This was certainly an interesting read for me. I think I sort of understand the concepts behind “Digital Storytelling” now. I consider it to be a form of sharing history from a person-centered perspective. This reminds of of what it’s like to study history from the viewpoint of literature. Instead of history books vs literature, perhaps the conversation is changing to books vs literature vs digital storytelling. That said, the conversation is becoming increasingly important at this moment in time.
I began my readings but reading the argument of the creative commons license. It is an interesting read to me. I understand that this current shift in intellectual growth is fueled by a change in the way we share information; however, the people who created these internet objects should have rights to them. If I put in 100 hours on a web project, and I want to make sure that I receive the payments necessary to cover the costs that I put into them, I would like to know that my product is protected. I disagree with the statement that “it puts unprecedented power into the hands of of content owners.” Should it not? If they create it should they not have complete say over it? I think so.
Next, I read the length article titled “Storytelling, Emergence of a New Genre.” 10 years ago I never really looked at our current web system as web 1.0. Since then, I’ve held the opinion that it hasn’t changed, just modified existing tools. Instead of mIRC-based chats, we now have web-browser Facebook chats. Perhaps it has changed though; it seems this new wave of programs simplify what the web offers. I wonder if this will discourage creativity. A few years back, if I wanted my computer to do something specific, then I had to create a program for it. Now, it seems over-simplified. I think it makes people stupider when it comes to computers, and the programmers smarter. This gives programmers more control and power. Perhaps the new form of capital will lie with the programmers. I really like the point they make about Higher Education. It seems as though Web 2.0 makes it easier for students and universities to share and learn information. Although this is wonderful, I wonder if this will change the role of the “teacher”? Will the internet become the new lecturer, and the teacher become the new supporting role? I worry about the future of education because of this seemingly overwhelming shift in the way that student approach knowledge.
Lastly, I read “What is Web 2.0″ by Tim O’Riley. I like the chart provided that illustrates how .com based systems have transferred into more user-friendly systems. The problem with that is, it separates the user from the programmer more than before. If I had been 15 right now, I doubt I would have even considered programming. I think this only gives programmers unprecedented power. I like how they illustrate iTunes as a web 2.0 provider. This have a good reason for this in the sense that iTunes is more than an application, and it stretches beyond the scope of 1.0 sites. One can install this on a handheld phone and download music on the go. Overall, it seems as though the new argument is that Web 2.0 provides a wider range of opportunities for the average user; but, I can’t help but thinking “at what cost”? Arguments like “harnessing collective intelligence” takes attention away from the author and puts more emphasis on a never-ending desire of social utopia. In some ways I’m thinking that traditional education will allow you more basis to share your perceived knowledge with everyone else. Maybe I’m just resistant to the changes, I’ll find out in time.