nettime/index.html
2016-07-09 15:27:04 +02:00

142 lines
5.4 KiB
HTML
Raw Blame History

This file contains ambiguous Unicode characters

This file contains Unicode characters that might be confused with other characters. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.

<html lang="en">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="+++/style.css"/>
<title>Nettime Survey</title>
</head>
<body>
<div id="ffframe" align="center">
<a href="figures/index.html"><h1>Nettime Survey:</h1>
<h2>A History of Debates within Critical Internet Studies</h2>
<img src="figures/Nettime.org-logo.png" style="width: 25em;"/></a>
<br>
<text>
<a href="figures/index.html"> -- Survey -- </a>
<h2>Introduction</h2>
<p>
This project aims to trace the evolution of debates with the field of critical Internet studies over the course of time through studying the Nettime mailing list.
</p>
<h2>Summary</h2>
<p>
While contemporary social media have been critiqued for their ephemeral effects on activist politics, the mailing list has proven an enduring venue for geographically dispersed communities to participate remain in dialogue over the course of decades. Founded in Amsterdam in 1995, the Nettime mailing list has played host to a community of activists and media artists and help to launch or establish the careers of a number of prominent new media theorists and Internet critics (including Geert Lovink, Lev Manovich, Matthew Fuller, Brian Holmes, Bruce Sterling, amongst others). Established in an era prior to the corporatization of the Web, over the course of its twenty years, Nettime has continued to discuss the Web in terms of the radical political possibilities with which it was imagined in its salad days.
</p>
<h2>Research Questions</h2>
<p>
<ul>
<li>List activity: As a mailing list, Nettime is popularly associated with mid-90s media activism, yet it continues to be active to this day.
<ul><li>When was Nettime most active?</li></ul>
</li>
<li>List vigour: A lists health may, perhaps, be seen as a function of the extent to which it is also a space for dialogue.
<ul><li>When was Nettime at its most dialogical?</li></ul>
</li>
<li>Outspokenness: Mailing lists like Nettime appear to be dominated by strong personalities.
<ul><li>Who have been Nettimes most prolific contributors?</li>
<li>and how might one begin to periodize the list in relation to those personalities?</li></ul>
</li>
</ul>
</p>
<h2>Methodology</h2>
<p>
The object of study is an archived mailing list, a web interface to which is available online <a href="https://nettime.org">nettime.org/archive.php</a>. The objective is to scrape all the data in order to query the database in relation to the research questions.
</p>
<h4><i>Data Gathering</i></h4>
<ul>
<li>
Tools are written in Python and can be found at <a href="https://github.com/gauthiier/nettime">https://github.com/gauthiier/nettime</a>
</li>
<li>
Scripts to crawl and aggregate Nettime's <a href="https://nettime.org/archives.php">online archive (nettime-l)</a> using custom <a href="https://www.mhonarc.org">MHonArc</a> scrappers have been devised.
</li>
<li>
An archive of all Nettime's emails in both custom json and legacy <a href="http://www.qmail.org/man/man5/mbox.html">mbox</a> formats has been produced.
</li>
</ul>
<h4><i>Visualization</i></h4>
<ul>
<li>
Consistent with the 90s-era origins of the Nettime list, time series data analytics were graphed in a series of simple bar graph using Python's numpy, pandas and matplotlib packages.
</li>
</ul>
<h2>Findings</h2>
<p>
In consultation with Geert Lovink, one of the lists founders -- and the most prolific poster, by far -- we discussed our data and identified a few unexpected patterns, namely:
</p>
<ul>
<li>
that, when assessed in terms of the number of posts over time (list activity), that:
<ul>
<li>
the list paradoxically grew in 2000 subsequent to its having become a moderated list -- a major controversy, famously chronicled by Lovink (03)
</li>
<li>
that, as expected, the list activity diminished in 2004 -- which coincided with the birth of social media, and blogs
</li>
<li>
that there was a spike in activity in 2011, that could be explained as corresponded with the global surge in activism in that same year
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>
that, when assessed in terms of relative number of replies over time (list vigour), that:
<ul>
<li>
Nettime has steadily become a more dialogical space
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>
that, when assessed in terms of the most prolific contributors over time (outspokenness), that:
<ul>
<li>
different figures can be seen to be dominated the years and that, presumably this might offer an entry-way into periodizing the times of Nettime
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<h2>Further Research</h2>
<ul>
<li>
To our mind the content of the posts and conversations in Nettime is, in fact, what makes this list of particular interest from the perspective of new media studies. To this end, future work could analyse the content of the list, filtering twenty years of posts, in order, for example, to identify the most controversial. Another interesting question has to do with periodizing the eras or times of Nettime, in terms of who were the dominant figures in different periods and how might they have clustered into cohorts.
</li>
</ul>
<h2>Keywords</h2>
<p>media art history, mailing list analysis, media activism, mapping debate</p>
<h2>Team Members</h2>
<p>David Gauthier, Marc Tuters</p>
<h2>References</h2>
<p>Geert Lovink <em>Dark Fiber: Tracking Critical Internet Culture.</em> MIT Press: Cambridge: MIT Press, 2003.
</text>
</div>
</body>
</html>