The Facebook Effect pgs 107-214

The second part of The Facebook Effect by David Kirkpatrick tells how facebook functioned in the earlier days as it was becoming a company.  Throughout this whole section Kirkpatrick keeps mentioning different offers facebook was getting from various companies trying to buy facebook.  He also makes sure to include various accounts of people not wanting to work for facebook because it was being viewed as a childish company.  These two points are brought up throughout this section while discussing additions and changes to the page and how the users react to them.

During this section of the book the photo section of facebook was added.  This increased facebook's popularity tremendously, because it made it possible to see what people had recently been doing especially since the photos were kept in chronological order.  This allowed facebook to grow the same way as which technology grows.  Technopoly and Computers both show how development and growth in something are capable of happening unfiltered due to people's desire to be included or in the know of something new.  Zuckerberg also avoided the danger  that goes along with people's interest in something new.  He did this by how he introduced new groups into the page.  This was done by only letting high school kids in if they were invited by someone who was already in facebook.  Also changes were made to the site to make it seem less childish before adults were allowed to join.  If facebook was instantly opened to everyone then Zuckerberg would have lost control of how people used the page and due to people always wanting something new facebook would quickly have become obsolete from people losing interest.

American culture is greatly effected by how facebook is run and what facebook is.  The fact that our everyday interactions have become a way for people to make money shows the interests of our culture as a whole.  This is that if there is a way to make money off of something that people are doing someone will try to.  Once again the idea of how people are being thrown into the industry younger because of how quickly the industry grows comes up because the older generation of companies can not understand why Zuckerberg will not take the offers he had been getting for his company.  Since he was young facebook was run differently and had more ideals then to just make the most profit (which is why facebook is still strong today) thus making a different way for a company to be run in America.  The popularity of facebook has also made it possible for facebook itself to effect American culture.  Since Zuckerberg has been opposed to allowing people to have two profiles, it has forced work life and social life to be integrated for many Americans.  This of course also leads to new cultural problems people have to deal with.

The Facebook Effect pgs 1-106

The first part of The Facebook Effect by David Kirkpatrick goes through the beginning stages of facebook of how Mark Zuckerberg originally got the ideas for facebook and how he worked with his friends to begin to make facebook what it is today.  The book makes sure to present Zuckerberg and his friends as young college students who live a common college lifestyle.  Kirkpatrick also makes sure to point out all the mistakes the young creators of facebook made along the way.

Kirkpatrick points out that facebook's founders were young and made legal mistakes along the way not only because it makes the book more interesting, but because it shows how young the technology and computer industry have become.  Books such as Computers and videos we have watched in class describe how since technology advances so fast so do people.  This means that like older technology people can easily become obsolete in the industry.  In Kirkpatrick's book, Zuckerberg is described as having the capability of creating programs that people enjoy using.  It seems that all the network pages that Zuckerberg created before facebook people also liked using as well.  The reason why Zuckerberg had this capability was because he was young and he knew what other people his age would enjoy using.  Zuckerberg also when asked in the earlier stages why he was making this site, his answer was that he did it for fun not profit.  This is probably why facebook is as successful as it is today and also why it ran into a good amount of legal problems.  Since it was for fun, Zuckerberg did not sell his site to the first bidder and remains in control of the company, thus allowing the site to keep its aesthetic that people have come to enjoy using.  The legal troubles come in, because when one is not trying to make money off of something one usually does not worry about others trying to take credit (in other words money) for what one has made.

The way this effects American culture is that these new technologies are forcing people to enter this marketing world at a young age.  They have the technology knowledge and fresh minds that allows them to do well, but lack business experiences which opens them up to be taken advantage of.  Once again our laws and education practices are not really keeping up with technology.  In order to fix this problem two things can be done, we must hold back on accepting new technologies right when they come out, or we must be willing to update our old system of learning and rules to change faster with the time.  For some reason our culture is willing to accept new technology blindly, but is unwilling to change outdated ways of life.

Wikipedia's take on Polygamy in North America

Auditing a wikipedia page was a very informative experience.  The first step was probably the hardest for my group, which was finding a wikipedia page worthy of having us audit.  Ideas that were thrown around were cloning, the neutron bomb,  and cassette culture.  These were either taken by another group, to short, and not controversial enough respectively.  I then suggested we audit the page for the band Gorgoroth which had pictures of crucified people on stage during their performance.  This was instantly deemed too controversial to do (probably for the best).  In the end we pretty much failed in finding our own topic and the professor gave us polygamy in North America.

At the first glance of the article, it was obvious that this article was just going to be about the most publicized and popular case of polygamy in North America which is that of the Mormon religion.  The first statement of the article made it seem that polygamy only happened with a male with multiple wives, which by the definition of polygamy is not the case.  If for some reason polygamy only occurs this way and not with any other combination of partners in North America, this should have been stated in the article.  The next obvious focus of the article was that most of the time was going to be spent on the United States.  Once again if for some reason less polygamy is practiced in the other two countries of North America this should have been stated.  These two problems with the article showed that it was too focused on one topic and did not look at the big picture of what the page was supposed to be about.

When it came to the references, we checked the validity by seeing what they were used to cite in the article and then see what they actually had to say in the article.  Most of the references had something wrong with them.  All of the extreme religious sites were used to prove statistical information instead of showing an opinion (usually an extreme one).  All of the good resources seemed to be used poorly.  For instance four very objective articles from reliable sources on genetic mutations were used to cite one sentence that did not have to do with the subject they were on.  The page barely even mentioned inbreeding which shows that a lot of the information was watered down.  By doing this individual statements were not biased, but on a whole the page was biased because of this emission of facts.  From reading the resources I got a very different picture of polygamy in North America then from just reading the wikipedia page.  Therefore the wikipedia page for polygamy in North America makes a very horrible scholarly source, but I guess is a good source if you only want to know information for small talk.

Like many of the wikipedia references for polygamy in North America I will sign off by saying "GLORY TO GOD" (luckily this doesn't discredit me in the eyes of wikipedia)

Made to Break: Technology and Obsolescence in America pgs 187-281

The last part of Made to Break: Technology and Obsolescence in America by Giles Slade discusses how the invention of computer chips has effected obsolescence, how weapons have planned obsolescence, how cell phones have effected obsolescence, and finally discusses the effects and how to deal with all these used electronics.  Slade goes through each of these technologies showing how once a new technology is introduced it eventually will leave the old devices using the old technology obsolete.  He then explains how this "e-waste" will keep on building and how unforeseen resource limitation are starting to present a problem.

The invention of the computer chip was the the beginning of technology obsolescence as we know it today.  The invention of the chip lead to forcing physical computing systems into obsolescence, such as the slide rule.  This does not seem to be that big of a deal, the extreme obsolescence came out once the personal computer started to be introduced to mainstream society.  When buying a computer, the two things one must balance out are cost and life-span of the computer.  It seems as if the cheaper the chips become in computers the easier it is for people to leave them obsolete, therefore allowing the life-span of a computer to shrink drastically without the consumer caring.  Slade shows this once apple released a personal computer that people seemed to buy just for one application that is offered.  The reason why this computer was also so attractive to the consumer was that it was not going to become obsolete instantly.  Now that the price for computers is dropping this life span is not as important.  The cell phone throws in an interesting element into things becoming obsolete, because cell phones have become another accessory to our everyday appearance.  Slade points out that cell phones have become like shoes, in the sense that most people are starting to have more than one pair.  It has become very common for people to have two cell phones, one for work and one for personal use.  They are also like shoes in the sense that they have become part of fashion.  Most people want to have clothes that are in fashion, for the same reason why people want phones that are current.  The actual reason is very unclear, but most people would not have it any other way than to be up to date.  This attitude leads to tremendous amounts of waste for obvious reasons.  In order to deal with the waste is a technology that can not be developed fast enough.  It is hard enough for the resources used to make electronics to be found since most people never thought certain types of metals used in these devices would ever be needed.  With all this time worrying about how to continue making these products and where is it possible to obtain the resources, how to get rid of the obsolete devices seems to be the last idea on the company's mind.  

When it comes to American culture it is clear to see how we are effected.  These technologies have become so current that they have entered this dark category we call "fashion."  Since our culture has taught us that "fashion" is so important no one bothers looking at the negative repercussions because being unfashionable is bad enough.

Made to Break: Technology and Obsolescence in America pgs 83-185

The second part of Made to Break: Technology and Obsolescence in America by Giles Slade goes through various advances in American products such as the FM radio, nylon stockings, housing, and cars. In all of these cases Slade spends a good portion of time explaining the business portion of these advancements. He describes how companies would try to compete with one another and how their strategies to compete and make more money factored into how items became obsolete.

Companies are both hurt and can benefit from the obsolescence of their products. In order for a company to not be harmed by the obsolescence of a product, they must be willing to promote the next advancement that makes their previous product obsolete. RCA is described as doing just that when Slade explains how RCA was promoting the invention of the television as making their AM radios obsolete. This greatly increases the obsolescence of goods since it forces companies to constantly aim for making their products obsolete in order to stay ahead of their competition. As the book Computers shows the development towards making things as small as possible forces products to become more complicated. Slade describes the problem with this by discussing the pocket sized FM radio. Before the pocket sized radio, most things such as radios and televisions used vacuum tubes that were known to break easily so the products were designed to be able to take replacement parts with small amounts of maintenance. In order to make the pocket radio small the use of glass tubes did not make sense so a more complex technology was used making it impossible for the consumer to fix. This idea of not being able to replace a broken part leaving the whole product obsolete has not only become more common, but has become the standard. At the end of the second part Slade brings up that their was backlash against obsolescence such as this. The companies would describe it as people's want to have newer better items as "planned obsolescence" where as the consumer viewed this more as companies' way of making products that do not last. When it came to Volkswagen actually did quite well advertising that they would not make pointless changes to their model just to get their consumers to believe the old model was obsolete.

When it comes to American culture obsolescence seems to have become the standard. There are not many things we own that when they stop working we buy a replacement part. Instead we go out and buy a whole new device. Even with the occasional backlash about our wastefulness technology is moving to fast for everyone to understand how our products work in order to service them. Companies also use the fact that certain advances have become a necessity to being part of our culture and make getting the simplest design nearly impossible. Whenever I go to the cell phone store because my cell phone stopped working because they are not made durable enough to be kept in my pocket (where they are intended to be kept), I cannot get a phone that does not have a camera, access to the Internet, or hundreds of other seemingly useless capabilities. It has reached the point where we do not have a choice, but to contribute to the obsolescence and still remain part of the culture in America.

Made to Break: Technology and Obsolescence in America pgs 1-81

The book Made to Break: Technology and Obsolescence in America by Giles Slade describes how America has come to this point where almost everything we own is disposable or will become obsolete in the near future.  In the introduction he briefly touches on why this is a bad thing due to our increase in waste, and then spends the rest of the first part describing specific key events bringing us to this way of life.  He claims this has come about through advancements in technology, new marketing techniques, and America's crave to have the latest up-to-date things.

Advancements in technology are presented to us as ways to improve our quality of life.  The problem with this is that in order to achieve this new quality one must continue to buy newer things making their previous belongings obsolete.  In Made to Break Slade spends a good portion of time talking about Henry Ford's model T and how Ford did not want his automobile design to become obsolete, but due to advancement in technology such as the electric starter and the competition using newer technology the obsolescence of the model T seemed inevitable.  In the past obsolescence did not seem to be that much of a worry.  This is not because people did not crave the most current items, but because the advancements in technology were not as rapid.  The book Computers presents this growth by showing how in the initial stages of computer development advancement occurred very slowly and seemed almost linear, but as time progressed it turned out to actually have exponential growth.  This obsolescence is also fueled by the fact that we seem to accept these technological advancements blindly, therefore allowing everything we own to become obsolete.  The book Technopoly discusses our willingness to accept technology and how we should take a step back and see if these advances are truly beneficial to us.  By taking this approach it would also allow us to see which items should be allowed to become obsolete and which ones are better the way they are.

A big part in this obsolescence is caused by American culture.  Pretty much everyone is raised under the idea that we should strive to be as successful as possible, and of course along with that success comes luxuries.  In the past many luxuries we enjoy today could only be achieved through large amounts of wealth.  Now, due to cheaper materials and mass production, these luxuries can be obtained by a much larger population.  Along with this though comes our competitive nature.  Many would view success almost like a rank, so can one be seen as a success if everyone else is just as successful?  This then leads to even more obsolescence since in American culture, one must not only have up-to-date technology, but also have up-to-date technology that others do not have.  This of course allows us to throw away old technology without a second thought.

The World and Wikipedia pgs 114-225

The second half of The World and Wikipedia: How We Are Editing Reality by Andrew Dalby explains why we love, the chaos behind, and why we trust and do not trust Wikipedia.  For why we love Wikipedia the book discusses how it makes everyone as equal, and the fact everyone gets to write about whatever they want.  The following chapter is cleverly titled "Chaos and Beyond; or Why We love it Version 2.5."  This chapter talks about all the editing wars and vandalism on Wikipedia, but then explains why this also makes a lot of people more interested in Wikipedia.  On why people don't trust Wikipedia Dalby writes on the fact that the readers do not know why an author has written the articles they have posted which means they might be biased.  When it comes to why we do trust Wikipedia the point that all facts are subjective no matter what encyclopedia one reads is brought up.

The Internet has made it so everyone is a contributor and not just readers or watchers.  When it comes to Wikipedia a apparent sixteen year old boy from New Jersey was able to win awards and receive recognition for articles he posted on the British Peerage system.  Just like the case of youtube people have been able to be recognized as amazing dances without having to go to school for it or even travel to show off what they can do.  In the Ted talk they even mentioned how a gathering of dancers from youtube performed at the Grammies. Even the chaos involved in Wikipedia just showed how much more we love it.  Normal encyclopedia's are viewed as borrow, the reason why is because there is no drama.  Wikipedia is described in the book as another social networking site where people argue through editing of articles.  Like the same reason facebook is popular, Wikipedia allows us to get caught up in the drama of writing an encyclopedia and we cannot seem to get enough of it.

Many worry that our culture will be effected negatively by this because nobody knows the reason why the author of an article posted the article in the first place.  This of course causes a lot of people to worry that everyone will be relying on biased information that has been posted on Wikipedia.  The fact is though that our culture is already based on biased material.  Almost everything can be viewed as subjective.  The book talks about how some encyclopedias just credit Edison for the light bulb while others also credit Sir Joseph Swan.  Its impossible to write anything without being a hundred percent unbiased, but if an encyclopedia is written by many biased people wouldn't that make it less biased than an encyclopedia written by one person?