Happy 5th Birthday, Twitter!

Following the theme of our readings for this week it bears mentioning that the seminal communications juggernaut better known as Twitter turned five today.  That's right Twitter is no longer a toddler and can be officially said to be out of it's infancy as now  it is literally old enough to enter kindergarten. But twitter is most unlike any other 5 year old I've ever met.

How so? Well, how many kindergartners do you know who have 140 million playmates? Or 4 billion dollar piggy banks?  Our readings have us studying the myriad ways that twitter is used as a communication tool. It seems that for as many twitter users that exist there are equally as many ways in which to use the tool. From the inane to the germane  - chances are there is a twitter hashtag for any given subject (or non-subject) and an invested group of followers driving trending.  I believe it is this universality that makes twitter so appealing and in the future will drive it's very sustainability.

What I find most fascinating about Twitter, however,  is an enigma, disguised as a conundrum - and that is the superficiality inherent in it's universality.  I believe this is what Sample was alluding to when he declared that Twitter is useless for making connections.  While I don't agree that connecting via Twitter is impossible -. scores of journalists and communications professionals would argue that's just not the case - I do believe that connections born on Twitter most often only go skin deep.  Twitter is a phenomenal communications tool which certainly possesses the potential to be a real conduit of human connection. However, even given all the many ways that we use the tool today, how many people can actually say that they have real relationships with their followers/followees? Or for that matter how many can say that they actually have "conversations" within the confines of the platform rather than broadcasting their own one way self interested or self serving blurbs? I mean what's with all of the brands who have been following me lately? I don't really think they're actually interested in what I have to say more than they're interested in selling me - and anyone who follows me - whatever it is that they sell.

What Sample deems a futility of connection carter calls an asymmetry.

User connections are made asymmetrically, so that we can begin the process of learning about others even without reciprocal engagement. The trending topics function semiotically as a signal to users that some issue, person or event is generating major interest in one of Twitter’s many communities. They’re also an implicit invitation for users to weigh in on the issues du jour. “Twitter is like the ticker tapes you see in Times Square,” says Halley Suitt, chief editor of Communispace. “It’s entertainment and it’s a voyeuristic medium.”

I believe Carter's definition is more accurate.  However I don't believe anyone would claim voyeurism breeds real life connections. Execept perhaps stalkers, that is.  Of course, it would be impossible to have actual reciprocal relationships with thousands of people simultaneously in real life, or really in any setting other than one like Twitter.  Hence Twitter's greatest strength is also it's inherent flaw. Hence the enigma...and the conundrum.

Anyway, these thoughts are probably beyond the grasp of a 5 year old. Even one as unique and gifted as Twitter. So Happy Birthday, little fella! Don't spend all your birthday money (that $4 billion valuation) in one place!

RIP Jeeves: Convergence Claims Latest Victim

In Memoriam

Jeeves

1996 - 2010

I'd like to begin this post by requesting a moment of silence in observation of the passing of Ask.com formerly known as AskJeeves. 

Today marks the tragic yet some would say timely passing of Ask.com, that venerable and erudite search engine that intelligently answered even the most inane and archaic of inquiries.  Jeeves came of age in the Dot.com boom. Striding with elegance and panache onto a a nubile web1.0 scene, Jeeves brought an air of much needed decorum to veritable wild wild west of talking sock puppets and Napster file sharing. Prior to the global collapse of the "old" internet Jeeves served as a sage advisor and trusted guide on the information superhighway.

This week's assignment has us exploring the concepts of "Convergence" and "Remix".  One of the definitions of convergence offered by Jenkins in "Convergence Culture" is: an old concept taking on new meanings. (p. 6)  I think the concept of the search engine fits that description quite nicely.  In the beginning the search engine was the "Oracle" one went to to research well just about anything.  Jeeves ushered in an era of digital knowledge seeking that replaced analog methods of seeking information.  Gone were the days of poring through the pages of dusty encyclopedias and paper archives. Unfortunately in the beginning the information superhighway was more often than not the misinformation superhighway. I believe first generation search engines, like Jeeves, Dogpile, et al may have undeservedly received blame when the links they served up were less accurate than they should have been. However one of the things I find most interesting is how the search engine tool itself evolved within it's own generation.

Again in the beginning the search engine was a tool to at least begin one's quest to find information. That information was often in the vein of a concept, idea, or subject to which the searcher was unfamiliar.  However it wasn't long into Jeeves tragically short life that he took on an unexpected role in addition to his info gathering duties.  Jeeves and indeed search engines in general became sort of a global phone book. As the internet evolved, died, was reborn, and evolved some more, more and more businesses co-opted the internet successfully this time to launch online storefronts.  Hence it became Jeeves' job to direct coffee drinkers to the nearest Starbucks as well as seek out information on the mating habits of wombats. Witness the convergence of old media to new media and from new media to newer media.

As in the course of any career Jeeves soon found his experience and wisdom challenged by upstart whippersnappers like Google. Next to Google's search term algorithms and clean design Sir Jeeves began to show his age.  Turns out natural language queries aren't where it's at. Why type in an entire question when one can just toss out a few key words? Suddenly the sage advisor was starting to resemble a fusty old codger.

So today we mourn the passing of a dear friend whose links and pages helped the world to transform the way it sought information.  He leaves in his wake a host of innovators and maybe a few imitators. So it's only fitting that we all take a moment to reflect on the nature of digital search while we bid a fond adieu to one of it's pioneers. Well goodbye, old chap. Say hello to Encyclopedia Britannica for me.

Note: Early reports of Bing and Google attending Jeeves' memorial solely for the purpose of gleefully dancing on his grave are completely unfounded.

On Writing Well

While reading this week's class assignment the following exchange between Phaedrus and Socrates practically leapt off the screen at me:

Phaedr. I thought, Socrates, that he was. And you are aware that the greatest and most influential statesmen are ashamed of writing speeches and leaving them in a written form, lest they should be called Sophists by posterity.

Soc. You seem to be unconscious, Phaedrus, that the "sweet elbow" of the proverb is really the long arm of the Nile. And you appear to be equally unaware of the fact that this sweet elbow of theirs is also a long arm. For there is nothing of which our great politicians are so fond as of writing speeches and bequeathing them to posterity. And they add their admirers' names at the top of the writing, out of gratitude to them.

Phaedr. What do you mean? I do not understand.

Soc. Why, do you not know that when a politician writes, he begins with the names of his approvers?

Phaedr. How so?

Soc. Why, he begins in this manner: "Be it enacted by the senate, the people, or both, on the motion of a certain person," who is our author; and so putting on a serious face, he proceeds to display his own wisdom to his admirers in what is often a long and tedious composition. Now what is that sort of thing but a regular piece of authorship?

Phaedr. True.

Soc. And if the law is finally approved, then the author leaves the theatre in high delight; but if the law is rejected and he is done out of his speech-making, and not thought good enough to write, then he and his party are in mourning.

Phaedr. Very true.

Soc. So far are they from despising, or rather so highly do they value the practice of writing.

Phaedr. No doubt.

Soc. And when the king or orator has the power, as Lycurgus or Solon or Darius had, of attaining an immortality or authorship in a state, is he not thought by posterity, when they see his compositions, and does he not think himself, while he is yet alive, to be a god?

Phaedr. Very true.

Soc. Then do you think that any one of this class, however ill-disposed, would reproach Lysias with being an author?

Phaedr. Not upon your view; for according to you he would be casting a slur upon his own favourite pursuit.

Soc. Any one may see that there is no disgrace in the mere fact of writing.

Phaedr. Certainly not.

Soc. The disgrace begins when a man writes not well, but badly.

Phaedr. Clearly.

In the first line Phaedrus makes the claim that most politicians, including Lysias he thinks, are ashamed of writing and wary of recording their speeches for the written record lest history paint them as Sophists. No disrespect to Phaedrus but as a former political speechwriter I happen to know that he is dead wrong. As Socrates points out speech making/writing is the very lifeblood of political discourse. That is just as true today as it was in ancient Greece. Furthermore, as far as the Sophist fears, I feel that Phedrus is wrong there also. If a Sophist, according to Wikipedia,( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophist) is one who is skilled in making incorrect and deceptive arguments sound correct, and using the fears and prejudices of the listener to strengthen an inherently flawed argument, then I'm afraid that our entire political right could be labeled as Sophists. And Glen Beck sure isn't afraid of how his chalk board may be recorded for posterity. But I digress. What really got me going was this:

Soc. Any one may see that there is no disgrace in the mere fact of writing.

Phaedr. Certainly not.

Soc. The disgrace begins when a man writes not well, but badly.

Let the church say, "Amen!" Last week following class I got into a discussion with a classmate regarding "text speak," and how terms like "LOL" and "OMG" have lately appeared in official and academic writings. As a teacher and erstwhile writer, and moreover as someone with a healthy respect for language, text speak is the bane of my existence. Now don't get me wrong, In it's proper forum text speak is quite effective at furthering communication between parties quickly. In our current age of digital communication having a universal shorthand is a good thing. Even I am guilty of ROTFL at my friends. But that's just it, with my friends. Text shorthand has no place, and indeed no meaning outside of a digital forum. However there is an entire generation that uses that shorthand so regularly they have ceased to even recognize it as such. That's a pity.

While grading papers recently I ran across the term "U" short for the actual word "you" so often in student writings it made me wonder whether the students actually knew the real English word. Yes I know that language is an ever evolving thing, and one hundred years from now that may be how we actually spell "you." Today, however, writing well still means writing with standard English. There was even a whole controversy at the New York Times recently regarding a copy editor banning use of the word "tweet" as outside of the Twitter forum the word literally has no meaning. Unless you are referring to the sound those evil birds make outside my window at 5:00 am. http://www.theawl.com/2010/06/new-york-times-bans-the-word-tweet  I once had a teacher tell me that as long as one can communicate articulately, either in speech or in writing, people will listen to them regardless of what they are actually saying.  That is certainly something that Sophists know, both ancient and contemporary.  However I fear that is a lesson completely lost on our current generation. What is to become of our future statesmen and professionals? Would you return to a doctor who wrote, "C U L8TR"on your prescription for a follow up visit?