Modeling Reality with Virtual Worlds

Virtual worlds can be used for many different things, ranging from a tool for collaboration and communication with the aim of completing a task, a means of training, or merely for engaging socially with others.  The article "VLES" touches on the social interactions virtual words can provide.  VLES is a virtual recreation of the lower eat side; its developers believe that the future of interaction won't be built on static and flat web pages but rather in traversable 3D spaces.  In worlds such as this one and Naughty Auties, people engage with other users through conversations that, despite being virtual "you've in fact experienced it as if it were real because in fact it is real."  Thus, an avatar can come across a the avatar of someone in the other side of the world, or even the president of Harvard and have the opportunity to interact with them- something very unlikely in the real world.  Moreover, according to the article "Naughty Auties: Battle Austism with Virtual Interaction" virtual worlds can truly be beneficial to people who need practice with social interaction.  For instance, Naughty Auties was created for those who have autism, and their family and friends, so that they could get out of their shells and interact with others.  Given that virtual worlds bring together people because they "excel at minimizing geographical separations", people are more willing to  leave their comfort zones.  For people with autism engaging with others in this manner can help prepare them to do the same in the real world, thus, fostering social skills.  Despite these advantages, one particular downside to second worlds such as VLES, as claimed by the author, is that the accessibility made possible through virtual worlds detracts its uniqueness.  

Virtual worlds such as VLES and Naughty Auties serve as a platform for socializing and visiting remote places.  Presently virtual worlds are also being used by corporations and for training.  As the article "Going to the Virtual Office in Second Life" mentions one driving force toward this trend is the need to cut costs.  Thus, conferences, meetings and collaboration is being employed through virtual worlds.  There is no longer a need to travel, employees merely create avatars and world directly from their computers with absolutely anyone in there network no matter where they are.  This very idea fosters great creativity because the engaging environments in which they are situated creates a dynamic in which collaboration and exchange os fostered.  
Virtual worlds are also being used by health care facilities for training and simulation.  Once again this is driven by the dramatically lower costs of maintaining virtual worlds versus real simulations.  Nurses can learn much more because anything can happen in these virtual worlds where their responses and treatments are monitored.  Because of this, virtual worlds become more of an "immersive experience" where learning is much richer.  However, despite all the benefits of virtual worlds for health care facilities there are impediments that hinder its success.  It is important for users to have good connections via compatible computers so as to reap the benefits of virtual worlds to its fullest.  This problem can be extended to any type of virtual world, just as the issue that it is a bit difficult to master moving around in them.  Moreover, the fact that these worlds are completely virtual can lead to users feeling isolated.  This is made even more difficult when corporations use virtual worlds because employees need to keep in mind the various organizational and national cultures of other users.  Indeed collaboration and exchange is facilitated, yet, if one is not mindful of these differences collaboration may be hindered.      
Given the increasing popularity and benefits of virtual worlds I think that the issues it faces now will be addressed so as to make them better.  I think the future of virtual worlds will be very profitable.  IBM already sells its virtual world platform, Sametime 3D.  In my opinion virtual interaction will become more personal through actual conversations and not chats.  Maybe there will even be in incorporation of video conferencing to some degree via the use of avatars so that users become more comfortable; this may help users from feeling a lack of human contact.

Social Networking Sites

When I hear the term social networking sites I am immediately inclined to think of all of them as serving the same purpose- as a medium and facilitator for communicating with others.  Yet, each social networking site is not made equal; each has developed its own particularities that set it apart from the rest. 

The article "Who's Driving Twitter's Popularity? Not Teens" very accurately defines Twitter to what I think it is.  It states that Twitter is best for broadcasting ideas or questions and answers to the outside world rather than staying in touch with acquaintances.  I signed up for Twitter because this class required me to and instantly I began receiving emails with news of what is being tweeted that might be of interest to me and what is popular. Now, these suggestions come from what others are following, which can and can’t be of any interest to me.  Despite this, I noted that what dominates is "a network where content is mostly public" whereas a social network "is optimized for friend communication."  Moreover, Twitter lets you search keywords that turn up whatever is of your interest, whether it be a job posting, a company anything really.  Thus, one can join by tweeting or follow.  In addition, the concept of retweeting solidifies the notion that Twitter is more for broadcasting and marketing.  The mere fact that communication happens at such a large scale and reach is made that much more possible through retweets.

Unlike Twitter, Facebook is of a different makeup.  I think that Facebook is better at keeping in touch with friends and acquaintances because it is more private.  When I say private I mean it in comparison to Twitter.  Facebook is structured completely differently, one doesn't follow, one has friends/family.  Moreover, although many people and corporations have Facebook pages it does not have the same functionality that Twitter does.  Each medium can accomplish different things due to its structure.  I feel that Facebook is more "rooted", maybe a bit limited, and not as quick as Twitter.  However, this is how it was designed to be- somewhat more meaningful and not passing.

On the other hand, when I visited MySpace, something which I had not done for years, I was reminded why I stopped using it.  My profile remains the same as when I first joined, empty and without a profile picture.  I find that MySpace simply lags and didn't achieve what Facebook was able to excel at- optimizing friend communication.  Now, the idea behind MySpace is somewhat similar to that of Facebook, in fact, I don't know what the difference really is.  One has a profile, which is actually more customizable than that of Facebook, who has a consistent unified "look".  In addition, on a MySpace page one can have more information about oneself visible.  Despite all this, I find it uninteresting and a poorer means of communicating with others.

I was inclined to create a hi5 account a few years ago and revisited it today.  Just as with my MySpace visit, I felt compelled to log off.  Hi5 is another social networking site more similar to Facebook than MySpace is.  I had never heard of it until I traveled back home and found out that in order to keep up with my family back there I had to get one.  To my fortune, they have all "upgraded" to Facebook, but Twitter still is a completely uncharted territory for them.  Hi5 is like a mash up of My Space and Facebook, but it too lacks the ease of use and doesn't function well as a facilitator of communication.  Yet, when I logged in I was noted one aspect that made me think that hi5 was an early indicator of what Twitter is now.  This site encourages public exchange and communication; it also makes completely random out of nowhere suggestions like MySpace does.  I believe this is because it sought to truly create a network amongst people.

Each of these sites has a different structure and given it is better at it than others.  Although they are all social networking sites I feel that in a sense, just like a corporation has a corporate culture, so to do these sites.  Moreover, as we have seen via Twitter, short hands have developed on their own given the nature of how things occur in that website.  

Blog About Twitter

The concept and driving force behind Twitter is microblgging.  The character restriction on Twitter is a factor that helps differentiate it from other forms of social networking.  Given that the user is restricted to 140 characters, largely influences what is updated, communicated and shared.  I think this character restriction has shaped and defined what Twitter has become - an immense feed of short posts which are largely personal, that have also tools for marketing and communication.

Twitter can be whatever we make of it because there are no rules; it depends on what the user uses it for as well as how.  Thus, in comparison with a Blackboard discussion Twitter is fairly different.  Twitter discussions are quick, receiving constant tweets.  A mere keyword or question can generate responses from numerous users.  On the other hand, Blackboard discussions are more structured in which users post comments or answers to questions via threads.  Other users can comment on a thread through another thread and so on.  These threads are not limited to 140 characters, and because of this the discussions do not have the quickness or continuity of simple responses that Twitter discussions do.  Discussions on Blackboard are limited to certain users; because of this there is no opportunity of missing a threaded response like there is on Twitter given its public nature.  Despite this, I think Blackboard conversations are probably more profound and meaningful.  Now, I recognize al the benefits and new uses for Twitter, and may very well change my mind as the course progresses and begin to use Twitter myself.  However, as of now I think Blackboard conversations, despite its rigid structure and interface, is better for discussing and expressing well thought out thoughts.  Twitter, on the other hand, is best at inviting others to pitch in on a short tweet. 

I think that discussions in class and Twitter have more common ground than the previous forms did.  Discussions via these methods incite sporadic contributions and expression of ideas.  Of course, certain elements like actual face-to-face interaction is not plausible via Twitter, yet, I think Twitter achieves the same, if not more richness in discussions because of the nature of tweets.  However, like Blackboard discussions, in class ones are limited to those present.  Of course meaningful exchange will occur and ideas will be communicated and developed.  Yet, it simply will not be completely open to the millions of users Twitter has.  This, however, I believe is one great aspect of Twitter; the ability to search a topic of interest or keyword and tweet away with others tweeting the same topic is limitless.  Moreover, like the article "50 Ways to Use Twitter in the College Classroom" states, Twitter offers new ways to open lines of communication.  Twitter is so rich in access that it facilitates collaboration and brainstorming.   The article "Professor Encourages Students to Pass Notes During Class- via Twitter" offers an innovative way to communicate in the classroom.  This takes in class discussions a step further because tweets are encouraged during class and can being up new discussions resulting from questions students may fear asking  or posted links.  Thus, new discussions are prompted and enriched in class.

Overall I believe that what differentiates Twitter from Blackboard and in class discussions is the content of what is exchanged.  Given the different forms of communicating the three have, so to does the content.  Maybe Twitter and Blackboard discussions lack fact to face interaction whereas in class ones don't.  However each is strong in its own way because it has strengths that are particular to the medium that it is.  

Social Net'g

         I think it is truly amazing how social networking technologies are being used.  When popular social networking sites where first introduced and began gaining popularity it would have been a far fetch of a thought to ever think these could be used for more than just finding friends and updating ones status.  The article “Social Networking Technology Boosts Job Recruiting” not only details alternative ways these technologies can be used, it also evidences how its use is beneficial to society.  The article touches on how Linkedin is being used by recruiters to find and contact potential employees.  Unlike other networking sites like Facebook and MySpace, Linkedin caters more towards the professional sector, having users who are top executives.  Profiles for Linkedin are comprised of work experience, education and such where people can take the opportunity to market themselves by creating an attractive profile.  The benefits of this type of social networking are huge because they are not just for the recruiter, but also for the user.  Thus, the recruiter has access to thousands of people who posses the qualities and skills they are searching for.  They are able to contact a greater number of people just as thy are able to narrow their choices down to a select few based on the professional information they come across.  Moreover, users not actively searching for a job can be contacted if their skills match what a recruiter is searching for.

         Needless to say, using such social networking permits corporations to have greater reach and access to talent.  Despite these benefits, I understand that certain aspects of communication need to happen via traditional methods, like phone and person interviews.  However, given the speed in which these technologies are being submersed in recruitment, I would not hesitate to think that the impersonal aspects of social networking recruitment could be facilitated even more.  Thus, video conferencing can, and more than likely already is used for interviews where distance is a limitation. 

         Moreover, these technologies allow for not only greater access and reach to talent worldwide, it also enables businesses to lower costs.  Like the article “What’s Next? Your Future in Social Networking” states corporations can work on projects via virtual worlds comprised of virtual collaborators situated anywhere in the world.  The networks created in these worlds allow work to get done by people with the most diverse of opinions and viewpoints.  In essence, there are no limitations. 

         Furthermore, the benefits to society are also evident in how these technologies are being used to keep the population more involved and communicated.  The article “How Obama Tapped into Social Network’s Power” addresses not only how social networking is being used in presidential elections, but also how it permits the American people to be more participative.  This not only benefits the political campaigns, but also  

the greater populace because a to way relationship is created.  Thus, barriers are lessened, greater masses are reached, unity can be achieved; overall, the population 

is empowered by voice they now have.  Given the utility politics and corporations have found in the use of social networking the manner in which its use will evolve can take any direction.  Personally, I believe that for political campaigns this technology will serve an even greater connecting platform than that which it already is.  I believe that debates and messages will become more popular via this technology, and that even the virtual worlds corporations use can be applied.  Given that virtual worlds allows people to collaborate no matte the distance, which also allows employers to gauge working habits, I think that it wouldn’t be a far stretch for political agendas to be worked out in the same manner. 

            Despite all the benefits social networking technologies brings with it, inevitably there are dark sides to it as well.  Social networking is an engaging technology that has flourished because people participate in it.  Individuals are voluntarily updating statuses, disseminating information that was once deemed private amongst other things.  Thus, our participation in these technologies, due largely to how much we have assimilated them into our lives, has altered the traditional concept of privacy.  Because of this, privacy is a great concern because we divulge too much information; yet, we claim strict privacy rights.  Moreover, our freedom of speech is facilitated, yet it is sometimes exercised in the form of gossip and hate speech used to hurt others.  People seem to think that such conduct is allowed because since here is no face-to-face interaction they hide behind their computer screens or avatars.  This only further complicates the definition of free speech as well as hurts the positive aspects networking technologies has introduced.  Just like any other technology it is important be weary of what seems all too good; it is up to individuals to take due care in their actions and behave responsibly, or else face the consequences.   

Blogs vs.Wikis

New technologies have dramatically changed the landscape of many things, in particular the manner in which we communicate and exchange information.  Two such methods are blogs and wikis and despite easing communication amongst people, there are inherent differences between them.  Simply put, according to Rob Edmonds blogs are “most often simple online diaries” whereas “wikis typically provide a repository of useful knowledge and information.”  This is not to say that blogs do not posses the capacity of providing resourceful information, it is just that blogs are stylized more like forums.  In blogs, such as the corporate blogs people and even corporations have, individuals can chronicle everyday activities in a series of new posts with as much detail as they want.  In “Wal-Mart Tastemakers Write Unfiltered Blogs” Wal-Mart encourages its merchants to speak as frankly and critically as they want about the products it carries.  Wal-Mart believes blogging in this manner helps them solicit quick feedback from customers on its merchandise.  However, they have recognized that the blogs have become forums for “unvarnished rants.” 

         Unlike blogs, wikis give “contributors the power to edit, and presumably improve, the content.” (Noam Cohen)  Wikis have become popular for they foster a culture of collaboration amongst people working on a same page.  Unlike blogs, wiki contributors can edit prior content, typically of a certain nature. 

In today’s networked world convergence of such Web 2.0 technologies have benefited various enterprises.  As I mentioned before, Wal-Mart uses blogs to collect feedback on the products it sells, information deemed useful when strategizing marketing plans and making decisions of what products to carry.  Wikis have dramatically altered the manner in which corporations handle and disseminate internal knowledge because it “provides a simple way for workers to collaborate on documents and track changes.” (Edmonds)  Internal wikis serve as a repository of knowledge as I see it.  Very quickly and easily people can change and edit content, in other words, they collaborate and achieve communication more efficiently.  Moreover, given that these technologies depend on the input of others, information dissemination is more successful.  Wikis in particular can be used to communicate messages and solicit proposals from an extended network of individuals who just have to edit and add their thoughts and opinions.

Despite the fact that blogs are published by one person and does not have the same functionality as wikis do, they too can and are being used for collaboration.  Wal-Mart is but one example of an external corporate blog.  Internal corporate blogs and just typical blogs permit people to read what others have to say and comment on it.  Questions can be posed and answered, suggestions can be made and problems can be solved through the collaboration of insights from anyone leaving a comment.  For example, a fellow classmate from this CIS class may read this post and leave a comment or an inquiry as to why I think as I do, which can lead to further discussions and even change of opinions.  I believe that the root of collaboration is exchanging information with the learning and passing on information once unknown to the other.
Given the nature of wikis the possibilities through collaboration are endless.  Internal and external corporate wikis are gaining ground, and we have even read about the use of the Diplopedia wiki.  Wikis have become an ideal tool for collaboration because of its open source nature.  They have been adopted in many ways and it is hard to think of a new use for it.  Despite that I think wikis should really be exploited to write more computer programs.   Doing so makes it possible to tap into new talent while making it possible for the world population to freely access software.