Paradigms for Studying the Internet - Revision history

Caelum: /* Class Discussion */

2015-02-21T13:57:31Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:57, 21 February 2015
Line 186:		Line 186:

	Edwin Duque (15:37, 19 February 2015 (EST)[[User:Edwinduque\|Edwinduque]] ([[User talk:Edwinduque\|talk]]))		Edwin Duque (15:37, 19 February 2015 (EST)[[User:Edwinduque\|Edwinduque]] ([[User talk:Edwinduque\|talk]]))


	----		----


	I took a course in January called Leadership Lessons from Modern Presidential Politics – which I highly recommend to everyone here if you’ve got the time – and we learned a few things about the internet as well. First I’d go into some detail about the concepts we learned. One of the most striking concepts was “The Starfish and the Spider”. (Ref 2)This was taught to us in the perspective of business models and political campaign models, yet it could really apply to a wider range of things. The concept is simple, the spider structure has managers on top of managers, or shall we say a more inflexible management with power maintained at the top of the hierarchy. The starfish model attempts to break this apart; it not only take away a number of layers from the spider structure, but it also shifts the power down to the bottom. For example, an employee of the lowest rank could make certain decisions if it benefits his part of work. This gives more power and responsibility to the employees, which also gives them more meaning to stay with the firm.		I took a course in January called Leadership Lessons from Modern Presidential Politics – which I highly recommend to everyone here if you’ve got the time – and we learned a few things about the internet as well. First I’d go into some detail about the concepts we learned. One of the most striking concepts was “The Starfish and the Spider”. (Ref 2)This was taught to us in the perspective of business models and political campaign models, yet it could really apply to a wider range of things. The concept is simple, the spider structure has managers on top of managers, or shall we say a more inflexible management with power maintained at the top of the hierarchy. The starfish model attempts to break this apart; it not only take away a number of layers from the spider structure, but it also shifts the power down to the bottom. For example, an employee of the lowest rank could make certain decisions if it benefits his part of work. This gives more power and responsibility to the employees, which also gives them more meaning to stay with the firm.

Caelum: /* Class Discussion */

2015-02-21T13:56:50Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:56, 21 February 2015
Line 186:		Line 186:

	Edwin Duque (15:37, 19 February 2015 (EST)[[User:Edwinduque\|Edwinduque]] ([[User talk:Edwinduque\|talk]]))		Edwin Duque (15:37, 19 February 2015 (EST)[[User:Edwinduque\|Edwinduque]] ([[User talk:Edwinduque\|talk]]))

	----		----

	I took a course in January called Leadership Lessons from Modern Presidential Politics – which I highly recommend to everyone here if you’ve got the time – and we learned a few things about the internet as well. First I’d go into some detail about the concepts we learned. One of the most striking concepts was “The Starfish and the Spider”. (Ref 2)This was taught to us in the perspective of business models and political campaign models, yet it could really apply to a wider range of things. The concept is simple, the spider structure has managers on top of managers, or shall we say a more inflexible management with power maintained at the top of the hierarchy. The starfish model attempts to break this apart; it not only take away a number of layers from the spider structure, but it also shifts the power down to the bottom. For example, an employee of the lowest rank could make certain decisions if it benefits his part of work. This gives more power and responsibility to the employees, which also gives them more meaning to stay with the firm.		I took a course in January called Leadership Lessons from Modern Presidential Politics – which I highly recommend to everyone here if you’ve got the time – and we learned a few things about the internet as well. First I’d go into some detail about the concepts we learned. One of the most striking concepts was “The Starfish and the Spider”. (Ref 2)This was taught to us in the perspective of business models and political campaign models, yet it could really apply to a wider range of things. The concept is simple, the spider structure has managers on top of managers, or shall we say a more inflexible management with power maintained at the top of the hierarchy. The starfish model attempts to break this apart; it not only take away a number of layers from the spider structure, but it also shifts the power down to the bottom. For example, an employee of the lowest rank could make certain decisions if it benefits his part of work. This gives more power and responsibility to the employees, which also gives them more meaning to stay with the firm.

Caelum: /* Class Discussion */

2015-02-21T13:55:55Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:55, 21 February 2015
Line 187:		Line 187:
	Edwin Duque (15:37, 19 February 2015 (EST)[[User:Edwinduque\|Edwinduque]] ([[User talk:Edwinduque\|talk]]))		Edwin Duque (15:37, 19 February 2015 (EST)[[User:Edwinduque\|Edwinduque]] ([[User talk:Edwinduque\|talk]]))

	~~---------------------------------------------~~----		----

	I took a course in January called Leadership Lessons from Modern Presidential Politics – which I highly recommend to everyone here if you’ve got the time – and we learned a few things about the internet as well. First I’d go into some detail about the concepts we learned. One of the most striking concepts was “The Starfish and the Spider”. (Ref 2)This was taught to us in the perspective of business models and political campaign models, yet it could really apply to a wider range of things. The concept is simple, the spider structure has managers on top of managers, or shall we say a more inflexible management with power maintained at the top of the hierarchy. The starfish model attempts to break this apart; it not only take away a number of layers from the spider structure, but it also shifts the power down to the bottom. For example, an employee of the lowest rank could make certain decisions if it benefits his part of work. This gives more power and responsibility to the employees, which also gives them more meaning to stay with the firm.		I took a course in January called Leadership Lessons from Modern Presidential Politics – which I highly recommend to everyone here if you’ve got the time – and we learned a few things about the internet as well. First I’d go into some detail about the concepts we learned. One of the most striking concepts was “The Starfish and the Spider”. (Ref 2)This was taught to us in the perspective of business models and political campaign models, yet it could really apply to a wider range of things. The concept is simple, the spider structure has managers on top of managers, or shall we say a more inflexible management with power maintained at the top of the hierarchy. The starfish model attempts to break this apart; it not only take away a number of layers from the spider structure, but it also shifts the power down to the bottom. For example, an employee of the lowest rank could make certain decisions if it benefits his part of work. This gives more power and responsibility to the employees, which also gives them more meaning to stay with the firm.

Caelum: /* Class Discussion */

2015-02-21T13:54:45Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:54, 21 February 2015
Line 186:		Line 186:

	Edwin Duque (15:37, 19 February 2015 (EST)[[User:Edwinduque\|Edwinduque]] ([[User talk:Edwinduque\|talk]]))		Edwin Duque (15:37, 19 February 2015 (EST)[[User:Edwinduque\|Edwinduque]] ([[User talk:Edwinduque\|talk]]))

	-------------------------------------------------		-------------------------------------------------

Caelum: /* Class Discussion */

2015-02-21T13:53:59Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:53, 21 February 2015
Line 197:		Line 197:

	References:		References:

	Ref 1: http://www.niemanlab.org/2011/10/the-contribution-conundrum-why-did-wikipedia-succeed-while-other-encyclopedias-failed/		Ref 1: http://www.niemanlab.org/2011/10/the-contribution-conundrum-why-did-wikipedia-succeed-while-other-encyclopedias-failed/

Caelum: /* Class Discussion */

2015-02-21T13:53:36Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:53, 21 February 2015
Line 198:		Line 198:
	References:		References:
	Ref 1: http://www.niemanlab.org/2011/10/the-contribution-conundrum-why-did-wikipedia-succeed-while-other-encyclopedias-failed/		Ref 1: http://www.niemanlab.org/2011/10/the-contribution-conundrum-why-did-wikipedia-succeed-while-other-encyclopedias-failed/

	Ref 2: http://media.portland.indymedia.org/media/2008/10/380532.pdf		Ref 2: http://media.portland.indymedia.org/media/2008/10/380532.pdf

	[[User:Caelum\|Caelum]] ([[User talk:Caelum\|talk]]) 08:49, 21 February 2015 (EST)		[[User:Caelum\|Caelum]] ([[User talk:Caelum\|talk]]) 08:49, 21 February 2015 (EST)

Caelum: /* Class Discussion */

2015-02-21T13:53:00Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:53, 21 February 2015
Line 188:		Line 188:
	-------------------------------------------------		-------------------------------------------------

	I took a course in January called Leadership Lessons from Modern Presidential Politics – which I highly recommend to everyone here if you’ve got the time – and we learned a few things about the internet as well. First I’d go into some detail about the concepts we learned. One of the most striking concepts was “The Starfish and the Spider”. This was taught to us in the perspective of business models and political campaign models, yet it could really apply to a wider range of things. The concept is simple, the spider structure has managers on top of managers, or shall we say a more inflexible management with power maintained at the top of the hierarchy. The starfish model attempts to break this apart; it not only take away a number of layers from the spider structure, but it also shifts the power down to the bottom. For example, an employee of the lowest rank could make certain decisions if it benefits his part of work. This gives more power and responsibility to the employees, which also gives them more meaning to stay with the firm.		I took a course in January called Leadership Lessons from Modern Presidential Politics – which I highly recommend to everyone here if you’ve got the time – and we learned a few things about the internet as well. First I’d go into some detail about the concepts we learned. One of the most striking concepts was “The Starfish and the Spider”. (Ref 2)This was taught to us in the perspective of business models and political campaign models, yet it could really apply to a wider range of things. The concept is simple, the spider structure has managers on top of managers, or shall we say a more inflexible management with power maintained at the top of the hierarchy. The starfish model attempts to break this apart; it not only take away a number of layers from the spider structure, but it also shifts the power down to the bottom. For example, an employee of the lowest rank could make certain decisions if it benefits his part of work. This gives more power and responsibility to the employees, which also gives them more meaning to stay with the firm.

	We could also summarize the starfish model as a “scalable” model. Scalable means software which could be copy and pasted almost indefinitely and distributed world wide. Unscalable things would be dentistry which requires time per patient, and you could only help a number of patients per day. This becomes interesting because in the internet world, starfish models means that information comes from multiple sources, such as Twitter, Facebook, and Wikipedia. Spider models would be like traditional news agencies, or websites like cnn, Financial times, Bloomberg. These websites get their information from one source only. The starfish model also states that things grow a lot faster, but the quality may diminish. Which is also in line with what we learned in assignment 1. Wikipedia had to create strict “rules” in order to maintain its legitimacy. It could have failed just as easily as it could have succeeded.		We could also summarize the starfish model as a “scalable” model. Scalable means software which could be copy and pasted almost indefinitely and distributed world wide. Unscalable things would be dentistry which requires time per patient, and you could only help a number of patients per day. This becomes interesting because in the internet world, starfish models means that information comes from multiple sources, such as Twitter, Facebook, and Wikipedia. Spider models would be like traditional news agencies, or websites like cnn, Financial times, Bloomberg. These websites get their information from one source only. The starfish model also states that things grow a lot faster, but the quality may diminish. Which is also in line with what we learned in assignment 1. Wikipedia had to create strict “rules” in order to maintain its legitimacy. It could have failed just as easily as it could have succeeded.
Line 198:		Line 198:
	References:		References:
	Ref 1: http://www.niemanlab.org/2011/10/the-contribution-conundrum-why-did-wikipedia-succeed-while-other-encyclopedias-failed/		Ref 1: http://www.niemanlab.org/2011/10/the-contribution-conundrum-why-did-wikipedia-succeed-while-other-encyclopedias-failed/
			Ref 2: http://media.portland.indymedia.org/media/2008/10/380532.pdf

	[[User:Caelum\|Caelum]] ([[User talk:Caelum\|talk]]) 08:49, 21 February 2015 (EST)		[[User:Caelum\|Caelum]] ([[User talk:Caelum\|talk]]) 08:49, 21 February 2015 (EST)

Caelum: /* Class Discussion */

2015-02-21T13:51:26Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:51, 21 February 2015
Line 195:		Line 195:

	In my opinion, the availability of the starfish model being incorporated into technology meant that things could grow exponentially or fail miserably. The application “Draw Something” grew exponentially because it was scalable. If something physical gained this attraction, it would not grow that fast. Though I would also add my reasoning for the success of Wikipedia too. I believe the rules and regulations put forth by Wikipedia at the start created an aligned sense of belief on the direction of the community. It subsequently made the users become self –reinforcing the ideals of the website. From my learnings last semester on political leadership, one reason why Obama won the campaign was the use of the Starfish model; giving the power to the average folks. They could create subcategories such as MyObama-Skateboarders. This sense of connection was their greatest success. I believe Wikipedia has achieved their current success with a similar manner.		In my opinion, the availability of the starfish model being incorporated into technology meant that things could grow exponentially or fail miserably. The application “Draw Something” grew exponentially because it was scalable. If something physical gained this attraction, it would not grow that fast. Though I would also add my reasoning for the success of Wikipedia too. I believe the rules and regulations put forth by Wikipedia at the start created an aligned sense of belief on the direction of the community. It subsequently made the users become self –reinforcing the ideals of the website. From my learnings last semester on political leadership, one reason why Obama won the campaign was the use of the Starfish model; giving the power to the average folks. They could create subcategories such as MyObama-Skateboarders. This sense of connection was their greatest success. I believe Wikipedia has achieved their current success with a similar manner.

			References:
			Ref 1: http://www.niemanlab.org/2011/10/the-contribution-conundrum-why-did-wikipedia-succeed-while-other-encyclopedias-failed/

	[[User:Caelum\|Caelum]] ([[User talk:Caelum\|talk]]) 08:49, 21 February 2015 (EST)		[[User:Caelum\|Caelum]] ([[User talk:Caelum\|talk]]) 08:49, 21 February 2015 (EST)

Caelum: /* Class Discussion */

2015-02-21T13:49:38Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:49, 21 February 2015
Line 186:		Line 186:

	Edwin Duque (15:37, 19 February 2015 (EST)[[User:Edwinduque\|Edwinduque]] ([[User talk:Edwinduque\|talk]]))		Edwin Duque (15:37, 19 February 2015 (EST)[[User:Edwinduque\|Edwinduque]] ([[User talk:Edwinduque\|talk]]))
			-------------------------------------------------

			I took a course in January called Leadership Lessons from Modern Presidential Politics – which I highly recommend to everyone here if you’ve got the time – and we learned a few things about the internet as well. First I’d go into some detail about the concepts we learned. One of the most striking concepts was “The Starfish and the Spider”. This was taught to us in the perspective of business models and political campaign models, yet it could really apply to a wider range of things. The concept is simple, the spider structure has managers on top of managers, or shall we say a more inflexible management with power maintained at the top of the hierarchy. The starfish model attempts to break this apart; it not only take away a number of layers from the spider structure, but it also shifts the power down to the bottom. For example, an employee of the lowest rank could make certain decisions if it benefits his part of work. This gives more power and responsibility to the employees, which also gives them more meaning to stay with the firm.

			We could also summarize the starfish model as a “scalable” model. Scalable means software which could be copy and pasted almost indefinitely and distributed world wide. Unscalable things would be dentistry which requires time per patient, and you could only help a number of patients per day. This becomes interesting because in the internet world, starfish models means that information comes from multiple sources, such as Twitter, Facebook, and Wikipedia. Spider models would be like traditional news agencies, or websites like cnn, Financial times, Bloomberg. These websites get their information from one source only. The starfish model also states that things grow a lot faster, but the quality may diminish. Which is also in line with what we learned in assignment 1. Wikipedia had to create strict “rules” in order to maintain its legitimacy. It could have failed just as easily as it could have succeeded.

			After learning about scalability and the starfish model, I was very fascinated when I read about the other failed encyclopedias before Wikipedia came into existence. (Ref 1) The part about Wikipedia keeping the old norms of how an encyclopedia made a lot of sense. People like change, but not that much change. Something entirely different could in fact be too unusual to the human eye. I once heard that if you’re one step ahead of the curve, you’re smart; two steps, you’re a genius; three steps, you’re an idiot. I guess people can’t comprehend something that is so far away. The next point about Wikipedia not focusing on technological development does have some truths to it. It does not exclude the technologically challenged individuals. They could just as easily become an editor compared with other more technologically gifted individuals. Basically it is agreeing with the starfish model, of pushing power down to the lowest level. If the least technologically literate user could edit a Wikipedia page, it means everyone is capable of doing so! This point is also explained as Wikipedia offering low transaction costs to participation. This is exactly the point about making it easy for the average user.

			In my opinion, the availability of the starfish model being incorporated into technology meant that things could grow exponentially or fail miserably. The application “Draw Something” grew exponentially because it was scalable. If something physical gained this attraction, it would not grow that fast. Though I would also add my reasoning for the success of Wikipedia too. I believe the rules and regulations put forth by Wikipedia at the start created an aligned sense of belief on the direction of the community. It subsequently made the users become self –reinforcing the ideals of the website. From my learnings last semester on political leadership, one reason why Obama won the campaign was the use of the Starfish model; giving the power to the average folks. They could create subcategories such as MyObama-Skateboarders. This sense of connection was their greatest success. I believe Wikipedia has achieved their current success with a similar manner.
			[[User:Caelum\|Caelum]] ([[User talk:Caelum\|talk]]) 08:49, 21 February 2015 (EST)

Edwinduque: /* Class Discussion */

2015-02-19T20:37:17Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:37, 19 February 2015
Line 174:		Line 174:
	Chanel Rion		Chanel Rion
	[[User:Chanel Rion\|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion\|talk]]) 14:55, 6 February 2015 (EST)		[[User:Chanel Rion\|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion\|talk]]) 14:55, 6 February 2015 (EST)
			-------------------------------------------------

			It is very interesting to look back and see the way how the internet evolves, what is framing it, regulating it, and making it be the way it is, such as norms, law, architecture, and market. There are problems such as ads, harassment and other things associated with this lack of regulation or evolution if you will.
			The architecture can regulate it so much to as to the purpose of what the program was created for, the market but wanting it, the law by framing its ways, and norms by doing something similar to the law by the way of majorities.

			I think that with respect to the problems for lack of regulation like harassment, and annoyance pretty much, there is a thin line between some one's free right to express, and someone invading the rights of others to enjoy this product, but it is so difficult to establish laws that can regulate this matter in this situation, because the internet is intangible.

			I was doing some research and it appears that in order to monitor this behavior of harassing there should be surveillance in every where, and that it is just very difficult. Therefore, that could be one big problem of regulation.

			There are also other parts of the reading that basically state that regulation and freedom overlap, but the results of harassment can make one think that twice in how this problem can be solved.

			Edwin Duque (15:37, 19 February 2015 (EST)[[User:Edwinduque\|Edwinduque]] ([[User talk:Edwinduque\|talk]]))