IRSM and RAWA sites

At the first look both sites are fairly unprofessional. In my opinion the IRSM
page is much simpler and appears to be easier to use and browse. Its main page was centered to the left while the NAWA's was not. I am using a extremely high resolution screen so it look cramped into the center and strange looking. The NAWA site does look a little more professional and was done in PHP. But its side bar contains to much information. They should make categories and break down from there. The site almost has too much information, somewhat strange that this is actually detrimental to the site. Both of the sites could bother to standardize, giving all of their pages the same background and similar looks. It would be a substantial help and definitely give the impression that the organizations are very legitimate.

I think the NAWA site failed. At least compared to the most of the sites on the internet now. It is to overwhelming to the average user and simple browser. The site acts as an archive and it is not easy to simply get the gist of what their mission is. But the IRSM manages to make that extremely easy. With the limited links to select on the nav bar it its much easier to actually find the destination.

I do suggest that both sites get a face lift. Standardize the sites appearances and rework the navigation systems. NAWA especially. They should try to stray away from the archival form. Possibly create a separate website for the blog type posts all over the site.

analyzing net neutrality groups

My first group is Save the Internet.
Their main goal is to spread awareness of what is happening with net neutrality and help you alert your local and state representatives .
Save the Internet calls themselves a coalition with a massive list of non-profit organizations, blogs, small businesses and more. The size and scope of the list is impressive. There is no place to find when the group was formed, but according to a press release in the press section, it was created the week of April 24, 2006.

The web page is a mixture of static and dynamic. The core content about what is net neutrality and other information like that is static. But, the site also contains a blog and a news feed that displays relevant stories. Navigation on the site is straight forward and possible for anyone despite their computer/internet experience. The Act Now section even contains a 5 step guide.

The group uses the website to redirect you to currently existing resources. It can bring you to a petition or function that allows you to insert your district and it gives you a template email to send to that representative. It has materials for blogs to spread their cause.

Overall, the website is solid. It is has a simply layout that is easy to navigate. The site is obviously slanted in one direction considering it carries an agenda. The rhetoric attempts to ignite a feeling of passion in the reader. It tries to give them the sense that they are going to be part of something that is going to protect freedom and liberty. It is a great tool for anyone who wants to be an activist and get information and ideas all in one place.

One of the only other major groups was Gamers for Net Neutrality. The fact is all these groups have managed to consolidate under the same banner of the savetheinternet.com coalition mentioned earlier.

GfNN has a similar cause as Save the Internet but its more specific and targeted. It aims to protect gamers rights when playing online video games. Offering theoretical situations where a service provider is not allowing users to access their favorite video game servers. It is a unified formal group, but is much smaller than Save the Internet.

The website is completely static and lacks a blog component. The navigation is worse on this site. It has a top main topic bar then has a side bar that involves more specific links within that topic. This could potential lead to problems finding content. I think there was an attempt to have an extreme edge but keep it professional. It doesn't do the trick.

GfNN offers templates like Save the Internet to send to representatives. It also offers information and facts about video games and arms the user with some knowledge. There are resources that show where video game rights are under attack and gives you resources for people in that state. If you actually want to sign something related to net neutrality it brings you right to the same information that Save The Internet offers.

The group has a membership that is free for anyone to join. It also has places for people who do are not part of the organization to alert people in specific states of the issues and attempt to expand membership. If offers no special downloadable resources. Its main goal is to spread awareness and try to gain support in a grassroots way.

Well, the net neutrality portion of this website if horrible. Its extremely lacking. It simply redirects you to Save the Internet. Still, in a way this is a good thing. With all the resources in the same place it makes it much easier for a cause to be united. The thing is really isn't a good source at all.

In the end it GfNN doesn't really succeed on its own but it contributes to a larger, more important coalition of groups unite under a similar cause.

notes/observations/commentary on cyberactivism

reading this was almost nostalgic. not because of the I was involved in anything sort of grassroots, internet-based, protest. but the atmosphere that was felt around the internet in the 90's. These small pockets of user controlled internet pages had such an amateur feeling to them that we don't see in amateur internet today. maybe because it just wasn't common place at the time. the graphic showing a haunted page (p. 40) gave me a little laugh. I remember when yellow text on a white background was common. Part of this is due to the fact that content wasn't as easy to manipulate like it is today.

another thought involving user license agreements and the intellectual property of its creator. First, people were eventually allowing others to take their creations and use them for a greater good. We now have creative commons licensing (We The Media also addresses the power of open source ideology).

As ugly and aesthetically painful the user-generated content of the the internet was, it really built a foundation that wanted more control and ease. Not just in the sense of their thoughts and ideas, but also the ability to manipulate and format the internet as they see fit. The advent of WYSIWYG editors, wikis, blogs, facebooks, myspaces, flickrs, all created a sort of easy to use and standardized way of presenting concepts and commentary.

biographicon = social wikipedia

never seen a non-famous/notable person on wikipedia? thats because they are flagged for deletion right away. the average person cant post a biography about their mundane life on a website that is supposed to be an "academic" resource of sorts. well a wiki-style social network called biographicon has sprung up, claiming that anyone is worthy of a wikipage.

this made me think. think of all the potential vandalism and slander that will be witnessed.

we see the ability of the web 2.0 to be so interactive. could there be some regrets? do you want your personal profiles to be interactive? maybe its gone to far, maybe its become too personal.

you get a glimpse of a profile here