Cyberpolitics

習作的評分準則:

1. 資料搜集, 有進行訪談或文獻以外的資料搜集會有額外的分數
2. 理論和概念的運用, 是否有運用或回應課程中學到的概念
3. 發掘問題的能力

見紅字者請交 hardcopy 到政政系辦公室.

Liu Hui, Jiang Yunzhi, Kevin Poon, Wang Ye: 俠客與暴民

是一個很好的題目, 亦選取了一些有趣的例子, 可是研究的結果則重在暴民, 而沒有分析在什麼情況下, 一些議題為變成 mob, 另一些又會變成影響深遠的公共關懷. 在缺乏對比下, 對 mob 的解讀泛於表面.

政策對比部份提供了一些很不錯的資料.

Lam Mei Kwan, Leung Cheuk Yi: 互聯網對知識定義的挑戰

雖然我說可以交 powerpoint, 但你們這習作的形式與內容, powerpoint是一個非常差的方法.

習作中似要比較 wikipedia 和本地版的香港網絡大典, 但卻未能回答同一個工具, 不同參與者, 管理如何形成不同的面貌和社群.

蔡俊威, 黎嘉晋: 第二人生

很有趣的研究, 亦很努力嘗試介入課程中的種種討論. 未來進一步的研究可以討論 Baudrillard 批評互聯網把政治虛擬的說法. 譬如說習作中談到的審議式民主和全球暖化會議等, 與 offline 政治如何互動, 影響力有多大, 抑或是一個避世的理想邦等等.

陳智珩, 延鑫丹, 王婧輝: 百度知道與雅虎知識比較

很認真的研究, 資料充足, 亦有嘗試介入理論與概念的討論, 唯一些討論未夠深入, 可進一步討論看似中立的技術在 localization 的質徵. 習作中, 傳統知識這一概念過於空泛, 可以從知識範典 (paradigm) 的層面去介入討論.

廖曉晶, 成韻楨, 吳曉鋒, 黃雅蘭: 雅虎知識與維基百科

很好的描繪和比較, 但分析和結論略嫌單薄, 兩種工具對知識前提和目的有根本的差異, 不能純粹以認受性等概念來作比較.

Melody, Maggie, Mak Chi Lit: Facebook, Miniforum, discuss 的動員

很好的題目和整理, 但過於描述性, 亦沒有細緻分析不同工具的動員特色.

陳正犖, 何俊傑, 王家兒: 知識產權在網絡世界是否存在?

整個習作不成比例地徧重藥物的知識產權討論, 相反有關網絡的只輕輕帶過, 亦沒有觸及當中的討論/辯論.

Tsui Yik Tung: 中國政府對網絡的攻防戰

很好的概述, 其他若集中在 Foucalt 圓形監獄式的管治, 來分析國內的互聯網查禁會更有趣.

楊明渭, 梁燕明, 馮潤和, 溫健龍: 中美政府審查模式比較

很詳細的概述, 亦能把審查放回政治制度的脈絡中分析, 從而了解不同審查範典的操作.

Andy Law: www.youth.gov.hk

The paper is a bit out of focus. It touches across too many aspects, without looking into the interaction mechanism. The comparison between hk and u.s is not specific enough and the suggestions are too empty.

Lam Yuk Kwan, Ng Sui Lun, Sheung Gar Ming: Liberal Party and its internet forum

It is a detailed the liberal party’s website and the team managed to locate the website development in the context of party politics in hk.

Fan Tsam Ue: 互聯網與舊區重建電視

透過訪談和觀察, 看互聯網如何改變傳統另類媒體的傳播, 一個很好的嘗試.

江斯潔, 李浩晹, 梁凱茵, 莫佩霞: 香港討論組

有較詳細的描述和例子, 但未能分析暴民式討論原因, 並與相關的研究對話.

Tsui Wai Hang, Cheung Wing Hang, Tang Ho Kin: Epoch Time

It is great that you have interviewed the editor of Epoch Time. However, you failed to ask relevant questions concerning how the internet create spaces for a marginalized movement, and how the internet helps the organization to attract or maintain the identity of their members. It is important to put the prejudice aside when doing a research.

陳子健, 簡迪洋, 江偉銘: 網上署聯

資料搜集很詳細, 題目亦對題, 亦提了一些有意思的網上動員問題.

Kwong Ying Ha, Thanakom Chu: Youtube

很用心的作業, 能把 youtube 放回美國的政治脈絡下分析, 對比香港, 並討論網絡媒體與主流媒體的關係.

馮建瑋, 薛健鋒, 何健豪: 香港獨立運動

是一個認真的習作, 可是有關港獨歷史的描述, 有點把反殖=港獨的問題. 此外, 未能訪問港獨網站的創辦人與參與者, 使分析建基在網站宣言之上的做法有所不足, 因為虛擬世界的政治不是現實的正直反映. 此外, 社會運動動員理論與獨立運動之間, 有一大鴻溝, 後者往往涉及政治和軍事層面的動員, 而不能單從社會運動去分析.

呂兆康, 梁嘉玲, 陳子平: 財經網誌

整個習作, 網誌分析比重太少. 有關權威分析, 應涉及金融行業的特質, 其訊息流向, 而不單是誰是權威的問題. 新興財經網誌部份, 沒有具體的例子說明其訊息和互動與報紙或其他媒體的分別, 只寫了一般網誌的特質. 影響部分, 後現代主義劃分過於空泛, 無助了解財經網誌訊息內容, 互動特質.

Solomon, Vincent, Kelvin: 香港人民廣播電台

是一份很用心的習作, 透過訪談對人民台的背景, 運作有綜合理解, 並把人民台的經驗與傳統電台對比, 探索網絡電台的潛力.

林君: 社會運動與資訊溝通科技—— 從天星皇后事件看 網絡公共空間和混合流動動員.

是一個有深入思考過的習作, 除了課堂上有關網絡與公共空間和社會運動的討論外, 還點上網上書寫與官方歷史書寫的差異, 可以變成日後更深入的研究議題.

沈偉男: 台灣的對抗媒體運動 – 以「與媒體對抗」為例

對網站的分析過於描述性, 沒有點出網上組織的媒抗運動與其他形成的組織有何差異, 亦沒有回到一些相關理論和概念脈絡進行分析.

Yeung Tat Ki: 同性戀網站動員

只能說是一個同性戀網站的內容簡介, 缺乏分析, 沒有用心研究當中的互動, 亦沒有處理網絡技術如何改變同性戀運動.

CHENG Kwan Yau, CHEUNG Ho Yee

是唯一一份以 Youtube 視像交的功課, 基本上簡介了撐普選網上動員的工作. 雖然剪接不算很突出, 但有用心訪問與製作: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbN472cHFPM

Choi Chun Lam: 高登文化

一個有趣的題目, 亦能描繪出高登討論文化的一些特色, 若能多講述這些文化如何影響主流政治文化會更有意思, 當然, 這涉及更廣泛的研究和訪談.

以下是報告的安排, 有問題亦請於課堂前後找我談. 每個報告15至20分鐘, 每組回應/提問10-15分鐘, 討論對談15分鐘

Nov 12

報告: Andy Law: youth.gov.hk (Nov 12)

Nov 19

報告:徐亦彤：中國政府對網絡的攻防戰 (Nov 19)
回應/評論: 梁燕明﹑楊明渭﹑馮潤和﹑溫健龍：言論自由和網絡審查

Nov 26

報告: 蔡中霖：高登討論區 (Nov 26)
報告: Chu Thanakom, Kwong Ying Ha: Youtube 對香港政治的意義
回應/評論: 潘展亮，蔣韻之，王燁，李薈：俠客與暴民

報告: 陳智珩，延鑫丹，王婧輝：新型態的網路資訊交流服務平台: 百度與雅虎 (Nov 26)
報告: Chan Tsz Ping, Leng Ka Ling, Lui Siu Hong: 財經 blog
回應/評論: Lam Mei Kwan(Rachel), Leung Cheuk Yee(Zoe): 互聯網對知識定義的挑戰
回應/評論: 廖曉晶, 成韻楨,吳曉峰,黃雅蘭：Yahoo! 知識與Web 2.0

報告: Choi Chu Wai, Lai Ka Chun: Second Life (Nov 26)
回應/評論: Chan Yuk Fung, Mak Chi Lik, Lau Ming Wai: facebook

報告: Chan Ching Lok, Ho Chun Kit, Wong Ka Yi: Intellectual property rights (Nov 26)

Dec 3

報告: 馮建瑋, 薛健鋒, 何健豪: 香港獨立運動 (Dec 3)
回應/評論: Tsui Wai Hang, Tang Ho Kin, Gerard: Epoch Times

報告: Lam Yuk Kwan, Ng Sui Lun, Sheung Gar Ming: Liberal party and its internet forum (Dec 3)
回應/評論: Lau Chi To, Siu Tsz Choi, Wong Luen Kuen: Civic party radio station
回應/評論: Cheng Kwan Yau, Cheung Ho Yee: U.S election mobilization

報告: Chan Tsz Kin, Kan Tik Yeung, Kong Wai Ming: CUHK student mobilization (Dec 3)
回應/評論: Kong Sze Kit, Lei Hou Ieong, Leung Hoi Yan, Mok Pui Ha: discuss Hong Kong

報告: 楊達祺：同性戀網站與動員 (Dec 3)
報告: Lam Kwan: Star ferry and Queen’s pier’s mobilization
回應/評論: 范沁榆: 舊區電視
回應/評論: Audrew Shum: 媒抗

就著專題研究, 若有問題, 可於星期一 11:00 am – 1:00pm 於政政系 315 室找我談; 又或可於下課後找我, 但請事前預約. owlam@yahoo.com

很多同學對政治與社會內涵的研究問題未能掌握, 以下是我與其中一組的一些解釋:

我再詳細看過你們的報告, 你們花了很多時間去做, 從描述雅虎知識的特色方面, 的確很詳細. 可是, 其實這些特色 (準確性, 權威性), 其實並不需要透過問卷去獲取, 可以視為研究的前題. 若要問一個社會/政治上重要的問題, 要涉及互聯網上的主體. 我先舉一個不是互聯網的例子:

假設我們問的問題是: 21世紀的香港女青是否比20世紀90年代的瘦? 然後我們做1000份問卷去證明這一點.

問題: 這些問卷大概是1000個普通市民的整體觀感 (impression), 從科學上大概會被人質疑. 可是, 我們大概可以從一些既有的身體普查中得出同樣的結論, 而又準確. 若沒有既有研究, 我們可以從社會有這樣的觀感作研究前提, 但這只能是社會觀感, 不能被視為事實. 我們也無須以幾百份問卷去證明這 impression.

就著這個前題, 有價值的科學研究會從科學的角度去解釋為什麼現在的人普遍比以前的瘦, 可能是我們吸收食物裡的葡萄糖增加, 澱粉質減少, 前者較易燃燒, 後者容易累積成為脂肪. 科學的研究方法, 是比較現在和過去食物成份的比例, 而從比例再分析其對身體造成的效果.

而社會/政治分析, 則可以研究社會對肥瘦概念的理解的轉變, 瘦身工業的興起對人所產生的變化等等. (與人和制度相關)

肥瘦概念的理解, 可以透過問卷, 如自己有多高? 有多重? 自己的理想體重是多少? 是否滿意自己的身體? 是否試過減肥? 用甚麼方法? 有沒有想過要減肥? 為什麼? 會用甚麼方法減肥? 有沒有別人評論過自己的身體肥瘦? 等等… (請注意, 這問卷不是純粹的 impression, 而是經驗和數據, 譬如說, 你可以重他們的身高體重比例計出他們脂肪值是否正常).

至於瘦身工業, 則可以透過查公司行業註冊資料數據, 廣告文本分析和參與式的方法去研究.

回到你們的研究, wikipedia 的既有研究已就真確性等問題作出討論, 而 yahoo 知識, 從其運作的方法 (你可以透過參與式研究去描述其運作), 如不能更改編輯, 不能舉報失實等), 去說明其真確性的問題更大(這就可以是你們研究的前提). 接著, 你的問題是: 為什麼知識不那麼真確/權威, 卻會有那麼多人願意參與? 是否有一個 yahoo 知識的社群存在? 若有, 這社群為什麼會走在一起? 他們對自己的知識生產有何看法? 參與的快感 (pleasure)在那裡? 他們的態度, 對社會對知識的看法有何影響?

wikipedia 的知識社群追求的是準確性, 客觀性, 亦有一系列的規舉去達致. yahoo 的知識社群追求的東西明顯跟 wiki 不一樣.

社會與政治性的研究, 往往涉及人的互動, 當我們去探討知識的特質時, 亦不能脫離知識社群的互動.

梁燕明﹑楊明渭﹑馮潤和﹑溫健龍：言論自由和網絡審查，以世界各地相關事例作例證

１．研究問題不清楚
２．太多研究的網站，而且在不同的區域，到最後恐怕是一大堆描述而沒有深入分析網絡審查的不同方法，當中的搏翼．

楊達祺：同性戀網站與動員

獨立媒體雖然有關同性戀的討論，但不是同性戀社團的網站，不過也可以是社群對外的一個接口．若有可能，請找一些同性戀網站的組織者作訪問，了解虛擬社群對同運的影響．

Lam Mei Kwan(Rachel) & Leung Cheuk Yee(Zoe): 互聯網對知識定義的挑戰

請閱讀一些有關 wiki 對知識挑戰的文獻，以豐富討論．

徐亦彤：中國政府對網絡的攻防戰

very good work. you have done a good job to analyze the government’s power in the censorship, but for the netizen’s attempt to overcome the censorship is still in the descriptive level. you can try to generate different tactics among netizens.

蔡中霖：高登討論區

１．your framework is very good. if possible, please try to interview some golden members, who have actually participated in the political action to see how they evaluate their impact. and some readers to see why their choose to go to golden, and why they are not joining their rally team.

２．please do some theoretical or literature review on cultural jamming to enrich your discussion on golden culture.

陳智珩，延鑫丹，王婧輝：新型態的網路資訊交流服務平台: 百度與雅虎

很詳細的報告，若能循這方向寫，會是很有意思的研究．

潘展亮，蔣韻之，王燁，李薈：俠客與暴民

很好的題目，宜多看一些關於 internet mob 政治的文獻，使研究的理論和對話部份更強．

Chan Ching Lok, Ho Chun Kit, Wong Ka Yi: Can internet fight against the adverse effect brought by Neo-liberalism in protecting property right?

Wonder how are you going to estimate the political effect brought by the opponent? Probably you need to dig into the discussion report of the WIPO.

Lam Yuk Kwan, Ng Sui Lun, Sheung Gar Ming: Liberal party and its internet forum

Well structured research, try to integrate your finding and interview with your theoretical concern.

Tsui Wai Hang, Tang Ho Kin, Gerard: Epoch Times

A good research structure, please try hard to contact local editor. if you have difficulties, you can email me on this.

呂兆康，陳子平，梁嘉玲：財經 blog 對權威及知識的轉變

若你們的題目是財經, 請把知識的背景放回財經的脈絡或背景. 因為財經是若重資訊的領域, 與一般的知識分別很大.

馮建瑋, 薛健鋒, 何健豪: 香港獨立運動

結論與研究脫節, 網站的研究難以回答 “香港未能獨立的原因”, 頂多是這些網站如何塑造港獨作為香港政治運動的位置或光譜.

Chu Thanakom, Kwong Ying Ha: Youtube 對香港政治的意義

1. 你們所選擇的例子: 福佳始終有理, 不能純粹用 Habermas 的理論去理解, 而是一種 cultural jamming. 請借閱相關的書藉.

2. 除了訪問林忌, 可以就 “香港” 這個 tag 做一些內容/形式的 mapping, 看香港的 youtube 用戶喜歡放什麼到 youtube.

廖曉晶, 成韻楨,吳曉峰,黃雅蘭：Yahoo! 知識與Web 2.0

the political implication of your topic is yet unclear. if you are to focus on the transformation of the knowledge nature, i think you need a better literature review.

Choi Chu Wai, Lai Ka Chun: Second Life

good to see that your project is going on very well. you can also check in the google scholar to see the existing discussion.

期末報告及回應/評論 — 暫定

報告:徐亦彤：中國政府對網絡的攻防戰 (Nov 19)
回應/評論: 梁燕明﹑楊明渭﹑馮潤和﹑溫健龍：言論自由和網絡審查

報告: 蔡中霖：高登討論區 (Nov 26)
報告: Chu Thanakom, Kwong Ying Ha: Youtube 對香港政治的意義
回應/評論: 潘展亮，蔣韻之，王燁，李薈：俠客與暴民

報告: 陳智珩，延鑫丹，王婧輝：新型態的網路資訊交流服務平台: 百度與雅虎 (Nov 26)
回應/評論: Lam Mei Kwan(Rachel), Leung Cheuk Yee(Zoe): 互聯網對知識定義的挑戰
回應/評論: 廖曉晶, 成韻楨,吳曉峰,黃雅蘭：Yahoo! 知識與Web 2.0

報告: Choi Chu Wai, Lai Ka Chun: Second Life (Nov 26)

報告: 馮建瑋, 薛健鋒, 何健豪: 香港獨立運動 (Dec 3)
回應/評論: Tsui Wai Hang, Tang Ho Kin, Gerard: Epoch Times

報告: Lam Yuk Kwan, Ng Sui Lun, Sheung Gar Ming: Liberal party and its internet forum (Dec 3)

報告: 楊達祺：同性戀網站與動員 (Dec 3)

The Project report should be composed of the following parts: 

1. Context of your project – area of concern, theoretical concern, debate and discussion.

2. Description and questions – how can your project contribute to the above discussion?

3. Initial findings - comparsion? interview? mapping? observation? etc.

1. For those who’s names and projects haven’t appeared in the Project outline post, please send the outline to me asap. I need written record: 白紙黑字, 眼見為實. (owlam AT yahoo.com)

2. The Project takes up 30% in the course assessment. It will be evaluated according to the final project report by the end of the term (Deadline: December 3, 2007) . If the group failed to hand in the report on time, a grade would be give according to the progress report.

3.  The Project progress report should be handed in by October 29. The report should be an update of your research, for example, any reference materials you are reading for this project? if so how are they connected to your project? what is your initial findings (via interviews, observation, etc) to your questions or assumptions addressed in the outline? any theory or concept in this course help you to make sense of your findings? if so you how do you make the connection or how’s your case study contribute to the theoretical debate?

4. I will select a number of projects for an optional 15 -20 mins presentation in the class (a 10% credit from the 15% class discussion performance would be given to the presenters. )

5. In the final report, please specify the internal division of labour among the group members. For example, who is responsible for which interview? or who is responsible for literature review, etc. A grade would be given to the project as a whole, but each individual would also has a grade according to their task within the project.

6. All final project reports should be handed in with an electronic copy (hardcopy is welcomed but not necessary). No handwritten copy would be accepted.

So far, I have received 6 proposals. Below are some initial comments. For those who haven’t handed in the proposal, please send by email (owlam AT yahoo.com) or post it here by Oct 1. (you can login via cyberpolitics.wordpress.com/wp-admin). In the latter half of the semester (after mid-term), i will encourage some of you to make a 20 minutes presentation in the lecture.

1 馮建瑋, 薜健鋒, 何健泰: 香港獨立運動

很好的題目, 同學有認真思考虛擬的政治所處的邊緣位置, 亦很勤快大膽地提出研究多個地區的獨立運動, 我建議可以較深入地比較香港和台灣的虛擬獨立, 因為台灣獨立於台灣的本土政治, 沒有香港的那麼邊緣. 其他網站可以作為參照。

研究問題, 不應停留在 「成功」 和 「失敗」 的層次, 很難簡單地界定成敗。 可以透過比較香港和台灣看有/沒有實質政治力量支持的虛擬獨立運動的差異 (動力, 對獨立的理解, 網站目的, 網站產生的效應)。

在分析時, 亦可以與稍後課堂上會談到的「媒體」與社會運動扣連, 作一些理論對話.

2. Andy Law Yui Yin: www. youth.gov.hk

This is a very interesting topic. However, try to avoid being too descriptive in your research. I would suggest you to compare with another youth website and see the differences in government and commercial initiatives.

In framing your question, you can contextualize your discussion to hk government’s youth policy and see how the virtual project adds new element to the government’s framing of “youth”.

You can start with a description of the website: who are the users? what are the topics? how are they interacted with each others? any moderators and who are the moderators?

Then by comparing to other commercial driven youth website, try to point out the difference, and what’s the implications in the difference? and try to explain why by referring to and engaging with the discussion about the context of government’s “youth” policy and strategy.

Since the project is rather thick, you may want to team up with others, if not, just try your best to address the context. The theoretical background can be identity politics. We will touch upon this later in “power and digital divide” section.

3. 延鑫丹, 王婧輝, 陳智珩: 百度知道與雅虎知識

也是一個很好的題目, 但亦應避免太描述性, 或者說對兩個網站的描述是研究的第一步, 應嘗試解答一些較深的問題。若大家希望探究互聯網對「知識」的定義的挑戰, 可以嘗試探究這種答問的方法, 是一種如何定義知識的過程? 由誰來定義? 不同地方的特色? 這種對知識的新定義, 對傳統「知識」有何挑戰? 對人作為知識的主體, 有何新的理解?

在討論時, 可參考一些 wikipedia 研究的文獻. 這個研究可以放回 open source / knowledge 的實踐理論脈絡。

4. Lam Yuk Kwan, Ng Sui Lun, Sheung Gar Ming: forum.liberal.org.hk

A good topic. Can contextualize the discussion to the development of party politics in Hong Kong and see whether or not and how the website change the political culture (meaning interaction with the public, self understanding, strategy in political intervention, etc.) within the party, and how virtual interaction, in general changes the political culture in Hong Kong.

As for theoretical dialogue, you can bring back the discussion about deliberative democracy in the project.

Try your best to interview active users, webmaster and party staff who are responsible for the website project.

5. Lai Ka Chun and Chio Chun Wai: www.travian.com

It is good to see that you are trying very hard to integrate theory into your research. However, it seems that you have already made up some conclusions before you have actually started the research. Moreover, your application of theory is within the “virtual community” set of rule and interaction, without addressing whether or not and how the “virtual” interact with the “real” life and politics. So I suggest you to reframe your proposal with some open ended questions or assumption.

The virtual game you have picked up is related to village planning, you may like to describe how it works and why it is fun to play the virtual game (need to interview some players). “Fun” and “pleasure” is a significant domain in virtual game, and there are some discussion about the subversive aspect of “fun” to real life politics, in this case, it is related with the planning field.

There are certain “rules” in the game that defines a “prosperous” town, and players have to follow such “rules”, in what way the rules are the reproduction of existing developmental ideology? and in what way they contribute to the “deliberative democracy” in planning. And does the virtual game has implications to the real life politics (are the player active in discussing and participating real life planning issues?), how’s the line between virtual and real be crossed if the answer is “yes”.

Theoretical dialogue can be around “media and ideology” and “”deliberative democracy”.

6. 蔡中霖: 高登討論區

這會是一個很好的研究題目。但在展開研究前, 你要先觀察和剖析何謂「高登文化」。有些人會把高登的社群視為 internet mob, 這些講法是否成立? 他們為什麼會以這種方式介入社會議題? 他們所實踐出來的政治, 在香港整體政治裡處於什麼位置? 於哪些領域發揮作用?

研究可以與民主和社會運動的環節展開對話。

我對於project釐定題目上有些問題想問…

我們訂題目(e.g研究youtube,香港討論區等等)是否需要把他們拉成和政治有密切的關係?

還是以研究這種時下流行文化的方向去想呢?

by yeung ming wai(waiwai0323@yahoo.com.hk)

Please start to formulate your project.

Objective of the project:

1. apply theoretical and conceptual knowledge into studying and observing the Internet space
2. interaction between conceptual knowledge and practical knowledge
3. develop more skills and technical knowledge about the Internet

Project team: 1-4 persons per team.

Project type:

1.  a specific website to study or
2.  a specific area (such a blog, new media, forum or friending tool) to research upon or
3.  a website / Internet related proposal and demonstration (a proposal for a specific issue, such as tree monitor in campus or a netizen campaign for universal suffrage).

Time Frame:

By Sept 24:

- Team members fixed

- Initial project idea ready:

What is the website you are going to look into? or What is the area? or What is your proposal?

A brief description (5 sentences) on why the team wants to work on this topic. For type #1 and #2, please write down questions that you want to research upon in this project (What do you want to know about this website or area?)

You need to specify your method: participatory observation? interviews (if so who?)

Specify your end product: a paper? a short video on youtube? a dummy website?

By Oct 22

You should have a brief progress report (1 page).

By Nov 19

An initial report should be submitted

Nov 26 or Dec 3

Project presentation (Optional)