Impressions
It’s fascinating to see how opinions about online communities have changed over the last decade. The older articles from this session provided interesting food for thought. For example, the article by Galston, “Does the Internet Strengthen Community?” pointed out that some researchers argued that, “…because the absence of visual and tonal cues makes it more difficult to see the pain words can inflict, the Internet reduces restraints on verbal behavior.” (Galston, 2000)
On the social networking sites I am a member of, or on forums I sometimes lurk on, I have noticed that when arguments get heated, there tends to be a no-holds-barred session of verbal sparring filled with invective harsh enough to make even Mel Gibson step back and say, “Woah, over the line mate.” Galston does continue on to say there is a lack of evidence that Internet speech is more antisocial than real world interactions (an observation that I try to remember when evaluating online interactions).
Although parts of the article were interesting, some of Galston’s conclusions about on-line groups were a little gloomier than necessary. My personal observations of on-line groups led me to disagree with Galston’s conclusions that internet interactions lead to voices not being developed, authority not being recognized, and there not being a sense of mutual obligation in online interactions. From 1999 through 2001 I was a member of a forum on a website dedicated to ghost story enthusiasts. At first much of the talk was strictly an exchange of supernatural tales of wonderment. But soon, regular contributors grew comfortable with each other and details about people’s everyday lives would leak into the conversations. Posters grew comfortable enough to discuss their problems, ask for advice, tell jokes, share recipes, and generally do the things that people in an offline community do.
I think there was a sense of mutual obligation that arose from these online interactions. Frequent contributors eventually became forum moderators based on votes by forum members. Those that became moderators won because they had developed a “voice” on the forum. These moderators were the recognized authorities of that particular online community. There was a quote in the LaRose article “Social Cognitive Explanations of Internet Use and Depression” that stated, “…even media lacking in nonverbal cues, including text-based e-mail on the Internet, may foster supportive relationships over time.” (LaRose, 2001) I tend to think this is true.
Other than the above quote, the most compelling thing in the LaRose article was the suggestion that new users of the Internet be offered support before they get too frustrated and give up on learning how to use it. Often, the library is the only place where certain kinds of communities are able to access the Internet. Because users from these communities might not be able to frequently access the Internet, there is the possibility their learning will suffer from the “years of unproductive effort,” warned about in the article. (LaRose,2001)
“The cost of (anti-)social networks: Identity, agency and neo-luddites” author Ryan Bigge included a great quote from another article that essentially said time spent on social networks like MySpace and Facebook turned free time into something that can be monitored and sold. Facebook and MySpace ask us to fill out profiles—ostensibly for the purpose of informing our friends—detailing our hobbies, likes and dislikes, jobs, and all kinds of other information. Although the information voluntarily put up on these sites is being sold to marketers, do users even worry about things like that?
I enjoyed the article “Online Social Networking as Participatory Surveillance” by Anders Albrechtslund. My usage of certain social networking sites is as, “…a way of maintaining friendships by checking up on information other people share.” (Albrechtslund, 2008) I have a lot of friends that come from different parts of the world; using social networks to keep in touch allows us to keep in touch in a much more convenient, up-to-date way. We undergo “participatory surveillance” because it allows our friends and family convenient ways to check up on us and make sure we’re doing ok.
There are some risks to keeping information about ourselves online, but Albrechtslund made a great point when he wrote, “…we should not let the awareness of these threats take over when we study online social networking.” (Albrechtslund, 2008) Online social networking will, and possibly already has shifted our attitudes toward surveillance in general. If we are going to be watched, we might as well make those watching see what WE want them to see. Empowering exhibitionism!
The last article I read was the one by Linton Weeks that described an internet community’s reaction to the Tweet of a bipolar woman venting about her toddler. Though the woman claims she was only venting, the community still found her comments disconcerting enough to have the FBI check up on her. My personal reaction to a Tweet like that, because I have no children and my heart is as cold as ice, would probably be to write it off as venting. Weeks points out that, “…people will respond to people who sound like they are in trouble—online or off.” (Weeks, 2008)
This leads me to the question inspired by the readings, "Will people respond to requests for help and will those responses be positive or negative in nature?"
Question
Because I didn't have much time this week to personally create a new account with a social networking site, I chose to comb a forum for examples that might answer my questions. Online gamers can be incredibly mean when it comes to newcomers. I selected a forum geared toward new players of the popular online game World of Warcraft. I randomly clicked on a link, slightly fearful that I would see a poor, helpless player being flamed into oblivion by experienced players.
What I found genuinely surprised me. Rather than posts deriding the player for being less experienced with the game, high-level players actually offered constructive advice in a non-judgmental manner. By helping a new player learn the game, the experienced users helped the player not to get stuck expending "unproductive effort." LaRose mentioned mentors for new Internet users as a necessary part of keeping them interested in learning how to use it; perhaps the same concept holds true in the online gaming world too.
This study could not have been done with material gathered offline because it's from an online forum from an online game. Furthermore, the same sampling of people from around the world, with the same interest in the same game, wouldn't have practical to obtain from offline sources. I'm interested in doing further studies on the social networks created through online gaming as the brief times I've spent in them have allowed me to meet an incredibly varied sampling of people.
Click to go to forum.
The World of Warcraft forums are consistently moderated by paid moderators, and though the post I link to doesn't have any moderator action in it, I suspect the comity displayed within is an indirect result of users being made to follow rules set up by Blizzard.
Bibliography
Galston, William A. (2000). Does the Internet Strengthen Community? National Civic Review 89(3), 193-202.
Weeks, Linton (2009). Social Responsibility and the Web: A Drama Unfolds. 8 January 2009. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99094257
LaRose, R., M.S. Eastin and J. Gregg (2001). Reformulating the Internet Paradox: Social Cognitive Explanations of Internet Use and Depression. Journal of Online Behavior 1(2). http://www.behavior.net/JOB/v1n2/paradox.html
Albrechtslund, Anders (2008). Online Social Networking as Participatory Surveillance. First Monday 13(3). http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2142/1949
Bigge, Ryan (2006). The Cost of (Anti-) Social Networks: Identity, Agency and Neo-Luddites" First Monday 11(12). http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1421/1339
In an OC there is a pretty open for people to taking control on moderating communication. Participant who can be considered by other participants as Subject Matter Expert (SME) with his/her contributions on the OC may leading the communication process better that the site administrator.
ReplyDeleteRecently, most of OC allow the developer to granted privileged to another person as a co-administrator of the community. It becomes more usual for a site or an OC to have more than one administrators.
Excellent point! First-hand experience has certainly shown that SMEs can become administrators if their contributions are constructive and continue the flow of conversations they participate in.
ReplyDeleteI like how you said "We undergo “participatory surveillance” because it allows our friends and family convenient ways to check up on us and make sure we’re doing ok." Have you ever had a situation where you wanted to refer to someone's online life in real life? Most Facebook status updates have some element of real life incorporated into them. I've had instances where someone will make a comment on Facebook and then instead of commenting back on Facebook I'll make the comment in real life. There always seems to be a certain amount of awkwardness when crossing that line. I guess this is just an interesting aspect of "participatory surveillance". Are there times when things said online should stay online and thing said in real life should stay in real life?
ReplyDeleteI find myself doing that too! It's interesting to see how social networks are changing how we interact with each other in those kinds of ways. It seems like the line is quickly becoming blurred between "online life" and "real life"; I have to wonder if younger generations weened on this kind of communication will even make the distinction between the two.
ReplyDeleteYes, part of my 'participatory surveillance' sometimes include commenting or inquiring my friend's online activity/update in real life, kind of a time saving mechanism of saying the 'what' part, but going straight to my own comment on the 'what' (event/update).
ReplyDeleteSometimes, as part of our online interaction, we might be ahead or behind our friend then things get awkward too. For example, in the latest email exchange, your reply was not read yet by your friend but you see him/her in real life and just went off explaining your reply. To which your friend will have a question mark expression on his/her face.
Sometimes, with such instant gratification culture developing, we (or just I) need to remember that not everyone checks their email/message/chat/tweets as incessant as I do.
Great observation. I've had awkward moments where friends don't check their social networks as often and I refer to their status updates (that they had long forgotten).
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that "mutual obligation" will arose from some online interactions, either in social network sites or public forums. For the latter case, I think one conditions is that there might be an incentive mechanism pushing the users to be more active and responsible; while another condition, like you said, there is a big chance "frequent contributors" will become forum moderators. To me, it means, the more time or pieces of information one devoted to the forum, the more feel of responsibility or obligation he/she is like to generate.
ReplyDeleteI think that public forums are different than social networking sites like Facebook or MySpace do. They seem to be more subject to the "flame wars" and general lack of manners, which may or may not govern their social life in the real world. A lot of this is due to the anonymity that forums and sites like them provide. The abusive interaction between individuals doesn't hit them as hard when they are hidden behind an avatar. I see much less of this rude behavior on social networking sites where what you say represents your real world persona. That is not to say that it doesn't occur, it just happens less frequently.
ReplyDeleteI really like your point about "participatory survellience". I feel that society as a whole has shifted to be more public. Sites like Twitter, which can be used as a tool to update people on your every move, seem to support this. While there are many people who still value their privacy, it seems like those who wish to share with the world are able to do so much easier.
Indeed, but keep in mind that Galston's article was written in 2000, when Web hype was enormously, and there was a lot of critical backlash. The key to your disagreement seems to be the threshold at which visiting and observing an online community changes into a feeling of membership and constructive participation. If you're interested in diving more deeply into this area, Google the phrase "legitimate peripheral participation", as well as lurking behavior, to see how some researchers have tried to map out this transition in online communities.
ReplyDeleteWhile you didn't create your own account this session as the assignment required, I'm glad you mentioned the fact that the WoW board is moderated, which tends to remove most of the interesting traces of interaction and conflict--it's in Blizzard's interest to create the impression of a harmonious community, and you may not always see evidence of moderator action. These boards are one of the avenues people explore when deciding whether to participate.
Erenst makes an interesting point that reminded me of something I often though when I was first getting into e-mailing in the late 90s. When we make phone calls to someone we know they heard the conversation because we are there actively talking to us. Through their responses we can change what we say to make sure we are getting across the point we are wanting to make. This can also be done in live chat and IMing as well. However, with e-mail unless there is a response we will have no idea someone has read our message. Today with live feed pages like FB and Twitter messages do not even need to be opened they just appear on our homepage. Now, back to my thought....I've always wondered why e-mails would not tell me when they have been read. It seems like it would be a simple to add an option that would tell me when an e-mail has been read or if it is still sitting in someones inbox. Have you ever seen anything like that? Potentially we could do the same thing with Facebook. I imagine it would be possible to get a list of every person who potentially viewed our post. But this would move surveillance to a whole new level.
ReplyDeletePhilip - I remember MySpace indicating whether or not an e-mail has been read. I definitely think an indicator that lets you know if a message has been read would help facilitate conversation via e-mail. I'd recommend letting you limit this feature to users in your contacts lists and friends lists.
ReplyDeleteKnowing that the other person knows you've read their e-mail but haven't responded yet, may instill a sense of obligation to respond. This would move surveillance up a notch, but it also might be a helpful motivator in keeping e-mail communication flowing. All I can really say is that the system worked well on MySpace and could certainly work elsewhere.