Please follow the link.

Please follow this link. Once you create an account, up at the top there is a little green arrow next to your user name.
click that and select "edit my profile" on the upper right side please add your phone information!
Thanks!

http://wiggio.com/group_open_join.php?groupid=451522&password=communication

Domain-Derik

WOW! This project was overwhelming to say the least. I haven't ever felt this frustrated when doing anything and the times I was having fun disappeared all too quickly. Throughout all the struggle I did gain valuable knowledge about what I am able to use in regard to images and how hard it is to find relevant material for topics such as these. Through the help of Dr. Asher from the library I found some images from artstor that were gone the next time I tried to copy them and the little issues kept coming after that. I had a sweet musical rhythm set up that I couldn't find after trying to acquire sound with my slide show. Because of my lacking knowledge I'm going to give this a second shot and use the slide show program with one of my friends' class presentations to try to enhance it. He has some images trying to promote a company and I mentioned briefly what I was doing so now he thinks I'm an expert. Inside I'm laughing hysterically, but of course I kept nodding in agreement.

This project definitely stretched the boundaries, but now I see the value behind websites like these. If I ever need to use items/images avoiding copyright in other classes I will know where to search. I was hoping to get more creative with my mash-up, but wanted this project to get over with due to lack of original knowledge and not feeling like I enhanced the professor's work. I hate it when I know what I need to accomplish and how to get there, but small things derail me and keep me at square one.

Photo Archive- Sydney

1. I gained an understanding that researching photos and information only in the public domain is difficult. It took a lot of hard, continuous searching to find something that was relevant, that wasn't copyrighted, or that I could get permission to use for educational purposes. Besides getting to learn about what my professor was researching, I also got to learn about how that kind of research is done, by reading her research proposal. I got familiar with the steps necessary when searching for images, where to go to find good public domain images (such as Oaister, Wikimedia, and University digital archives) and how to tell if the product was copyrighted or not.

2. The point of this project, to me, was to teach us that there are rules about things online, and you can't always (legally) just take any image or product and use it without the consent of someone in charge of it. It also taught me how to research effectively and that even if something says it's 'public' doesn't mean it's public domain.

Photo Archive - Ryan B

1) I gained alot from doing this project.  I learned to navigate my way around public domains and commons online.  These are sites that I never really knew exisited until this class and this project.  I also learned how to use a Mac a little better...still alien technology though.

2)The point of this this project was to make us aware of the public doamians out there and how to use them.  There is so much copyrighted material on the internet its nice to have a place to go and freely use images and video clips. 

Photo Archive-Amy

What I gained from this project is a lot of valuable information, such as the understanding of public domain and the limitations that it encounters. The project took a lot of time and research when looking for photos that I could use freely. In class when it came to discussing libraries and digital archives, I gained information on the risks that our libraries are at and what the future could hold for them, and lastly gaining the knowledge to use new software for the project. The use of Garageband and Soundslides software made it more interesting when viewing the final project. The entire project was very interesting and will be helpful in the future.

The point of the project was to explore public domain and experience it through a project of our own.It is sometimes very difficult to find things that are not copyrighted due to the laws being so strict.I believe that the laws are very outrageous when it comes to copyright.There are just too many restrictions.

Photo Archive - Lauren

1. I gained a lot from this experience. The first thing being that I don't want to go into any business that does this for a living. Copyright is a lot more complicated than I thought it was but I learned the differences of public domain, commons, modified copyright, and others. It was very difficult to find photos that I could use, even for just noncommercial and educational purposes. I have a new found disliking toward Google images and other search engines that portray pictures only for commercial use. Sites get money when people click on their links and permission to use those photos isn't given unless you contact the author. I also learned that librarians really do like to help you. And despite mishaps with other people in the class, they were very nice to me!

2. To me, the point of this project is to explore the public domain and to know that everyone tries to own everything. Our world is turning into a commercial place and we have little control over it. We have access to things today that we don't have permission to use anywhere we like. Copyright laws are ridiculous and they make it so nobody can use copyrighted things for a very long time. When using any images, video, or other media that you didn't create from scratch, you have to be aware of copyright laws and what is or isn't in the public domain. Otherwise, it could cost you. UNLESS! You use it under Fair Use. But, you have to be careful with that one. There ARE restrictions. This assignment has opened my eyes and also slightly taken my vision away from large commercial corporations.


3. I did my project on "Cooking and Medicine in Early America". I took research from articles and books online written by Professor Trudy Eden at the University of Northern Iowa. I quickly realized that the beliefs about food and medicine of early Americans were completely twisted because of lack of resources and knowledge that we have today. They didn't have the technology to figure out exactly how digestion works and they didn't know that eating foods in a certain order wouldn't prevent them from getting sick. I found images to compliment my research and I wrote captions that followed the article. It tells about early Americans' beliefs of food and how they thought that "medicine" could cure them of any health problem they could imagine.

Public Domain - Spencer

1. I gained much from this project. i understand just how many images are owned by some person for some unknown reasons. However, it gives me great hope that many historical images are easily available for everyone to learn from and gain prospective.

2. the point of this project is to understand how things like Public Domain and Creative Commons work for us on a daily basis. When images are owned and restricted, nobody can enjoy or learn from them.

3.

Public Domain- Kacie

This project really opened by eyes to copyright and how much we take for granted. For example, I have never realized how much work producers must have to go through in order to use bits of copyrighted materials in their new work. They would have to get permission to use this material or find un-copyrighted work, which is extremely difficult. I also now have an appreciation for the credits given to old material in books, movies, etc.

The point of this project was to introduce us to the amazing possibilities that can be achieved with help from digital archives and searching through public domain material. I learned a lot about acting within copyright limits and how to document the use of images and information correctly. It is helpful to know what type of information is available vs. what needs permission. The various sources and digital archives are a great resource that I had not known of before. So many new things can be learned from these types of resources. This knowledge will be very helpful for future research endeavors.

Public Domain Photo Project- Reid

1. What did you gain from this project?
Several things, one a familiarity with copyright law and some tricks for working within its bounds. Often times in personal projects I simply ignore it, and as I'm a private user with no real potential for capital gain I get ignored. It was an interesting challenge to work within and have to understand the rules of legitimate image rights and collection. Additionally this project taught me how helpful librarians can be. Sending out information requests and hearing back, especially from folks half way around the world, is helpful and kind of fun.

2. What is the point of this project: knowing about digital archives; searching for Public Domain material.
There are two major points for this project. First to ensure that we are capable of doing this kind of research, finding photos, understanding their copyright situation, and reporting it. And second being able to put that understanding to use so that we might make informed commentary about the copyright and fair use debate going on all around us.

The Public Domain - Jessica Skelton

1.) There was definately a lot to be learned from this project. I realize now that there is a lot more to copy right then I thought.Whenever I searched for pictures on the web before I never really cared about the copy right because I had no intention to sell anything. Therefore I figured all pictures were free game for my use. When copyright comes into play the pool of available pictures decreases significantly, especially when I was looking for good, quality pictures. When I searched google for ideas I got exactly what I had in mind for photos, but they weren't copyright free. So when I looked for the same type of photo on one of the commons websites, it was almost impossible to find. It was also very difficult to contact a librarian, they really are busy people. I never got a response from New York Library, but I did talk with Alan Asher but that was only after I had tried to see him three times previously. Once I did get to talk to him, he led me to artstor.com which opened an all new source of photos. I did have to track down where the original photos were from though in order to cite them correctly. I am very aware now of the difficulty with copyright and how big of a role it plays with images especially in research.
2. ) I think the purpose of this project was to open our eyes to democracy on the web and how we have been short handed with resources for research projects because of copyright laws. We will always be researchers trying to find information to back up our projects and laws are prevent us to do that adequately. It's difficult to be a photo researcher, as my classmates have said, but thankfully there are some people standing up strong making free photos available. With this act of sharing, the world can become more knowledgeble and we will be helping each other.

Public Domain-Kelsey Motley

1.  This has definitely, by far, been the toughest assignment I have ever done.  There are so many little things, that seem irrelevant, to have to worry about.  Never, did I understand all of the copyright infringement opportunities until taking this class and realizing that you actually have to dig for something that is not illegal.  I also felt like that would be a relatively easy task... I was wrong again!  After contacting a man from a newspaper online and having him give me several more sites to use that were free, did this project seem to move along a big more quickly.  Time was also a huge concern for me, after creating a sample during class I knew that actually putting the photos together and creating a slide would be my easiest task; that would definitely be the most fun part as well. 
2.  The point of this project was to dig deep into research.  Become an intense researcher.  This was hard for me at first because I do not usually spend all of my focus on the tiny details, but we had to for this project.  Also, understanding the copyright laws and what is available for our use and what we should refrain from using. 

Public domain - Kate

1. I think I am with several others in the class when I state that I thought this was going to be a relatively quick project; I was wrong. Typically when I work with a project, even if I come to dead ends in the beginning, I am able to pretty quickly navigate my way to sites/sources that will be better. At the end of my table, I wrote a few paragraphs pertaining to the troubles that I encountered along the way. My topic (Roman Army) was pretty vague, so I thought it would be easier to research that way. My Wiki Commons search went fairly well, and I spent time getting what I thought were a variety of images. After that was when I started to run into trouble. I contacted a friend who is a librarian and asked her to point me to an institution or a specific person that might provide more insight. She did a little research on her own and replied back that she thought it would be difficult; the materials dealing with the Roman Army are typically so old that they are "owned" by libraries, private collections, museums, etc. When I would find images applicable to my project, there was typically a page expressing that those images were property and they were not willing to share - so don't even bother asking. Eventually, Bettina just told me to use "illegal" images. Instead of doing this, I used several photos of coins that had Roman emperors and generals on them that were able to be used for educational purposes. While I am sure that somebody who is much more well versed in image research than I am would have been able to fully complete the project, and maybe with little difficulty, it was an incredibly frustrating process for me. Each of the dead ends left me more frustrated than the last.

2. To me, the point of the project was made incredibly clear every time that I met one of those dead ends. First, we have this beautiful history/information/art/etc. that exists in collections all over the world, and greed is holding us back. Because somebody wants to put a copyright protection on it, it prohibits the masses from legally accessing and using the materials - even if it is for educational purposes, sometimes. This re-emphasized the importance of the commons for me. Also, I want to try adding some of my own images into a commons space for use by the public. I think it would be interesting to try out. Secondly, this project really opened my eyes to how prevalent the misuse of images probably is in our society. Something as simple as using a photo in a slideshow for a presentation at work could be illegal. This is good workplace knowledge to have.

Public Domain - Heather

I learned a few things doing this project the most beneficial was just finding out the many different locations where public domain images can be found! Mostly however, this project taught me the difficulty of gaining access to images are. It showed me how to identify whether images were in the public domain or licensed. To be completely honest, this project showed me the importance of practicing strict ethical guidelines when it comes to photo use online. This has often been an area I've fudged on in my personal life because honestly, it's always seemed like "just a photo". I now realize just how important it is to properly credit the sources. I also learned just how difficult it can be to track down the actual source of the photo and obtain permission. I actually had to contact 2 people before finding the correct person who could grant permission for me to use the copyright images for educational purposes. The process taught me the importance of giving yourself time to find usable photos for projects, and the difficulty of getting permission to use them. I also gained experience on unfamiliar software that added an additional creative touch.

The point of this project was to become a "photo researcher", to find images usable within the public domain for publication that tell a story. Furthermore, it was to show us the difficulties that copyright laws present and ways to succeed at finding photos despite the laws. I didn't realize how complicated the project would be, until i began looking and realized that very few photos were in the public domain. This project taught me the importance of persistence when trying to gain rights to use a photo.

Photo Archives-Ryan Stefani

First of all, I gained a considerable amount of insight into copyright laws and what constitutes material that is in the public domain. When Bettina gave us this project my first thought was that it would be incredibly easy, but I couldn't have been more wrong. This was one of the most difficult projects I have ever done, and a lot of that difficulty came from the fact that copyright laws can present a major problem to students and researchers who are trying to use online materials for their work. I also gained valuable experience from contacting a librarian and asking for permission to use their resources.
The point of this project is to teach us about copyright laws; between Bettina's media lit class and now tech and human comm I am learning a TON about freedom. I'm learning a lot about how the Internet came out with such promising opportunities in terms of freedom and creativity, and now it seems that some of those freedoms are gradually disappearing as commercialization is taking over. This project complemented our mashup project in an interesting way-- we started by bending the rules and relying on Fair Use for the mashup, and here we were doing everything by the book, making sure not to miss anything.

Photo Archives-Megan W.

I learned a TON from this project. I honestly did not know all of these public domains existed! I think it is so cool that people put images out there for anyone and everyone to use. It really really contributes to the creative commons and allows people to be the artists that they are. I also learned so much about copyright and public domain and the licenses in between. Again, before our discussions in class, and before this project, I really didn't know anything about any of this. But now I know how to research these things, and who to contact if I need further assistance. How can that not be useful?!?! It is! I have such a greater understanding for copyright regulations (and lack thereof). I know this will be useful throughout life. I also gained an appreciation for the people that organize and maintain these archives- and for the people that do this archiving thing for a living. It is not easy! It was stressful and irritating at times, but when I finally found some cool images it was so exciting!

I think the point of this project was for us to learn what is out there! I never knew any of these databases with thousands and thousands of images up for grabs existed! I also think that this project was about how to be informed about copyright and licenses. Learning how to look licenses up and understand terms and conditions and permissions was so valuable. Even if I don't understand everything (which I know I don't!) at least I know a few people to contact that may be able to assist me.

Public Domain-Brett C

From this project I gained several practical tools as well as a greater understanding of research conducted by Dr. Pablo Ben. The point of the project really seemed to form through my experiences and research. I can see how this project could mean different things for everyone, depending on the topic assigned. For me, I learned a little bit about Dr. Ben's research on the evolution of gay culture in Argentina. I learned multi-dimensional ways of searching for information on a specific topic; utilizing university resources as a tool for grabbing hold of useful information. I was able to use varying sources to gather insight into Dr. Ben's published research.
I used the research on my topic I gathered to search digital databases for relevant photos. I was introduced in digital archive sites, I became aware of how to look for quality photos as well as copyright licensing information. I appreciated photos and work that were provided as part of the public domain. It made my learning process easier and more successful. I had a very difficult time locating photos even remotely relevant to my project, however the process involved in the search made the project worth while; gaining understanding of searching capabilities, digital archives, and public domain material.
My slideshow was compiled with images I found to be most relevant. I tried to give visual references into life in Buenos Aires around the time period my research looked at. I think this pictures are interesting and shed light into the era of the research allowing people to visually imagine the time the research takes place.

Photo Archiving Project Discussion- Caitlin

1. This project showed me that it is so much harder to gain access to images in today’s society than ever before. I never knew that so many images were off limits for use. It was honestly quite frustrating and stressful to find 10 images in the public domain. I learned that you need to examine every image and see if it is for public use (in the public domain) or restricted. This project showed me that it is so important to credit your images, or you WILL get into trouble. One thing I really gained from this project was learning how to use unfamiliar software. I really enjoyed displaying my research in the audio slide show. It gave it the creative touch it needed.

2. The point of this project was to show us how important it is to credit images and only use those in the public domain. The mash-up showed us how to illegally use images, but this project was the exact opposite in that it made us follow the law in the most extreme manor. It also got us acquainted with only using those images in the public domain. I am sure that each one of us has never created a project using images only from the public domain. Today’s copyright laws make it impossible to have a collection of images for one topic. That is why it was so hard to come up with 10 images on Hrotsvit of Gandersheim.

Public Domain Photo Project

1) This project was a lot of work! I didn't think it was going to be that hard to find photos I could actually use. I definitely gained an appreciation for people who do this for a living. I found a ton of great photos that I wanted to use but there was a problem. Most of those photos didn't have any information to go a long with them. I had no idea who they belonged to or if they were under copyright. The Wikimedia Commons and other digital archives allowed me to find photos as well as all the information to go along with them. It would have been way easier if I could have just used any random photo I found when I Googled my topic, but I wouldn't have gained anything from doing that.
2) The point of this project was for us to find photos in the public domain and to realize how hard it is to find those photos. There are so many photos out there that are either under copyright and not available for all to use, or photos that don't have any information to back them up.
There are also a lot of photos available in the public domain and in digital archives that we are free to use. I had a hard time finding photos from archives that I liked. Did anyone else have this problem? The ones from the NYPL were all really old and I wanted photos that were a little more up to date.
I also think the point of this project was to get us to really understand copyright and public domain. Making the table showed me what has to be done to prove I am able to use the image.

Domestic Violence (Mashup)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILys3puKgaE

Reid- Youtube Mashup

For this project I was initially inspired by the cake-roll video I posted earlier. Taking two pieces of pop culture and juxtaposing them to provide a shocking experience to the audience. For the project I chose to bring together two pop-princesses. One who is still in theory shown with an innocent image (hanna montanna) and the new breakout success of Ke$ha. The theory is that all pop princesses follow the evolution of Brittany Spears, from mouse club innocence to sex being the only thing that sells their music. By mashing these two videos together I hoped to show that evolution in a jarring form to the audience.

What I learned in the process, music videos are really hard to mess with. You have to stick to the script of the music and that limits a lot of the flexibility that you would have otherwise. A better choice would have been to pick a different song and then start cutting together found images and videos of these two rather than try to stick with just a video. However this forced me to get very good at splitting images and audio apart frame by frame, and how to play with transitions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ly3GXMSjZ9w

YouTube-Alison Muller

The purpose of my mash up is to show the difference in age and countries. I am from Pella, Iowa where we still "Dutch Dance" because we an to keep our Dutch heritage. But in Holland they are busy with new age songs that will be historical some day too. While we think the Dutch Costumes and slow dance moves are historic, eventually some one will find the Dutch Shuffle and less clothing historic as well. I can justify this as fair use because it is teaching people about the Dutch history while putting a new spin on it with the more recent Dutch Shuffle.

Here is my video!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBDAKY70IrQ

Commons - Ryan B

I believe libraries are still very important in today's society.  Libraries hold a wealrth of knowledge and useful information that is available to everyone for free.  Libraries give those who may not have the resources otherwise to do research or use a computer or apply for a job online, the list goes on.  Bollier says libraries are important for that very reason, their availability of knowledge.  The internet has a wealth of infomration too, but unlike a library, it isnt always free and not everyone has access to it.

Siva is saying olgarchy can happen if we are not carfeul with the free information and knowledge we can obtain in a library.  This information should alwasy remain free to the public and not controlled by the government or a corporation.  Its an ongoing battle between controllers and liberators that we need to find common ground on.  Libraries may not always be free to the public and if that happens then thats the end of free info the public.  Not everyone has access to the internet at home or even a computer, and if libraries are not free than many will loose out on what the "free" world has to offer.

Commons-Spencer

1.) Libraries serve a great purpose in our world today. Not as great as they did 50 years ago, but still significant. I personally feel that the internet greatly takes up the task that libraries were originally charged with doing. However, it is important to have a bastion of learning and free information in every community. When people have a meeting place that is free and devoid of corporate influence, that is when democracy can flourish completely.

2.) Siva writes that libraries are being taken over by "anarchists" in every way. This seems to be true in a world full of restrictive copyrights and overactive corporate restrictions. I, like many of my class mates don't fully agree with all of Siva's views, but I would not want my children stumbling across something I wouldn't want them to see. However, I fully believe that this responsibility is that of the parents, not societie's as a whole.

The Commons - Jessica

Libraries want to freely circulate information rather than putting a price tag on information.

If they put a price on every reading material, they are only hurting society. This is where the contrast between libraries and a public commons comes in place. For example, if I need to pay even a couple dollars to get an article, I won’t get it because I don’t want it bad enough. That could be a very potential risk for online articles that ask for money. When it’s free more people will participate. It all comes back to what we’ve talked about, how the information we know and have learned is usually not originally ours, but borrowed and learned from someone else.

I like the term commons, and how they describe the purpose of it. When I think of commons, I always think of a place where everyone gathers together for one reason or another. It’s a great term to describe how libraries can be used in the future. The name demonstrates an open free place for discussion of any type. The library, a free source of information that belongs to the public, should not be privatized to make more money. What would life look like if most information on the internet was free for public use? We could be so much more knowledgeable and be bettering society in a million different ways. As they stated in the commons article, the most important gift we can give to society is the ability to educate our children, give the citizens information they need to make good choices, and continually restructure our culture by giving and taking traditions. The commons website was great to look at as I didn’t have trouble accessing any of the articles. I felt empowered to look at information and grow as a person with the accessibility to information.

Vaidhyanathan describes the internet library of information heading towards becoming an anarchy, where our government is in control of it all. This puts limitations on information giving and peer-to-peer sharing of information. He, like Bollier, is worried about the concealment of information on the internet. He is scared that the government will have so much control over the internet that they will be crushing the democracy that we have by controlling what we can look at, give out, and use to better ourselves. They can make money off of it, by putting a price tag on the resources we want to get. The internet should not be this way at all. If we really want to grow in the future, I agree with both of these authors that we need to have a common internet library, where information is free to give and take.

The Commons: KMot

David Bollier believes that libraries are very important to have public libraries because of the availability of knowledge.  Being able to educate children is so important to people and for cheap or free.  Future is everything and having public libraries to serve as an asset to kids is crucial.  To me, having a hard copy of something in front of me is way easier to access than the internet.  Libraries are a great too to utilize.  I enjoy going into the peace and quiet and being able to be completely reserved and do my own thing in a library without having to spend money.  People who are used to having free information provided are not going to feel the same way about having to spend money on such a commodity. 

"Anarchy in the library" is defined as information being able to have very easy access and the ablitiy to be relatively easy to find.  Information is easiy accessed through the library systems so it is deemed to be a powerful utility.   Vaidhhyanathan has high hopes that we use our resources wisely because it is such a smart tool that needs to be utilitized correctly. 

The Commons: Britt

1. According to David Bollier, libraries are absolutely essential in a democracy. This is because when you go to a library you are not limited to how many books you can read or limited to the degree of information you would like to learn. Bollier said, "They are committed to the free flow of knowledge, which is indispensable in a democracy." The fact that libraries provide infinite amounts of knowledge just waiting for people to utilize is an incredible thing. There are so many things I would love to know about this world, and I feel a library book would do me more justice than a Google search, for example. In saying that, libraries and the Internet are very much alike. They both provide free services, most of the time, to facts, ideas and concepts we want to know more or learn about.

2. Siva Vaidhyanathan describes "anarchy in the library" by basically saying there is no control within the library system, yet that's what everyone wants: control. But, then again, there are people out there such as educators, artists and hackers who are trying to promote "liberating information". But, that in itself is a form of control as well because it's a way of changing things from the "norm". Vaidhyanathan essentially hopes there will some day be a balance between corporate control of the public libraries and consumers out in the world who simply want to share or obtain knowledge.

Commons-Brett C

1. Public libraries help promote democracy in many ways. Bollier introduces us to the idea of libraries as a part of commons: resources for all of mankind that should be sustained for current and future use. Understanding the idea of a library as part of the greater commons helps us understand their usefulness as tools for a democratic society: conducive to learning and expanding knowledge. They are tools for empowerment. Libraries are resources that allow people to uncover knowledge as prescribed by people before them, while allowing them to build upon this knowledge to provide insight into meaning construction and development. Privatizing the commons as is trying to be imposed by some, works to de-construct the democratic construction and spread of knowledge.
Bollier puts internet in the category of commons along with libraries. Just as rules, laws and regulations are being enacted to make certain the use of internet and its resources are strictly regulated to the highest extent of the law, we are warned to be careful as these same ideas are sure to be though to be imposed on libraries. The way we enjoy our collection of information could be altered by big corporation lobbyist working to regulate the use of their products, services, and knowledge. Like the internet, libraries need to be utilized as primary sources of a wide-range of invaluable information for use by all as part of the commons.

2. "Anarchy in the Library," as portrayed by Vaidhyanathan refers to the empowerment achieved through access to information in the library. I agree that we need to take a critical look at the limits we are imposing on ourselves when placing limits or bans on content, use and availability of information. proposes that the common use of simple technological fixes to "combat a complex social or cultural phenomenon" can often end up causing additional problems or undermining the flow of information systems. The point of this work seems to be directed at really understanding the pros and cons of information availability and its social value for humanity as a whole. Limiting our resources limits our growth as a society and may have harmful impacts on future social, economic, scientific, and technological advances.

Andrew The Commons

This article was just so good to read knowing that Bollier still believes in the libraries! One quote that stood out to me the most in the article was“What spectacle can be more edifying or more seasonable, than that of Liberty & Learning, each leaning on the other for their mutual & surest support?” Boiler is a firm believer in the library system and how it works! It is good for Democracy because it helps give jobs, and it help people learn by giving them some very valuable resources in order to succeed and not just telling them to search for information on google. The Library is the perfect place for college students to study! " Librarians realize that the free dissemination of knowledge is not only the highest calling of their profession, but a vital function in our democratic society. Because libraries “give away” information, they educate our children, help citizens make informed choices, and constantly reinvigorate our cultural heritage." Boiler sums this up perfectly! Librarians are just like the Internet but not as fast, they help you find the information and the sources you need for whatever you are looking for. Sometimes it may not be fast like searching on Google but they will get you the accurate information you need. We are very spoiled by all the online resources we have and sometimes people are not evening using the online sources the right way. We are able to look at books online, and site our sources and it just seems like we wont even have use for libraries anymore with how fast we are able to get books electronically.

Siva is describing anarchy in the library first off with the story about the Russian who got arrested for the illegal programming he did knowing he hacked into an American system and messing with Adobe is pretty crazy to think about. We see all those movies with incredible computer hackers doing insane things, and knowing that with technology advances this stuff can happen. I feel like is description of anarchy is the stuff we can obtain for free on the Internet for example pirating music and many others. I feel that he thinks its gonna come down to the people and how the handle certain situations with the flow of information that is going through the Internet. He doesn't like the fact so many different activities on the Internet are going on without some main power is not monitoring over it. I feel like both of these authors feel that the foundation is the library in learning how to access information and do research the right way.

Commons- Sydney

1. These days, when everything seems to be just a click away (on Google, go figure!) people are starting to question the relevance of libraries, as Bollier talks about in his writing. I agree with him immensely, that libraries should not only be seen as “where all those people who can’t afford to buy computers or their own books go.” I love libraries, and I love the freedom I have to go and peruse them and find whatever jumps out at me, books I would never think to look for to buy online, so it broadens my horizons. If this freedom is taken away from us, or if it start to cost money, the few people that still go to libraries will go down considerably, if not to near zero. It’s hard to convince kids that libraries are awesome now a days, and if they have to pay for it, there’s no way they’ll go. This is just going to make educating children harder, and it will make them turn into adults that are not well read and cannot make educated decisions when doing things like voting, which is very important for the future of democracy.

2. The quote from Vaidhyanathan that stood out to me was “Inconvenience was comforting. Potentially dangerous information and alarming expressions only circulated in obscure pockets of subculture or lay undisturbed in inaccessible repositories. The bad stuff was always around. It was just inconvenient to find, distribute, or deploy.” This really is saying a lot. Not only do people have all this extra information at their fingertips, they are using it for more bad than good (according to authorities). The government is taking advantage of this, even arresting and prosecuting people outside our country for hacking into and figuring out an American company, like Adobe. The government is taking away the citizens’ freedom of creativity that was always available to us in libraries, and now are throwing it back in our face by prosecuting those who use it for themselves. It’s like all the good things the internet gives us and allows us to be a part of, the country is trying to do damage control to keep it from being free and public, so someone can be making a buck on it.

The Commons- Caitlin

Public libraries are essential for democracy because it is a public source for absolutely everyone to use. It provides the public with a wealth of knowledge for whatever they may need. Bollier states, “librarians have always embodied some of the most fundamental virtues of Western civilization”. Those virtues are what we built our democracy on, so I definitely agree with his statement. We are free to roam around libraries and use all of the resources provided to us including using that information for fun, research, and new creative ideas. Bollier states, “The commons is a generic term that refers to a wide array of creations of nature and society that we inherit freely, share and hold in trust for future generations”. In my opinion, libraries gave meaning to the commons and hold such creations inside of them.

The internet allows users to look through information that is found within the libraries. I need to note that there are some resources and works that are only found in the library and in contrast there are some that are only found on the internet. There are keepers on sites of the web, which could be considered, in their own right, librarians. The function of the internet is very similar to libraries. Today we are able to store whole books and buy whole books on the web. We are able to look up archives and movies which are found in the library. We even have libraries on the internet, such as Rod Library. Both the library and the internet are available and accessible for everyone.

Vaidhyanathan describes “anarchy in the library” as information being too easy and accessible to find. He gets to the idea that the degree in which information is available has become so large, that even dangerous information is out there for everyone to see. I don’t agree with all of his thoughts, but I would not want my children stumbling upon murders and porn sites. He truly believes that anarchists are taking over the libraries and some of our “rights” are getting out of hand because of the amount of information being shared. He hopes to control the outflow of information and put it “back into its toothpaste tube”. He is frightened of too much control because of those who will fight back and create conditions that are even less controllable. He also hopes that people will come together and discuss the issue of how information is controlled today, maybe that will help with how information is being dispersed.

LIB-Derik

Obviously libraries are important for democracy not only because I sit in one at the current time writing this blog, but also because they give us something that's real along with resources we can't obtain elsewhere. In the article the case was made between the real world and cyberspace creating a constant debate between libraries and Internet. Outside of serving up basic information the Internet can't compare especially in large part due to copyright. Libraries are present to spread knowledge with the use of the Internet, but I guarantee if the Internet was taken away and research had to be compiled before entering libraries would not survive long. I remember when we took a trip to the library second semester last year and beforehand the teacher asked who had visited prior. Out of 35 kids only another kid and I had spent a reasonable amount of time in there. I am the furthest thing from a nerd, but the library serves its purpose and without them we close ourselves off from reality even more.

Siva is hoping to stabilize libraries by promoting the positive aspects. His description of anarchy is used by the information we are able to obtain for FREE and share for FREE. He wants us to work through the issues because otherwise the control is left to the government and they want every bit of revenue available. It's like Bettina said in class the other day about the power of the students, similar case here. If we as a society sit back and let things keep unraveling libraries will be gone, but if it's important enough we need to grasp the positives and reverse the pattern. David Bollier and Siva's remarks described libraries as a foundation making it hard to visualize a world without them.

The Commons AOrtman

Public libraries are important for democracy according to David Bollier due to the fact that libraries “give away” information, they educate the children, help citizens make knowledgeable choices, and constantly strengthen our cultural heritage. Public libraries relate to the internet by what’s at hand, by a click of the mouse you are able to access just about anything.
What I think he’s getting at is what we are able to access for information, which what is too much freedom and what is too much information. Siva states that we are able to browse, use, reuse, alter, play with, distribute, share and discuss information at a click of a button. What is too much? What is too much freedom?
Siva hopes we are knowledgeable with what we access because we have so much that it could lead to something unforgivable.

Commons - Lauren

I never go to libraries. The only time I’ve ever gone to a library is when I was forced to go with somebody else. Despite this fact, every time I go to a library, I love it. I think libraries are crucial to democracy. Libraries are almost tangible internets. It’s reading, learning, and sharing materials that are archived for the purpose of dispersing information and entertainment. To take away a library would be to essentially take away the right to share that information and therefore taking away the right to democracy. In libraries sit the history of our freedom and the opportunities of documenting the present to circulate our knowledge throughout the future. Anyone could argue that we don’t need them anymore because we have the internet, but I say no. To me, gold is to the paper dollar as libraries are to the internet. Money would be nothing without gold to back it up and the internet is nothing without the tangible representations that are held within a library.

Vaidhyanathan uses the term “anarchy in the library” to express how information is become uncontrollable. There’s much of it and it’s getting harder to control who has the ability to see something and what exactly they have the ability to see. He talks about how some freedoms are now being looked at as “threatening” because of how powerful they are becoming. The distribution of information is huge. On the internet we can access almost any information that we want whenever we want. Especially when we have search engines, such as Google, that make it easy as typing in a keyword and discovering information you wouldn’t otherwise have easy access to.

In Erin’s post, I also loved the quote that she used from Vaidhyanathan. Some people are seeking ways to diminish the amount of access to information. He says their trying to “force information back into its toothpaste tube”. I think this is such a brilliant quote because as easy as it is to squeeze toothpaste out of the tube, it’s going to be just as hard as trying to put toothpaste back into it’s tube as it is trying to take information out of the public’s hands. There are people today fighting for the very opposite of this because they have a complete opposite view to the “danger” that Vaidhyanathan believes in growing so rapidly. There are people battling on both sides of the circulation and access to information fight. In my opinion, Vaidhyanathan’s hopes are pretty much a lost cause. The world today has taken a drastic turn toward technology and if the internet has anything to say, it’s that information of any kind is going to be shared 24/7 until the internet itself becomes completely obsolete.

Megan W. - Libraries

At the beginning of his speech, Bollier quotes an inscription- "What spectacle can be more edifying or more seasonable, than that of Liberty & Learning, each leaning on the other for their mutual and surest support?"

He then argues that "the linkages between Learning and Liberty have never been more fragile, or more important than today."

This link between learning and liberty illustrates the importance of libraries in a democratic society beautifully. Democracy is based on personal freedoms and liberties- while learning is based on access to knowledge (which libraries provide!). So, our liberty depends on our access to knowledge, and our access to knowledge depends upon the liberties granted to us. If our freedom to access knowledge decreases, so will our knowledge. If our access to knowledge decreases, so will our freedoms.

I really like the "knowledge as water" metaphor that he uses. He explains that libraries help information "flow" in a way that makes it a common resource, accessible by all.

Libraries provide us with that access to knowledge- and we are given the freedoms to access any knowledge that we'd like (that the libraries provide). Libraries ensure that we are able to acquire knowledge that we would like to acquire. This is essential in a democratic society.

The internet presents an entirely different kind of access to knowledge, but an access to knowledge nonetheless. Libraries and the internet share the function of providing access to knowledge. Many people seem to think that the internet can "replace" libraries. However, the internet is subject to so many copyright threats. People are fighting to control and filter the information that is on the internet. So, if they win, and we also don't have any libraries- then how will access information? Where will the cultural commons be "held" and distributed to us? Libraries ensure that the cultural commons is preserved and taken care of. The internet is rapidly changing- which can be a good thing, but with so many people fighting for control of it- who will ensure that our cultural commons are is taken care of? This is where libraries come in. It isn't as if the internet and libraries have to be conflicting sources of information. They can give and take from each other as needed. Bollier mentions several online libraries and digital archives. If libraries embrace the advantages of the internet, they will likely be able to thrive in these uncertain times.

Vaidhyanathan's idea of "anarchy in the library" is referring to the governing of knowledge BY the PEOPLE. For some reason, we seem afraid of anarchy with regards to knowledge (the internet for example). I think he is kind of pointing out that maybe anarchy should rule- in the libraries- in our knowledge. It shouldn't be "owned" or "regulated" by a central power. He argues that the tension between anarchy and oligarchy has always been present, and always will be. His hope is that people will actually TALK about it and come to some happy medium. He recognizes the limits and dangers of anarchy as a form of government- but argues that oligarchy is not the solution. People tend to "buy into" one of these extremes. Many are afraid of one or both extremes. Why can't there be a middle ground? He wants us to find that middle ground, especially with regards to knowledge. If we aren't ok with anarchy in knowledge, we don't need to go to the other extreme, we can find a middle ground.

The Commons

1. The best way to sum up why public libraries are important for democracy is to look at Bollier's statement, "Once you put a pay-per-use meter on the act of reading and research, you turn a culture into a marketplace, which is something very different indeed. A marketplace serves an audience of consumers. But a library serves a nation of citizens." Libraries provide free information to open and strengthen the minds of the public. Democracies thrive on the freedom from censorship, and libraries are excellent resources upon which democratic societies can depend to supply knowledge. The way this discussion of public libraries relates to the internet is that the internet, as we have discussed in class, is a public domain containing an enormous volume of free information. We are at risk of the internet becoming over-regulated by corporate interests who desire to turn the internet into even more of a marketplace, and are not concerned with information pertaining to public interests.

2. Vaidhyanthan's anarchy in the library refers to rejection of censorship. His reading directly relates to Bollier's, as both discuss information flow. Multiple people have commented in their blogs about Vaidhyanthan's toothpaste analogy; Caitlin, Lauren, and Erin all made note of this in their posts. I can see why this caught their attention as I've found myself giving this example some thought. One of Vaidhyanthan's hopes is that we can control information to a certain extent, and somehow place some of it back in the toothpaste tube. Personally, I would agree with Caitlin on this topic. I love Americans' first amendment right, and I would be opposed to anyone trying to suppress information flow.

-Ryan Stefani

The Commons - Heather

Public libraries are the mechanism for which our society disseminates information freely. This free sharing of information allows for debate; without debate democracy cannot exist. If public libraries cease to exist within our culture, the very threads of our society will change from freedom colors to tones of censorship and control. Our culture will no longer be culture; but a marketplace as Bollier states. Bollier suggests that the libraries is a commons, a place where ideas are freely exchanged and owned not by a corporation but the individuals which comprise it. In effect, if libraries neglect to refute the general ideas view of them as “unnecessary” it will be an abandonment of democracy for a tragic downward spiral of government by the few. While some people feel that libraries are “a waste of taxpayer money ", this is simply not true.

Vaidhyanthan uses the phrase “anarchy in the library” to describe the influence libraries have as a place where ideas are freely shared, and “radical democracy” is allowed to reign through the dissemination of free information. He describes this anarchy as a fight against oligarchy’s desire to control people through strict govern of how, when, and for what purposes information can be accessed. Thus, the battle against oligarchy is occurring in our libraries. Libraries that are now being considered “dens for terrorists” rather than havens of knowledge.

Vaidhyanthan has many hopes. For the book; to encourage serious thought into what freedoms are truly dangerous. To both identify and criticize societies moral panic that is causing many to argue that freedom is getting out of hand. This cry against freedom is due to informations easy accessibility. Now that porn and the newest marketing trend are equally accessible, people are running scared. However, Siva argues that despite the changing world we live in we should refrain from trying to filter information and restrict communication flows. The consequences of this restriction against our democratic state can be dire. For society, Vaidhyanthan hopes; That an energized web of people will come together to openly debate how information is controlled. That fresh vocabulary will be created to discuss the ideas of anarchy vs. oligopoly and the place of “the commons” will be evaluated. Mostly, Vaidhyanthan hopes that through this discussion a new protocol will be implement that will improve democracy, instead of tearing it apart.

Commons - Erin

1. I really liked this speech. There is such a direct link between libraries and the education of free people, and Bollier emphasizes the fact that they are key to a productive democracy. He says that libraries “have always embodied some of the most fundamental virtues of Western Civilization. They are dedicated to the freedom to read and learn and share information. They are committed to the free flow of knowledge, which is indispensable in a democracy.”

I particularly like how he suggests the use of “commons” in regards to libraries. I think this idea is so profound because of how simple it is. Taxpayer money supports our system of public libraries, after all. In a true sense, they ARE a part of the common system, yet I don’t think I’ve ever heard it put so concisely. The Internet is similar to public libraries in several ways. They are both essentially owned by “the people,” not any one person or company. Both have faced (and ARE facing) their own battles of copyright and sovereignty, and both are held, as Bollier says, “in the commons.” If knowledge, in whatever form, is locked up, “free inquiry and open dialogue will suffer. Democracy will suffer.”

2. When Vaidhyanathan refers to “anarchy in the library” he is referring to the state of disorder and panic that seems to be increasing within our information system because of the lack of control. He fears that harsher control of this increasingly massive realm of information is inevitable, and when such limitations are implemented, the way we “browse, use, reuse, alter, play with, distribute, share, and discuss information” will be threatened. Using these methods are vital for our society’s continued awareness and education. He says that “these are valuable behaviors that help creators and citizens shape their worlds.”

Vaidhyanathan describes two approaches to this rapid increase of available information in our digital and public libraries. On one side, there is a struggle to control the fast-paced output of data and “force information back into its toothpaste tube.” On the other side, is an effort to incorporate some control that still enables us to move information “toward increased freedom of distribution.” There is a fine line to be walked here, and Vaidhyanathan says that “stronger efforts toward control often backfire to create less controllable – and less desirable – conditions.” The outcome of these battles could essentially change our definitions of basics like “liberty, democracy, and human progress.”

The section on the “emergence” of peer-to-peer systems was interesting to me. In reality, people have been utilizing peer-to-peer systems for hundreds of years, in the forms of things like gossip, friends trading records or 8-track tapes, and the practice of most major religions around the world. Give these peer-to-peer systems a technological twist, however, and suddenly there is a need to control these threatening, “anarchistic systems.”

Vaidhyanathan hopes that our society will work through these problems of information control carefully, weighing all of the pros and cons before unjustified action is taken. Such unjustified action could lead to premature limits on democracy as we know it.

Commons- Kacie

1) Public libraries are very important for democracy because it allows the freedom for all to read and learn as we please. Without this free knowledge, the people of our country would be sorely uneducated and possibly illiterate. As a child, I adored going to the library to check out books. Reading was and is one of my favorite pastimes. As a college student, I don’t have enough money to constantly buy books from a store or information from a website. Without these free educational sources, we would lack the intelligence to run an efficient government and country. Bollier states that the “linkages between Learning and Liberty have never been more fragile, or more important, than today”. It is crucial that we fight for our right to keep these resources free for the good of all. If we don’t stand up for ourselves, no one will.

The function of public libraries relate to the internet because we use this medium to utilize their resources. We now have online libraries where books can be read for free. Many university libraries also provide free databases for scholarly journals. Bollier explains that this has created a “digital common” in which we can use these resources. Surprisingly, these types of information commons “are able to produce and distribute information and creative works more efficiently than Centralized Media”.

2) I think what Vaidhyanathan is trying to explain through describing anarchy in the library is that there is a continuing threat that the freedom of accessing information is becoming larger. Whether the freedom is that information is available at no cost or one must pay to retrieve the knowledge; the phenomenon is becoming less and less controllable. Vaidhyanathan describes this situation as he compares it to an arms race, the “locust man”, patented genes, and others. Each of these instances happened because of some law prohibiting or reducing the accessibility to something that was once rightfully owned by the people. This could be free speech, personal ethics, or genetic testing. Simply put, Vaidhyanathan states that the “cultural and technological trends are increasing freedom in ways many people find threatening”. This may be why people feel a need to regulate information by putting a price on the content. Can’t we decide for ourselves what we should or should not read? Apparently not.

Because of this debate, Vaidhyanathan hopes “to prompt more careful thinking about how much and which freedoms are excessive or dangerous” and “to identify and criticize ‘moral panics’ engendered by the common perception that freedoms are getting out of hand, that the anarchists are taking over the libraries” (p.xii).

The Commons - Kate

1. To quote the end of Bollier's remarks, "Ecologists often speak of 'keystone' species; if they die off or go extinct, a whole arc of other species will die off or go as well. I regard libraries as a 'keystone' institution of American democracy. Take it away and many other institutions and traditions of our democracy will suffer." Public domain - or "cutural commons," as it is referred to by Bollier, is essential to continue to build upon knowledge. If each person had to start fresh, and couldn't build upon the ideas and inventions of others, our world would cease to exist. It is because of this commons that our society has grown to where we are today. Those who agree with copyright theory think the commons is a bad thing because it doesn't offer monetary value to anyone. They want to see everything put into a market of consumers to generate capital; the commons are for a community to build knowledge, culture, lifestyles, and so on. Public libraries relate to the Internet in the respect that they are both commons. Yes, they are overseen by people - "trustees" as they are referred to by Bollier. The commons are not a free-for-all. There has to be some sort of management in order to keep things together and under control. However, the libraries and the Internet are in danger of being in control of companies or organizations that seek to control and make money from them, rather than be there for the good of the communities.



2. Vaidhyanathan says that, "Anarchy is radical democracy" (xvii). He also says that, whether we are a fan of it or not, we need to understand it because "anarchy matters" (xvi). He is describing anarchy in the library because we have entered this digital age where information is just too easy to find. You name it, the Internet can probably provide it. Vaidhyanathan had a great section in the introduction where he talked about the fact that, while this obscure and sometimes dangerous information has always been there, now the masses can find that information with relative ease. He called this the "collapse of inconvenience." I love that phrase. I don't know that you could find a better phrase to express what has happened. While our society should want this generous sharing of information that is going on, he acknowledges that people are seeing the potential ramifications and are panicking and cracking down. He argues that, if laws and rules are going to be put in place, our society should do so only after much sober deliberation and only after weighing all of the pros and cons. Bollier and Vaidhyanathan are both proponents of allowing this mass of information that we learned and sharing it with the populace for the greater good of humanity - not for the love of capitalism.

AOrtman Mashup

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2YbWFe0tUU

Google

1. Ahhhh! I am so much like Dan Firger and I hadn't even thought about it. When I open any browser I almost immediately go to google. I have tons of email address but they all work through my gmail account. I can't live three hours without my google calender going off on my blackberry. I even have my eportfolio through my gmail sites, and I am creating a page for my step father for his business. This is ridiculous how much of google is incorporated in my every day life!
2.Google does a great job of adding on to their company. They used to only be a search engine, now they have their hands in so much more, including youtube. They are not willing at just stopping with what they have, google continues to grow and take on new ideas. Google is apocratic by excelling, then conforming to find the "ladder of success". Google continues to shape itself and it's staff to become the best it can be.
3. From the article it seems like Yahoo wants to be a competitor of Google but personally I don't think they have what it takes. I work at Victoria's Secret and after you make a purchase we have to ask for your email to send you coupons. Just this week I had someone with a Yahoo email address and I almost forgot Yahoo had email, we never have customers with yahoo addresses.

Google-KelsMot

1 -- I feel as though most people share similarities with Dan Firger.  When there is research to be done I always look first to Google.  It is not common for me to google things everyday but when I need to learn about a certain topic that is the first place i look.  Absolutely no part of me wanted to have to worry about setting up a different email however, since I most likely will not be a student forever I was forced to set up a different account with gmail to put on resumes. 

2 -- I know absolutely nothing about google's  marketing strategies but I, too, have seen segments on highly watched television shows and news broadcasts working on getting googles name out into the public so that everyone will use this search engine.  I have never noticed advertisements being a part of google's site so I figure that name dropping is their biggest advertisement.

3 -- Yahoo was always the search engine that I used, as well as most of the people I was in contact with.  Since I had the internet I always had a yahoo account and a hotmail account.  They were the two most commonly used engines as far as I am concerned.   To this day, I never use yahoo and I feel as though it is very outdated and in serious need of a new webmaster to update the site.  Something needs to be done for yahoo to be even close to being used as much as google is these days.

Google- Ryan Danger Stefani

Just by skimming through some classmates' posts I think I'm about in the middle when it comes to how alike we are to Dan Firger. Some, like Andrew, for example, are apparently very dependent on Google. Others, like Ryan and Spencer, use Google for some of their computer needs but not others. I recently switched to Gmail because the UNI email system is HORRENDOUS. They don't have enough storage space for your inbox and deleting mail is the opposite of user friendly, you can't easily see sent mail, and they make you change your password all the time. I guess where I'm going with this is that as a result of other, lesser sites' inability to satisfy user needs, Google has a competitive advantage in that it has the latest innovative technologies at its disposal to satisfy more users' needs. This is where I find myself falling into habits like Firger's and becoming dependent on Google.

Google is aptocratic in the sense that it, as the reading indicated, clearly sees each rung of the ladder it needs to climb on its way to the top. The makers of Google have a good grasp on where the world is heading, and know how to adapt their business model and advertising to fit the world's changing needs. For instance, Google made itself more desirable and extended its reach by acquiring YouTube. YouTube is an excellent way for Google to spread its roots even further and reach more people with their advertisements, thereby making more money and making more people depend on them.

Google vs Yahoo!! I'm glad this came up as a topic for discussion on the blog because it's something I've been pondering for a while. I don't really know what happened to Yahoo, but I distinctly remember my reason for preferring Google: the home page. Yahoo's home page was riddled with advertisements, making it obnoxiously crowded and irritating to conduct a search. Google's home screen is spotless, with the nice, organized Google letters all perfectly aligned, with hardly anything else but the search bar. Now, I have no clue as to whether this had enough of an impact on other people like it did on me to get us to the point where we are today, which is with Google dominating former competitors like Yahoo, but that's my input.

Google-Brett C

I find myself relating to Dan Firger in the multitude of ways I find myself utilizing google products each day. I found myself using google calendar on my phone everyday just as Mr. Firger did. This year I have not utilized this service as i did last year, however I have began using other services. These services include Gmail, Google Sites which I have used to create my own personal website in conjunction with google analytics to monitor sight activity on my web page. I often use google chrome as my browser because I like its user friendly and customizable search options as well as its fast links to websites. Unlike Firger, I do not see myself as worried of the impact google has on my life and of the dominance of the services included in my everyday life.

I really don't know a lot about Google's advertising strategies, however through my own website and use of Google analytics I am sure they are constantly collecting user data to direct targeted information at users that would find certain information useful. I know that google owns Youtube among many other companies. Google is aptocratic by the way they form their business structure and strategies. Aptocrats excel in "regimented procedures," seen through "quantifiable achievement." I see google as a company that values quantifiable results and company configuration as it looks to expand its reach into more and more diverse technological markets.

What did happen to Yahoo!? It's hard for me to try and find just what Yahoo lacked in the search engine department to make google surpass it in use and popularity. I'm guessing that's the million-dollar question yahoo is searching for as well. It seems like, for me google was able to adapt into several on-line markets that are uniquely user friendly and user-integrated to fit into my needs and life. I can see and agree with what Ryan was saying how yahoo has a very different look and feel on its homepage than google does. Yahoo seems to be focusing on catering to different needs and interests of people. Yahoo's success will be in its ability to evolve, integrate new markets, and create cutting edge uses for its consumers.

Google- Andrew

I am one hundred percent like Dan Firger in that I use google for about one hundred percent of my research. When I am doing research for my communication courses or just any class for school I use google scholar. It is amazing all the academic articles you can find with just searching one word, for example I was searching for academic articles on proxemics the other day and found thousands of articles! Google is such a life saver too when you need to find a quick fact about something as well, a new term I think that our generation has used a lot is when we dint know something " GOOGLE IT!" I also use GMail now, it is amazing all the space it holds for emails, google docs to send people, and you can even video chat now! They just are making everything so easy and convenient. Google Image search is a very hip thing, when you need some quick pictures of anything you can find thousands of images of everything I love it! Google maps is a much better source then mapquest, it has much more accurate directions and does not give you unnecssary side routes. The best thing about google is google earth, enough said!

I remember watching a segment on the today show about the best places to work and the number one place in America to work was for GOOGLE! They have tons of employees! They are smart with advertising and dont let people know they are using advertised too. They could be like facebook and have tons of ads on the side of there page but they do not! They probably get a share from companies wanting there site to be the first one that comes up when someone searches it on google. Google is Aptocratic cause they do hire the best people, they hire the best of the best.

I used to use Yahoo a ton before google started making its name. It is a solid place to search now but doesnt get as many hits as google. I feel like they were not able to keep up with google. They can not figure out there own simple way to provide searches, they have way to crowded of pages at the front of there page and its hard to figure out sometime what you are looking for where with google you just have to type it in then all the searches come up. I feel yahoo is combining ideas from many other search engine sites to make the ultimate site but its just way to messy on front and needs to trim down a bit in my opinion.

Google- Sydney

I am like Dan Firger in that I also use Google very often. I use Google automatically when I’m searching for things online. All my preliminary searches for school research starts with Google of Google Scholar, and I use the links they provide to further research the subject. Whenever I can’t figure something out or I’m curious about something, my friend Scott will always just say “Google It”. It’s literally becoming a verb! Which I find pretty amusing. I also use Gmail now, only since this semester when we got it for this class, though! But now my UNI Email goes through there too, and I use it for everything! I don’t use all the products Google has to offer like Dan does, but I’m sure someday I’ll be using more and more.

Google doesn’t have a lot of advertisements on their website, and I don’t really see ads for Google on other sites or anywhere else. I think the reason for this is because it’s so widespread and universal, people already use it all the time! They don’t need to advertise to keep users, because they’re keeping up with what the people want changed and up-to-date, and it’s not like there are many people who have never heard of Google, since they’re so popular, so if someone wants to try it, they do. Google has lots of features; Gmail, Google Earth, Google Maps, Image search, Google Scholar, Google News, as well as many, many more, therefore so many people use it because it has so many different applications and uses.

To me, Yahoo was the first search engine everybody knew about, when the internet was fresh and new. After Google began, it just got better and better and eventually outgrew what Yahoo could do. Google is much better at taking suggestions and keeping on the cutting edge of technology (like their very new Google Instant search) whereas Yahoo seems to be as it always was. If it does make changes, they seem to be behind Google, just following in their footsteps. I don’t know if they can ever catch back up!

Google!-Keisha

1) I think most people are a little like Dan Firger. I know I am. I use Google all the time. When I say all the time I mean I use it pretty much everyday. Google search is the main thing I use. I do have a gmail account but I haven't had it for very long. I know that Google offers a lot of other things like Google docs but I haven't had a reason to mess with any of that stuff yet. I think Google is awesome. In the article we read it said, "Google has in the minds of many users "become one with the internet." I think that is so true. When I think of the internet Google is the first thing that comes to mind (facebook is second). It's kind of crazy how it has totally taken over.
2) I don't really know a whole lot about Google's advertising strategies. I know that Google makes a ton of it's money from advertising. I know that Google owns YouTube. It also owns a lot of other things but I'm not sure what they are. I guess I've never researched Google. I probably should though since it's kind of a big deal these days. Google is getting bigger because we continue to use it all the time. We are helping it grow and expand.
Google is aptocratic because they hire the "best of the best." They hire people who excel on standardized tests. They have very high expectations. It doesn't matter what social status you have, or what gender you are, or what ethnicity you are if you an "aptocrat" Google wants you.
3) I have no idea what happend to Yahoo. I feel like one day it was huge and then the next day it was living in Google's shadow, where it is now stuck. Yahoo! has all these plans to improve, but I dont' think it will ever be as big as Google. Google has pretty much taken over and I don't think it can be stopped. I never use Yahoo! for anything and I don't know many people who do. I think Yahoo! would have to make some major changes to even come close to being as big as Google.

Google - Ryan B

I guess I'm partially like Dan.  Like many of the students on this blog I use Google for searching, researching, photo search, email and just general information.  However I havnt gone to the exstent Dan has and have Google text me everytime I have something important coming up.  I'd like to think I can still remember dates and times without the help of a server 2000 miles away...although the idea is pretty cool.  I was at one point really big into Yahoo seacrh and email but in the last year or two I have found myself  really becoming attached to Google.  It is now my primary search engine and who knows, maybe one day I will let Google text me important information I need to remember. 

I dont know too much about Google marketing strategies.  I do know the company has featered itself on a few televison programs boasting what a great it is to work for so obviously that gets the name out there.  I think Google really desont have to advertise itself like newer search engines do like Bing.  The name Google is more than a name, its a word we use in everyday life...that right there is advertisement enough.  Google owns many search engines on the web which gives it power in the cyber world and recently we all know that they teamed up with Verizon to realease the Android powered by Google.  Google will only continue to grow because, yes, they are Aptocratic.  They continue to buy up other sites and companies and fund and test new technologies so they can climb the ladder of success and be the best.  Becaus eof this Google will only become bigger and more Aptocratic.

Yahoo I beleive is trying to get away from complete competition with Google.  Yes they are both seacrh engines and yes they both offer email among other services.  However the clear difference is in their home pages.  Google's is simple with just the trademark GOOGLE on it with the a space to type your search in.  The Yahoo page is bust and full of news stories, the days weather, current happenings in your area, etc...   Yahoo to this day however, cant be accessed without a pop-up of the latest tv series or newest movie coming out.  Google stays away from that and I think that is what has steered people in the Google direction.  That, and lest face it...its more fun to say "just Google it" than it is to say, "just Yahoo it." 

Warm Googley Goodness

1.) I feel very much like Dan Firger in many ways. I use Google nearly exclusively in my internet searches and for YouTube. However, in other ways I am ruled by Apple much more than Google. Everything in my day from my alarm clock that ushers me to the Health Beat every morning to the iCal notifications that are synced on my MacBook laptop, my iMac work desktop, and my iPhone are constantly buzzing all day. Even my music (I know, I'm a chump because I buy my music) from iTunes can be linked, synced, and emailed so that I have them at all times. I do use Gmail, but I also have my @ME address from Apple. Finally, I buck the ultimate bad boy of technology, Microsoft, and run into the omnipotent arms of Apple for Pages, Numbers, and KeyNote as alternatives for Word, Excell, and Powerpoint. In these ways, Dan and I are pretty similar.

2.) Google's advertising strategies are absolutely brilliant. When coming up with a product like Ad-Words, Google revolutionized advertising by not letting people know they were being advertised to. In that way, Google has been a brilliant company that has really lived up to the idea of being technologically revolutionary. As far as Google being aptocratic, I think it's most likely like any company where the rule of aptocratacy can be broken like anything else.

3.) Yahoo is still on the periphery of technology sight. They have moved away from being direct competitors with Google, which is smart. The experience with Yahoo, I believe is, that they are attempting to make it like AOL in the 90's where people go for all web-related experiences, not just mail. I think this is an outdated concept, but it will still be interesting to see what happens to them in the coming years.

Check out this news article from today regarding Google

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/web/09/22/google.lost.sunrise.florida/index.html?hpt=C1

Google- Megan W.

I am like Dan because I use Google almost exclusively when I am searching the internet. When I sign on, I'm either checking my email (I have a gmail account), logging in to facebook, or going to Google to search for information that I am looking for. Did I mention I use Google Chrome as my browser?? I hadn't really given this a lot of thought, so I don't partially "resent" my Google usage, like Dan said. But, now that I do think about it, it's kind of strange that I allow my knowledge to rely so much on a single search engine that is run by a corporation. I know they do their best to "do no evil," so that is comforting. But still, it is strange to me that Google essentially controls what I know and do not know- it kind of serves as a gatekeeper between me and the knowledge of the world.

I hardly know anything about Google's advertising strategies, I think I'll Google it, hang on...

Ok, I found a lot of information about how to advertise on Google, but I can't find much about how they advertise themselves. I did find a list of what Google owns, the only thing I recognize was YouTube, but there were probably 20-30 other things listed as well- including communication and graphics companies. On Google's own website, it says it owns 150 domains. I did find this quote on Google's site: at http://www.google.com/corporate/business.html

"While the dotcom boom exploded around it and competitors spent millions on marketing campaigns to "build brand," Google focused instead on quietly building a better search engine."

I also found their philosophy about their business, and it is quite encouraging:

http://www.google.com/corporate/tenthings.html

It does really sound like they are out there to help us and give us information.

They state that their two sources of revenue are advertisements and search services. In regards to how the company will get bigger- I think we've seen this happen in the past few years: launching gmail and Googletalk and purchasing YouTube, and Google Calendar and Googledocs and all these popular "apps." They talk a lot about increasing the personalization of Google so that when each user searches, he or she finds what he/she is looking for, and quickly. I think they hope to grow by continuing to work on increasingly personalized search results. Google is an "Aptocrat" because its entire comapany if formed in aptocratic ways. They hire employees who have proved to score highly on aptitude tests. And their entire system runs on the "aptitude" of search results- which are relevant and which are not. This is all numerically calculated as our search results pop up. Their focus on increasing personalization illustrates this- they are hoping to increase the aptitude of Google to be able to give each user what it wants- Google is becoming better and better at these "personalization aptitude tests" and this is probably why continues to grow.

I personally think that Yahoo just got too crowded and "messy" looking. I completely agree with what Toni Carreiro says in the Planet Google article. Google is simplistic and allows you to just focus on what you are looking for. (If Yahoo was this way and Google was cluttered, I'd pick Yahoo!) There aren't "blinking things" in my way- or pop-ups. I also think that Google is the best at giving me what I'm looking for- which means their personalization campaign sucked me in! After reading the article on Yahoo's plans, it looks like Yahoo is trying to catch up, and maybe they will- who knows??

Google - Lauren

I feel we’re all a little bit like Dan Firger. I haven’t given myself up completely to Google yet, but I’m guilty of furthering Google’s takeover of the world. I find myself using Google search engine, I use the e-mail services, I use Google Chrome web browser, and I also use Google as a verb. “I don’t know what this is. Google it.” It’s a phrase that you’ll hear nowadays whenever someone is in doubt. There have been other search engines, such as Yahoo, and there have been other information services, such as ChaCha or KGB, that try to compete, but nothing compares to the quick, easy, links of Google that bring you to unimaginable places on the web.


I don’t know anything about Google’s advertising strategies. I know that 99% of Google’s revenue is from advertising. I assume that it advertises itself by just being Google. I also assume that it Google makes money by other companies buying space on Google websites to advertise their products. To me, that would add up pretty quickly considering how big Google is. The best place on the internet to advertise anything would be Google since it’s used the most out of any other website (or so it seems). According to mydigmedia.com Google owns TONS of things. Way more than I expected. This includes things I’ve never heard of. Postini, Feedbumer, Adscape, YouTube, Orion, Picassa, Pyra Labs, ZipDash, Android, and many more. Those include photo sharing sites, blogger sites, video sharing, and other ways to share media. Holy crap. Google is Aptocratic because it hires the best of the best of the best. Nothing relies on social status, gender, or ethnicity anymore. It is now only based on aptitude and answers to standardized tests. The Google world is held up to such standards that would only get it to the place it is now, or better. Google will never die, it shall only stay as it is, or get stronger and take over the world.

Surprisingly, Yahoo is still trekking along. Why? I don’t know. I think Google should just buy it out and become the biggest thing since sliced bread. Apparently Yahoo is coming out with newer, faster, better things. Applications that will run faster, a better Yahoo mail experience, new search experiences, yadda yadda yadda. I don’t believe it. In my personal experience, Yahoo has proven disappointing. I hope that it’s telling the truth, otherwise Google IS going to dominate completely. The one thing I think is going to sell the Yahoo “cool” factor is the app for iPad tablets it’s coming out with. Though even if it ads to the functions of Yahoo, it’s only available to iPad buyers which hasn’t prospered enough to become a huge way to reach consumers. In my opinion, Yahoo is just there sometimes. When we see it on something we’re looking at, we don’t really pay attention, and sometimes we don’t even realize it’s there. I hope Yahoo is good with subliminal messages because right now, they’re not doing a great job of selling the stuff we KNOW is theirs. Yahoo better step up its game because Google is stomping on its face.

Google - Jessica

I am not quite as invested in the Google “mania” as Dan is, but I do rely on Google quite a bit. It is the main search engine that I use for anything, from websites, to images, to translating a foreign language, to email, and very soon I will be using Google.dox for a class. I like it because it’s simple and gives me what I want. I don’t think I will ever become so invested in the company that a reflection of me is actually all in Google. I probably already have too much information out there on the web through different accounts and sign ups that ask for personal information. I think it’s a dangerous place to be when all of my privacy and information is in one place that is possible taking over the internet world.

I like that Google is very simple. It doesn’t have a lot of the advertising on its pages and when it does they are not dominating over the information I am trying to retrieve. They advertise themselves in attractive ways that aren’t too needy or pushy; they simply advertise what they’ve got. Google owns a lot out in the technology world. As the article stated before, Google just bought Youtube, one of the most popular websites today. The company is getting bigger by its aptocracy people who are using their knowledge in unique ways to really better a product. For example the mathematical equation so that the most precise link shows up to what the consumer wants. It is that it’s changing along with the world as well as changing the world by these people. I feel that Google is for the most part actually listening to what consumers want and using their company for that reason. That is how it’s getting bigger, they are listening to their consumers, changing it for their wants, and in return people will continue to use it. Both parties are getting high rewards in this production.

Yahoo is trying to catch up with Google, but I don’t know if they’ll ever get there. They sound as if their goal is to keep people tied in through Hollywood gossip. They want to be as accessible as Google is now on the different hand held devices. I think one big thing that contributes to Yahoo’s losing popularity is now that they are trying to catch up, nothing is as exciting and something that consumers must have now. Consumers will want newer, better, and faster apps, not ones that we can already get through Google.