Literacy, by definition is regarded as “competence or knowledge in a specified area”. Although often considered solely in reference to print (reading and writing), literacy can refer to one’s knowledge of almost any given subject matter or activity. Network literacy, as highlighted by Adrian Miles this week is the ability to participate and engage with knowledge networks. This has well and truly become embedded within internet culture. It is important to break down contemporary ‘taken for granted’ human activities, in order to understand the depths of such implicit knowledge. Basic instances such as recognising: types of media on the internet; the format of blogs or forums; hyperlinks; comment fields and tags are all necessary points to ponder upon in the discussion of network literacy as a term. Wondering off topic slightly, I really appreciate how both in writing and the symposiums, Adrian challenges many aspects of contemporary day to day life that we commonly accept as given parameters. For example, in the symposium in week 2, he hypothesised one’s ability to receive knowledge from a book by breaking down the practice into its basic qualities that we happily accept as a given. Thus, Adrian demonstrated the importance of evaluating network literacy in the same way.

It seems network literacy, in contrast to print literacy is heavily focused on the advantages of group participation and collaboration. The ability to easily comment on the work of others, share knowledge with one another in a flash and control how material is located, allows users to learn from each other and receive feedback in real time, 24/7. So to engage with such notions of the sharing process of network literacy (and to gather a couple of sneaky marks), here’s a shout out to Kenton Reeder, who’s blog you should definitely check out for a cynical giggle.

Stay tuned.

Nate