RE: [Air-l] we need a new word? (Intern)
Wouldn't a type of overly technical description be IP mediated communication? All the things you describe are IP based and go via the Internet. Yet they are communication (in the social sense of the word). Using IP mediated communication would allow us the fun of coining a new acronym like IPMC or IPMECOM or IPCOM that only the cognicenti understand for awhile. I note, however, that your discussion does not necessarily include mobile communication. For that we would need another acronym like MOMECOM for mobile mediated communication. Rich L. -----Original Message----- From: air-l-aoir.org-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-aoir.org-bounces@listserv.aoir.org]On Behalf Of Barry Wellman Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2005 16:45 PM To: aoir list Subject: [Air-l] we need a new word? I was speaking at a seminar for non-techies at MIT yesterday (not a contradiction, as these were community development folks from across the USofA). And I found myself saying -- and my PPTs reading -- "Internet" -- but then verbally qualifying by saying, "well I really don't mean the traditional email Internet, but also IM, chat, lists, video, etc." (add your favorite including Usenet and BBS). What to call it? "Computer mediated communication" is a mouthful, jargony and chews up PPT space. "New media" is too indistinct and PoMo: moreover, is email "new media" any more? We should focus on the affordances of the media and not on the newness. So what to call it. My first thought at the breakfast table was "e-media", but I am open to other suggestions. I also am putting it on the list, because I am confident that others have had similar dilemmas, and that it would be best if we had a standard word. Barry _____________________________________________________________________ Barry Wellman Professor of Sociology NetLab Director wellman at chass.utoronto.ca http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman Centre for Urban & Community Studies University of Toronto 455 Spadina Avenue Toronto Canada M5S 2G8 fax:+1-416-978-7162 To network is to live; to live is to network _____________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ The Air-l-aoir.org@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
many of the descriptions so far take 'communication' as a the noun, and while this is fine for some descriptions of some events, it tends to leave out much of the rest of the ecological systems that these in which these technics are enmeshed. the objects that barry brought up, were systems and technologies, onto which communication can be mapped, onto which media can be mapped, but I think it should be very obvious that when we are talking about their whole existence, from their origination to their use, that not every part of that will be mapped by communication and/or media. most, but perhaps not all of their human use could be said to be communication, but... what about installation, and interface, they seem to be mediated experiences that don't always pertain directly to communication, and while they might be mediated by speaker or screen, that mediation might not encapsulate the whole social imaginary that affects the world in which they are used. the internet is the general network we study, which is a network of networks, built on the principle that information can be encapsulated in packets, and routed by defining the endpoint, thus allowing the computers or relevant technologies to communicate. computers and technologies have devices that mediate the information that they receive into user accessible experiences. this is true insofaras I can determine, so internet technologies will always be information technologies, mediated technologies, and communication technologies in some respect. however, the technologies exist through society, and individuals, both simplisticly as objects, but also in much more complicated ways, that affect our lives, cultures, etc. -- our mental ecology, our social ecology, and our environmental ecology. so, that's why I use "ICT" and then describe what I'm talking about further should the need arise. On Mar 20, 2005, at 4:05 AM, richard-seyler.ling@telenor.com wrote:
Wouldn't a type of overly technical description be IP mediated communication? All the things you describe are IP based and go via the Internet. Yet they are communication (in the social sense of the word).
Using IP mediated communication would allow us the fun of coining a new acronym like IPMC or IPMECOM or IPCOM that only the cognicenti understand for awhile.
I note, however, that your discussion does not necessarily include mobile communication. For that we would need another acronym like MOMECOM for mobile mediated communication.
Rich L.
-----Original Message----- From: air-l-aoir.org-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-aoir.org-bounces@listserv.aoir.org]On Behalf Of Barry Wellman Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2005 16:45 PM To: aoir list Subject: [Air-l] we need a new word?
I was speaking at a seminar for non-techies at MIT yesterday (not a contradiction, as these were community development folks from across the USofA).
And I found myself saying -- and my PPTs reading -- "Internet" -- but then verbally qualifying by saying, "well I really don't mean the traditional email Internet, but also IM, chat, lists, video, etc." (add your favorite including Usenet and BBS).
What to call it? "Computer mediated communication" is a mouthful, jargony and chews up PPT space. "New media" is too indistinct and PoMo: moreover, is email "new media" any more? We should focus on the affordances of the media and not on the newness.
So what to call it. My first thought at the breakfast table was "e-media", but I am open to other suggestions. I also am putting it on the list, because I am confident that others have had similar dilemmas, and that it would be best if we had a standard word.
Barry _____________________________________________________________________
Barry Wellman Professor of Sociology NetLab Director wellman at chass.utoronto.ca http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Centre for Urban & Community Studies University of Toronto 455 Spadina Avenue Toronto Canada M5S 2G8 fax:+1-416-978-7162 To network is to live; to live is to network _____________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________ The Air-l-aoir.org@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/ _______________________________________________ The Air-l-aoir.org@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
Jeremy Hunsinger Center for Digital Discourse and Culture () ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail /\ - against microsoft attachments
Yes, one thing is the technological basis, the other thing is the use of it - and these two areas are interrelated with each other. Anything is possible as long as it's connecting devices (and users) on a decentralized basis. It depends on *you* what to do with it, i.e. communicating, sharing, organizing, testing, etc. So it can be cmc, p2p, a tool to find any kind of information (things you would and also you wouldn't like to know about), and furthermore. Just as a reminder: It was in 1964, when Paul Baran introduced his work on "distributed communications". That's were it started to become reality. http://www.rand.org/publications/RM/RM3420/RM3420.chapter1.html BTW, the graphic there is quite good also to understand the shift within societies from centralized to de-centralized to (more or less) participatory ones. So, technology is influencing the shaping of society and also the other way round. Best, Laurent At 14:07 20.03.2005, you wrote:
many of the descriptions so far take 'communication' as a the noun, and while this is fine for some descriptions of some events, it tends to leave out much of the rest of the ecological systems that these in which these technics are enmeshed. the objects that barry brought up, were systems and technologies, onto which communication can be mapped, onto which media can be mapped, but I think it should be very obvious that when we are talking about their whole existence, from their origination to their use, that not every part of that will be mapped by communication and/or media. most, but perhaps not all of their human use could be said to be communication, but... what about installation, and interface, they seem to be mediated experiences that don't always pertain directly to communication, and while they might be mediated by speaker or screen, that mediation might not encapsulate the whole social imaginary that affects the world in which they are used.
the internet is the general network we study, which is a network of networks, built on the principle that information can be encapsulated in packets, and routed by defining the endpoint, thus allowing the computers or relevant technologies to communicate. computers and technologies have devices that mediate the information that they receive into user accessible experiences. this is true insofaras I can determine, so internet technologies will always be information technologies, mediated technologies, and communication technologies in some respect. however, the technologies exist through society, and individuals, both simplisticly as objects, but also in much more complicated ways, that affect our lives, cultures, etc. -- our mental ecology, our social ecology, and our environmental ecology.
so, that's why I use "ICT" and then describe what I'm talking about further should the need arise. On Mar 20, 2005, at 4:05 AM, richard-seyler.ling@telenor.com wrote:
Jeremy Hunsinger Center for Digital Discourse and Culture () ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail /\ - against microsoft attachments
_______________________________________________ The Air-l-aoir.org@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
--- Mag. Laurent Straskraba Information Society Researcher post: Ontlstrasse 3, A - 4040 Linz, Austria / Europe mobile: +43.650.7711861 (GMT +1) e-mail: laurent@straskraba.net web: http://www.straskraba.net ---
Matthew Allen at Curtin University, described how his students had adopted the use of NICT - network and information communication technologies - to describe their work (was it last year or the year before?) Cheers, Denise Denise N. Rall, PhD candidate, School of Environ. Science, Southern Cross University, Lismore NSW 2480 Sustainable Forestry Mentoring Coordinator & Internet Researcher Room T2.12, +61 (0)2 6620 3577 Tuesdays or Mobile 0438 233 344 http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/rsm/staff/pages/drall/index.html
Since we are in language game mode... The "community" and "network" constructs seem somewhat undifferentiated. Does anyone know of a really great paper that provides a theoretically intricate discussion of how one might use these terms in talking about clusters of people, objects and institutions -- in a purposively differentiated fashion? Thanks, Mary --------------- Mary Bryson, Associate Professor and Graduate Coordinator, ECPS, Faculty of Education, University of British Columbia "Queer Women on the Net" project: http://www.queerville.ca "GenTech" project: http://www.shecan.com
I would highly recommend Barry Wellman's work which can be accessed through his website http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman/publications/index.html You might find "The Persistence and Transformation of Community: From Neighbourhood Groups to Social Networks" Report to the Law Commission of Canada, 2001...to be particularly useful in answering your question. Sherida Ryan Ph.D. Student, Adult Education, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto At 06:05 PM 20/03/2005 -0800, you wrote:
Since we are in language game mode...
The "community" and "network" constructs seem somewhat undifferentiated. Does anyone know of a really great paper that provides a theoretically intricate discussion of how one might use these terms in talking about clusters of people, objects and institutions -- in a purposively differentiated fashion?
Thanks,
Mary --------------- Mary Bryson, Associate Professor and Graduate Coordinator, ECPS, Faculty of Education, University of British Columbia "Queer Women on the Net" project: http://www.queerville.ca "GenTech" project: http://www.shecan.com
_______________________________________________ The Air-l-aoir.org@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
participants (6)
-
Denise N. Rall -
jeremy hunsinger -
Laurent Straskraba -
Mary Bryson -
richard-seyler.ling＠telenor.com -
Sherida Ryan