User:Marie Wocher/Proposal Draft

Tentative Title

The Web cheated on me

General Introduction

The world is highly determined by New Media. I am interested in the way users of the Web act in popular structures, such as Wikipedia, Facebook and Google. Throughout my time at PZI I want to investigate how the use of the Web has an impact on our thinking and behavior. I am interested in the limits of Knowledge on the Web. What questions and feelings can be covered by web structures and what can not be covered. Are we well informed by the web? what questions can not be answered by Google and what Knowledge is not shared. Is there need for and how do people deal with it.

For my part, I grew up to believe that the web knows everything. I believed that the web would help me in finding answers to all questions I have. But I start realizing that the knowledge on the Web is very limited and I don't get my questions answered which leads to disappointment. I would like to find out where this promise, that the Web knows everything, has its origin and from whom I adapted this belief. By means of interviews and Cultural Probes I want to investigate if other people feel the same disappointment. The interviews should cover several generations because I suspect that different generations believe in the Web for various reasons. The outcome of my Graduation project will be a Visual Essay that clarifies my research. I want to generate new knowledge by reorganizing information. In my work I always try to configure information in a different way to make my position clear.

Relation to previous practice

In my previous practice recurring questions and topics are: how we exchange and organize knowledge on the web, if the Web mirrors our own expectations or if it is a preexisting set of technologies that we simply follow and adapt, what truth and lie means in the digital world and the question of identity/authenticity. Previous projects that are dealing with these issues are for example Vincent, my Graduation project, where I ask the Question how do we read on the internet and is it possible to design a printed publication that offers the same kind of non-hierachial experience as browsing through an internet website? I researched our reading behavior at the Web, by analyzing peoples web-browser histories. The source I chose for showing my research is the novel Vincent by Joey Goebel. Using the text of this book, I designed two A4 printed publications of the same book, entitled Vincent I and Vincent II. I restructured the Text of the novel and added a marginal column that consists of references that help the reader to navigate through the structure of the book. All Characters in the book are identified as a »Link«, that the reader can look up by turning to the indicated page. What is the »click« on a web page is in my version of Vincent, a system of footnotes, cross-links and different paper choices that navigates the reader through The book. I was interested if I can offer the same kind of dynamic experience to a generation of readers used to Google and Wikipedia, but in reading printed books. Like on the internet I don't offer my reader anything more than choices, in my specific case visual choices. The reader of the book has the possibility to become his or her own editor, make the decision of how he or she wants to read the book, by him or herself. The reader can still read the novel as it was Joey Goebel's intention, but he or she can also read broader, start reading a chapter, browsing to a highlighted name and go on reading all information of the character and than reading further external links in Wikipedia or Twitter. There is even a link backwards that functions as a virtual »back button« should you get lost and want to find your way back. Another project, that is dealing with the boundaries of Web 2.0 is the Libya-Project. For this project I have chosen Google as the medium upon which I formulated questions, such as „How does Google help me to form an opinion?“ and „Where are the borders of Google?“ In depth, I concerned myself with the topic of the NATO operation in Libya. I decided to choose this issue, because I realized that I faced some difficulties when it came to terms of forming a clear opinion and taking an own position concerning the current NATO operation in Libya. Therefore, I asked myself whether or not Google would help me to find a personal opinion on this subject. I developed a questionnaire, which consists of skill questions as well as of matters of conscience. Those ideas resulted in a book, which is divided into three parts. The first part of the book consists of questions, such as “When did the military operation in Libya start? How long does this NATO operation will take? Which nations take part in this operation? How are the citizens of Libya called? Where is Libya located?” - questions which can be easily answered by using Google and whose answers are often taken for granted due to their fact-based nature. No one needs to worry when asking awkward questions, which everybody would expect one to know, since they are considered as general knowledge. Google does not recognize shame. It is all about “fact check” – catching up on information – a habit which has taken greater significance since the Internet is almost always available. It has become increasingly important to be “up to date” and to possess knowledge. Part two concentrates on questions where it is possible to find an answer, but where one must be aware of the fact that this answer might only be one out of many. Questions, such as “Why do NATO operations always take longer than thought in the first place?" or "Is libyan society able to build a democratic state after Gaddafi is removed?"… I realized that the opinion people develop for a certain topic depends widely on the scope of information Google provides. To a certain degree, Google dictates the way people think about a topic, due to the fact that Google simply reproduces or collects different press articles, blogs, etc. However, I did not find a sufficient response to every question. Therefore, I had to be satisfied with the answers Google proposes. The final third part consists of questions which can not be answered by using Google, such as “What is it like to lose a person?" "What is it like to lose someone for the ‘good cause’?" "Will it be easier to cope with the death of people when they sacrificed themselves for the good cause?" Questions which are so personal that in the end everyone has to find answers on their own. The three parts of the book and its content illustrate the limits of Google. What is the difference between facts and opinion? By using Google you acquire factual knowledge, true or not but an opinion (or a moral valuation) will never be formed because you do not have answers to all questions you have.

The fascination for the structure of Wikipedia and Knowledge exchange in general lead into two recent projects this year: Whitney/Postmodernism/Libyan Civil War Whitney/Postmodernism/Libyan Civil War is an installation that consist of three different animations, each shown on a separate screen. The screen of each animation is split into two and shows all edits being made on the same Wikipedia page on two different days. The WIkipedia pages I chose are the pages of Whitney Houston, Libyan civil war and Postmodernism. I compared the Libya civil war page on the day the NATO intervened (03-18-11) with the 11th of february 2012, the day Whitney Houston died. The second animation shows all edits of the Whitney Houston page on the day she died and the day, I run the script, that was the 29th of march 2012 (ideally it would be the current day). The amount of edits varies strongly in these two animations. The third animation (Postmodernism page) compares the same days like the Whitney Houston animation. This is a page that is not dependent on current events and media attention. The amount of changes are on both days almost the same. All edits are shown as black text on white background. Each entry is seen as long as a new edit was made. 24 hours has been compressed to 15 minutes, whereas the proportions are correct. I saved all edits from a script that can scrape all edits that have been made on one particular wikipedia page in one day. For this project I was interested in the question "How do we remember?" And rather I was interested in the moment, when the mass media lose interest to a topic and therefor the public attention is stagnating and a topic gets no longer any attention anymore. I decided to research this phenomenon within the structure of Wikipedia. When a topic is particular current and gets a lot of media attention, the activity on Wikipedia clearly increase what means that the edits of a page will increase. But after a while the amount of edits on a Wikipedia page will fall to a lower level again. 
The Train of Knowledge App The Train of Knowledge App is a Social Network for train passengers allowing people to get in touch with other people traveling on the same train. Users can register their profession or specify various fields of interest and search for interesting people to share the journey with. The integrated chat function enables the user to get into first contact. They can suggest what they would like to talk about and let others know what`s on their mind. And if you get along, to meet on the train is only ever a few steps away. For the TP I designed a promoting animation. The animation shows by means of a concrete example how the Train of Knowledge App works. The initial Idea was to make this animation to be able to promote it on Kick-starter to get the App financed by crowd funding. Inspired by Richard Florida's The Rise of the Creative Class and the lectures by Florian Cramer where we discussed the change of the Creative Industry here in The Netherlands, I was interested in how I, as a designer can be part of the Creative Industry by acting within their rules. Furthermore I am interested in systems of knowledge exchange in general and the question if it is possible to get in touch with people you would never meet in your normal life.

Relation to a larger context

Meaning practices or ideas that go beyond the scope of your personal work. Write briefly about other projects or theoretical material which share an affinity with your project. For example, if you are researching urban interventions, you might talk about Situationist approaches to psychogeography, urban tactical media and activist strategies of reclaiming the streets. Or, if you want to explore the way data is tracked, you might touch upon the politics of data mining by referencing concerns laid out by the Electronic Frontier or highlight theoretical questions raised by Wendy Chun or others. (Keep in mind that we are *not* expecting well formulated conclusions or persuasive arguments in the proposal phase. At this juncture, it's simply about showing an awareness of a broader context, which you will later build upon as your research progresses.)

Practical steps

Describe how you will go about conducting your research through reading, writing and practice. In other words, through a combination of these approaches, you will explore questions or interests you have laid out in your general introduction. In this section you can help us understand how your project will come together on a practical level and talk about possible outcome(s). Of course, the outcome(s) may change as your research evolves, but it's important to have some idea of how your project might come together as a whole.

References

A list of references (Remember that dictionaries, encyclopedias and wikipedia are not references to be listed. These are starting points which should lead to more substantial texts and practices.) As with your previous essays, the references need to be formatted according to the Harvard method.) See: http://pzwart3.wdka.hro.nl/wiki/A_Guide_to_Essay_Writing#The_Harvard_System_of_referencing

Feel free to include any visual material to substantiate, illustrate or elucidate your proposal. For example use images to reference your work or that of others.