A Droplet Runs into the Sea: Technology meets Culture and Society

Stopping virtual trading = going back in time

2009-04-12T12:08:00.001-06:00

In our worlds, there are a lot of ironies. Ironies are things you have to do yet do not wish to happen. Corruption is one of them.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/blackmoney/view/
This is an interesting video of a tips of an iceberg of the highest level of corruption in the world - amongst princes, prime ministers, presidents, and so forth.

But... we are all corrupted, in one way or the other. In world of warcraft, addon authors were recently banned to solicit donations online. This, in a way, was Blizzard's way to stop money making the virtual world go round. However, I doubt this is a good way forward. For a certain fact that helping our friends around us has been the way humans work for centuries.

(If you did not know about the game nor that post, linked above, you may be lost.)

Say if Blizzard continue the policy despite addon authors' protests, they will root out payments to major addon development, thus enabling players to have 'equal' access to addons. However, how equal is 'equal?' Many addon authors of the most complex mods, such as Group Calendar, NUi, and Carbonite, have announced the privilege to their efforts to be given only to those who they wanted, perhaps that meant their guild mates, friends, families, and maybe their donors. Discounting the smaller number of donors that would now donate to them (via websites), the currency network now contracts into personal network. Monetary capital becomes social capital.

I reckoned that was a stepback for civilization. We used to barter trade, that is face to face, with our neighboring villages. However, with currency, we are able to trade with strangers. Now, with the new rule implemented, we are somewhat transported back into the age of barter trading. World of Warcraft was sent back in time. I wonder that help was there for social equality.

Are you cultured? Reflections of culture on technological usage.

2009-03-15T13:30:00.003-06:00

When we talk about culture, we may mean two different things. One, culture as a set of behaviors unique to a particular group of people. We may say Chinese like red colors and are family oriented. Two, culture as in mannerism and pleasantness in face to face meeting. I think that the second type of culture is more relevant to technological usage.

The Internet is now driving a lot of changes in our society. But what driving Internet usage is the culture (the second type). In China's Internet space, we saw a lot of trojans planting, hacking, and government censorship. Chinese Internet groups did not appear to be working well together. More often, they were trying to defeat their competitors using all means possible. Companies also do not readily open their web portal, e.g. forums, to all visiting users. It was common to install a layer of protection such as invitation code for new visitors.

In the US's space, it appears to be more open. And relationship between sites are friendlier, at least, they do not compete beyond developing better products. Site masters appear to be working together well, including developers and their users. These was what I have seen in the World of Warcraft Modding communities.

Perhaps the short 30 years of Chinese's encounters with free market economy caught its culture off-guard. They were not ready for full fledge open collaborations. Nonetheless, following our definitions, we may say then that the US community is more cultured than the Chinese. And that despite having the same technology, Chinese culture requires changes to optimise its use. Moreover, Internet is merely an enabler. What makes people effective is communication.

I am more than convince with Web 2.0 driving the forefront of social development, the future of successful societies lie in development of their culture.

Games = violence? Bah!

2009-03-13T10:20:00.003-06:00

Within a few days, I saw computer games being blamed for violence in youth. First was about the cases in Singapore where a student slashed his professor before jumping to his death, and another student hanging himself. Second was about a German youth killing 16 others.

On the first case, Alice Loh said in Facebook, "Alice Loh at 7:23pm March 11

I thk we shld also start looking into the stress our kids have at home. this may includes parenting and society stress...exams...pressure. Restrict Violence Gaming is a MUST !"

On the second case, "The actual problem is violent computer games," says Georg Stiel, president of the club in Volksdorf.

"They mislead young ones, letting them shoot people and animals without being at risk themselves. I would have those games banned."

Shooting clubs, on the other hand, teach respect towards weapons as well as safety rules, gun law, discipline and patience, Mr Stiel says.

"Guns are our sports equipment. Of course they are weapons, but so are golf clubs, tennis rackets and broken bottles," he adds."

(Duh... I wonder if Mr Stiel has a choice, would he like to be hit by a golf club or a gun?)

Why computer games? Because the users are the powerless youths who can be easily lambasted, in comparison with the general adults that watched movies? Isn't TV a more widespread perpetrator of gun and violence? How about our national service (conscription to the army)? We learn how to shoot with a real gun.

My point is violence is violence, just because we could not understand our kids doesn't mean it is due to gaming. Finding a scape goat is to overlook the real issues here. We can eradicate 100 technologies that seemingly inculcated violence, but still not realize why are our kids angry.

China's problems: vested-interest or reform?

2009-03-13T09:43:00.003-06:00

I thought this article provided a backdrop for my thesis on the inability of Chinese Internet groups to form productive alliances. The lack of suitable social protocols, was even reinforced by the lack of conditions to make one. An open group would tend to close-up when facing unruly users and scrupulous competitors. Something out-of-sight of our fieldwork seems to be at work, encouraging extreme measures against out-groups. It would be hard to imagine Wowinterface launch vicious hacking attacks on WowAce. However, it was rumored that attacks between sites happened in China. It appeared to be morally acceptable for Chinese groups to cat-fight for supremacy. But in an environment where corruption is a way of life, what other measures would be worse?

Finally, I agreed with with Sun that an environment encouraging short-term vest-interests and seeking stability (twisted form of harmony) leads to nothing but decay.

Quote: "When corruption becomes a way of life, when it becomes something beyond reproach, and when it becomes something everyone denounces and at the same time desires, the whole society has entered a state of maldevelopment."

Reflections of China's Creativity

2009-03-05T17:47:00.000-07:00

“There are too many people in China,” said almost everyone I met. Whatever problems that China is facing, that is the favorite answer. My one month immersive tour of China revealed something else – its serious lacking of cooperation between teams.

In China, almost every company has a core team核心团队, and this also applies to non-profit Internet community. The members in the core team worked hard and were highly efficient. They trust each other and knew that they would benefit from the outcome. However, beyond the core team members, almost everyone distrust each other. I found this seriously impeded Chinese creativity.

Every latest and greatest product required a lot of people to support and to develop into a whole new industry, not to mention the other industries that supplied the main knowledge and components. Right now, I don’t see Chinese culture supporting that type of efforts. Most Chinese factories and companies were plugged into an existing foreign industrial ecology by supplying cheap products. Even Chinese producers like Haier had not produced anything new, but lower cost alternative to the existing appliances.

Good news for Americans is that culture is hard to change and therefore US will continue to take the lead in knowledge production for at least 100-200 years. But what should you do if you are a Chinese? That - is another topic too wordy for my little blog..

US - how will it end?

2009-01-23T10:01:00.002-07:00

Lots of theories abound for an end to US dominance, and 'shift' to the east. However, most of the stories were told from the perspective of 'rise of china,' but not from that of 'inside' of America.

I do not think the rise of another nation will cause an end to a nation's dominance. A lot of the social network ties and infrastructure will continue to function even when other nations enrich themselves. Much like how British dominance did not come to an end even after Japan's rise. Its trading partners, ie colonies, still remain theirs for a long time.

The strength of a nation is much obtained by these network ties and infrastructure. By infrastructure, I also mean the dominance of English, international laws favoring US culture, US MNCs and their influence on nations policies, etc. However, there lies a threat indeed to the US dominance, and that is a risk of imploding.

I think no one can topple the US but itself. Recent years of catastrophic collective decisions brought itself to it current bad state - Enron, invasion of Iraq, financial crisis, and recently John Thain's bailing out of Merrill Lynch's employees using the government bail out fund.

I am suspecting these are all the American culture's own undoing. A culture of every man for himself, and believing that it will add up to collective good. However, these appeared to show that this mindset of fighting for oneself alone can become negative when present in someone at top office. Their actions are too significant to the livelihood of too many. As a result, top officers had to be shuffled every few years (4 years for presidents).

Now, everyone is hoping Obama is someone who can cleanse the internal injuries US had sustained last few years. He has to fight for many things, inclusive of selfish corporatism. All uphill battles.

No matter how it will end, this signaled a potential weakness in America, one itself ought to be aware of.

Netizen population surpassed 1b

2009-01-23T08:59:00.002-07:00

Wow, actually I am awed by the small number. Considering we have 6b earthlings, 84% of us are still offline.

However, also consider that US + China consisted a total of 16% + 18% = 34% of all netizen population. These are the two countries we need to pay attention when talking about Internet usage.

Building an understanding of China

2009-01-07T11:23:00.004-07:00

I am often sadden by the state of understanding of China. This was despite the 'contemporary' anthropological papers I have read in the recent months. It came to my attention that among the common held positions on China, most of the Chinese views were missing, labeled 'traditional.' Whereas these thinkers had the more 'contemporary' understanding. But what is meant by 'contemporary' and what is 'traditional?'

For example, in my term paper, I wrote that the idea of harmony is one where 'there can be no parts wrongly present, and everything exists belongs' (Mote, 1989). The author, Frederick Mote, was a Sinologist and Professor of History at Princeton. This idea was rejected in my class as 'traditional.' Anthropologists documented harmony as communist invention to control the Chinese society.

In another instance, I mentioned in class discussion that Chinese family emphasized the division of labor more than equality between sexes. This idea was also labeled as 'traditional.' Anthropologists documented Chinese tradition as male domineering and oppressed the female. However, in my process of growing up, I have seen about half of Chinese families as female domineering.

I urged anyone who can grab a Chinese who grew up in any Chinese societies (China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, or even Korea, Japan) and ask him about the above. Ask them what is harmony. Ask any female what she aspires to be. Remember that being an anthropologist means that you are trying to understand another person from his/her point of view. You do not color this perspective with your cultural principles, such as equality or freedom.

I am afraid the effects of dismissing anything foreign and different as 'traditional' is a sure way towards cultural imperialism. By dismissing other culture's history, you set yours own as the actual history. By dismissing other culture's reality as oppressive, you set your future as the only right path.

Looking at China today, I felt that one big point missing in Chinese anthropology is that a different future is brewing in Asia, a continent largely driven by Confucius ideals. I do not think it is going back to imperialism, nor is it heading to American type democracy. An important Chinese anthropologist often (purposely or not) overlooked by American anthropologists is Fei Xiaotong. He documented the development of Chinese societies as not entirely autocratic nor democratic. However, the emphasis on communal agreement and wise leadership is very historically bounded and I highly recommend anyone who is interested in understanding Chinese thinking to read either Frederick Mote or Fei Xiaotong. Another non-academic but broad reading on development of Asian societies is Lee Kuan Yew's second memoir: Singapore, from Third World to First.

The future of Asia is in the making, but it is not 'that' future.

Micro-actions developing into hierarchial community

2009-01-06T18:02:00.000-07:00

One of a sign of a hierarchical community is the culture of faulting someone for the mistake of not knowing. The reason is that one had not try to find out.

However, the process of finding out goes in circle with the question itself. For instance, I was surprised by the existence of the Fly America Act today, meaning flights booked through any Federal funding has to use American airlines. This defies most assumptions practiced by most communities that professionalism chooses the cheapest flight. But how would you first ask that question if you do not know it exists?

If an organization allows the defendant to argue or circumvent the rule, it is a flat organization. If the organization fault the defendant for not finding out, it is a hierarchical organization. Faulting someone for not finding out something difficult to know in the first place creates a sense of privilege to the holders of traditions - particularly those who have been there for a long time.

Not to say who is at fault or not, just my thought about how power can be created through inter-personal micro-actions.

The Truth of Culture

2009-01-06T16:52:00.003-07:00

I have been studying cultural differences and in any culture, there is always a set of beliefs everyone strongly believes in. If there is anything that is common across culture, it is this:

If only 1 person proclaim it, it is lunacy.
If 10 persons proclaim it, it is heresay.
If 1000 persons proclaim it, it is a trend.
If 10000 persons proclaim it, it is the truth.

This applies to what Americans called freedom, Singapore's 5Cs, and Chinese's harmony.

I think that when an ethnographer sees beyond these social reinforced mentality, one sees beyond morality. If there is a cross-cultural intelligence, this eye sees what the truth is.

Effects of culture on knowledge production

2008-12-31T03:01:00.003-07:00

Consider this: How do we come about to invent a new dish, such as Singapore's 'national food' Chicken Rice?

I assume there has been a long history of cooking meat inside boiling water, or what we called 水煮. So people have knowledge of how to get the tender chicken out of boiling water. It is easy to get hard chicken meat out of it. I saw some chicken rice stall hanging and drying raw chicken at the back of the food center. Therefore, the knowledge on process the chicken before boiling has to be in place.

Then, was the way to cook rice with chicken fragrance. I assumed during the processing of chicken, some of the oil or parts were treated to produce thick soup, which was mixed with the rice for cooking. Reuse of excess food is an important chinese culture of thrift and also key to a lot of Chinese cuisine. These two knowledge probably can fused into a new process in cooking rice. Perhaps before that, Singaporeans had toyed with different soup that can be used to cook with rice, thus strengthening the knowledge on the ability of rice to mix with different ingredients.

Also, chicken rice cannot be too good without the availability of sesame oil, soy sauce, and thick soy sauce. The last is about the most important. It wasn't too salty and a bit sweet. It is something which I cannot find easily outside Singapore.

Someone intelligent, within that particular environment and have access to people knowing each of these specific knowledge, may at one point mix and invent Chicken Rice, a food that drove many businesses in Singapore today, even sold in top hotels and restaurants. However, it would be hard for soy sauce makers, rice makers, or soup makers to know that their knowledge is key to the invention of something greater. Each of them is a piece of the great infrastructure that allows innovation to happen.

This long winded and semi fictitious case I wrote is to argue for the important of social infrastructure, including key knowledge, social network, and people who can bring these together.

I sense that many of the new economies who are trying to bring in knowledge production can easily replicate key knowledge, which are skills, text books, and people. However, networking them productively is not as easy. Ideas cannot get synthesize due to intellectual property, traditional decision making structure, trust, lack of short term profit, or shortsightedness and lack of beliefs in collaboration. I think that a culture can establish the smoothest social networking protocol that enables the fastest knowledge exchange between trustworthy people will come out winning in every innovation contest.

A news released by fairly reputation Chinese news site 17173 include a bitorrent link to the 'patch.'

2008-12-07T23:05:00.002-07:00

Rumors of impending release of TBC 3.05 continues in the CWDG chatroom. A news released by fairly reputation Chinese news site 17173 include a bitorrent link to the 'patch.' http://download.17173.com/121/11/54340/

Very soon after, about 2 hours since I saw the discussion in the chatroom, someone posted an official notice by the9 staffs, saying:

0. 切勿轻信和乱下网上流传的一些3.0补丁文件
目前在网上流传的一些3.0补丁安装文件很可能是不安全有木马的，所以在官方正式放出3.0补丁前，希望大家可以安心的等待，以确保自己帐户的安全。
官方公告..

asking players not to download patch from external sites, in case of trojans. Before the official release, that everyone should wait for their own account's safety.

Orderly is where the activity is

2008-12-07T08:29:00.002-07:00

I have been tackling a difficult problem lately, one of cross-cultural differences. The problem is - when you look at individuals within a culture, say china, you will often find outcroppings, deviants. When you seek history to explain behaviors, you can also encounter contradictory events.

The problem is every human is highly malleable, provided you are patient with him. So apart from history, many other things, such as character, affluence, friends, jobs, personal events, shaped a person's behavior. While we can observe that Chinese are more alike to each other than to Americans, there are a lot of individual variability. Accounting for the similarity is difficult, and finding something useful out of this account is even more difficult.

However, if we narrow the scope to local activity, for instance, the behaviors of Chinese inside the chatroom of an online game, we start seeing more similarity between the subjects. Their shared environment and motivation shaped their behaviors to be more similar than outsider.

The point is anthropology is useful in spotting repeated patterns (similarities), but when subjects are very different, it is hard to tell a good story. When the scope expanded, we need support from quantitative analysis to objectify the observation. They are tools that help us ascend to the macro.

Pursuing cross-cultural research

2008-11-14T09:56:00.004-07:00

I have been thinking about the process of pursuing cross-cultural research. Often time, when there is a 'cross-cultural' research conducted in China, we saw 'findings' like Chinese like red, Chinese government are autocratic, Chinese are collectivists, Chinese are bonded by guan-xi, and so forth. However, these terms, rather than telling us anything, are merely a coat of paint we smeared on the same piece of paper to make it more colorful. Not knowing what drives guanxi or autocracy, we turn to the mysterious state and point figures to human rights and arcane policies. But how do we see beyond the paint and below into the acts?

First, I think it is vital to see that humanly actions are not always conscious and visible by the society at large. That is, if you were to visit a Chinese, she would bring you to nice restaurant, being very hospitable to your needs, keep you away from danger, and other Chinesey things. And perhaps you may report that Chinese are hospitable and develop guanxi through dines and politeness. However, I would like to say, still, those are too on the conscious surface of the society. They are things people are still able to TELL you, can be observed, found in everyday discourses, and thus well aware by everyone. What is more important is what is not said, assumed and unexpressed, taken for granted (bad expression here for what is not expressable cannot be 'taken'), and when someone broke these assumptions, other might react with a sense of bewilderment - a 'huh?'

I would argue that in cross-cultural research, it is vital to penetrate into this level of dynamics within a society. For instance, how do Chinesey behaviors maintain the structure of guanxi. How do people conduct themselves, without guidance from meta-perspective, in a way that builds guanxi between individuals? What are the roles within a guanxi network, what are the responsibilities, hierarchies, and outcome?

Blogs are not meant to be long so I will give one last example using American culture. US has a very open, individualistic culture, with high resistance to failure, that allows Americans to keep trying. We all know that. But why US alone? When we pay attention to the discourses between Americans, we start realizing repeated and shared, individualized, cultural notions being passed on, and reinforced between individuals. So much so that they were taken to be real, uncontestable - the holy grail. Something when broken equates to blasphemy. A common phrase people said to each other is 'such things happen,' especially when something important went wrong. A mistake is a mistake., but we learn to see it differently. I would argue that in Chinese culture, a typical discourse would be to find the culprit and get him to repent, reassuring everyone it would not happen again, questioning 为什么你没有问我就这么做 or why didn't you ask me before you do it? 'Such things happen' leaves all blames behind, just like the bankruptcy act allowing businessmen to start anew. When everyone embraces 'such things happen,' the society equips itself with a collective cognitive characteristics that allows creativity to happen. And 'why didn't you ask me before you do it' culture type embraces a consolidation and standardization behaviors.

Quality, or Suzhi, of a Society

2008-11-03T15:23:00.003-07:00

Suzhi 素质 is frequently written and described in anthropological discourses about China. It is indeed very visible in official and unofficial commentaries in China. Suzhi, or quality, is a loose term trying to point out the 'backwardness' of Chinese in today's world. However, its actual definition, e.g. pariotism, wealth, or intelligence, varied according to context (Fong, 2007).

I cannot help but think suzhi discussion is not uniquely Chinese. At least if you consider the use of similar words. For example, knowledge economy, American dream, or freedom of the society, were all similarly vague terms. Knowledge has not been well defined. American dream can means anything from wealth to hobby. Freedom can means anything from safety to free speech. All these ambiguities were meant to spur the society forward, acknowledging that every individual in a society has an important role to play.

About the Chinese suzhi, I just returned from San Francisco, and was waiting for the cable car (actually more like an old tram) at the fisherman wharf. In front of me was a caucasian family. Behind was .... ops, where did this Chinese family came from? I did not remember them being there when I first joint the line. Anyway, we waited a long time for the next car, and people were starting to whine. Finally, our car arrived. The family in front boarded first, and then it was, or supposed to be my turn, if not for the family behind me running for the front seats, shoving their way through. It was a vivid scene because I had not been in the same situation for more than a year, since I arrived in California, Irvine.

I am saying this because I do not think suzhi lies so much in personal qualities such as wealth, grades, or intelligence. Rather, I have seen people who are not well educated contributed tremendously to others. In world of warcraft, many of the best modders started with little programming knowledge, but worked their way deep into the nights to reach pinnacles of the trade. Moreoever, they worked so that others may benefit from the small addons they created. They share their knowledge in forums, chatrooms, and books.

I felt that the little incident I had at the cable car station in SF is not an isolation, but a microsm of a Chinese weakness, and conversely an American strength. I had a Chinese friend who worked in the US for almost 4 years. He told me that if you pit an American to a Chinese, you found that the Chinese always wins (I assume this is a scholarly competition). But if you pit a group of Americans to a group of Chinese, the Americans win. There is something about the society that I felt relationship matters more than each individual. If people care for each other more, everyone benefits. If people only care for themselves, then everyone looses. In fact, this is not even an American wisdom, because Chinese has it too, among the lately revived wisdoms of Confucius.

If that Chinese lady has not shoved me and we sat on the cable car peacefully. Perhaps we would talk. Perhaps I can share something I know about SF with her, and so can she. We may both benefit from the relationship, perhaps not. But I am sure nothing ever comes out of negative relationship. They only leads to societal segregation.

So goes my little discourse on suzhi of a society: that the links matter more than the dots.

--------------
Fong, 2007. Morality, Cosmopolitanism, or Academic Attainment? City and Society, 19, 1.

Power of People in Tomorrow's Society

2008-10-23T13:19:00.003-06:00

I am tackling the question of the meaning of web 2.0, and information society. Web 2.0 is the technology that connects people to each other. I repeat: People, not technology.

There are many people around the world, and technology applies a web-like and invisible links so that each individual is empowered to do much more.

"$10.8 billion that we don't have to spend to get an exceptionally robust operating system. $10.8 billion that we depend upon every day when using Google, Amazon, and a dizzying array of websites, as well as many of the applications we use within our own companies. There are countless companies and services enabled by this communal, multi-billion dollar investment, none of which you and I actually pay for." According to Matt Assay, VP of Alfresco, on Linux.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10072567-16.html?part=rss

Even before I am carving out the proofs in elegant, PhD standard English and format, publishing in respected journals, I am far into believing that this is the case across all areas of Technology and Society, Human and Computers Interaction. In World of Warcraft, we saw large scale, international, collaborative efforts in improving the game. Nerdy players turned into cool producers. Creativity is empowered on all with a computer, and minimal ability to program.

In anthropology, Social Network Analysis, a method for seeing structure and patterns of human relationship, is developing to supported traditional in-person observation methods. Which is another area of my investigation. If humans are being empowered by digital media to reach out, so do an Anthropologist, who is also a human being. Such power was first proposed by Douglas White, also an Anthropologist from UC Irvine.

In all, exciting things are happening, enabled by the Internet, that is slowly shaping our society. Together with it, every human activities are being shaped by it. I don't think there is a better time for humans to be creative.

Eastern map from the Western view: When one ethnic group looks at another

2008-09-24T12:15:00.005-06:00

(from http://www.philaprintshop.com)

(from http://www.unitedstatesofasia.com)

It is strange when one try to map a foreign land. We thought Marco Polo was great navigator. Let us look at a map based on his descriptions of Asia (top map). An actual Asia map (below) in case you are not yet aware.

The top map was made in the twelve century, when probably only Marco Polo and his crew had been to Asia. A lot of traders had been to India, probably why India appeared all over Asia. This is not a problem since we know that cultural differences often color the way we look at things. However, it is a problem when we assumed what we know is true.

Today, I saw a map that reminded me of the above lesson, this time a map of communities in World of Warcraft (see below). I would not contest how the 'west' looks. But look at the 'east,' occupied by an army of GOLD FARMERS - I object!

While gold farming is part of the mechanics of gaming (a small part btw), it was amplified beyond proportion, just like how India appeared as the whole of Asia. In fact, all Chinese players I met online or in chatrooms are genuine players. They play, they make friends, they create addons, and they like to pvp. It was only a recently published that Chinese players are the best pvpers in World of Warcraft. However, one part of Chinese players that is causing all the trauma is a small number of gold selling corporations extending their reach into US and Europe.

(from http://timhowgego.com)

In China, virtual items trading is a big part of the gaming community (contrary to bots farming or accounts stealing). Players, on top of paying for game play, also pay for gold or items. It does not appear to be a problem to them in contrast to the counterparts in US. I can understand the many US players found gold sellers' spamming to be annoying and a disruption to fair play. However, that they are all bad is a gross generalization. An advantage to gold buying and selling is similar to common trading. Players without money but a lot of time (often students) may sell their gold or items for real money, which fund their play time. Players with money but no time (often professionals who had to work overtime), may buy gold to quickly level their characters. More then often, Chinese friends whom I met online asked me to level faster so as to group with them for game play. These were social gestures less often seen in US communities.

One may disagree with me and still cry foul. However, such was one issue with culture, one perspective does not go well with the other. Nonetheless, we should not view the entire Chinese communty as 'gold farmers.' Instead, companies that sell gold using farm bots and stealing accounts are really the issues here.

A design problem worth pondering is that most games designed in US do not accommodate virtual trading, which to them is Axis of Evil to be exterminated. Why not since our economy as a whole has moved on from barter trading and thrives? Why discriminate against players who have jobs and don't have time earn all the tier 5-6 items? If virtual trading can be supported in the game, perhaps there will be less opportunities for gold trading companies to thrive. For example, money earned can proceed to paying for monthly account. Evil it maybe (at least in the Western sense), but perhaps a necessary one.

Turning users into developers

2008-09-15T22:43:00.002-06:00

Lately, I have been thinking of a problem. That many successful products have large user base. We had try to get designers to create great products. We said they made them beautiful, but not necessary usable. We got usability professionals to make them usable. We interview them once every few months to update usability guidelines. Lastly, we put users into the same room as we work. We work, they tell us how to do it. Now what?

As always, the gaming industry has pushed the knowledge envelope. For the past 15 years, they have been learning how to turn players into developers. They develop free development kit for paid users. Some were merely map editors for creating new zones for play, others were full development environment that allowed users to create a new game altogether. The resulted outcome are mods, and users who created them modders.

Modders contributed to games immersely. Most modders were passengers, who were there, and done that. A few, however, made their mark, and changed the landscape of gaming forever. Counter-Strike is a first person shooter that is played in every professional gaming tournament and developed by two modders. Counter-strike is a total conversion mod, meaning that the game is different from its parent. Other mods, such as those in World of Warcraft (WoW), the most popular online game played by 10 million worldwide, are partial conversions.

Since developers do not think like players, as we had long acknowledge, putting toolkits in the hands of users allow them to customize the product as they need it. It gets as close as what they need, only to be limited by the power of the toolkit and their knowledge of how to use it. Most modders in WoW know programming before they started modding, making the entry level for modding fairly high. Yet, we may lower this barrier by providing more usable, less powerful toolkits. For example, by making cellphones cover easier to remove and replace, we allowed the possibility of 3rd party developers creating alternative designs. By examing users who use them, we can learn about differing user tastes and cultural factors!

I felt that we have a lot to learn from modding in games. How do we decide which part of a product to open for modding? How do we attract a community of modders? How do we work with modders? What is the optimum size of modders? How do we substain modding activities? These are questions I have in mind.

Civic society and Social capital

2008-07-01T18:41:00.003-06:00

I just finished reading Bowling Alone by Robert Putnam. I highly recommend it for anyone interested in American culture and its social structure, not to mention, its nowabout (although it was written in 2001) and future.

There is a lot of material in the book. In summation, it tells us how America was transformed into a powerful nation by means of grassroot movements, took place somewhere towards the end of 18th century and beginning 19th century. It created powerful associations such as the Red Cross, which recently helped China raising funds for quake victims. Consider others also, such as Scout and Salvation Army.

However, by end of 19th century, the society, swept by gigantic corporations, and other factors such as coming of television, fundamentally changed its members' focus. People are less interested in civic participation. People, especially the elites, travel a lot, breaking up place-based communities. Nonetheless, technology brings opportunity. Information technologies for example, can bring people together again.

In my research, World of Warcraft (WoW) is one technology that breaks the normal way of gaming - which is alone. In WoW, people play together, form teams, and associations in the gaming environment. A lot of players hang out because there are others in the gaming world. These associations create communities, even if they mainly for play.

These gathering of people also enabled the formation of other communities, only indirectly related to play. One is the modding communities. Mods are programs that basically change part of the gaming experience. They modify the user interface or add functionalities. They are approved by the gaming company - Blizzard. Modding communities comprise of generally young programmers, who hang out in chatrooms and also create mods. They exchange experience and educate the new modders.

Blizzard learnt a lot from modders. Modders participate in the forums actively and they are quick to discover bugs in the game. A few employers of Blizzard also participate in these chatrooms. These are great mechanisms for Blizzard to improve on the game consistently.

Reflecting on WoW, the players, the modders, and Blizzard, virtual environment can really enable people to connect and become whole again. By virtual environment, I also mean things such as facebook, which is another place for you to put up what you like others to know about you. They are fundamentally different, but in the aspects of community building and participation - the same.

Socially connected wisdom

2008-06-24T10:56:00.003-06:00

It is indeed hard to comprehend impact of technologies on society. It is even harder to write about them. When we have an insight, even if we are certain about it, writing requires additional efforts. Efforts such as gathering data and knowing what people has found out. Such as knowing who are the audience, and what do they know now. And how do we impress the knowledge upon them.

A droplet is a piece of information. It is very small but indispensable. The society is essentially made up of a lot of information. Information in use are knowledge. When information comes together they, more than often, develops into something new.

Because there are so much information and wisdom about them, one person cannot hold on to any critical mass required for large scale endeavors. Therefore, we are now so reliant on professions working in groups. These professionals are socially connected. None of them know everything, but each of them knew something. Together, they work as a system - a system of knowledge. They share a collective goal, with distributed efforts.

Facilitating these exchange is an infrastructure. The technical ones may be called Enterprise Infrastructure, a computer system used to manage information repositories and facilitates exchanges. The social ones may be called Community of Practice, where people grouped to exchange vital information and share/improve practices.

Beyond computer systems and social network, I think we are still missing something. One is the cultural infrastructure, of how people historically works together. Two is the relationship between them.

Cultural infrastructure is the foundation of all societies, and they are not going away in at least 10-20 years (It is as long as it needs to reeducate an entire generation). They are our languages, gender roles, work ethics, and so forth. They set the primary goals of our life - to be somebody, to be rich, or to be a good parent. They also shape the way we form alliances and climb the social ladder. In some cultures, the older you are the better you look. In others, it is eloquence that counts.

Relationships between these infrastructure are important. People use computer systems, and it is the primary way they network. They network with both colleagues in the company or expertise outside the computer. Not all computer systems can be governed internally. Some are public features, and community of practice do extend outside of the company. Culture too, permeate within and outside of the company. Companies with longer history in a country do have deeper reach into its communities. These have to be considered as part of its wisdom as well.

Ubicomp

2008-06-01T23:26:00.001-06:00

Ubiquitous computing is everywhere... in my school at least. Around every corners, you can see palmtop on the walls, aiming to display some sort of information. At its core, Ubicomp aims to make computer 'disappear' from the 'box' that I am using to type my blog right now.

A more important question is, what is the role of ubicomp in our society? First, ubicomp technologies, such as those that help you cook breakfast, and 'scrap pieces' of touchscreens, have unforeseeable purposes. Second, you never really know if they will become cheap enough to replace what we have now. Third, you don't really know if they will ever be technologically viable.

Despite these difficulties, I appreciate ubicomp. First and foremost, they help to push technological envelope, and we do not really need a stage gate to passe every ideas. Ideas are cheaper when the team do not need to employ a 3 months study to evaluate its use. Except of course when the implementation will affect a lot of people. Furthermore, when an idea cannot be proven wrong, we might as well give it a shot.

Nonetheless, the reality is most ubicomp applications will fail. PCs are great because they have something ubicomp applications do not have -- flexibility. They are hard to use, as ubicomp would argue. Yes, but users are free to download new application and modify their 'boxes.' At some point though, there will be tasks that we repeat so many times that its time for them to fade into the background.

Such are the functions we wanted to become invisible, and to me, its where ubicomp enters the picture. For example, my friends who come to my place would like to see our wedding album. My media center in the living room fits into this purpose. However, I do not really want to see my World of Warcraft becomes an XBox application. If that happens, I would not be able to update or experiment with new mods.

Therefore, ubicomp is essentially our supplementary computers. They represent tasks that crystallized in our lives, and that becomes sufficiently understood and stable. And ubicomp applications will always work hand-in-hand with computers in a box.

Academics, industry, and our society: Looking back to three quarters of academic study

2008-06-01T22:50:00.002-06:00

I have done three quarters of academic studies. It was not the first time, for I had done my masters, but it was a much more systematic one.

We discuss, critique, and write a lot. Almost several times weekly. Writing becomes almost second nature for any academics to function. Its a sin, an abnormality, for an academic who do not write well. Therefore, writing is fundamental and very important. Writing aside, I felt that it is secondary to be able to think. In the academic world, there are many disciplines. And its likely for anyone to find one which suit one's interests and orientations, any types of orientation including those remotely useful. Also theories abound. It is very common to be talking to a contemporary academic who would tell you, "There are many theories and you should pick those that are useful to you." If we replace 'theories' with 'truths,' "There are many truths and you should pick those that are useful to you," and you sounds like a lawyer.

Yes, I think to some extend, academics need to have a flair for intelligent debates, much like a lawyer did. And perhaps also with a touch of charm. It is inevitable thus that academics may not always be telling things that are useful, though the best ones make them sound useful. But nevertheless, academics are not god. Their ideas are not flawless. But they have a special function in our society. That of speaking for, writing for, recording events, critique events, and setup an environment for healthy (gentlemanly, logically, and rigorous) debate. While most academics treat publications as the final step for any research, its really just at the beginning of a lengthy and on going process of discovery - what is the truth?

Industries need not read scientific papers. But if they do not, and still able to function, there are two possibilities: (1) They work is repetitive and requires little innovations, (2) Their work is so fast and complicated that writings are not the best way to develop ideas. (1) is more akin traditional work such as textile and restaurant. (2) is more akin to art production such as movie making. However, most fields require to keep in touch with other people outside their immediate circle of contacts to continually develop ideas. Academic conferences, workshops, and publications, which keep up with a healthy amount of rant on relevant topics is a good place to start. One, academics are notoriously vicious and stringent when it comes to how to perform and write about research. Some circles always require numbers, some requires qualitative studies, some vast amount of data, others a lot of theories. It depends on what you need.

However, being in the industry for several years, I do not see innovation as a one-way traffic from the academics into the industry. Rather, its a two-way exchange. Industries loosing interests in a particular research circle is one clear indication of disconnectedness. Industries attending any conferences, or being part of any research is a clear sign of birth of innovativeness. It makes academics look good.

However, industries are still very different from academics. For one, industries are extremely practical and motives is clear, often to earn money out of an investment. Therefore, they are looking at good ideas that fit. If they have a strong infrastructure of programmers, they will be interested in how to best organize them, but not perhaps interested in hardware design techniques. An idea manifest in the real world infrastructure: they merge, interact, and become tangible.

In order for the symphony of academics and industries to perform well, we need both to be present and take part in the performance. A stage to be had, and pieces to perform. Looking back at my country, it is not clear how this will happen in Singapore. But in the US, industries are active in the academics circle. They attend workshops and conferences, sacrificing their weekends. Academics as well, require such fundings to further their research, such as funding their students. It takes two hands clapping, and they are.

Moving forward, it is indeed a reflection within myself, on how I should make the best of my academics years. Writing is utmost in my agenda, and I need to understand my audiences. Much like selling. Last three quarters, I have written a great deal of short passages. In the coming weeks, I will put up the ones I like onto this blog. It is a way to put forward my thinking, and for me to trace my own thoughts and development.

MMOGs and our Societies

2008-06-01T17:24:00.002-06:00

I have recently found my thesis topic.

MMOGs (Massive Multiplayer Online Games) are becoming popular in our societies. In the process, they affect our infrastructure. From learning to providing a place for socializing, participants change their life patterns, and carry out daily activities such as work, play, and relationships in different ways. Since these infrastructure build into our social fabrics, we may see it as a form of knowledge: in words, in practice, or as artifacts.

A stable society requires one type of knowledge that is well-embedded: culture. I see culture is a set of well accepted rules and practices that are self-governed by its members. Emergence of MMOGs such as World of Warcraft (WoW) challenged some of the existing cultural rules, and China saw WoW evolving into a different form. For example, skeletons were banned in the virtual environment, monthly subscription transformed into a pay-as-you-go gaming card system, and Internet cafes become an integral part of play. Therefore, when technology was adopted by a society, a co-evolution takes place. Each transforming the other.

In my research, I intended to probe deeper than Internet cafes, banning skeletons, and change of payment methods. The influence WoW has on societies have to emerge out of social confrontations, between the existing and the emergent, the local and the foreign. We saw mods in World of Warcraft as providing such opportunity to observe them. Mods are the short form for software modifications – players developed addons that modify part of the gaming interface and increase functionalities. All players use some kind of mods depending on their current tasks. Mods lie at the intersection of virtual environment, players, players-developers, and the game development company. Mods situate our research at the intersection of their confrontations.

Knowledge Work or just Scribe?

2008-02-25T16:22:00.004-07:00

I was asked today: isn't HCI common sense? I replied "Yes its."
"Then why do we have to theorise?"
"Because common sense is not common," I reflected on what Martin Helander would say.

Science is not everything. Scientists do not hold all our knowledge. But science dominates our discourses. What they do not control are the practices and technologies.

Therefore, knowledge are far beyond just books we have written. It is about building excellent monuments, war machines, brilliant policies, and way of happiness. Much of which is written, yet between the lines, we act and we tool it.

Therefore, there are people who are extreme. One, someone who rejects all discourses as useless. Two, someone who thinks discourses hold all knowledge. The former is likely to be an engineer. The latter a scientist.

Rather, I like to think that both scientists and engineers should work together. The only difference is scientists' job is to write and record down all that's happening, reasoning the fundamentals, and spread them far and wide. Engineers deepen the fundamentals in practice. They shape things within their context, and make them real.

Turns out a lot of what scientists do are scribing, but good inscriptions turns out to change how people do things.

Jennifer part 2

2007-12-16T14:54:00.000-07:00

Jennifer is now at the new traffic junction which reported a lot of accidents. She decided to make another count.

"Hmm.... 0.4% accident when turning left, 1.1% if going straight, 0.05 when turning right," she noted and wondered, "This is confounding!" Comparing to part 1, why is it confounding?

She thinks about the theories that she had known, and thought, "Vision theories can explains," continuing, "There is a mountain on the left side of the road, which blocks out sunlight most time of the day. The lack of light is probably the culprit." Is vision theory appropriate?

She took some readings of illumination and found the right side of the road is indeed brighter. She did statistics and found correlation between brightness and accident is positive at 95% confidence. Is this the result we wanted?