Her følger oppdateringer fra foredraget til Clay Shirky:
Social Media: Insurgents and Incumbents
se bilde på: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150349954427781&set=a.274958232780.141597.95681482780&type=1
(innlegget oppdateres løpende, så trykk oppdater i nettleseren for å få mer)
På engelsk:
Want to talk about how social media changes the culture.
(Går rett inn i et eksempel jeg mista pga oppdateringer)
…collective action: What do we do as a group?
Women in India/egypt(?) -Do i go out if i risk getting attacked?
The third option: Not going oout/going – Start a Facebook group
Did valentines updates with underwear pics, only of the underwear, no persons.
Governments respond to groups – not individual actions. But here it was a group of women doing an action.
Is this a story about new media or a story of the old media?
Both tings: Stories published and shared both in new and old media.
Various medias act together- The medias are woven together. The distinctions are not that interesting anymore.
—-
How it worked:
A small number of media/senders wo sent one message to the network to be consumed by the networks. (media landscape of the 20th century. -Built up for consumption.
Now:
The individual now have a voice. We can now talk back. Access to publication tools aren’t limited anymore. They are everywhere. -And people in the network are also cross-connected.
ex; the norwegian rose parade (22. july)
We overestimate the value of access to information and underestimate the value of access to each other.
The main value is access to each other.
This makes us arrange our lives in new/different ways. Including new ways of taking on problems that would be hard to solve in other ways.
DARPA (brought us the internet) – Decided they wanted to create a new problem for people to solve.
The problem: 10 red weather ballons all over USA. but didn’t tell where they where.
They asked: Tell us where they are, we will give you $ 40K pr ballon.
MIT said: you also get paid for introducing us to someone who introduces us to someone who nows where they are.
-This solved the problem of distribution of the information. So this team won the competition. -Cause they gave the right incentive for getting the information they needed.
DARPA set ut 30 days limit to solve this, the MIT solved it in 9 hours.
The guardian needed more investigation than they could hire/pay.
They engaged the brithish people. But no effect.
So they put up a progress bar. That helped a lot, just that simple visualization of the progress in the work. So the design in the invitation matters as much as the nature of the task.
The interesting part / When things change is when the technology is getting boring. (means most people use them)
The Guardian is getting value from the populations free time. With the new tools we can take and use this (the cognitive surplus = the freed time + the connection that lets us take advantage of it)
Wikipedia is the best ex. -How much time to create? -By 2008 a 100 million hours of time.
TV-watching in USA: 200 billion hours in USA alone every year. (Wikipedia is a small % of the time spent consumed by watching TV. -So a thiny change in the time we use for various things will have enormous effects. The 100 million hours equals a weekend of commercials. -People don’t need to throw out their TVs
Lolcats are also a result of free time on the Internet.
The cognitive surplus is used for both locates and wikipedia. This always happens. It didnt take long from the printing press to we had a pornographic novel (1499), but it took a 150 years (1665) before we had a scientific journal.
Går inn i et eks. om noen koreanske jenter og et boyband, samling på åpne plasser og organisering/fysiske samlinger mv. som organiseres på nett. Politiet splittet til slutt disse samlingene, mend det hele ble dokumentert med live-streams Bambuser (ol).
Statsleder måtte på nasjonal tv og unskylde.
Dokumentasjonen av ting som skjedde i den arabiske våren var sentralt for styrendes muligheter til å reagere. Det samme ser vi på occupy Wall Street. -Det er koordinerte handliger som er live tiljgengelig overralt. -OWS er det mest fotograferte event noen gang.
CNN – bruker personer private videoer for å komme nærmere på.
(Beklager at noen eksempler faller ut her fordi det rett og slett går for fort med Shirkys hyppige skifter)
Fra Rune Smistad på twitter (@cortado) “Sosial teknologi skaper kulturell endring ved å tilby synkronisering av mening, koordinering av handling, dokumentasjon #NMDShirky”
Omtrent samme fra Bente Kalsnes (@benteka) “Shirky: Collective action: Synchronization of opinions and action + documentation of results #nmdshirky”
Editorial controll is needed when you have comments in MSM – But this is better than locking them out, because otherwise they find other places for their expressions.
Creators: 1, Synthesizers 10, consumers 100.
EX:
The Times
The New York Times
BBC
NPR (national public radio)
These are four english language news sources. The difference?
The two first are profit based, the latter non-profits.
TNYT now has a 20% free-model, and intensive users who share gets more, starts paying.
Shirky is saying the difference says BBC and The Times: Everyone is the same. – consumers
The NYT and NPR: Everyone is different. – Users. They offer interaction tools. Giving something/a little for free to keep more readers By putting down a pay wall makes you loose to many readers. They work to keep people reading. People pay for TNYT because they want the product/sollutions, and don’t want it go out of business.
The big 3 changes:
Money – The change doesn’t give back enough money, but more than nothing. gives a leverage to change/adapt.
Audience -with a fermium model you don’t loose 95 % of the audience
Culture – The best news of the change: Isn’t massive new business. But a change of the culture in the organization. That is also the worst news of this.
Straks spørrerunde ved Heidi Nordby Lunde:
Heidi/ Vampus: I would call you a New Media Rockstar! 
Heidi starter en mediedebatt:
Shirky: Newspapers stay well on top of really boring stories.
Heidi: How make readers contribute the way we want them
Shirky: Users do not behave they way you want. The are unreliable. They sense that when you try to make them do something, they act like small kids. Do something else, in that way also predictable. -If you treat people like unpaid employees they will act like that: Do nothing. So treat them better. Give some sort of fun/motivational factor into it.
Heidi: Change comes slower than we accept them to.
Shirky: YouTube: Worst comments on the internet. -The media want low cost management, high quality and lots of comments. -But you can’t get all three. Try to pic two.
Heidi: VG, afteposten, Dagbladet: Your taking notes, right?
Shirky: When there comes a new (better) solution to an old problem, the institutions who are the solution to the problem work to keep the problem.
SPM fra TV2 om Kvinner:
Shirky: More wommen participate, but also the old problems remain. (arab spring with more)
Schibsted Media Group: What will be the role of news organizations in world with increasing number of smartphones used by everyone.
Shirky: The middle will coming. Ways of involving the citizens in the news. Crowdsourcing translations. We need quick translations. New tools here are there, but are also still needed to be developed.
Anders Hofseth: Facebook?
Shirky: It was impossible to imagine something else. Its strange to imagine that Facebook can be utilized by the marked. This is the first global tool that connects us with the 6 links of separation. -This is the main tool for conversation. That this is held in a private company makes shirky nervous about the democratic impact. Facebook is irreplaceably important. Its values and way of running business is important for business. -But i could be wrong. -The threat of another company threatening Facebook makes them take more to their users. But i don’t se anymore how they can emerge (go away) -No one is really threatening them.
Shirky: We need (as people) to fight for possibilities to keep anonymous participants online. -But it also needs to be som sort of regulated.
Helge Høybråten: Wikipeida, destroying the encyclopedia business. It killed of a business. Why /why not should the same happen to news media?
Shirky: Why: -Historically we have had this for a long time and are used to this industry making sure politicians aren’t corrupt. This is a part of our democracies. But media is also used for other things; Celebrties, and horoscopes. But more worried that we have an industry that doesn’t keep this important social (democratic) function. -Wee need to find a new way to keep this function. Shirky is more woried of the social function going away, but not he commercial function.So wee need to care about the core of this. We need people to take care of looking at the daily doings of the government. Its hard to get ordinary people doing this. Its boring, but needs to be done.
SPM: Partcipatory changes, more engagement. Healthcare patients. How change the way we run healthcare?
Shirky: Ny country og yours? -USA its a different question. Some people are content with the model “we have data, and decide when we give them to you” -Usualy if you give data to people in a way that makes sense to them things happen with it. Otherwise its little used. WithFoursquare you get good info of where you been. graphs with more. Gives young people better insights in their drinking habits, than their medical state. -So find a way of providing the data better.
Spm fra Vizrt: Wikipedia is still not accepted as source for references in scientific work, while news reports/info is acceptable.
Shirky: The academy is preserving the problem with they are the solution to. Everyone uses wikipedia, and then follows the links at the bottom as their sources. In US its unconstitutional to lock ut news producers/news competition. Some try the solution of flooding twitter and more with propaganda to get out with the most info. Over the long term we need better ways of sorting these things. The information. (How much info can you take – we need to sort ut the good stuff. This is still a challenge.)
Det var det!