YouTube: Do Amateurs Need to Adhere to Standards?

Week nine: “Müller argues that: despite the more diverse forms of participation that video-sharing sites allow in comparison to mass media, “the quality discourse on YouTube works to structure possible acts of audiovisual participation to well-established conventions and standards” (Reader, page 287)”

Müller posits that YouTube, and other such video sharing sites, are fast becoming democratized audiovisual spaces (Müller 2009 p126). He suggests that such a shift is taking place because the “barriers” between the amateur producer and the professional producer are becoming “blurred” (Müller 2009 p126). The fact that YouTube, according to Müller, is primarily a “cultural space of community building and shared experience”, means that the battle between the industry and the audience is a futile one, because YouTube’s intent is not to be professional.

“Democratization of our media culture” means that amateurs can now utilise “formerly exclusive” media forms, and use such media forms to their own personal and professional advantage. Müller suggests that whilst this is mainly a positive thing, it also holds some negative aspects. He says that because the “new, ‘uneducated’ participants neglect professional standards of craftsmanship, aesthetic quality [and] ethic norms”, the overall standard for quality of production will be lowered (Müller 2009 p127).

Müller suggests that if a “top-down force”, namely elite professionals, governed video sharing sites, then the “emerging field of creative practice” would be of higher quality (Müller 2009 p129). Müller posits that the overarching “bottom-up force” serves to “question established hierarchies based on traditional notions of aesthetic norms and standards”, and that this is important (Müller 2009 p129).

Patricia G. Lange argues that whilst aesthetic quality is not the “determining factor” in whether the video will “affect social networks”, a lot of YouTube users dismiss other people’s videos if their standards are too low (Müller 2009 p129). Criteria on which a YouTube video is judged by viewers, include:

• Lighting
• Sound
• Editing
• Ethics

People’s judgments about YouTube videos often appear below the video itself, in the ‘comments’ section. The ratings on a video are also a determining factor on their quality also.

There are many short videos on YouTube that explain how to go about making a high quality video. Video sharing sites have become a highly effective way for people to get their voices heard, so obviously people want to go about it in the right way. Such advice tells amateur producers to be mindful and adhere to the aforementioned criteria for lighting, sound, editing, ethics, etc. Advice includes (Müller 2009 p136):

• “Use lots of close ups”
• “Keep the background plain”
• “Avoid long shots”

Below is an example of a YouTube video that ignores a lot of conventions and standards.

This video is pixilated, the lighting is average, it is one continuous shot, and too much happening in the background. You can see that the combination of these elements makes it an undesirable video, one that not many people would take seriously.

So, despite YouTube being a free “cultural space of community building and shared experience”, there are still methods of implementing standards and unwritten rules on how to participate within this space.

Bibliography:

Eggo, Muller, ‘Where Quality Matters: Discourses on the Art of Making a YouTube Video’, in Pelle Snickars and Patrick Vonderau (eds) The YouTube Reader, Stockholm: National Library of Sweden, 2009, pp. 126-139.

My Creative Commons License

Week ten: Following week ten’s tutorial exercise, explain why you chose the Creative Commons license that you added to your blog and discuss the relevance (or not) of adding the license.

Before taking this subject, I had not heard of ‘Creative Commons’, nor seen the ‘CC’ logo anywhere, (expect for ‘Closed Captions’ on the TV, and I still don’t know what it means). I am very familiar with the ‘C’ logo, however, which of course signifies ‘Copyright’.

It took me a while to comprehend the difference between creative commons and copyright. Garcelon posits that “copyright law…needed to be contested to both reverse the commercial closing of the public domain as a means of access to creative works and to allow the internet to serve as a gateway to such access” (Garcelon 2009 p1312). In my understanding, copyright laws are quite rigid, and do not allow for much creative collaboration and sharing. In this way, general copyright laws may be becoming somewhat redundant.

Creative commons, on the other hand, offers options to the creator. There are various forms of licenses that one can use, depending on what their content is, what they use it for, and how they want others to interact with it. There are different levels of protection, and the creator can negotiate and alter the license agreement as they wish.

The process of selecting an appropriate creative commons license for my blog was a long one. I originally added “Attribution CC BY” to my blog, because I though that it was the most basic, and would cater to the basic needs of my blog. Upon further investigation, and after rereading the license deeds for each of the creative commons licenses, I changed to “Attribution Non-Commercial 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC 3.0)”. At first I found this license option intimidating, because of the dramatic name, but after reading the license deed closely, I decided that this was the best option for me. It is important to note, before elaborating on why I settled on the latter license, that changing from one license to another was so easy. In this way, creative commons if far more user-friendly than laborious copyright laws.

I chose “Attribution Non-Commercial 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC 3.0)” for my blog, primarily because I like the fact that Internet users can use my content (not for financial gain), so long as they state that ‘Katie Found, from CommuniKatie (user inserts my URL here) originally wrote this’. I like the idea of people all over the world visiting each other’s blogs, collaborating, sharing content, taking content and adding to it, etc, whilst respecting and crediting the original author. This is not only a matter of respect, but through sharing blog links and the work of other bloggers, more traffic is directed to the original author’s blog, which is a very positive thing in the blogosphere. Another reason why I chose this license is because it does not allow me to use my blog for commercial purposes, which suits me, as I do not intend to do so.

I think that adding creative commons license to blogs is a wise move, as it assures some form of protection to the blogger. Creative commons is more relevant in today’s society, compared to copyright laws, which often serve to thwart creativity on the Internet.

Bibliography:

Marc Garcelon, ‘An Information Commons? Creative Commons and Public Access to Cultural Creations’, New Media & Society 11.8 (2009): 1307-1326.

Creative Commons website: http://creativecommons.org/

Good Pirates: Oxymoron?

Week eleven: Medosch argues that: “piracy, despite being an entirely commercially motivated activity carried out in black or grey markets, fulfills culturally important functions”. Discuss while giving an example online.

Medosch acknowledges that artists and those working within creative industries may flounder under “copy left” laws, but suggests that piracy may have some benefits (Medosch 2008 p73). He posits that piracy “serves to provide access to the products of mainstream commercial movie industries” to those living in oppressed countries such as China (Medosch 2008 p81). In this sense, the “pirate” shifts from being a criminal and a destroyer of creative industries, to a humanitarian-of-sorts, dedicated to informing the oppressed public, and keeping them in the mainstream media loop (Medosch 2008 p73).  

In Western societies, where strict censorship laws and government oppression seem like something that would only happen in the movies, it is easy for us to reduce piracy to an industry-killing, shameful act. Western pirates often take the form of teenagers who do have the means to buy CDs, DVDs and literature, but believe that it is easier, or indeed ‘cooler’, to download illegal versions off the Internet. Furthermore, it remains a novelty for Westerners to visit Asian countries and stock up on hundreds of DVDs and CDs that they find at the black and grey markets. It is incomprehensible, to most, that the participation within the black and grey markets, and the purchasing of pirated media is borne out of necessity; to fight the feeling of being oppressed by one’s government, and to keep oneself informed about cultures and lifestyles outside their borders.

Whilst I do acknowledge that pirates who operate in the black and grey markets are “commercially motivated”, rather than being strictly ‘humanitarian’, as was stated above, their role does fulfill “culturally important functions” (Medosch 2008 p81). Piracy, in oppressed nations, acts as a “counter-hegemonic force” as it gives the oppressed and strictly governed society the “chance to empower themselves through obtaining information, knowledge and sophisticated cultural products” that may have otherwise been unavailable to them (Medosch 2008 p81).

In 2006, the film ‘The Da Vinci Code’ was banned in Pakistan and many states in India, as it was deemed “blasphemous” (click here to read full article on BBC website). This situation exemplifies Medosch’s argument that piracy can, at times, benefit wide groups of people. Pakistani and Indian citizens should have the option to watch the film, and the pirates within the black and grey markets provide them with this option. Banning import and dissemination of certain mainstream media because it does not align with the religious or political views of a country’s leader is indeed an oppressive way to govern.

A more recent example is the banning of the British-made film ‘Slackistan’ in Pakistan, in early 2011 (click here to read full article on BBC website). ‘Slackistan’, a film about young people living in Islamabad, was banned due to scenes involving swearing and the consumption of alcohol. The director, Hammad Khan, refused to edit anything out of the film, as he believes that it is an accurate portrayal of the youth living in Islamabad.  

The “copyleft-right debate” has caused, and will continue to cause, much contention within creative industries, and throughout the world (Medosch 2008 p95). Medosch believes that there will be “no social consensus”, because that would “mean that some compromise [would need] to be made”, and he does not see this happening (Medosch 2008 p95).    

Bibliography:

Armin Medosch, ‘Paid in Full: Copyright, Piracy and the Real Currency of Cultural Production’, in Deptforth. TV Diaries 11: Pirate Strategies, London: Deptforth TV, 2008, pp. 73-97.

‘Slackistan film banned in Pakistan’ by Shabnam Mahmood on BBC website: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-12298159

‘Pakistan bans Da Vinci Code film’ on BBC website: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5045672.stm

The Blog Stylist: More Than Aesthetics

The Blog Stylist is a blog about blogging.

Screenshot of The Blog Stylist's homepage

Bree, the blogger behind The Blog Stylist, has a degree in communications, has worked as the subeditor of Australian Cosmopolitan magazine, has produced the Cosmo website and was the launch producer of Your Beauty Spot at ninemsn.

Needless to say, Bree knows her stuff. And she has, out of the kindness of her heart, created The Blog Stylist as a platform to share her wisdom on what works and what doesn’t work, blog-wise.

Bree’s latest posts include:

• ‘Ask the expert: Blog-photo-styling tips by Robin Zachary’
• ‘Ask Bree: I want to move from Blogger to WordPress. Now what?’
• ‘Style Bloggers’ News: 15 must-click links (issue 6)’

So, visit Bree’s blog, and learn how to spruce up your blog, and make it more reader/Internet friendly.

 

An Effective Anti Piracy Commercial

Below is an example of an effective anti piracy commercial:

It is effective because:

• It doesn’t treat the viewer as a criminal, meaning that it educates, rather than lectures.
• It uses young people, so as to relate better to young viewers, who are more often than not the ones practicing piracy.
• The background music is calming, rather than (to quote Nate) ‘German techno’.

Dear Blog, Help Me Manage My Life

Week seven: Lovink argues that: “No matter how much talk there is of community and mobs, the fact remains that blog are primarily used as a tool to manage the self”. Discuss giving an example of a blog.

Lovink argues that blogging has recently become the “hegemonic mod[e] of Internet use” (Lovink 2007 p13). He suggests that the use of such online platforms “turns into an addiction” for some people; a reliance needed for one’s daily dose of “self-affirmation” (Lovink 2007 pp13-14). The emphasis on “self” is central to Lovink’s argument. He posits that blogs are not used to achieve connectivity or to gain a sense of togetherness, but are rather used as an “introspective…online diary” (Lovink 2007 p29). Such online diaries, Lovink argues, are adopted to “manage the self”; to keep a chronological account of one’s activities and past milestones, to organise one’s thoughts, articulate one’s opinions, and so forth.

Bloggers are advised to “not offer a possibility [to readers] to leave comments”; that this merely transforms their blogs into a “message board” (Lovink 2007 p28). Some users even deactivate their ‘comments’ button, so that readers do not have the option to participate within the blog (Lovink 2007 p28). Rather, it is advised that a blog remain a space for “the sharing of thoughts and opinions of the blogger”, as well as a space for the blogger to structure their lives (Lovink 2007 p28). Lovink observes that most blogs comprise of the blogger grappling with the “relentless uncertainty of the everyday”, and often take the form of a “rant” (Lovink 2007 p29).

Recently, I came across a blogger named Jessica Roy (Click here to visit her blog). Jessica’s (self-entitled) blog exemplifies Lovink’s argument perfectly. In her ‘about me’ section, it states “I reminisce too much, bruise too easily and write because I have to, because if I didn’t I would eventually explode”. This statement illustrates Lovink’s point that many bloggers become heavily addicted to the act of blogging; that it acts as a method of “self-affirmation” (Lovink 2007 p14). Jessica, in her recent blog posts, confesses: “I need to write about everything that has happened recently…but I don’t know how”. She continues by saying: “I need to write about everything that has happened…[but] I can’t string words together properly…so this is how far I’ve gotten”. This outpour of thoughts illustrates Lovink’s point that often, blog posts take the form of a rant.

The majority of the content on Jessica’s blog is highly personal. She tells of her friend’s suicide, the doubts about leaving her home in New York, her confusing breakup with her boyfriend, and so forth. Jessica seems to have, consciously or unconsciously, followed the aforementioned advice to “not offer a possibility to leave comments” (Lovink 2007 p28). She has kept the ‘comment’ buttons activated, but made the content so personal that readers would most likely feel intrusive to comment.  

Using Jessica’s blog as an example, we can see that Lovink’s observation that blogs are merely a space for self-management and self-affirmation is indeed accurate. If people are blogging for strictly personal reasons, though, why can’t they simply type their thoughts into a word document, or write them down in a diary? Would this not fulfill their need to manage and document their personal lives in much the same way?

Bibliography:

Geert Lovink, ‘Blogging, The Nihilist Impluse’, in Zero Comments: Blogging and Critical Internal Culture, London: Routledge, pp. 1-38.

Jessica Roy’s Blog: http://jessicakroy.com/blog-page/

Something To Ponder

In his article ‘Blogging, The Nihilist Impulse’, Geert Lovink quotes Liberal evangelist Carl Trueman, who says:

“Where everyone has the right to speak, everyone ends up thinking they have a right to be heard; and when everyone in general thinks they have a right to be heard, then you end up with a situation where nobody in particular is listened to.”

This is a really interesting opinion, what do you think, CommuniKats? Let’s discuss!

Bloggers Versus Elite Media

Week Four: Russell (et al.) compares elite media and institutions with bloggers and ponders the following question: “Do bloggers, with their editorial independence, collaborative structure and merit-based popularity more effectively inform the public?” Do you agree? Use an example to illustrate your point of view.

Russell (et al.) likens the primary writing style utilised within the blogosphere to “informal banter”; that bloggers merely “comment upon existing cultural work” (Russell et al 2008 p46). In light of this comment, one may suggest that the comparison between bloggers and elite media forms is irrelevant. Blogger’s adoption of an “informal” (Russell et al 2008 p46) writing style indicates that they are not trying to supersede or undermine elite media, but rather provide a supplementary commentary, and fill the holes within mainstream media.

Russell (et al.) acknowledges that the “threshold for producing, publishing, and disseminating knowledge and culture” has been lowered with the proliferation and increasing accessibility of the Internet (Russell et al 2008 p43). As a result, “personal culture” has moved into the “arena of public culture”, meaning that “amateur cultural works”, such as blogs, are available to a large audience (Russell et al 2008 p43). Russell (et al.) states, though, that such “amateur cultural productions” have long been in existence, and that blogs, online forums, etc are simply new “platform[s]” for them to exist upon (Russell et al 2008 p44). The development and utilisation of these new platforms means that such amateurs are no longer “overshadowed by commercial and professional cultural forms”; that they are now culturally visible and relevant.

It seems almost hypocritical, and indeed melodramatic, of Russell (et al.) to then suggest that “established content industries” are facing “imminent doom” as a result of the newly found voice of amateur production (Russell et al 2008 p49). As mentioned above, the average blogger, with their informal writing style, does not intend to trump elite media on the authority front. Members of society will inevitably rely on elite media for information regarding key world events, weather forecasts, etc, but the fact of the matter is that elite media can only cover so much. The blogosphere fills in the holes that elite media misses, which is a positive thing for everyone. Newspapers, radio broadcasts, etc, cannot address all of the niche topics in existence, but the millions of people out there in the blogosphere can.

For example, a sport fanatic in Australia can turn to elite media for information on AFL, Formula One, etc, but cannot turn to it for information on their favourite Italian soccer team, Juventus. But, this individual can turn to ‘The Off Side: Juventus’, a blog dedicated to reporting on the team’s progress, instead. In terms of niche interests, such as Italian soccer teams, blogs offer a more in depth analysis compared to mainstream media. ‘The Off Side’ translates information about the soccer team from Italian to English, uploads scores from every game that they play, and posts behind-the-scenes information on the players. It is not logistically possible, nor necessary, for elite media to go into such detail. They can, however, inform the public on the general goings on in the soccer world, which is all some fans need.

From the above discussion, we understand that the comparison of blogs and elite media is somewhat redundant. Both blogs and elite media inform the public, but do so in different ways, and address different things. Blogs provide informal information that is often targeted at, and intended for niche interests, whilst elite media provides a general commentary on daily world affairs. The two exist, and indeed work, in tandem, and are not intending to supersede and, in Russell (et al.)’s words “squelch” one another (Russell et al 2008 p49).

Bibliography:

Adrienne Russell, Mizuko Ito, Todd Richmond and Marc Tuter, ‘Culture: Media Convergence and Networked Culture’, in Kazys Varnelis (ed.) Networked Publics, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2008, pp. 43-76.

WikiLeaks: It’s All About Control

Below is a discussion about whether, in today’s climate, politics is about control over information flowing through networks. I will be discussing this in relation to WikiLeaks.

Source: "News That Matters"

Throughout history, it has been maintained that the control of information accessible to the general population is integral in the maintenance of political power. In today’s net-savvy society, anyone with an Internet connection is able to instantaneously reproduce and disseminate large amounts of information across the globe (Schwarz 2011 p1; Solove 2007 p23; Lovink et al 2010). This newly developed ability blurs the distinction between the on-field professional journalist and the at-home, blog-happy reporter (Solove 2007 p 23). In his book, An Army of Davids, Glenn Reynolds (also the author of respected political blog Instapundit) posits that the current blog-boom has resulted in a questionable shift in power (Solove 2007 p23). Reynolds stated that the “power [that was] once concentrated in the hands of a professional few has been redistributed into the hands of the amateur many” (Solove 2007 p23). This essay uses Julian Assange’s WikiLeaks to exemplify the complexities surrounding the debate about whether or not all information should be able to flow freely through networks. On the one hand, such a free-flow of information could “enhanc[e] our freedom” (Solove 2007 p17) and promote honesty within politics. On the other hand, uprooting and spreading facts to the (generally) uninformed wider population may trigger ‘the sky is falling’ scenarios, which are largely detrimental to the smooth functioning of society (Lovink et al 2010 p3; Schwarz 2011 p1). This essay will conclude by putting aside the question of ‘should’ or ‘should not’, and address the question of whether there is, realistically, anything anyone can do about the situation, given rapidly (and inevitably) spawning nature of the Internet.

Control over information is in no way a new political tactic in the maintenance of power. There was political unease surrounding the invention of the printing press in the West, as it “revolutionised the distribution of information” (Solove 2007 p18). At that time, the monarchs and popes reacted by implementing bans and licensing laws in an attempt to clog this new flow of information (Schwarz 2011 p1). Although there have been many examples in the meantime, WikiLeaks seems to be the most current (and extreme) example of political unease due to lessened control over information distribution (Schwarz 2011 p1). Julian Assange created a network in which over 250,000 State Department cables, mainly regarding the goings-on in Iraq and Afghanistan, were leaked and thus made easily accessible to anyone with the Internet (Hayes 2010 p3; Cockburn 2010 p9). The reaction to these leaks by governments around the world is akin to the reaction of monarchs and popes back in the 1500s. The Obama administration embarked on a frantic search for any form of legal justification to prosecute Assange and his operators, and wipe the WikiLeaks network from the Internet (Schwarz 2011 p1). Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Vice President Joseph Biden simultaneously labelled Assange as a “high-tech terrorist” (Sullum 2011 p10). And Assange was indeed dealt with as though he was a terrorist. The US branded him as an “enemy of the state” (Hayes 2010 p3), and tried to silence him by any means (Caddick 2010 p2). There were talks of possible assassinations, and Assange, in an article he wrote for The Australian newspaper, said that he received threats that his son would be kidnapped and harmed as a result of the leaks (Assange 2010). In light of the reaction by government departments globally (the Obama administration in particular), it is clear that politics relies heavily on the control over information flowing through networks, and any threat to this control is handled with brute force.

Source: The Australian

The flow of information through networks such as WikiLeaks takes a fairly sizable slice of power from political leaders’ plates. This shift in power can be viewed as a positive, as it keeps the general population in the loop regarding global affairs, and thus promotes honesty within politics. When Assange set out to develop WikiLeaks, his primary goal was to “bring greater truth” to interactions within governments (Caddick 2010 p2). Assange used the Internet as a medium to (re)distribute this “greater truth” to the masses (Caddick 2010 p2). Himself and his operators utilised this relatively new technology to its full potential, and in the age of always-accessible Internet and smart phones, WikiLeaks met (if not exceeded) its original goal. Within this network, Assange described his role as a “scientific journalist” – a reporter who provides “raw data” to readers, and thereby allows them to form their own, un-tampered-with opinion (Caddick 2010 p2). By leaking government cables, and making them widely accessible, he provided the world with a preview of what really goes on behind closed doors (Caddick 2010 p2). Rather than merely hearing the scripted words uttered in a presidential speech, or the repetitive chitchat exchanged during Question Time, the world was finally hearing the unadulterated, uncensored, un-PC words and thoughts of politicians under the pump (Cockburn 2010 p9). Assange believed that by exposing these words and thoughts through the media (which he, despite much contention, claims to be a part of), he was not only encouraging those involved in politics to play fair, but also made a stand on behalf of the general population. He believed that members of a democratic society should not be belittled by political trickery, and then expected to turn around and pay taxes (Assange 2010). Aside from the fact that secrecy in the Internet age is a costly endeavour (Schwarz 2011 p1), Assange believed that members of society have the right to know the goings-on of the political parties that they elected (or didn’t elect) into power. As was uttered in the Pentagon Papers case in front of the US Supreme Court, “only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government” (Assange, 2010). In light of the aforementioned ideas, it is little wonder why Julian Assange’s WikiLeaks, and the Internet as a whole, was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize in 2011 (Ulanoff 2011).

The flow of information through WikiLeaks (and mirror networks) may, from a contrary vantage point, may have a debilitating effect, rather than a freeing effect on society. In her article WikiLeaks: Power and the Network, Alison Caddick stresses that the general population needs interpreted data, rather than raw data (Caddick 2010 P2). The raw data presented on WikiLeaks are merely large chunks of information begging for contextualisation. Due to the fragmented nature of the Internet, leaked cables tend to float around cyberspace, and are therefore subject to misinterpretation. This is particularly hazardous in today’s fragile post 9/11, post Global Financial Crisis state, when it is so easy to blame political leaders for unease. Caddick states that WikiLeaks, and other such government-information-divulging networks “will combine with a growing sentiment that ‘power’ in general must be taken down” (Caddick 2010 p2). Seeing as WikiLeaks mainly attracts “wildly enthusiastic, but generally passive supporters” (Lovink et al 2010 p4), is it easy to imagine this hysterical, stick-it-to-the-man attitude presenting itself. An example of significant cables being taken out of context and therefore misunderstood, are the ones surrounding the Australian and American government’s anxiety about China’s rising political, economical and environmental power (Caddick 2010 p2). These cables portray the Australian government as “pathetic[ally] subservien[t]” to America, and as completely integrated within the US military and intelligence, but fail to give a back-story (Caddick 2010 p2). The reason why the Australian government may be feeling unease in the face of China’s potential rise of power, and why they may be closely involved if not embedded within the American military is completely detached from the “raw data” available in networks such as WikiLeaks. Furthermore, Frederick A. O. Schwarz from the National Law Journal predicts that the flow of this fragmented information may result in other nations being reluctant to negotiate with the Australian government “on matters of diplomacy and national security” (Schwarz 2011 p1). In this sense, it can be understood and appreciated why those with political power control information flowing through networks and into the minds of the “idiotic masses” (Lovink et al p4).

This essay posited that control over information flowing through networks is integral to maintaining political power. This notion was exemplified using Julian Assange’s WikiLeaks, and both the positives and negatives of such a free network were discussed. Whilst both sides of the spectrum – the complete control of information distribution by political leaders, and the easy-access of information by the general population – can be appreciated, the debate as to which side is right is actually quite redundant. Due to the structure of the Internet, shutting down a network like WikiLeaks is pointless. Once distribution of information on one WikiLeaks-esque network is suspended, thousands of mirror networks pop up in its place (Dvorak 2011). Instead of hysterically trying to cull networks that divulge confidential information, political leaders should accept the inevitable process of the Internet, and maintain their power in other, more realistic ways. One such way, as Dvorak put forth in his article WikiLeaks Tests the Internet, would be for the government to brand the leaks as “unimportant gossip” that is “out of context” (Dvorak 2011). That way, as Dvorak points out, WikiLeaks and other such networks would have “die[d] a natural Internet death by neglect or disinterest” (Dvorak 2011).

Source: The Australian

Bibliography

Assange, J., 2010. Don’t Shoot the Messenger for Revealing Uncomfortable Truths. The Australian. Available online at http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/wikileaks/dont-shoot-messenger-for-revealing-uncomfortable-truths/story-fn775xjq-1225967241332 accessed 03/04/2011.

Caddick, A., 2010. WikiLeaks: Power and the Network. Arena Magazine 109:2-3.

Cockburn, A., 2010. Lessons From WikiLeaks. Nation 291(26):9.

Dvorak, J., C., 2010. WikiLeaks Tests the Internet. PC Magazine Online. Available online at http://find.galegroup.com.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/gtx/infomark.do?&contentSet=IAC-Documents&type=retrieve&tabID=T003&prodId=EAIM&docId=A243800269&source=gale&srcprod=EAIM&userGroupName=unimelb&version=1.0 accessed 02/04/2011.

Hayes, C., 2010. In Defense of WikiLeaks. Nation 291(26):3.

Lovink, G,; Riemens, P., 2010. Twelve Theses on WikiLeaks. Eurozine. Available online at http://eurozine.com/pdf/2010-12-07-lovinkriemens-en.pdf accessed 02/04/2011.

Miller, R, 2011. Is WikiLeaks ‘The Press’? EContentMag 34(2):15.

Schwarz, F. A. O, 2011. A Broader Perspective on WikiLeaks. The National Law Journal. Available online at http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202484174789&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1 accessed 03/04/2011.

Solove, D., J., 2007. How the Free Flow of Information Liberates and Constrains Us. The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumour and Privacy on the Internet. New Haven: Yale University Press, pp. 17-49.

Sullum, J., 2011. Is Julian Assange a journalist? Reason Magazine 42(11):10.

Ulanoff, L., 2011. WikiLeaks and the Internet Nominated for 2011 Nobel Peace Prize. PC Magazine. Available online at http://find.galegroup.com.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/gtx/infomark.do?&contentSet=IAC-Documents&type=retrieve&tabID=T003&prodId=EAIM&docId=A250325995&source=gale&srcprod=EAIM&userGroupName=unimelb&version=1.0 Accessed 02/04/2011.

Mark Zuckerberg’s Comment on Sharing

“When people share more, the world becomes more open and connected, and in a more open world, many of the biggest problems we face together will become easier to solve.” – A (slightly after school special-esque, yet very true) quote by Mark Zuckerberg.