https://mediawiki.middlebury.edu/MIDDMedia/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=George+Altshuler&feedformat=atomMedia Technology and Culture Change - User contributions [en]2024-03-19T09:04:18ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.35.14https://mediawiki.middlebury.edu/MIDDMedia/index.php?title=Network_economy&diff=734Network economy2008-05-19T06:05:18Z<p>George Altshuler: </p>
<hr />
<div>The network economy is an idea presented by [[Yochai Benkler]] in his book ''The Wealth of Networks''. He defines the term as a "new and important cooperative and coordinate action carried out through radically distributed, nonmarket mechanisms that do not depend on proprietary strategies."<br />
<br />
<br />
Mostly in the first chapter of this book, Benkler argues that this new '''Network Economy''' undermines some of our basic assumptions about economics and human interaction because people collaborate in Network Economies and act altruistically. Furthermore, his new '''Network Economy''' is changing the power structure of our society (to some degree) along with [[Web 2.0]] and other developments. The '''Network Economy''' is fundamental for the development of [[Wikis]], open source software and other collaborative phenomena.</div>George Altshulerhttps://mediawiki.middlebury.edu/MIDDMedia/index.php?title=Network_economy&diff=733Network economy2008-05-19T06:04:40Z<p>George Altshuler: </p>
<hr />
<div>The network economy is an idea presented by [[Yochai Benkler]] in his book ''The Wealth of Networks''. He defines the term as a "new and important cooperative and coordinate action carried out through radically distributed, nonmarket mechanisms that do not depend on proprietary strategies."<br />
<br />
<br />
Mostly in the first chapter of this book, Benkler argues that this new '''Network Economy''' undermines some of our basic assumptions about economics and human interaction because people collaborate in Network Economies and act altruistically. Furthermore, his new '''Network Economy''' is changing the power structure of our society (to some degree) along with [[Web 2.0]] and other development. The '''Network Economy''' is fundamental for the development of [[Wikis]], open source software and other collaborative phenomena.</div>George Altshulerhttps://mediawiki.middlebury.edu/MIDDMedia/index.php?title=Net_neutrality&diff=732Net neutrality2008-05-19T05:27:28Z<p>George Altshuler: /* Significance in terms of Media Technology and Cultural Change */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Net Neutrality''' is the principal that all pages on the internet should be treating equally by broadband networks. Google, a strong advocate for '''Net Neutrality''' defines this concept more broadly as "the principle that Internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use on the Internet."<ref> http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html </ref>.<br />
<br />
==The Politics of '''Net Neutrality'''==<br />
<br />
'''Net Neutrality''' is a complicated political issue as lawmakers have struggled with how to classify the internet into different legal frameworks and various interest groups such as the telecommunications companies and consumer advocacy groups have had large stakes in this issue. '''Net Neutrality''' became a sound bite issue in 2006 when, Republican Senator Ted Stevens described the internet as "A series of tubes" in an effort to argue against net neutrality. <ref> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Series_of_Tubes_-_Senator_Ted_Stevens.ogg </ref><br />
<br />
Currently, this is still very much a contentious issue with the Senate set to debate this issue later this year. <ref> http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html </ref><br />
<br />
==Significance in terms of Media Technology and Cultural Change==<br />
<br />
The future of '''Net Neutrality''' will be very important in determining the future of the internet and information technology more generally. If corporations and other powerful entities are able to pay for more bandwidth, the [[Networked public sphere]] and the [[Network economy]] described by Yochai Benkler in ''The Wealth of Networks'' will be threatened. As Benkler implies in his book, eliminating '''Net Neutrality''' would have huge negative consequences politically and culturally.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /></div>George Altshulerhttps://mediawiki.middlebury.edu/MIDDMedia/index.php?title=Net_neutrality&diff=731Net neutrality2008-05-19T05:24:46Z<p>George Altshuler: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Net Neutrality''' is the principal that all pages on the internet should be treating equally by broadband networks. Google, a strong advocate for '''Net Neutrality''' defines this concept more broadly as "the principle that Internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use on the Internet."<ref> http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html </ref>.<br />
<br />
==The Politics of '''Net Neutrality'''==<br />
<br />
'''Net Neutrality''' is a complicated political issue as lawmakers have struggled with how to classify the internet into different legal frameworks and various interest groups such as the telecommunications companies and consumer advocacy groups have had large stakes in this issue. '''Net Neutrality''' became a sound bite issue in 2006 when, Republican Senator Ted Stevens described the internet as "A series of tubes" in an effort to argue against net neutrality. <ref> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Series_of_Tubes_-_Senator_Ted_Stevens.ogg </ref><br />
<br />
Currently, this is still very much a contentious issue with the Senate set to debate this issue later this year. <ref> http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html </ref><br />
<br />
==Significance in terms of Media Technology and Cultural Change==<br />
<br />
The future of '''Net Neutrality''' will be very important in determining the future of the internet and information technology more generally. If corporations and other powerful entities are able to pay for more bandwidth, the [[Networked public sphere]] described by Yochai Benkler in [[Network economy]] will be threatened. As Benkler implies in his book, eliminating '''Net Neutrality''' would have huge negative consequences politically and culturally. <br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /></div>George Altshulerhttps://mediawiki.middlebury.edu/MIDDMedia/index.php?title=Net_neutrality&diff=730Net neutrality2008-05-19T05:21:56Z<p>George Altshuler: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Net Neutrality''' is the principal that all pages on the internet should be treating equally by broadband networks. Google, a strong advocate for '''Net Neutrality''' defines this concept more broadly as "the principle that Internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use on the Internet."<ref> http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html </ref>.<br />
<br />
==The Politics of '''Net Neutrality"==<br />
<br />
'''Net Neutrality''' is a complicated political issue as lawmakers have struggled with how to classify the internet into different legal frameworks and various interest groups such as the telecommunications companies and consumer advocacy groups have had large stakes in this issue. '''Net Neutrality''' became a sound bite issue in 2006 when, Republican Senator Ted Stevens described the internet as "A series of tubes" in an effort to argue against net neutrality. <ref> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Series_of_Tubes_-_Senator_Ted_Stevens.ogg </ref><br />
<br />
<br />
Currently, this is still very much a contentious issue with the Senate set to debate this issue later this year. <ref> http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html </ref><br />
<br />
==Significance in terms of Media Technology and Cultural Change==<br />
<br />
The future of '''Net Neutrality''' will be very important in determining the future of the internet. If corporations and other powerful entities are able to pay for more bandwidth, the [[Networked public sphere] described by Yochai Benkler in [[Network economy]] will be threatened. As Benkler implies in his book, eliminating '''Net Neutrality''' would have huge negative consequences politically and culturally. <br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /></div>George Altshulerhttps://mediawiki.middlebury.edu/MIDDMedia/index.php?title=RSS&diff=662RSS2008-05-18T13:21:53Z<p>George Altshuler: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''RSS''' stands for '''R'''eal '''S'''imple '''S'''indication. It refers to a type of web feed format which allows users to subscribe to digital content and then provide the latest content from those digital mediums. Users subscribe to content, such a [[blog]] or [[podcast]], by entering a link to the content's hosting website into the RSS reader. The aggregate reader then frequently scans the hosting website to check for any updates. If there is new material available, the RSS aggregator collects it and presents it to the reader. RSS feeds are important as a means to centralize information on the web for specific users, allowing them to receive more information in a far more convenient manner.<br />
<br />
'''RSS''' is significant because it is part of the larger movement of [[Web 2.0]] insofar as it enables personalization of the internet and enables people to connect directly with others.</div>George Altshulerhttps://mediawiki.middlebury.edu/MIDDMedia/index.php?title=RSS&diff=661RSS2008-05-18T13:20:07Z<p>George Altshuler: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''RSS''' stands for '''R'''eal '''S'''imple '''S'''indication. It refers to a type of web feed format which allows users to subscribe to digital content and then provide the latest content from those digital mediums. Users subscribe to content, such a [[blog]] or [[podcast]], by entering a link to the content's hosting website into the RSS reader. The aggregate reader then frequently scans the hosting website to check for any updates. If there is new material available, the RSS aggregator collects it and presents it to the reader. RSS feeds are important as a means to centralize information on the web for specific users, allowing them to receive more information in a far more convenient manner.<br />
<br />
'''RSS''' is significant because it is part of the larger movement of [[Web 2.0]] insofar as it enables personalization of the internet.</div>George Altshulerhttps://mediawiki.middlebury.edu/MIDDMedia/index.php?title=Procedural_rhetoric&diff=660Procedural rhetoric2008-05-18T13:16:35Z<p>George Altshuler: /* Combining the two: ''Procedural Rhetoric'' */</p>
<hr />
<div>Procedural Rhetoric is a concept developed by [[Ian Bogost]] in his book [[Persuasive Games]]: The expressive Power of videogames (MIT Press 2007).<br />
<br />
In this book, Bogost analyzes the history of rhetoric and argues that videogames are part of a new form of rhetoric since their procedurality involves interaction. <br />
He calls this new form of persuasion '''Procedural Rhetoric''', and develops his argument by comparing videogames to the characteristics of computers and by analyzing the influence that videogames can have on politics, advertising and education.<br />
<br />
Bogost develops this argument by first analyzing the notion of "procedurality," then the idea of "rhetoric" and then combining the two to form '''Procedural Rhetoric'''.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Procedure ==<br />
<br />
After briefly discussing the negative connotations '''procedure''' often has, Bogost cites Janet Murray who gives a technical definition for '''procedure''' within the context of digital artifacts as the "defining ability to execute a series of rule."<ref>Bogost, Ian. ''Persuasive Games'' page 4</ref> Bogost restates the this definition as the fundamental activity of software authorship and discusses how the procedure of computers is what "fundamentally separates them from other media."<br />
<br />
On a more philosophical level, Bogost discusses how all behavior is underpinned by logic and implies that the procedurality of computers (and thus videogames) is in fact not unique to digital media. Nevertheless, it is obvious that the interactive procedurality of videogames and computer programs is unique these digital media when they are analyzed as cultural artifacts. Overall, Bogost views the '''procedure''' of videogames as devices for expressing ideas and forming arguments, he compares them to "metaphors" and other literary devices.<br />
<br />
== Rhetoric ==<br />
<br />
Bogost begins his exploration of the term '''rhetoric''' in a similar way he begins his explanation of '''procedure:''' in both cases, Bogost makes an effort to dispel the negative connotations these terms have. Through a discussion of oratory rhetoric, visual rhetoric, digital rhetoric and procedural rhetoric, Bogost arrives at a definition of '''rhetoric''' as "''effective expression.''"<ref> Page 19. </ref><br />
<br />
According to Bogost, oratory rhetoric is privileged in the eyes of many, while '''written,''' '''visual,''' and '''digital''' rhetoric are under-appreciated. Bogost concludes his section on rhetoric by suggesting that digital media must focus on procedurality in its study of rhetoric. <ref>Page 28 </ref><br />
<br />
== Combining the two: ''Procedural Rhetoric'' ==<br />
<br />
Bogost combines these two terms to define '''Procedural Rhetoric''' as "the practice of using processes persuasively."<ref> Page 28 </ref> He states that he will use videogames as an merely as an example of '''Procedural Rhetoric.'''<ref> Page 44 </ref> So in a certain sense, the arguments made in [[Persuasive games]] have larger implications about the nature of all digital media that has a '''Procedural Rhetorc'''--all interactive digital media rhetorically make arguments through their interactivity.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references /></div>George Altshulerhttps://mediawiki.middlebury.edu/MIDDMedia/index.php?title=Talk:Procedural_rhetoric&diff=656Talk:Procedural rhetoric2008-05-17T04:08:19Z<p>George Altshuler: Removing all content from page</p>
<hr />
<div></div>George Altshulerhttps://mediawiki.middlebury.edu/MIDDMedia/index.php?title=Talk:RSS&diff=649Talk:RSS2008-05-16T01:29:42Z<p>George Altshuler: New page: Note to self--relate this to idea of web 2.0 and Benkler's notions of the network society. --~~~~</p>
<hr />
<div>Note to self--relate this to idea of web 2.0 and Benkler's notions of the network society. --[[User:Galtshul|Altshuler, George]] 21:29, 15 May 2008 (EDT)</div>George Altshulerhttps://mediawiki.middlebury.edu/MIDDMedia/index.php?title=Podcast&diff=648Podcast2008-05-16T01:28:13Z<p>George Altshuler: Redirecting to Podcasts</p>
<hr />
<div>#redirect [[Podcasts]]</div>George Altshulerhttps://mediawiki.middlebury.edu/MIDDMedia/index.php?title=Blog&diff=647Blog2008-05-16T01:27:46Z<p>George Altshuler: Redirecting to Blogs</p>
<hr />
<div>#redirect [[blogs]]</div>George Altshulerhttps://mediawiki.middlebury.edu/MIDDMedia/index.php?title=RSS&diff=646RSS2008-05-16T01:27:25Z<p>George Altshuler: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''RSS''' stands for '''R'''eal '''S'''imple '''S'''indication. It refers to a type of web feed format which allows users to subscribe to digital content and then provide the latest content from those digital mediums. Users subscribe to content, such a [[blog]] or [[podcast]], by entering a link to the content's hosting website into the RSS reader. The aggregate reader then frequently scans the hosting website to check for any updates. If there is new material available, the RSS aggregator collects it and presents it to the reader. RSS feeds are important as a means to centralize information on the web for specific users, allowing them to receive more information in a far more convenient manner.</div>George Altshulerhttps://mediawiki.middlebury.edu/MIDDMedia/index.php?title=Procedural_rhetoric&diff=645Procedural rhetoric2008-05-16T00:34:05Z<p>George Altshuler: /* Combining the two: ''Procedural Rhetoric'' */</p>
<hr />
<div>Procedural Rhetoric is a concept developed by [[Ian Bogost]] in his book [[Persuasive Games]]: The expressive Power of videogames (MIT Press 2007).<br />
<br />
In this book, Bogost analyzes the history of rhetoric and argues that videogames are part of a new form of rhetoric since their procedurality involves interaction. <br />
He calls this new form of persuasion '''Procedural Rhetoric''', and develops his argument by comparing videogames to the characteristics of computers and by analyzing the influence that videogames can have on politics, advertising and education.<br />
<br />
Bogost develops this argument by first analyzing the notion of "procedurality," then the idea of "rhetoric" and then combining the two to form '''Procedural Rhetoric'''.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Procedure ==<br />
<br />
After briefly discussing the negative connotations '''procedure''' often has, Bogost cites Janet Murray who gives a technical definition for '''procedure''' within the context of digital artifacts as the "defining ability to execute a series of rule."<ref>Bogost, Ian. ''Persuasive Games'' page 4</ref> Bogost restates the this definition as the fundamental activity of software authorship and discusses how the procedure of computers is what "fundamentally separates them from other media."<br />
<br />
On a more philosophical level, Bogost discusses how all behavior is underpinned by logic and implies that the procedurality of computers (and thus videogames) is in fact not unique to digital media. Nevertheless, it is obvious that the interactive procedurality of videogames and computer programs is unique these digital media when they are analyzed as cultural artifacts. Overall, Bogost views the '''procedure''' of videogames as devices for expressing ideas and forming arguments, he compares them to "metaphors" and other literary devices.<br />
<br />
== Rhetoric ==<br />
<br />
Bogost begins his exploration of the term '''rhetoric''' in a similar way he begins his explanation of '''procedure:''' in both cases, Bogost makes an effort to dispel the negative connotations these terms have. Through a discussion of oratory rhetoric, visual rhetoric, digital rhetoric and procedural rhetoric, Bogost arrives at a definition of '''rhetoric''' as "''effective expression.''"<ref> Page 19. </ref><br />
<br />
According to Bogost, oratory rhetoric is privileged in the eyes of many, while '''written,''' '''visual,''' and '''digital''' rhetoric are under-appreciated. Bogost concludes his section on rhetoric by suggesting that digital media must focus on procedurality in its study of rhetoric. <ref>Page 28 </ref><br />
<br />
== Combining the two: ''Procedural Rhetoric'' ==<br />
<br />
Bogost combines these two terms to define '''Procedural Rhetoric''' as "the practice of using processes persuasively."<ref> Page 28 </ref> He states that he will use videogames as an merely as an example of '''Procedural Rhetoric.'''<ref> Page 44 </ref> So in a certain sense, the arguments made in [[Persuasive games]] have larger implications about the nature of all digital media that has a '''Procedural Rhetorc.'''<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references /></div>George Altshulerhttps://mediawiki.middlebury.edu/MIDDMedia/index.php?title=Procedural_rhetoric&diff=644Procedural rhetoric2008-05-16T00:32:39Z<p>George Altshuler: /* Rhetoric */</p>
<hr />
<div>Procedural Rhetoric is a concept developed by [[Ian Bogost]] in his book [[Persuasive Games]]: The expressive Power of videogames (MIT Press 2007).<br />
<br />
In this book, Bogost analyzes the history of rhetoric and argues that videogames are part of a new form of rhetoric since their procedurality involves interaction. <br />
He calls this new form of persuasion '''Procedural Rhetoric''', and develops his argument by comparing videogames to the characteristics of computers and by analyzing the influence that videogames can have on politics, advertising and education.<br />
<br />
Bogost develops this argument by first analyzing the notion of "procedurality," then the idea of "rhetoric" and then combining the two to form '''Procedural Rhetoric'''.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Procedure ==<br />
<br />
After briefly discussing the negative connotations '''procedure''' often has, Bogost cites Janet Murray who gives a technical definition for '''procedure''' within the context of digital artifacts as the "defining ability to execute a series of rule."<ref>Bogost, Ian. ''Persuasive Games'' page 4</ref> Bogost restates the this definition as the fundamental activity of software authorship and discusses how the procedure of computers is what "fundamentally separates them from other media."<br />
<br />
On a more philosophical level, Bogost discusses how all behavior is underpinned by logic and implies that the procedurality of computers (and thus videogames) is in fact not unique to digital media. Nevertheless, it is obvious that the interactive procedurality of videogames and computer programs is unique these digital media when they are analyzed as cultural artifacts. Overall, Bogost views the '''procedure''' of videogames as devices for expressing ideas and forming arguments, he compares them to "metaphors" and other literary devices.<br />
<br />
== Rhetoric ==<br />
<br />
Bogost begins his exploration of the term '''rhetoric''' in a similar way he begins his explanation of '''procedure:''' in both cases, Bogost makes an effort to dispel the negative connotations these terms have. Through a discussion of oratory rhetoric, visual rhetoric, digital rhetoric and procedural rhetoric, Bogost arrives at a definition of '''rhetoric''' as "''effective expression.''"<ref> Page 19. </ref><br />
<br />
According to Bogost, oratory rhetoric is privileged in the eyes of many, while '''written,''' '''visual,''' and '''digital''' rhetoric are under-appreciated. Bogost concludes his section on rhetoric by suggesting that digital media must focus on procedurality in its study of rhetoric. <ref>Page 28 </ref><br />
<br />
== Combining the two: ''Procedural Rhetoric'' ==<br />
<br />
Bogost defines '''Procedural Rhetoric''' "the practice of using processes persuasively."<ref> Page 28 </ref> He states that he will use videogames as an merely as an example of '''Procedural Rhetoric.'''<ref> Page 44 </ref> So in a certain sense, the arguments made in [[Persuasive games]] have larger implications about the nature of all digital media that has a '''Procedural Rhetorc.'''<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references /></div>George Altshulerhttps://mediawiki.middlebury.edu/MIDDMedia/index.php?title=Procedural_rhetoric&diff=643Procedural rhetoric2008-05-16T00:31:43Z<p>George Altshuler: /* Combining the two: ''Procedural Rhetoric'' */</p>
<hr />
<div>Procedural Rhetoric is a concept developed by [[Ian Bogost]] in his book [[Persuasive Games]]: The expressive Power of videogames (MIT Press 2007).<br />
<br />
In this book, Bogost analyzes the history of rhetoric and argues that videogames are part of a new form of rhetoric since their procedurality involves interaction. <br />
He calls this new form of persuasion '''Procedural Rhetoric''', and develops his argument by comparing videogames to the characteristics of computers and by analyzing the influence that videogames can have on politics, advertising and education.<br />
<br />
Bogost develops this argument by first analyzing the notion of "procedurality," then the idea of "rhetoric" and then combining the two to form '''Procedural Rhetoric'''.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Procedure ==<br />
<br />
After briefly discussing the negative connotations '''procedure''' often has, Bogost cites Janet Murray who gives a technical definition for '''procedure''' within the context of digital artifacts as the "defining ability to execute a series of rule."<ref>Bogost, Ian. ''Persuasive Games'' page 4</ref> Bogost restates the this definition as the fundamental activity of software authorship and discusses how the procedure of computers is what "fundamentally separates them from other media."<br />
<br />
On a more philosophical level, Bogost discusses how all behavior is underpinned by logic and implies that the procedurality of computers (and thus videogames) is in fact not unique to digital media. Nevertheless, it is obvious that the interactive procedurality of videogames and computer programs is unique these digital media when they are analyzed as cultural artifacts. Overall, Bogost views the '''procedure''' of videogames as devices for expressing ideas and forming arguments, he compares them to "metaphors" and other literary devices.<br />
<br />
== Rhetoric ==<br />
<br />
Bogost begins his exploration of the term '''rhetoric''' in a similar way he begins his explanation of '''procedure:''' in both cases, Bogost makes an effort to dispel the negative connotations these terms have. Through a discussion of oratory rhetoric, visual rhetoric, digital rhetoric and procedural rhetoric, Bogost arrives at a definition of '''rhetoric''' as "''effective expression.''"<ref> Bogost, Ian. ''Persuasive Games.'' Page 19. </ref><br />
<br />
According to Bogost, oratory rhetoric is privileged in the eyes of many, while '''written,''' '''visual,''' and '''digital''' rhetoric are under-appreciated. Bogost concludes his section on rhetoric by suggesting that digital media must focus on procedurality in its study of rhetoric. <ref> Bogost, Ian. ''Persuasive Games.''' Page 28 </ref><br />
<br />
== Combining the two: ''Procedural Rhetoric'' ==<br />
<br />
Bogost defines '''Procedural Rhetoric''' "the practice of using processes persuasively."<ref> Page 28 </ref> He states that he will use videogames as an merely as an example of '''Procedural Rhetoric.'''<ref> Page 44 </ref> So in a certain sense, the arguments made in [[Persuasive games]] have larger implications about the nature of all digital media that has a '''Procedural Rhetorc.'''<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references /></div>George Altshulerhttps://mediawiki.middlebury.edu/MIDDMedia/index.php?title=Procedural_rhetoric&diff=642Procedural rhetoric2008-05-15T23:38:09Z<p>George Altshuler: /* Procedure */</p>
<hr />
<div>Procedural Rhetoric is a concept developed by [[Ian Bogost]] in his book [[Persuasive Games]]: The expressive Power of videogames (MIT Press 2007).<br />
<br />
In this book, Bogost analyzes the history of rhetoric and argues that videogames are part of a new form of rhetoric since their procedurality involves interaction. <br />
He calls this new form of persuasion '''Procedural Rhetoric''', and develops his argument by comparing videogames to the characteristics of computers and by analyzing the influence that videogames can have on politics, advertising and education.<br />
<br />
Bogost develops this argument by first analyzing the notion of "procedurality," then the idea of "rhetoric" and then combining the two to form '''Procedural Rhetoric'''.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Procedure ==<br />
<br />
After briefly discussing the negative connotations '''procedure''' often has, Bogost cites Janet Murray who gives a technical definition for '''procedure''' within the context of digital artifacts as the "defining ability to execute a series of rule."<ref>Bogost, Ian. ''Persuasive Games'' page 4</ref> Bogost restates the this definition as the fundamental activity of software authorship and discusses how the procedure of computers is what "fundamentally separates them from other media."<br />
<br />
On a more philosophical level, Bogost discusses how all behavior is underpinned by logic and implies that the procedurality of computers (and thus videogames) is in fact not unique to digital media. Nevertheless, it is obvious that the interactive procedurality of videogames and computer programs is unique these digital media when they are analyzed as cultural artifacts. Overall, Bogost views the '''procedure''' of videogames as devices for expressing ideas and forming arguments, he compares them to "metaphors" and other literary devices.<br />
<br />
== Rhetoric ==<br />
<br />
Bogost begins his exploration of the term '''rhetoric''' in a similar way he begins his explanation of '''procedure:''' in both cases, Bogost makes an effort to dispel the negative connotations these terms have. Through a discussion of oratory rhetoric, visual rhetoric, digital rhetoric and procedural rhetoric, Bogost arrives at a definition of '''rhetoric''' as "''effective expression.''"<ref> Bogost, Ian. ''Persuasive Games.'' Page 19. </ref><br />
<br />
According to Bogost, oratory rhetoric is privileged in the eyes of many, while '''written,''' '''visual,''' and '''digital''' rhetoric are under-appreciated. Bogost concludes his section on rhetoric by suggesting that digital media must focus on procedurality in its study of rhetoric. <ref> Bogost, Ian. ''Persuasive Games.''' Page 28 </ref><br />
<br />
== Combining the two: ''Procedural Rhetoric'' ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references /></div>George Altshulerhttps://mediawiki.middlebury.edu/MIDDMedia/index.php?title=Procedural_rhetoric&diff=641Procedural rhetoric2008-05-15T23:37:44Z<p>George Altshuler: /* Procedure */</p>
<hr />
<div>Procedural Rhetoric is a concept developed by [[Ian Bogost]] in his book [[Persuasive Games]]: The expressive Power of videogames (MIT Press 2007).<br />
<br />
In this book, Bogost analyzes the history of rhetoric and argues that videogames are part of a new form of rhetoric since their procedurality involves interaction. <br />
He calls this new form of persuasion '''Procedural Rhetoric''', and develops his argument by comparing videogames to the characteristics of computers and by analyzing the influence that videogames can have on politics, advertising and education.<br />
<br />
Bogost develops this argument by first analyzing the notion of "procedurality," then the idea of "rhetoric" and then combining the two to form '''Procedural Rhetoric'''.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Procedure ==<br />
<br />
After briefly discussing the negative connotations '''procedure''' often has, Bogost cites Janet Murray who gives a technical definition for '''procedure''' within the context of digital artifacts as the "defining ability to execute a series of rule."<ref>Bogost, Ian. ''Persuasive Games'' page 4</ref> Bogost restates the this definition as the fundamental activity of software authorship and discusses how the procedure of computers is what "fundamentally separates them from other media."<br />
<br />
On a more philosophical level, Bogost discusses how all behavior is underpinned by logic and implies that the procedurality of computers (and thus videogames) is in fact not unique to digital media. Nevertheless, it is obvious that the interactive procedurality of videogames and computer programs is unique these digital media when they are analyzed as cultural artifacts. Overall, Bogost views the procedure of videogames as devices for expressing ideas and forming arguments, he compares them to "metaphors" and other literary devices.<br />
<br />
== Rhetoric ==<br />
<br />
Bogost begins his exploration of the term '''rhetoric''' in a similar way he begins his explanation of '''procedure:''' in both cases, Bogost makes an effort to dispel the negative connotations these terms have. Through a discussion of oratory rhetoric, visual rhetoric, digital rhetoric and procedural rhetoric, Bogost arrives at a definition of '''rhetoric''' as "''effective expression.''"<ref> Bogost, Ian. ''Persuasive Games.'' Page 19. </ref><br />
<br />
According to Bogost, oratory rhetoric is privileged in the eyes of many, while '''written,''' '''visual,''' and '''digital''' rhetoric are under-appreciated. Bogost concludes his section on rhetoric by suggesting that digital media must focus on procedurality in its study of rhetoric. <ref> Bogost, Ian. ''Persuasive Games.''' Page 28 </ref><br />
<br />
== Combining the two: ''Procedural Rhetoric'' ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references /></div>George Altshulerhttps://mediawiki.middlebury.edu/MIDDMedia/index.php?title=Procedural_rhetoric&diff=640Procedural rhetoric2008-05-15T23:36:47Z<p>George Altshuler: /* Rhetoric */</p>
<hr />
<div>Procedural Rhetoric is a concept developed by [[Ian Bogost]] in his book [[Persuasive Games]]: The expressive Power of videogames (MIT Press 2007).<br />
<br />
In this book, Bogost analyzes the history of rhetoric and argues that videogames are part of a new form of rhetoric since their procedurality involves interaction. <br />
He calls this new form of persuasion '''Procedural Rhetoric''', and develops his argument by comparing videogames to the characteristics of computers and by analyzing the influence that videogames can have on politics, advertising and education.<br />
<br />
Bogost develops this argument by first analyzing the notion of "procedurality," then the idea of "rhetoric" and then combining the two to form '''Procedural Rhetoric'''.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Procedure ==<br />
<br />
After briefly discussing the negative connotations "procedure" often has, Bogost cites Janet Murray who gives a technical definition for "procedure" within the context of digital artifacts as the "defining ability to execute a series of rule."<ref>Bogost, Ian. ''Persuasive Games'' page 4</ref> Bogost restates the this definition as the fundamental activity of software authorship and discusses how the procedure of computers is what "fundamentally separates them from other media."<br />
<br />
On a more philosophical level, Bogost discusses how all behavior is underpinned by logic and implies that the procedurality of computers (and thus videogames) is in fact not unique to digital media. Nevertheless, it is obvious that the interactive procedurality of videogames and computer programs is unique these digital media when they are analyzed as cultural artifacts. Overall, Bogost views the procedure of videogames as devices for expressing ideas and forming arguments, he compares them to "metaphors" and other literary devices.<br />
<br />
== Rhetoric ==<br />
<br />
Bogost begins his exploration of the term '''rhetoric''' in a similar way he begins his explanation of '''procedure:''' in both cases, Bogost makes an effort to dispel the negative connotations these terms have. Through a discussion of oratory rhetoric, visual rhetoric, digital rhetoric and procedural rhetoric, Bogost arrives at a definition of '''rhetoric''' as "''effective expression.''"<ref> Bogost, Ian. ''Persuasive Games.'' Page 19. </ref><br />
<br />
According to Bogost, oratory rhetoric is privileged in the eyes of many, while '''written,''' '''visual,''' and '''digital''' rhetoric are under-appreciated. Bogost concludes his section on rhetoric by suggesting that digital media must focus on procedurality in its study of rhetoric. <ref> Bogost, Ian. ''Persuasive Games.''' Page 28 </ref><br />
<br />
== Combining the two: ''Procedural Rhetoric'' ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references /></div>George Altshulerhttps://mediawiki.middlebury.edu/MIDDMedia/index.php?title=Procedural_rhetoric&diff=639Procedural rhetoric2008-05-15T23:12:26Z<p>George Altshuler: reformatting!</p>
<hr />
<div>Procedural Rhetoric is a concept developed by [[Ian Bogost]] in his book [[Persuasive Games]]: The expressive Power of videogames (MIT Press 2007).<br />
<br />
In this book, Bogost analyzes the history of rhetoric and argues that videogames are part of a new form of rhetoric since their procedurality involves interaction. <br />
He calls this new form of persuasion '''Procedural Rhetoric''', and develops his argument by comparing videogames to the characteristics of computers and by analyzing the influence that videogames can have on politics, advertising and education.<br />
<br />
Bogost develops this argument by first analyzing the notion of "procedurality," then the idea of "rhetoric" and then combining the two to form '''Procedural Rhetoric'''.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Procedure ==<br />
<br />
After briefly discussing the negative connotations "procedure" often has, Bogost cites Janet Murray who gives a technical definition for "procedure" within the context of digital artifacts as the "defining ability to execute a series of rule."<ref>Bogost, Ian. ''Persuasive Games'' page 4</ref> Bogost restates the this definition as the fundamental activity of software authorship and discusses how the procedure of computers is what "fundamentally separates them from other media."<br />
<br />
On a more philosophical level, Bogost discusses how all behavior is underpinned by logic and implies that the procedurality of computers (and thus videogames) is in fact not unique to digital media. Nevertheless, it is obvious that the interactive procedurality of videogames and computer programs is unique these digital media when they are analyzed as cultural artifacts. Overall, Bogost views the procedure of videogames as devices for expressing ideas and forming arguments, he compares them to "metaphors" and other literary devices.<br />
<br />
== Rhetoric ==<br />
<br />
== Combining the two: ''Procedural Rhetoric'' ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references /></div>George Altshulerhttps://mediawiki.middlebury.edu/MIDDMedia/index.php?title=Procedural_rhetoric&diff=632Procedural rhetoric2008-05-15T20:31:26Z<p>George Altshuler: /* Procedure */</p>
<hr />
<div>Procedural Rhetoric is a concept developed by [[Ian Bogost]] in his book [[Persuasive Games]]: The expressive Power of videogames (MIT Press 2007).<br />
<br />
In this book, Bogost analyzes the history of rhetoric and argues that videogames are part of a new form of rhetoric since their procedurality involves interaction. <br />
He calls this new form of persuasion '''Procedural Rhetoric''', and develops his argument by comparing videogames to the characteristics of computers and by analyzing the influence that videogames can have on politics, advertising and education.<br />
<br />
Bogost develops this argument by first analyzing the notion of "procedurality," then the idea of "rhetoric" and then combining the two to form '''Procedural Rhetoric'''.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Procedure ==<br />
<br />
After briefly discussing the negative connotations "procedure" often has, Bogost cites Janet Murray who gives a technical definition for "procedure" within the context of digital artifacts as the "defining ability to execute a series of rule."<ref>Bogost, Ian. ''Persuasive Games'' page 4</ref> Bogost restates the this definition as the fundamental activity of software authorship and discusses how the procedure of computers is what "fundamentally separates them from other media."<br />
<br />
On a more philosophical level, Bogost discusses how all behavior is underpinned by logic and implies that the procedurality of computers (and thus videogames) is in fact not unique to digital media. Nevertheless, it is obvious that the interactive procedurality of videogames and computer programs is unique these digital media when they are analyzed as cultural artifacts. Overall, Bogost views the procedure of videogames as devices for expressing ideas and forming arguments, he compares them to "metaphors" and other literary devices.<br />
<br />
== Rhetoric ==<br />
<br />
== Combining the two: ''Procedural Rhetoric'' ==<br />
<br />
<br />
===References===<br />
<references /></div>George Altshulerhttps://mediawiki.middlebury.edu/MIDDMedia/index.php?title=Persuasive_games&diff=631Persuasive games2008-05-15T20:28:58Z<p>George Altshuler: /* The Book */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Videogames''' (MIT Press 2007) is a book written by [[Ian Bogost]].<br />
Bogost discusses how videogames can make arguments and influence players on many different levels as a result of videogames' [[Procedural Rhetoric]].<br />
<br />
'''Persuasive Games''' is also the name of an independent videogame company which focuses on social and political issues, trying to broaden the uses that games currently have. The company was funded by [[Ian Bogost]] and Gerard LaFond.<br />
== The Book==<br />
<br />
The book is divided into four main categories. The first is Bogost's definition of [[Procedural Rhetoric]], which he uses throughout the remainder of the book. The next section is categorized as Political. This section looks at the political aspects of games, including the political process, the way games frame ideology, and the way games are a democratic process. The third section is on Advertising and discusses the ideas of Advertising Logic, Product Placement, and Advergames (games that are designed as advertisements). The final section is on Learning, and it features sections on Procedural Literacy, Values and Aspirations, Excercise, and the Purpose of Persuasion.<br />
<br />
The '''Politics''' section includes the interesting analysis of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GTA_san_andreas GTA San Andreas] where Bogost argues that the game features social commentary on poverty and obesity in America. By noting that the main character can only eat fast food, but must pay a higher price for healthier food, the game is arguing that it is personal responsibility that dictates one's situation in life. Those who choose not to pay the higher price, or choose not to work out in the game's gym, suffer the consequences by becoming fat, thereby losing the respect of their fellow gang members.<br />
<br />
The '''Advertisement''' section discusses how game procedures act as advertisements for a given product. In one example, Bogost explains how a game called "The J2O Toilet" was an effective advergame for the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J2O J2O] soft drink company. In the game players have to fight off drunkenness and accurately relieve themselves in a restroom at a bar. By drinking more J2O beverages, the user "sobers up" and can urinate more accurately. The goal of the game was to remind users that drinking J2O is a nice alternative to drinking.<br />
<br />
The '''Learning''' section outlines how videogames can teach users various procedures. In one game that Bogost's company designed for [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_Stone_Creamery Cold Stone Creamery], the user learned how to scoop ice cream in the correct portions. If they scoop too much, the employee hurts Cold Stone's bottom line. If they scoop to little ice cream, they risk angering the customer. The game had the unintentional effect of showing the Cold Stone employees how their actions could hurt the company, giving these employees more power than they had previously realized.</div>George Altshulerhttps://mediawiki.middlebury.edu/MIDDMedia/index.php?title=Talk:Procedural_rhetoric&diff=616Talk:Procedural rhetoric2008-05-15T02:51:09Z<p>George Altshuler: New page: Yo, I'm taking a little break but I'll finish up this page later tonight... --~~~~</p>
<hr />
<div>Yo, I'm taking a little break but I'll finish up this page later tonight... --[[User:Galtshul|Altshuler, George]] 22:51, 14 May 2008 (EDT)</div>George Altshulerhttps://mediawiki.middlebury.edu/MIDDMedia/index.php?title=Procedural_rhetoric&diff=615Procedural rhetoric2008-05-15T02:46:41Z<p>George Altshuler: /* Procedure */</p>
<hr />
<div>Procedural Rhetoric is a concept developed by [[Ian Bogost]] in his book [[Persuasive Games]]: The expressive Power of videogames (MIT Press 2007).<br />
<br />
In this book, Bogost analyzes the history of rhetoric and argues that videogames are part of a new form of rhetoric since their procedurality involves interaction. <br />
He calls this new form of persuasion '''Procedural Rhetoric''', and develops his argument by comparing videogames to the characteristics of computers and by analyzing the influence that videogames can have on politics, advertising and education.<br />
<br />
Bogost develops this argument by first analyzing the notion of "procedurality," then the idea of "rhetoric" and then combining the two to form '''Procedural Rhetoric'''.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Procedure ==<br />
<br />
After briefly discussing the negative connotations "procedure" often has, Bogost cites Janet Murray who gives a technical definition for "procedure" within the context of digital artifacts as the "defining ability to execute a series of rule."<ref>{{cite book |last=Bogost |first=Ian |title=A History of Us: War, Peace and all that Jazz |publisher=Oxford University Persuasive Games date=2008 |page=4</ref> Bogost restates the this definition as the fundamental activity of software authorship and discusses how the procedure of computers is what "fundamentally separates them from other media."<br />
<br />
On a more philosophical level, Bogost discusses how all behavior is underpinned by logic and implies that the procedurality of computers (and thus videogames) is in fact not unique to digital media. Nevertheless, it is obvious that the interactive procedurality of videogames and computer programs is unique these digital media when they are analyzed as cultural artifacts. Overall, Bogost views the procedure of videogames as devices for expressing ideas and forming arguments, he compares them to "metaphors" and other literary devices.<br />
<br />
== Rhetoric ==<br />
<br />
== Combining the two: ''Procedural Rhetoric'' ==</div>George Altshulerhttps://mediawiki.middlebury.edu/MIDDMedia/index.php?title=Procedural_rhetoric&diff=614Procedural rhetoric2008-05-15T02:21:26Z<p>George Altshuler: /* Procedurality */</p>
<hr />
<div>Procedural Rhetoric is a concept developed by [[Ian Bogost]] in his book [[Persuasive Games]]: The expressive Power of videogames (MIT Press 2007).<br />
<br />
In this book, Bogost analyzes the history of rhetoric and argues that videogames are part of a new form of rhetoric since their procedurality involves interaction. <br />
He calls this new form of persuasion '''Procedural Rhetoric''', and develops his argument by comparing videogames to the characteristics of computers and by analyzing the influence that videogames can have on politics, advertising and education.<br />
<br />
Bogost develops this argument by first analyzing the notion of "procedurality," then the idea of "rhetoric" and then combining the two to form '''Procedural Rhetoric'''.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Procedure ==<br />
<br />
After briefly discussing the negative connotations "procedure" often has, Bogost cites Janet Murray who gives a technical definition for "procedure" within the context of digital artifacts as the "defining ability to execute a series of rule."<ref>{{cite book |last=Bogost |first=Ian |title=A History of Us: War, Peace and all that Jazz |publisher=Oxford University Persuasive Games date=2008 |page=4</ref> Bogost restates the this definition as the fundamental activity of software authorship and discusses how the procedure of computers is what "fundamentally separates them from other media."<br />
<br />
== Rhetoric ==<br />
<br />
== Combining the two: ''Procedural Rhetoric'' ==</div>George Altshulerhttps://mediawiki.middlebury.edu/MIDDMedia/index.php?title=Procedural_rhetoric&diff=613Procedural rhetoric2008-05-15T02:10:46Z<p>George Altshuler: </p>
<hr />
<div>Procedural Rhetoric is a concept developed by [[Ian Bogost]] in his book [[Persuasive Games]]: The expressive Power of videogames (MIT Press 2007).<br />
<br />
In this book, Bogost analyzes the history of rhetoric and argues that videogames are part of a new form of rhetoric since their procedurality involves interaction. <br />
He calls this new form of persuasion '''Procedural Rhetoric''', and develops his argument by comparing videogames to the characteristics of computers and by analyzing the influence that videogames can have on politics, advertising and education.<br />
<br />
Bogost develops this argument by first analyzing the notion of "procedurality," then the idea of "rhetoric" and then combining the two to form '''Procedural Rhetoric'''.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Procedurality ==<br />
<br />
== Rhetoric ==<br />
<br />
== Combining the two: ''Procedural Rhetoric'' ==</div>George Altshulerhttps://mediawiki.middlebury.edu/MIDDMedia/index.php?title=Procedural_rhetoric&diff=612Procedural rhetoric2008-05-15T02:10:20Z<p>George Altshuler: </p>
<hr />
<div>Procedural Rhetoric is a concept developed by [[Ian Bogost]] in his book [[Persuasive Games]]: The expressive Power of videogames (MIT Press 2007).<br />
<br />
In this book, Bogost analyzes the history of rhetoric and argues that videogames are part of a new form of rhetoric since their procedurality involves interaction. <br />
He calls this new form of persuasion '''Procedural Rhetoric''', and develops his argument by comparing videogames to the characteristics of computers and by analyzing the influence that videogames can have on politics, advertising and education.<br />
<br />
Bogost develops this argument by first analyzing the notion of "procedurality," then the idea of "rhetoric" and then combining the two to form '''Procedural Rhetoric'''.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Procedurality ==<br />
<br />
== Rhetoric ==<br />
<br />
== Combining the two: '''Procedural Rhetoric ==</div>George Altshulerhttps://mediawiki.middlebury.edu/MIDDMedia/index.php?title=Persuasive_games&diff=611Persuasive games2008-05-15T02:03:21Z<p>George Altshuler: changed caps...</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Videogames''' (MIT Press 2007) is a book written by [[Ian Bogost]].<br />
Bogost discusses how videogames can make arguments and influence players on many different levels as a result of videogames' [[Procedural Rhetoric]].<br />
<br />
'''Persuasive Games''' is also the name of an independent videogame company which focuses on social and political issues, trying to broaden the uses that games currently have. The company was funded by [[Ian Bogost]] and Gerard LaFond.<br />
== The Book==<br />
<br />
The book is divided into four main categories. The first is Bogost's definition of [[Procedural Rhetoric]], which he uses throughout the remainder of the book. The next section is categorized as Political. This section looks at the political aspects of games, including the political process, the way games frame ideology, and the way games are a democratic process. The third section is on Advertising and discusses the ideas of Advertising Logic, Product Placement, and Advergames (games that are designed as advertisements). The final section is on Learning, and it features sections on Procedural Literacy, Values and Aspirations, Excercise, and the Purpose of Persuasion.<br />
<br />
The '''Politics''' section includes the interesting analysis of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GTA_san_andreas GTA San Andreas] where Bogost argues that the game features social commentary on poverty and obesity in America. By noting that the main character can only eat fast food, but must pay a higher price for healthier food, the game is arguing that it is personal responsibility that dictates one's situation in life. Those who choose not to pay the higher price, or choose not to work out in the game's gym, suffer the consequences by becoming fat, thereby losing the respect of their fellow gang members.<br />
<br />
The '''Advertisement''' section discusses how game procedures act as advertisements for a given product. In one example, Bogost explains how a game called "The J2O Toilet" was an effective advergame for the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J2O J2O] soft drink company. In the game players have to fight off drunkenness and accurately relieve themselves in a restroom at a bar. By drinking more J2O beverages, the user "sobers up" and can urinate more accurately. The goal of the game was to remind users that drinking J2O is a nice alternative to drinking.</div>George Altshulerhttps://mediawiki.middlebury.edu/MIDDMedia/index.php?title=Persuasive_games&diff=610Persuasive games2008-05-15T02:02:59Z<p>George Altshuler: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Videogames''' (MIT Press 2007) is a book written by [[Ian Bogost]].<br />
Bogost discusses how videogames can make arguments and influence players on many different levels as a result of videogames' [[procedural rhetoric]].<br />
<br />
'''Persuasive Games''' is also the name of an independent videogame company which focuses on social and political issues, trying to broaden the uses that games currently have. The company was funded by [[Ian Bogost]] and Gerard LaFond.<br />
== The Book==<br />
<br />
The book is divided into four main categories. The first is Bogost's definition of [[Procedural Rhetoric]], which he uses throughout the remainder of the book. The next section is categorized as Political. This section looks at the political aspects of games, including the political process, the way games frame ideology, and the way games are a democratic process. The third section is on Advertising and discusses the ideas of Advertising Logic, Product Placement, and Advergames (games that are designed as advertisements). The final section is on Learning, and it features sections on Procedural Literacy, Values and Aspirations, Excercise, and the Purpose of Persuasion.<br />
<br />
The '''Politics''' section includes the interesting analysis of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GTA_san_andreas GTA San Andreas] where Bogost argues that the game features social commentary on poverty and obesity in America. By noting that the main character can only eat fast food, but must pay a higher price for healthier food, the game is arguing that it is personal responsibility that dictates one's situation in life. Those who choose not to pay the higher price, or choose not to work out in the game's gym, suffer the consequences by becoming fat, thereby losing the respect of their fellow gang members.<br />
<br />
The '''Advertisement''' section discusses how game procedures act as advertisements for a given product. In one example, Bogost explains how a game called "The J2O Toilet" was an effective advergame for the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J2O J2O] soft drink company. In the game players have to fight off drunkenness and accurately relieve themselves in a restroom at a bar. By drinking more J2O beverages, the user "sobers up" and can urinate more accurately. The goal of the game was to remind users that drinking J2O is a nice alternative to drinking.</div>George Altshulerhttps://mediawiki.middlebury.edu/MIDDMedia/index.php?title=Persuasive_games&diff=609Persuasive games2008-05-15T02:02:33Z<p>George Altshuler: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Videogames''' (MIT Press 2007) is a book written by [[Ian Bogost]].<br />
Bogost discusses how videogames can make arguments and influence players on many different levels as a result of videogames' [[Procedural rhetoric]].<br />
<br />
'''Persuasive Games''' is also the name of an independent videogame company which focuses on social and political issues, trying to broaden the uses that games currently have. The company was funded by [[Ian Bogost]] and Gerard LaFond.<br />
== The Book==<br />
<br />
The book is divided into four main categories. The first is Bogost's definition of [[Procedural Rhetoric]], which he uses throughout the remainder of the book. The next section is categorized as Political. This section looks at the political aspects of games, including the political process, the way games frame ideology, and the way games are a democratic process. The third section is on Advertising and discusses the ideas of Advertising Logic, Product Placement, and Advergames (games that are designed as advertisements). The final section is on Learning, and it features sections on Procedural Literacy, Values and Aspirations, Excercise, and the Purpose of Persuasion.<br />
<br />
The '''Politics''' section includes the interesting analysis of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GTA_san_andreas GTA San Andreas] where Bogost argues that the game features social commentary on poverty and obesity in America. By noting that the main character can only eat fast food, but must pay a higher price for healthier food, the game is arguing that it is personal responsibility that dictates one's situation in life. Those who choose not to pay the higher price, or choose not to work out in the game's gym, suffer the consequences by becoming fat, thereby losing the respect of their fellow gang members.<br />
<br />
The '''Advertisement''' section discusses how game procedures act as advertisements for a given product. In one example, Bogost explains how a game called "The J2O Toilet" was an effective advergame for the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J2O J2O] soft drink company. In the game players have to fight off drunkenness and accurately relieve themselves in a restroom at a bar. By drinking more J2O beverages, the user "sobers up" and can urinate more accurately. The goal of the game was to remind users that drinking J2O is a nice alternative to drinking.</div>George Altshulerhttps://mediawiki.middlebury.edu/MIDDMedia/index.php?title=Talk:Persuasive_games&diff=608Talk:Persuasive games2008-05-15T02:00:58Z<p>George Altshuler: </p>
<hr />
<div>hey guys, <br />
I'm just writing about the book, but feel free to add more info if you feel it's neccessary. Also, I understand the arguement if anyone thinks I should have said the book is made of THREE sections, ignoring the first section. I just wrote it the way I did because that's my opinion. --[[User:Bsommers|Sommers, Brian Thomas]] 22:26, 6 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Brian--<br />
I'll be working on [[Procedural rhetoric]] tonight so I edited when you said "procedural rhetorics" were a new form of expression, because I thought that applied to narrowly to videogames. Instead flash interfaces and even websites can have procedural rhetorics.<br />
love, --[[User:Galtshul|Altshuler, George]] 22:00, 14 May 2008 (EDT)</div>George Altshulerhttps://mediawiki.middlebury.edu/MIDDMedia/index.php?title=Persuasive_games&diff=607Persuasive games2008-05-15T01:59:13Z<p>George Altshuler: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Videogames''' (MIT Press 2007) is a book written by [[Ian Bogost]].<br />
Bogost discusses the importance of videogames in influencing players and making arguments as a result of videogames' [[Procedural rhetoric]].<br />
<br />
'''Persuasive Games''' is also the name of an independent videogame company which focuses on social and political issues, trying to broaden the uses that games currently have. The company was funded by [[Ian Bogost]] and Gerard LaFond.<br />
== The Book==<br />
<br />
The book is divided into four main categories. The first is Bogost's definition of [[Procedural Rhetoric]], which he uses throughout the remainder of the book. The next section is categorized as Political. This section looks at the political aspects of games, including the political process, the way games frame ideology, and the way games are a democratic process. The third section is on Advertising and discusses the ideas of Advertising Logic, Product Placement, and Advergames (games that are designed as advertisements). The final section is on Learning, and it features sections on Procedural Literacy, Values and Aspirations, Excercise, and the Purpose of Persuasion.<br />
<br />
The '''Politics''' section includes the interesting analysis of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GTA_san_andreas GTA San Andreas] where Bogost argues that the game features social commentary on poverty and obesity in America. By noting that the main character can only eat fast food, but must pay a higher price for healthier food, the game is arguing that it is personal responsibility that dictates one's situation in life. Those who choose not to pay the higher price, or choose not to work out in the game's gym, suffer the consequences by becoming fat, thereby losing the respect of their fellow gang members.<br />
<br />
The '''Advertisement''' section discusses how game procedures act as advertisements for a given product. In one example, Bogost explains how a game called "The J2O Toilet" was an effective advergame for the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J2O J2O] soft drink company. In the game players have to fight off drunkenness and accurately relieve themselves in a restroom at a bar. By drinking more J2O beverages, the user "sobers up" and can urinate more accurately. The goal of the game was to remind users that drinking J2O is a nice alternative to drinking.</div>George Altshulerhttps://mediawiki.middlebury.edu/MIDDMedia/index.php?title=Procedural_Rhetoric&diff=605Procedural Rhetoric2008-05-15T01:49:37Z<p>George Altshuler: Redirecting to Procedural rhetoric</p>
<hr />
<div>#redirect [[Procedural rhetoric]]</div>George Altshulerhttps://mediawiki.middlebury.edu/MIDDMedia/index.php?title=Procedural_Rhetoric&diff=604Procedural Rhetoric2008-05-15T01:49:14Z<p>George Altshuler: Redirecting to Procedural Rhetorics</p>
<hr />
<div>#redirect [[Procedural Rhetorics]]</div>George Altshulerhttps://mediawiki.middlebury.edu/MIDDMedia/index.php?title=Persuasive_Games&diff=603Persuasive Games2008-05-15T01:48:34Z<p>George Altshuler: Redirecting to Persuasive games</p>
<hr />
<div>#redirect [[Persuasive games]]</div>George Altshulerhttps://mediawiki.middlebury.edu/MIDDMedia/index.php?title=Network_economy&diff=534Network economy2008-04-17T05:08:58Z<p>George Altshuler: </p>
<hr />
<div>The network economy is an idea presented by [[Yochai Benkler]] in his book ''The Wealth of Networks''. He defines the term as a "new and important cooperative and coordinate action carried out through radically distributed, nonmarket mechanisms that do not depend on proprietary strategies."</div>George Altshulerhttps://mediawiki.middlebury.edu/MIDDMedia/index.php?title=Grading_policy&diff=516Grading policy2008-04-16T18:40:56Z<p>George Altshuler: </p>
<hr />
<div>The [[exam expectations]] will result in an overall class grade for the exam. This overall grade will be distributed among the students in the class according to how much they contributed to the project. Thus, if the class as a whole performs poorly there will be few or no good grades. It is thus in the best interest of everyone to contribute the project and to submit/significantly edit five or more of the keyword entries. The quality of the wiki and thus everyone's grade will depend on the collective effort of the class. <br />
<br />
In the spirit of wiki's, we ask that there be as little spread as possible between the grades, as this is a collaborative effort. If, however, some people contribute dramatically less or more in the project, this should be reflected in their grades. <br />
<br />
[[Category:About Wiki]]</div>George Altshulerhttps://mediawiki.middlebury.edu/MIDDMedia/index.php?title=Grading_policy&diff=515Grading policy2008-04-16T14:21:55Z<p>George Altshuler: </p>
<hr />
<div>The [[exam expectations]] will result in an overall class grade for the exam. This overall grade will be distributed among the students in the class according to how much they contributed to the project. Thus, if the class as a whole performs poorly there will be few or no good grades. It is thus in the best interest of everyone to contribute the project and to submit/significantly edit five or more of the keyword entries. The quality of the wiki and thus everyone's grade will depend on the collective effort of the class. <br />
<br />
[[Category:About Wiki]]</div>George Altshulerhttps://mediawiki.middlebury.edu/MIDDMedia/index.php?title=Grading_policy&diff=514Grading policy2008-04-16T14:20:49Z<p>George Altshuler: </p>
<hr />
<div>The [[exam expectations]] will result in an overall class grade for the exam. This overall grade will be distributed among the students in the class according to how much they contributed to the project. Thus, if the class as a whole performs poorly there will be few or no good grades. It is thus in the best interest of everyone to contribute the project and to submit/significantly edit five or more of the keyword entries. The quality of the wiki and thus everyone's grade will depend on a collective effort of the class. <br />
<br />
[[Category:About Wiki]]</div>George Altshulerhttps://mediawiki.middlebury.edu/MIDDMedia/index.php?title=Ian_Bogost&diff=513Ian Bogost2008-04-16T03:52:51Z<p>George Altshuler: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Ian Bogost''' is a professor, videogame designer, and author. In his book, ''Persuasive Games'', Bogost argues that different mediums have different "procedural rhetorics." These "procedural rhetorics" convey different world views. In ''Persuasive Games,'' he uses the example of video games to demonstrate this point. He discusses how the procedural rhetorics of video games have ramifications in the realms of political discourse, advertising and education. Some of the games described in his book were designed by Bogost's own company, which is also named [[Persuasive Games]].</div>George Altshulerhttps://mediawiki.middlebury.edu/MIDDMedia/index.php?title=Talk:Net_neutrality&diff=512Talk:Net neutrality2008-04-16T03:50:39Z<p>George Altshuler: New page: What I have here is just a beginning. Please add to it. --~~~~</p>
<hr />
<div>What I have here is just a beginning. Please add to it. --[[User:Galtshul|Altshuler, George]] 23:50, 15 April 2008 (EDT)</div>George Altshulerhttps://mediawiki.middlebury.edu/MIDDMedia/index.php?title=Net_neutrality&diff=511Net neutrality2008-04-16T03:50:11Z<p>George Altshuler: New page: '''Net Neutrality''' is a political cause aimed at maintaining the current structure of the Internet. It is a reaction against the desire by some companies to sell superior bandwidth to di...</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Net Neutrality''' is a political cause aimed at maintaining the current structure of the Internet. It is a reaction against the desire by some companies to sell superior bandwidth to different websites.</div>George Altshulerhttps://mediawiki.middlebury.edu/MIDDMedia/index.php?title=Ian_Bogost&diff=510Ian Bogost2008-04-16T03:45:47Z<p>George Altshuler: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Ian Bogost''' is a professor, videogame designer, and author. In his book, ''Persuasive Games'', Bogost argues that different mediums have different "procedural rhetorics." These "procedural rhetorics" convey different world views. In ''Persuasive Games,'' he uses the example of video games to demonstrate this point. He discusses how the procedural rhetorics of video games have ramifications in the realms of political discourse, advertising and education. Some of the games described in his book were designed by Bogost's own company, which is also named Persuasive Games.</div>George Altshulerhttps://mediawiki.middlebury.edu/MIDDMedia/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=475Main Page2008-02-12T20:42:25Z<p>George Altshuler: </p>
<hr />
<div>Welcome to the MiddMediaWiki! This wiki resource serves as the '''collective final exam''' for [http://blogs.middlebury.edu/middmedia FMMC0246 Media Technology & Cultural Change] at Middlebury College, spring 2008. Students will be evaluated per the [[grading policy]] at the end of the semester based on how well the wiki meets the [[exam expectations]] for explaining these [[keywords]]. We'll be building off the work done by last year's class, looking to create a sustainable reference for studying media.<br />
<br />
<br />
For an example of a similar site, see [http://machines.pomona.edu/marxwiki/index.php/Main_Page MarxWiki], a wiki created by students at Pomona College.<br />
<br />
<br />
Explore the site to see what we've learned...<br />
<br />
Search by [[Keywords]]</div>George Altshulerhttps://mediawiki.middlebury.edu/MIDDMedia/index.php?title=Media_Technology_and_Cultural_change&diff=462Media Technology and Cultural change2008-02-12T20:40:43Z<p>George Altshuler: </p>
<hr />
<div>Media Technology and Cultural change is a class taught by [[Jason Mittell]] at Middlebury College.</div>George Altshulerhttps://mediawiki.middlebury.edu/MIDDMedia/index.php?title=Media_Technology_and_Cultural_change&diff=457Media Technology and Cultural change2008-02-12T20:40:19Z<p>George Altshuler: </p>
<hr />
<div>Media Technology and Cultural change is a class taught by Jason Mittell at Middlebury College.</div>George Altshulerhttps://mediawiki.middlebury.edu/MIDDMedia/index.php?title=Media_Technology_and_Cultural_change&diff=451Media Technology and Cultural change2008-02-12T20:40:05Z<p>George Altshuler: New page: Media Technology and Cultural change is a class taught by Jason Mittell.</p>
<hr />
<div>Media Technology and Cultural change is a class taught by Jason Mittell.</div>George Altshulerhttps://mediawiki.middlebury.edu/MIDDMedia/index.php?title=User:George_Altshuler&diff=444User:George Altshuler2008-02-12T20:39:35Z<p>George Altshuler: </p>
<hr />
<div>This is George Altshuler's page for the class "[[Media Technology and Cultural change]]." I am an American Studies Major. Welcome.</div>George Altshulerhttps://mediawiki.middlebury.edu/MIDDMedia/index.php?title=User:George_Altshuler&diff=427User:George Altshuler2008-02-12T20:37:41Z<p>George Altshuler: New page: This is George Altshuler's page for the class "Media Technology and Cultural change." I am an American Studies Major. Welcome.</p>
<hr />
<div>This is George Altshuler's page for the class "Media Technology and Cultural change." I am an American Studies Major. Welcome.</div>George Altshuler