of all ages,” said the president of Warner Bros Consumer Products, Brad Globe, to WA Today. “We really have seen the anticipation continue to build for The Wizarding World of Harry Potter.”

Official images can be found here at the official Universal Studios site. The theme park will open next year – but we’re not sure we can wait that long!!

Facebook Friends... and Family

It is a question more and more teens and young adults are facing every day.

Would you friend your mum on Facebook?

Just the other day I was talking to a co-worker (aged 16) who friended her parents on Facebook without a hassle, but now is having second thoughts. "I mean... what if she sees some of the stuff on there?" she said. "Sometimes I put a status update, then remember my mum is on there and delete it."

You wouldn't think a parent invasion of Facebook would affect most people, but with the membership of Facebook beginning to skew from primarily college students to the over-25 demographic, it's becoming more widespread than it may appear.

The Washington Post has weighed in on the issue, positing the nightmare scenario "When Mom or Dad Asks To Be a Facebook 'Friend'" with an investigation of the parental Facebook phenomenon. As the article discusses, young people are polarized over their parents on Facebook -- from those who add their parents with a shrug, to those who start groups and petitions and sites like "Oh Crap My Parents Joined Facebook", which is dedicated to "laugh[ing] at your Mom’s ridiculous Facebook status and the embarrassing message your Dad wrote on your wall".

In general, parents on Facebook is an uncool thing -- and I know, my dad is on, don't tell anyone. And for many people, it definitely changes the way you use your profile. Those pics from Saturday night will definitely be hidden or at least edited and restricted. And sometimes I've found myself being asked by my parents about something that happened during my day which I hadn't told them... until I remember the status update I added.

Most interesting in the Washington Post article, I think, was a quote from Steve Jones, a professor of communication at the University of Illinois, talking about why young people are hesitant about adding their parents on Facebook:

"What they want to keep most private is not something they wish to keep from strangers, it's the things they want to keep from people that know them," he said. "It's 'I don't care what someone who doesn't know me finds out. But I do care about what someone I know intimately [does].' "

It's an interesting thing to think about, that goes beyond just slight embarrassment at your parents trying to be hip. When you upload things to Facebook, are you worried about strangers finding out about you, or the people you know?

And does anyone else have parents-on-Facebook stories? Did you friend them or not? Dilemma or not?