Reading reflection.

I think that the reading would have been easier understood had I read/heard the original address that the two writers are refering to. I think the second paper, "Reinventing the Tube" is contradictory in its remarks, first saying that youTube is revolutionary in finding "more efficient ways to classify and search media objects" then saying that it fails to do just that in the last paragraph, when he says there is a failure to "manage" all the content. The paper fails to take a side; I am confused as to what the point of the second paper is other than to state that youTube is "new media" according to Lev Manovich.

The first paper--by Anne Helmond--is broader in scope. Her critique of the term "user generated content" is interesting, saying that it "tends to homogenize the content" by giving all the content the same level of significance. I think that its a worthwhile question to ask if videos of lower quality should be segregated away from those of higher quality. I think that the community does some of that on its own, though. The content seems to live in some sort of Darwinian system. The better quality videos get higher ratings, views and comments, which then leads to more of the same (since higher views and higher amout of comments leads to a higher place in the search). The videos that are not worth the energy of the viewer don't make the viewer go out of their way to leave a rating or a comment, therefore they get less attention and are weeded out.

James.