[Air-l] we need a better word than lurking

[Hugemusic]

Does this relate to the techno-uptopian twaddle that passes for news about 
New Media?  All the guff about the "new generation" of "produsers" and 
similar, which seems to me an uncritical rehash of the kind of propaganda 
that eg Rupert Murdoch throws around when Forbes give him an opportunity?? 
(see http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2007/0507/138.html)

"And people's expectations of media have undergone a revolution. They are no 
longer content to be a passive audience; they insist on being participants, 
on creating their own material and finding others who will want to read, 
listen and watch"

Anyone who's taught New Media knows that "they" are a small minortity of 
students and the wider population, but "their" perspective and attributes 
domainate much of the tech discourse ... perhaps because of the commercial 
opportunity "they" offer Murdoch and others (whoever "they" actually happen 
to be).

"Half of all American adults are only occasional users of modern information 
gadgetry, while 8% are avid participants in all that digital life has to 
offer"  (From Pew's latest report).

This report shows that "they" are not all the same, either ...  Does that 
make people who don't demonstrate these participation attributes 
"techno-lurkers"??

I think there's something bigger going on here ... WDYR???

Cheers,
Hughie

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "James Whyte" <whyte.james at yahoo.com>
To: <air-l at listserv.aoir.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: [Air-l] we need a better word than lurking


> It is another word for Nixon's "Silent Majority".
>
>  IMHO, If you placed announcements for conference and call for papers out 
> of the main listserv there might be some bandwidth for serious 
> discusions.Please don't interpret my statement as derisive of such 
> posting. I have often thought how valuable such postings are. But they do 
> fill the mailbox.
>
>  Barry is correct in saying that if everyone was a contributor, the result 
> would be chaos.
>
>  James
>
> Kevin Guidry <krguidry at gmail.com> wrote:
>  On 5/7/07, Nancy Baym wrote:
>> Funny you mention that. Just a few minutes ago I was working on a
>> paper and when I got to the point where I wanted to talk about
>> "lurkers" I stopped and chose "invisible participants" instead.
>
> I'd like to hear more about this decision. I find it difficult to
> describe those who do not, well, participate as participants. I
> assume your definition of participation is different from mine.
>
>
> Kevin
> _______________________________________________
> The air-l at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
> is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
> Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: 
> http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
>
> Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
> http://www.aoir.org/
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Don't pick lemons.
> See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.
> _______________________________________________
> The air-l at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
> is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
> Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: 
> http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
>
> Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
> http://www.aoir.org/
>