Reality in World of Warcraft

In her article “Don’t Hate the Player, Hate the Game: The Racialization of Labor in World of Warcraft,” Lisa Nakamura talks about how ‘worker players’ within the game WoW are becoming discriminated against in terms of race. Her focus is not on the game itself, but rather on the racializations players bring to the game, breaking the players into two distinct groups: leisure-players and worker-players.  Worker-players, “produce and sell virtual goods such as weapons, garments, animals, and even their own leveled-up avatars or ‘virtual bodies’ to other players for ‘real world’ money,” (130) this resentment against these worker-players aka famers has led to many being targeted and even killed online. Now while it is interesting to notice the parallels between reality and the online medium, the main focus of this blog is going to be the use of machinima by players of WoW. Before I go into detail with my conclusion of the piece I think it is important that you know I know nothing about WoW, except that Chuck Norris plays it and that if he plays it then it must be awesome.

I wanted to touch briefly how the racism against WoW ‘Chinese farmers’ have parallels in recent history. When I first heard Nakamura use the term ‘Chinese famers’ I was immediately drawn to the American Gold Rush and the surge of Asian immigrants to the West coast, these immigrants were essential to the construction of the railway system connecting the East coast to the West coast, by performing manual labor, laying the foundation for America. The other parallel I saw when reading this article was how the individuals who have come to represent the ‘Chinese farmers’ are actually working in sweatshop conditions, working in twelve hour shifts before going to sleep on a pallet in the other room before they get back on WoW and start all over again. It is also interesting to note that leisure-players are disgusted at the idea of worker-players selling their virtual goods; however, they are not above paying for these good because they themselves do not have the time to obtain these goods on their own.

The main focus on Nakamura’s article was how WoW players are using WoW to create racist rhetoric through machinima. Machinima, according to Wikipedia, can be defined as: “the use of real-time 3D computer graphics rendering engines to create a cinematic production. Most often, video games are used to generate the computer animation. Machinima-based artists, sometimes called machinimists or machinimators, are often fan laborers, by virtue of their re-use of copyrighted materials.”  Users of WoW have taken the game and used it to create their own rhetoric expressing their personal views about the game. According to Warnick, the players of are consciously using rhetoric to persuade other players to identify with their viewpoints and concerns (97).  While some of these productions are adopted by the developer of WoW and end up becoming part of the official game, other productions are rejected by the developer and a key part of their content winds up dealing with race.

http://warcraftmovies.com/machinima.php

This appears to be the official website of WoW machinima, within this website there are different categories depending on the user’s interest. When I went to the website I was able to access the underground machinima and good number of the postings dealt with the worker-player and how they are corrupting the game of WoW. By taking aspects of the game WoW these users are able to create their own digital rhetoric which they then post online creating a forum for other who have the same opinion to come together in agreement  without fear of prejudice. It is interesting to see how the internet has become an extension of us; we take the information we have at our fingertips to create rhetoric that represents us or our causes.

Creating this rhetoric has its consequences, however, and for gamers playing the WoW it has created a racist environment in certain players have to contend with ridicule and persecution.  While many of the users who share anger on how the worker-players are corrupting WoW they would not consider their viewpoints to be racist but rather a legitimate claim. It is interesting to note here that Nakamura distinguishes between ethnic and cultural racism, many of the WoW players who are angry at the worker-players feel the way they do because the worker-players do not act American, instead, they act ‘Chinese.’ From this perspective economics comes into play, leisure-players are taking a consumer perspective, while worker-players are the producer. Therefore, without these ‘Chinese farmers,’ leisure-players would be forced to produce for themselves and the joy would be taken out of the game. 

~Olivia Emry

Users Like You...May Need to Rethink your Agency

        When discussion turns to the implications of user-generated content (UGC) on individual agency online, van Dijck (2008), prompted by Time’s 2006 Person of the Year (“you”), explores a reframing of traditional perceptions of users’ contribution.  More specifically, van Dijck seeks to point out possible shortcomings in considering users “active internet contributors, who put in a ‘certain amount of creative effort’...’created outside of professional routines and platforms’”(p. 41) which exceed previous discussions of agency offered by Howard (2008) in terms of scope of consideration; van Dijck’s assertions depart from the vernacular dialectic in an approach to agency that examines cultural and  economic perspectives and  labor relations, and identifies YouTube as a fitting locus of exploration.  Van Dijck supports the need for developing new approaches to agency by positing, “…user agency is a lot more complex than these bipolar terms (produser and co-creator) suggest; we need to account for the multifarious roles of users in a media environment where the boundaries between commerce, content and information are currently being drawn” (p. 42).  Van Dijck’s agency then turns to three perspectives in order to move toward a more representative agency model:

1. The Cultural Perspective (p. 42-46)

                The emergence of a participatory culture, fueled by a call for ordinary citizens to simultaneously produce and disseminate messages of their own, has cultural theorists celebrating the advent of new media technologies (p. 42).  Van Dijck wishes to reframe this perception, however, as the notion of participatory culture as an occupier of digital space rests on arguably un-sound assumptions (p. 43). The first of these assumptions is that content generating internet users share a unique relationship with digital media, one not encountered with “old media” including television.  This, according to van Dijck, is a “historical fallacy;” this assertion is supported by several examples of an “intrinsic engagement of the viewer with the medium” including bands covering popular songs, fandom, and reality TV (p. 43).  What is different about new media, according to van Dijk, is sophisticated networking that affords users an opportunity to engage with the medium immediately.  Moreover, van Dijk provides statistical support for the low rate of actual content contribution on sites such as Facebook; participation with media, it seems, does not necessarily yield active contribution (p. 44). 

                Another assumption supported by the cultural perspective of user agency is that of digital community, which is similarly cast as a hopeful perception lacking historical accuracy: brand communities and entertainment consumer groups carry the same cultural preferences as online communities, but we attribute potentials for grassroots mobilization to the latter.  If we consider Hess’ (2009) findings about YouTube as a site for deliberation, is this an accurate assertion about online community? Are we, as van Dijck posits, giving online communities too much credit for their ability to mobilize users and offer an unprecedented sense of community involvement?  Finally, in the same vein, what happens to the online community if we consider the final assumption discussed in this article regarding the role fulfilled by the institution in “steering the agency of users and communities” (p. 43)? (Structural features on YouTube serve as an example here, i.e. how the site might be navigated differently depending on the display of “Top Viewed” videos, etc.)

2.  The Economics Perspective (p. 46-49)

                While discussing economics’ role in shaping internet user agency, van Dijck offers a triangular model for understanding the spaces occupied by media producers, consumers, and advertisers (p. 46).  This model has a long tradition, and our tendency to rethink consumers’ status (placing them in the same category as producers via UGC) is an oversimplification of this triangular relationship; producers as an institution still work very closely with advertisers in an increasingly intimate power exchange.  Not unlike targeted advertising in traditional media, van dijck affords examples of sites that track usage preferences, and this is often coupled with personal information such as age, gender, and income.  These pieces of “metadata…can be mined for various purposes, from targeted advertising to interface optimization, but the bottom line is that users have no power over data distribution” (p. 47).  In this sense, user agency is slighted when new media companies steer users through structural elements such as cookies, IP address tracking, browser type, etc. (p. 48), and to ignore the increasing intimacy of the triangular relationship described above “downplays the tremendous influence of new media companies…” (p. 49). 

                Our classroom discussions frequently touch upon this point; there seems to be a general consensus that targeted advertising online is pervasive and influential.  If we recall earlier course readings regarding interactivity and intertextuality, it appears that van Dijck’s claims are supported. We have similarly discussed notions of retracing site builder’s mental processes during content creation, with the interactive maps discussed in the Davisson (2011) piece as an example.  What about the effect these elements have on agency, especially with regard to negotiations of power between media producers, consumers and advertisers or YouTube’s business model discussed on p. 48?

3. Labor relations (p. 49-54)

                The final approach to understanding user agency offered by van Dijck considers labor and UGC, or online volunteerism v. paid content contribution.  In this sense, even content (such as that found on YouTube), that is considered user-generated is not under complete user-control, even with rating and evaluation systems; these structures are subject to commercially-driven control (discussed above) and are increasingly subject to review by institution-supported professionals. This is especially true since Google’s takeover of YouTube, as, “…commercial stakes are rising and YouTube’s paid staffers are taking over an increasing portion of the sites moderating tasks” (p. 52).  As site owners become increasingly concerned over an apparent “demise of the professional system” (p. 53), van Dijck warns us of a simultaneous demise of user agency, claiming, “…it is a myth to expect that amateurs or volunteers will gain more control over the monetization (or moderation) of their immaterial labour…On the contrary, user agency is defined more than ever by the capital-intensive and technology-driven economies of global, vertically integrated markets” (p. 54).  

                The concept of agency discussed here speaks to our previous discussions of vernacular v. institution.   Are sites such as YouTube, which seemingly embody the flourishing of community and free amateur content just institutions under an attractive (vernacular) guise?

                Whatever the case, I find an emergent theme throughout our classroom discussions and participation on this blog that speaks to van Dijck’s central assertion: when considering new media, a multifaceted approach subject to change in time with the technological and economic landscape is necessary for understanding their rhetorical implications. 

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Davisson, A. (2011). Beyond the borders of red and blue states: Google maps as a site of rhetorical invention in the 2008 presidential election. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 14, 101-124.

Dijck, J. van (2009). Users like you? Theorizing agency in user-generated content. Media, Culture & Society, 31, 41-58.

Hess, A. (2009). Resistance up in smoke: Analyzing the limitations of deliberation on YouTube. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 26, 411-434.

Howard, R. G. (2008). The vernacular web of participatory media. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 25, 490-513.

GBV In the White House (no way dude)!

After our discussion concerning the Howard piece yesterday I was thinking about how common vernacular can attach itself to institutional discourse thereby providing participants in on-line media new access to audiences and widening spheres of influence. This reminded me of a recent occurance in the White House Press Briefing Room involving White House Press Secretary Jay Carney and his love for the seminal (yet relatively unknown) Dayton band Guided By Voices . Watch the clip (he mentions GBV about thirty seconds in) with the thought that no GBV fan would ever imagine having any agency in the White House, no matter how cool President Obama seems about most things. Having been a fan for going on twenty years this really blew me away. After he mentioned their band name, the video went up on GBV's website, Facebook, and YouTube within minutes. I believe that this directly speaks to the "pulses of electricity", "digtal bits", and "myriad of everyday expressive moments" that Howard claims can influence the "discourse of powerful institutions" (Howard, 2008, p.509). While it is far fetched to believe Carney's statement could have any bearing on major policy decisions, it does add a certain element of identification with the people who work in that particular institution daily. Our shared identity could be all that is neccesary in this age of digital rhetoric to enhance argumentation or identify and define the profile of our audience.

A Problem With the Vernacular

Hey classmates.  So this is an article my brother sent me for some delicious debate via facebook, and while that could lead to an entirely different rhetorical conversation itself, I think it goes really well with what we were talking about tonight.  While the fundamental data collection and major argumentation is flawed, (at least in my opinion...discuss?), and it showcases some significant bias, the article talks about younger people lacking the verbosity necessary to contribute to the identification of morality within society.   So, in short, here's an example of people from the digital age using the vernacular and an argument for how that is bad for society, specifically in regard to ethics.  Is this a bi-product of living in a hypertextual\intertextual world, and do you agree with the argument?  When should we start worrying about how the vernacular may be holding back educational progress?  Are we doomed for idiocracy?!

http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/sociology-and-the-life-of-virtue.html

Television Ad - Montage of Memes

Vitamin Water has a recent television ad that includes a number of internet memes. After watching the Weezer Pork and Beans video, I thought this would be an appropriate video to share with the class. See how many memes you can spot.

Vitamin Water Commercial

Flour Bombing?

Kim Kardashian was flour bombed at a red carpet gala to celebrate the launch of her new perfume. Not sure if the act had act political significance (there's speculation that it's because she wears fur), but it did remind me of the "glitter bombing" we talked about in class and the Harold article on pranking.

Heat in Hoodies

Not sure where it fits into our current discussions but I thought this was interesting: the Miami Heat basketball team posted this picture to draw attention to the story of Trayvon Martin, the black teenager who was shot to death by neighborhood watch volunteer. This could become something of an Internet meme if other people start mimicking the gesture. ... Story has been all over the media last day or so. Geraldo Rivera, the Fox News blowhard, said the hoodie Martin wore was as much to blame for his death as the man who shot him. I wish I was kidding.

Vernacular Discourse in Institutions

According to Howard’s research vernacular discourse differs from institutional discourse in that vernacular is alternate from the institution. This is a pretty simple way to view the difference between these two voices in the public sphere. In the year 2012 our internet is primarily dominated by user content. According to Howard’s article this user content would qualify as vernacular discourse among the institutional parameters. These institutional parameters being any website that facilitates users content such as Facebook, twitter, blogger, Tumblr, and YouTube.  Howard states “On the one hand, vernacular forms are those available to individuals or groups who are subordinated to institutions, and, on the other, they are a common resource made available to everyone through informal social interaction. Based on this dual meaning, the vernacular came to refer to discourse that coexists with dominant culture but is held separate from it.”(2008, p.493) This means that our entire vernacular discourses on these facilitating websites is under the institution of the given website. That is why we have so many of these websites that have no affiliations, but they purely exist to make the most user friendly tool for one’s own voice. The article talks about this shift in content on the internet. The rise of "web 2.0" changed the way people viewed the internet. The internet began to function less like a newspaper, TV, or retail store and more like a coffee shop, family reunion, or a swap meet. This change attracted people because they could now express themselves on the internet and also receive messages free from the institution. I think part of the reason why the internet is so addictive is because we can post our own content and then receive feedback from virtually anyone. I know personally when I post something on Facebook I am more excited about the responses to my post than the content of my post itself.

In the case of “Homosexual Extremist Catholic Space” the website Dignityusa is an institution of gay and lesbian Catholics. Raymond posted this content on his own blog and then provided his own vernacular discourse on the matter. This is case in point the new age of web discourse. Everything is fair game. Anything that is posted on the web by an institution is then able to be reposted on facilitators of vernacular discourse. This is what makes the internet a beautiful thing. We as consumers of Media are no longer subject to merely the discourse of institutions but we can now easily deliberate the ideas of institutions among our public sphere. GM motors embraced this new way of communication by mixing the institutional discourse and then opening it up for vernacular discourse. I think we will see more of this in the future. I think we will see institutions try to meet their consumers at a vernacular level, because human beings ultimately want to be heard and feel like their voice has an impact.

 How have you guys seen these institutions adapt to the new wave of participatory media? 

An Anatomy of 'An Anatomy of a YouTube Meme'

An Anatomy of 'An Anatomy of a YouTube Meme'

Your Blogger: Wesley Rupel

First and foremost I would like to apologize for the lateness of this post.  I have some stupid hours that do not seem to get any better, but enough about my trials and tribulations let's get into some fun stuff.  

I did enjoy reading this article, mainly because it felt as if I was able to follow along as I read. Normally, it might take a couple of reads on several lines in an article to fully or somewhat understand what is being said.  I don't know if I am just not used to the double spacing or if the word usage was just simpler. Whatever it might be it was somewhat of a breeze to read through.  There were a few things I noted down as I read through to remind myself to make mention in this very spot.  The entire article is a qualitative (mainly) and quantitative analysis on the memetic videos on our good friend YouTube. We know how much YouTube is for us to watch, well Shifman attempts to break down the draw to YouTube and the particular videos that thrive on said site.  

I am going to go over some of the few aspects that intrigued me and hope to get some nice little responsive posts out there...

I am not a huge YouTube person, definitely not a YouTuber at all.  I usually only watch when someone tells me, "Dude! You've gotta watch this! It's F'n hilarious." Then they proceed to put their iPhone or whatever phone in my face as it loads.  I'll admit for what I've watched... pretty funny stuff.  I have used YouTube to find clips of some of my favorite shows, Family Guy mainly (cough), to show a friend or two or seven. The first thing I did when I finished this article I went right to YouTube to find some on these "memetic videos" that Shifman used in the article.  Since 2009, when the data from the table was collected, it appears YouTube's layout has changed a bit to reflect a more categorized look than just, "here are the top viewed," "These here relate that video you just watch!" "Most Popular".  Now they have, what looks like channels you can go to like, music, news, sports, and trending.  This is different than what I remember of YouTube, but it does have nice feel to it.  Anyways, the site did not instantly pull the "memetic videos" up, I had to search the titles that Shifman used through out the article just to watch some of them.  My how things do change...

Shifman quotes Burgess (2008, 6) on page 6, "successful internet memes incorporate textual hooks or key signifiers that cannot be identified in advance, but only after a video has become prominent through the active selection of users."  This particular passage, I found intriguing for the simple fact that we will never be able to preemptively figure out a meme before it is a meme.  A person can think their new video is going to be successful, but the nature of a meme, which this article explores, depends on some social factors on how successful the video might be.  

Shifman identifies common features among the sample taken in the study.  These synonymous features are 'Ordinary' people, Flawed masculinity, Humor, Simplicity, Repetitiveness, and Whimsical Content.  I believe Shifman nailed this one pretty straight on the head, because a good combination of these aspects will lead to a memetic video on YouTube.  

I believe the most powerful of all features is the combination of the 'Ordinary' people and Humor.  These two features lead to simplicity, because they have a way of making the audience watching the specific video relate easy to an 'Ordinary' person and if that 'Ordinary' person is going through something humorous, then you might just have a winner there.  Then again, you will not know, because you can not determine a meme before it becomes a meme as it takes the response to a particular video to determine it as such.  Why does Simplicity come from 'Ordinary' people and Humor?  I believe it is what I am going to call, the "Common Ground Effect" (don't coin that, it's mine, unless it is already a real 'effect').  It means just what it states, the idea of having common ground or similar interest between two or more people or groups.  We see an "ordinary" person doing something that we, ourselves, are very capable of doing and we can then place ourself in their shoes. Then if this "ordinary" person falls or does something, again in the realm that we can do this "something" too, idiotic, moronic, or accidental tends to lead to laughter (humor).

This could be scoped vision, because I do not know many people who get serious, credible news from YouTube.  YouTube seems to be more of an entertainment type web site.  This is why critical thinking skills should developed much earlier, because the exposure level is hitting much younger ages and they need to be able to identify and differentiate what is a "good," credible source of information and what is just crap, for lack of better words.  

I did want to make quick reference to page 11 where Shifman makes a descriptive comment about a particular video.  Is midget really the word you chose to use.  Is it not more politically correct to say little person? I do not know why that hit me when I saw it, but it struck me out of place with how the entire article went.  I have seen a few documentaries, specials, and shows where little people have said they prefer the term "little person" instead of "midget".  It  was just something I noticed and wondered if anyone else thought the same in regards to that.  No where else is it mentioned in the article, but still to me... odd.


Let me know what y'all think in regards to my thoughts and overall thoughts to this article...


Oh and for fun I built some more Wordles (couldn't resist):

An Anatomy of 'An Anatomy of a YouTube Meme'

An Anatomy of a YouTube Meme

Memes in the Technical Sphere

Hey guys,

I'd like to know what you think of this meme I made. I'd like to hear how this image is rhetorical and how does it persuade. I'd like to know from our technical sphere of knowledgeable and educated students of rhetoric what type of artistic proofs are used, what type of speech is used, if this is a starting point for rational debate, and are memes in general used with civility and decorum. These are just starting points feel free to analyze it from what ever angel you would like. 

This meme is entitled liberal college girls if that helps you get some context of the statement that is being made.

GO NUTS, PLEASE!

Joey   

Occupy Again

It looks like the Occupy Movement is making headlines again in Fort Wayne, but not for any legitimate news of its own. It seems a reporter with the News Sentinel is still trying to make a federal case out of the fact that the Occupiers get to camp out stay rent-free in a city park, while he can't park downtown without feeding the meter. Maybe he has a point. But even if you agree with him, you would have to say the media seems to be missing the forest for the trees on this one.

Hackers Revisited

Check out this News-Sentinel article about some hackers from the group Anonymous getting arrested after one of their leaders turned informant. It's considered the first significant prosecution of Internet hackers. I think it's interesting to note the language employed in the article. Authorities accuse them of a "deliberate campaign of online destruction, intimidation and criminality." Remember the Nissembaum article talked about this kind of ontological shift.

One of their alleged "exploits" was hacking into the PBS Web site and planting a fake story that Tupac Shakur was really alive in New Zealand, which they did in retaliation for what they perceived to be "unfavorable news coverage of Wikileaks on the PBS news program Frontline." Hardly what you would consider terrorist activity. And kind of funny actually. One might say more of an act of insurrection than mere sabotage.

....Some people even wondered if the whole story of the arrest of the 5 hackers wasn't a fraud as well.