Wikipedia: My reaction to the action.

Needless to say, Wikipedia is an adventure in and of itself. Despite what my freshman English professor thought, Wikipedia is great! While some may not consider it scholarly thereby discrediting its sources, Wikipedia can actually be considered so because it is peer reviewed. While it is not reviewed in the same manner as scientific journal, the author of an article may never really know who will read his or her article, therefore motivating him or her to create the best article possible. As a folksonomy, Wikipedia is a means by which to classify ideas and symbols. All articles are subject to community standards and guidelines; however some poor articles do slip through the cracks. But what it so great about Wikipedia is that it fosters critical thinking; that anyone who may be reading a given article can question the truth behind it and make adjustments accordingly.

To be honest, it was hard to find something that was not already contained in Wikipedia's archives. Instead of writing a new article I decided then to add to a previously existing article. But before I did so, I conducted an experiment or what I like to call a wiki-periment. I found an article about Long-Term Potentiation, which in biological psychology terms refers to a learning process and/ or a reinforcing effect that is aided by the synaptic plasticity of a neuron after simultaneous firings of that neuron take place. I wrote about 100 words of meaningful well thought out text that was not in the original article which I thought was very relevant to the topic. Obviously I was wrong seeing that it was only two hours after I posted my "revision" that someone deleted it. I was frustrated and a bit disappointed and I could think of no reason why someone would delete a perfectly pertinent and verifiable addition to an article. Perhaps it was the person who wrote the initial article, I do not know. All I do know is that someone thought I was wrong, while I was not! I do not think that complete text and paragraphs should be able to be deleted from articles. Rather, if a person feels the need to revise and article they must keep the same sense of material and stay true to the intent of the article. I also feel that there should be a higher power that governs whether or not a piece of information should be kept or discarded. In the current manner, any person can go around deleting facts and details simply because they are too stupid to initially grasp the concept.

On a lighter note, my recent Wikipedia contribution in regards to behavioral and neurological control of thirst is still alive and well. In fact, this past week, I checked to see if anyone had modified or deleted it several times a day. In my case, neither of the aforementioned occurred. I was surprised that no one had at leas edited my submission, but perhaps it was just that good? Please excuse my arrogance.

I felt that this project was very useful for it helped me to understand even more the concepts and ideas that we have learned in class. For me, there is no greater way to learn about something than to take part in it, and I came away with a new understanding of both folksonomies and online communities. While this was an extra-credit project, it may even be beneficial to a future class that this be a mandatory project. It was not strenuous, yet it cannot be described as easy. It required research and careful attention to articulation and planning. If I were to rate this project in terms of its ability to teach and reinforce, I would give it a ten out of ten. It made me relate preexisting knowledge to new models of classification and brought about unplanned situations where the only constant variable was the outcome; sharing knowledge.

The Internet is all about people in funny hats making things that people like.

Picture yourself logging onto your favorite website whether it be news, gossip, or online shopping. After a series of clicks, you search through the site and when you feel content that you have not missed anything you log off your computer. Now, imagine that you go back tomorrow and your favorite website is blocked or no longer provided by your ISP. What's up with that?

According to the Organization for Econmic Cooperation and Development the average American internet user pays about 12 dollars for one megabit-per-second of online downloading. Similarly, recent research performed by Kagan Research found that over the past nine years, major telecom organizations have spent a whopping 105.3 billion dollars upgrading their services and in the words of Ed Whitacre, CEO of AT&T, " . . . for Google or Yahoo or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes free is nuts." He probably thought this up while riding in the back of his Maybach.

Well if you're one of those very special few who have missed the boat on this issue, you are sadly uninformed. The issue of Net Neutrality is rapidly spreading on the forefronts of national policy. It has passed the House of the Representatives and reached the Senate. And as Net Neutrality gains widespread publicity, its opponenets and supporters getting their pitchforks and sharpening their axes. This won't be pretty!



As described in the video, the way the internet works today is that everyone is on the same playing field, that is, we all have equal acces to the internet and its applications. In addition, everybody's website, whether it be NBC or MySpace, gets the same speed and quality. However, large multi-billion dollar corporations such as Time Warner, Comcast, and Verizon want to change this by offering better services only for those who pay them high royalty fees. Does that sound fair to you? Why should the internet be commodified even moreso than it is already? Is there really a need for fast lanes on the information super highway or are these telecomm companies just fishing for away to get out of the red?

In 2006, Vinton Cerf, co-designer of TCP/IP said in a congressional speech pertaining to
Net Neutrality that,

"The remarkable social impact and economic success of the Internet is in many
ways directly attributable to the architectural characteristics that were part
of its design. The Internet was designed with no gatekeepers over new content or
services. The Internet is based on a layered, end-to-end model that allows
people at each level of the network to innovate free of any central control. By
placing intelligence at the edges rather than control in the middle of the
network, the Internet has created a platform for innovation. This has led to an
explosion of offerings -- from VOIP to 802.11x wi-fi to blogging -- that might never have evolved had central control of the network been required by design. "Many people will have little or no choice among broadband operators for the foreseeable future, implying that such operators will have the power to exercise a great deal of control over any applications placed on the network . . . As we move to a broadband environment and eliminate century-old non-discrimination requirements, a lightweight but enforceable neutrality rule is needed to ensure that the Internet continues to thrive. Telephone companies cannot tell consumers who they can call; network operators should not dictate what people can do online" (Jones, 2007).

The definition of Net Neutrality is subject to personal preference and opinion. The Wall Street Journal (2006) defines it as "[having] to do with how much control the companies that build and maintain the Internet pipelines-mostly telephone and cable companies-should have over the content that runs through those pipelines, and whether they can force Internet content providers to pay for the privilege." Similarly, Tim Wu, a Law Professor at Columbia University refers to Net Neutrality as "a network design issue based on the idea that information networks are often more valuable when they are less specialized -- when they are a platform for multiple uses, present and future" (Jones, 2007). So, in short, Net Neutrality is actually more important than you might actually think.

Savetheinternet.com argues that "amounts and type of bandwidth usage need not be specifically charged for, beyond the basic and minimally discriminatory fees for access to ISP servers" (Wikipedia, 2007). In response to government anti-tiering regulations, large corporations have lobbied that "a lack of differentiated funding sources has slowed their own implementations of new technologies and also resulted in elevated prices for many of their customers" (Wikipedia, 2007). What are these funding sources other than a lame excuse for corporations to pick our pockets. You know what, even if I were deaf, dumb, and blind, I still would not believe those philandering usurpers who run corporate America, claiming to act in the best interest of the consumer.

In the end it is all about one thing, GREED.

According to Jones (2007), Researchers at the University of Florida's department of decision and information sciences found that “improving the infrastructure [of the internet] would reduce the need to pay for preferential treatment but the incentive for broadband service providers to expand and upgrade would decline if net neutrality ended.”

But what is the need for preferential treatment. There is select treatment on airlines and cruise ships, isn't that enough? Why must the one truly widespread and penetrated invention be proprietized and divided up to the point of it's extinction, for the selling of service will only lead to a differentiation in service. You see that guy who just pulled up next to you in the Ferrari, you'd better believe that he gets his email and his downloads faster than you.

Net Neutrality serves to maintain the ideals of freedom, equality, and liberty that our nation was built upon. To commodify the internet is the same as instating a literal caste system. Some might argue that the elite deserve better service. But why? Just because they have money and power does not mean that they are any better of a person. It is bias to those who can afford it and that is completely against the principals upon which the internet was created. The internet should be equally accessible to all and not subject to corporate welfare! The fact of the matter is that we pay large organizations to provide us with the best internet possible, anything short is unacceptable. It is their job to make advances in computer technology for their duty is to serve the consumer. By segregating access to the internet, these corporations are providing their consumer's with a disservice. Lets talk about business ethics, oh wait, those went extinct with the dinosaurs.

References

Efrati, A. (2006). A Battle for Control of the Web. Retrieved April 11, 2007 from http://wsjclassroom.com/archive/06sep/htop_netneutrality.htm#facts.

Jones, K.C. (2007). Net Neutrality Debate Remains Contentious. Retrieved April 11, 2007 from http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=198001557.

Network neutrality. (2007, April 11). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 20:07, April 11, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Networkneutrality&oldid =121830457

Well I guess we're infidels, plain and simple.

Journalism; who, what, where, why, when, and how. As a distinct authority that is manifest through writing, Journalism is one of, if not, the oldest record of important events. The ability to write has allowed man to document and trace events that have been most important and influential to the development of society. According to Wikipedia (2007) “digitalization of news production and the diffusion capabilities of the internet are challenging the traditional journalistic professional culture” (par. 2). The monopoly of the press is quickly coming to a halt as participatory and/or citizen journalism allows the general public to publish and prodcue stories in between the cracks of professional media outlets. It is through this differentiation that deliberation has evolved. The ability of the group or the individual to enact attitude change has come a long way since the days of yellow journalism. Now, ordinary people are on the forefronts of journalism, reporting and uncovering what you and I may or may not read in the New York Times. However it is important to note that Blogging is not subject to direct editing, but rather indirect, through the eyes of those who read them. Therefore it is crucial to think critically while reading a blog, is what this person is saying biased or balanced, true or manufactured?

Wikipedia (2007) classifies print journalism as characteristic of “newspapers, news magazines, general interest magazines, trade magazines, hobby magazines, newsletters, private publications, online news pages and others” (par. 4). It has been through the facilitation of online and digital journalism that information can now be quickly spread and disseminated. Furthermore it is key to note that the growth of blogging has effected the media through the ability of blogs to “create news as well as report it, and blur the dividing lines between news and opinions” (“Journalism”, 2007, par. 15).

Thursday, March 29, 2007. The New York Times reports that the “U.S. Iraq Role Is called Illegal By Saudi King”, similarly JOSHUAPUNDIT writes that “The Saudis bash ‘illegitimate occupation’ as Bush’s Sunni Pals show their true nature”; here we have the same story, but different perspectives. You would have to have been living under a rock if you did not know that the United States’ role in Iraq has been a hotly contested issue. The aforementioned describes the fact that as of late it has been subject to direct criticism of the Saudi King, King Abdullah.

After reading the Times, I found that the article was very formal, objective, and displayed both sides of the argument. This article, by Hassan M. Fattah is clear and concise in its objective; that is to report the news. I feel this article is heavily influenced by the hope for peace in the Middle East; a fantasy at best for the moment. Nevertheless, Fattah writes that “King Abdullah said the loss of confidence in Arab leaders had allowed American and other forces to hold significant sway in the region.” This is important to note because the Saudis have been long standing allies with America, and King Abdullah’s recent cancellation of his state dinner at the White House has only tainted the disintegrating relationship between the two countries. Hassan also writes that Abdullah has “not publicly spoken so harshly about the American- led military intervention in Iraq before, and his alliance with Washington may be less harmonious than administration officials have been hoping.” This article concerns itself with the differing opinions of both governments rather than the putrid backlash that is sure to come. Similarly, I find it very interesting that Saudi interest views Israel soil as Arab soil as is written in the article. I find international politics to be somewhat interesting, like a chess game naturally. “The Saudis have seen that the ball is moving into the court of the democrats, and they want to extend their hand to the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi.”

On the other hand, JOSHUAPUNDIT’s blog is much more informal and seemingly more direct in its approach. After reading this blog I found it to be very unwavering in its focus. It was not characteristic of traditional media per say, but more subjective and analytical. It is catered to a particular viewpoint while at the same time provides enough background information to sustain an understanding. In their blog, JOSHUAPUNDIT writes in response to several comments made my King Abdullah that “unless they need us infidel slaves to take out Saddam or something.” Here JOSHUAPUNDIT mocks and takes advantage of the stereotype of westerners in the eyes of Arabs, that we are infidels. I highly doubt that I would read that in the New York Times, in fact, I did not. So no longer does freedom of the press mean those who have a press (Gilmour, 2004), but moreso who has a computer and access to the internet which almost everyone does. So journalism is no longer exlusive to Big Media, but rather the average who has some computer skills. The wroter also refers to King Abdullah as “the poster boy for the Bush administration.” Rightfully so, if that was written in the New York Times there would be serious reprocussions. First of all, if it even made it into print, not only the person who wrote it, but the person who allowed it to be published would most likely lose their job, hypothetically speaking. It is only on the internet that there is true freedom of the press. Not to be confused though, while some blogs are subject to an editorial hierarchy, “the editorial function has been adopted not just by bloggers, but by a host of new kinds of online news operations. Some peer-reviewed news sites, such as the collaborative Kuro5hin, which describes itself as tech­nology and culture, from the trenches, are doing interesting journalism by any standard, with readers contributing the essays and deciding which stories make it to the top of the page” (Gilmour, 2004). That is a very good point, that while it is important to moderate what is written in blogs, peoples’ minds and opinions cannot be controlled.

References

Gilmour, D. (2004). We the Media: Grassroots Journalism by the people, for the people.
Retrieved March 29, 2007 from http://download.nowis.com/index.cfmphile=WeTheMedia. html&tipe=text/html.

Journalism. (2007, March 28). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 18:31, March 29, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Journalism&oldid=118575756.

North Carolina Mountain Dreams: Dozens dead after Iraqi police go on killing spree | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

North Carolina Mountain Dreams: Dozens dead after Iraqi police go on killing spree Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

Lets Adopt: Even the Celebrities are doing it!

The Buffalo HodgePodge defines itself simply as "a melting pot of ideas about our world, nation, and hometown.” It is a blog where community is both fostered and developed through online interaction and offline action. The Buffalo HodgePodge is a member of the WNYmedia.net conglomeration; the bloggers' pseudonym is Buffalo HodgePodge and his or her e-mail address is also present. The earliest recorded archive was June 12, 2006; the initial conception of the Buffalo HodgePodge. Technorati has ranked the Buffalo HodgePodge 138,722 with 264 links from 31 blogs. In my opinion, the Buffalo HodgePodge is an informal blog used to discuss prurient issues. From Wal-Mart woes to Sabres fever, the Buffalo HodgePodge offers an excellent mix of popular and political culture. It incorporates well into the public sphere, however with some topics lacking frequent posts it may be evident what this blogger enjoys doing most, or least. However, with a plethora of links to “all things Buffalo”, the Buffalo HodgePodge also serves to connect other blogs present in Buffalo’s sphere of influence. As I have alluded to in earlier posts, blogs are a great example of participatory journalism, Where people like you and me gather the facts and tell the whole story, without bias. As I began reading the Buffalo HodgePodge, I quickly became aware of its intent. That is, not to criticize or belittle, but rather to report and define. I will say with confidence that the Buffalo HodgePodge does not interpret, for everything that us posted is without bias. You see, most blogs are uncensored by the media and are not subject to corporate welfare or partnerships. In the same sense, the main duty of “political” blogging is to educate and raise awareness of what people would not know otherwise.

I also found the Buffalo HodgePodge to be very concerning of issues important to our hometown; ironically Super Wal-Mart and Super Target. It were these posts and similarly those about Medicare and Healthcare that generated the most comments. For example, in the post relating to Western New York’s hospital debate, Steve writes “With that, DeGraff might still be an appropriate consideration for closure, as North Tonawanda-area citizens still would have relatively easy access to Kenmore Mercy to the south, and Niagara Falls Memorial or Mount St. Mary’s to the north, and Millard Fillmore Suburban to the east.” To be honest, Buffalonians could probably care less about lobbyists than other prinicpal issues such as the economy.

Without people politics do not exist. It is people who breathe life into politics, converting ideas into legislation and law. However, in my opinion politics serve to emasculate public opinion through the bolstering of agendas and policy. Politics also become instated through discourse and translation. Therefore if there were no people to discuss, argue, or simply agree to disagree, politics would have a short half life. In Thornetone’s article (2002) Mark Surman writes that “massive and positive social change will emerge from the introduction of a single, discreet [sic] communications technology. . .” (p. 6). With that in mind, could not blogging be that very communication technology that transcends society to become one of the most influential communication mediums known to exist? Thornetone (2006) also goes on to say that “the role of traditional media (television, magazines and newspapers) in modern democracy is increasingly problematic, and serious questions have arisen about its capacity as a site for political criticism or rational debate (p. 9). That is where blogs shine. Bloggers are not worried about making their contributors and sponsors happy, if anything blogs are out their to stick it ot the man. Take for example “Baghdad Burning” which brought out the secrets and true events occurring at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. I cannot innumerate that idea that blogs raise a serious question; that journalists should interact with the audience and reflect the desires of the group through non-commercial methods. Blogs allow people to play an active role in collecting, reporting, analyzing, and sharing information. I feel very strongly that blogs do in fact affect politics due to their ease of use and its promotion of practical reflection.

The internet also allows for convergence through its profound effects on members of a network or a group. According to Entman, the media frames meanings into social events; giving us a guideline by which to interpret the information. On the other hand, blogs and the internet saw a remarkable increase in use for political avocation. For example a PEW study found that, “in 2003, the Dean campaign posted 2,910 entries on its “Blog for America” and received 314,121 comments, which were also posted there. As the result of one of those comments, 115,632 handwritten letters were sent from supporters to eligible voters in the upcoming Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary (Cornfield, 2005, p.2). Similarly, Cornfield (2005) also found that “the internet made a difference in helping campaigns decide who to contact, what to say, when to say it, and, crucially, who to send to say it” (p. 5).

In closing I would like to leave you with something to contemplate.

Cornfield (2005) says that “The more citizens use the internet, the more they might expect from campaigners and political journalists: rapid responses to information searches; a multiplicity of perspectives available on controversies; short and visually arresting promotional messages; drill-down capacities into referenced databases; more transparency from, and access to, institutions and players. Meanwhile, on the supply side of the political equation, candidates, groups, and parties now have models for how to use the internet to raise money, mobilize voters, and create public buzz. The new benchmarks established in 2004 could well be matched and surpassed in 2008” (p. 7).

References

Cornfield, M. (2005). The Internet and Campaign 2004: A look back at the campaigners. Retrieved March 25, 2007 from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/.

Thornton, A. (2002). Does Internet create Democracy? Retrieved March 25, 2007 from http://www.zip.com.au/~athornto/thesis_2002_alinta_thornton.doc.

Online Communities: All for One and One for All

Computer mediated communication requires three things, a host, a computer, and an internet connection. Computer mediated communication is exactly as its name prescribes; communication that is influenced by technology. We can typically find the greatest amount of computer mediated communication in the midst of an online community and vice versa. An online community, like a present day figurative community is an important factor for interaction, for without a community there would be none. Similarly, lack of community equates a lack of communication. I will simply define an online community as a group of hosts that takes part in communicating, interacting and sharing information in order to advance that status of their group. In my own opinion, I feel the proprietary purpose of online communities resides in their ability to create a folksonomy rather than to facilitate a conversation or to entertain. So while AIM, e-mail, and online gaming are all valid examples of online communities, I feel that they fall short of their true potential.

Blogging is a new form of computer mediated technology which ranges from live online journals to weekly updates. If we simplify blogs to the past, they are simply diaries which are not kept private by lock and key, but rather through community in that our membership to community A gives us direct representation. It gives us status which derives credibility. If I am a member of community A, I can read blogs from community A and likewise, interact with blogs from other communities. Blogging communities are large in number and vary in the content they provide. For example blogger.com, livejournal.com, and xanga.com are all online communities that offer similar, but different results. As its name says, blogger.com is meant for blogs, plain and simple. On the other hand, live journal is a little less structured and focuses more on telling people about your day, why anyone would want to, I do not know. Perhaps it is voyeurism? Similarly, Xanga .com allows you to post pictures and write about past experiences. To me blogger.com is more formal whereas live journal and Xanga are less prescribed. However it is necessary to consider each blog site as only part of the total population, that each blog contributes its share to the well being of that group and serving the greater good.

So how exactly do blogs get noticed and spread through out online communities. Through tagging of course! Unlike Wikipedia which seems to be representative of a formal folksonomy, blogging achieves the same results in a similar manner. At the end of each blog there is a line for tags, the more tags you use, the greater your chance of being cited or recognized, even I would be satisfied if someone created a link to my blog. A blog that concerns online communities will probably have tags ranging from online community, information, computer mediated communication, and groups etc. So, if a person is searching for information about those exact subjects, your blog will show up on his or her search screen. I recently discovered Google blog search, which allows a person to find blogs on any subject just by typing in a keyword such as apple or candy. Needless to say, I am stupefied that I actually found blogs about candy. But that just goes to show that communities of blogs also serve the function of a folksonomy, that it classifies information and makes it easily accessible; essentially written by the people or web 2.0. Still it is undoubtedly important to keep in mind the credibility of the blog that you are reading; who is or isn’t paying attention to it.

According to Wikipedia (2007), online communities serve as a platform for online interaction by means of the Internet (par. 2). Online communities consist of both strong and weak ties, but it is the idea of belonging and forging relationships that leads scholars to believe that online communities facilitate relationships and the strengthening of the group (“Virtual Community”, 2007). Different group memberships require varying levels of participation which are established themselves in the form of an unwritten social code governing each community (“Virtual Community”, 2007). Therefore, “new communication technologies can both draw people together into cohesive communities of interest and further atomize them as they retreat deeper into tribalism” (Fernback & Thompson, 1995, par. 18). Let’s examine tribalism. Tribalism can take on many different forms ranging from simulated group membership to actual group membership. Tribalism concerns itself with the group rather than the individual. So those groups with an abundance of strong ties often disenfranchise those without the opportunity to become a part of that group. Here it is important to note that the ideal of tribalism has diminished in the western world, their presence has not (“Tribalism”, 2007). Nevertheless it seems to me that despite this emerging class system and steadfast concept of the group, blogging communities still have their sights on the advancement of the group and sharing of information rather than country club exclusiveness.

The kind of blogging I take part in currently lends itself to a community where I do not have a lot of strong ties. No one has linked to my blog or commented outside of class. So I would say my blog has little influence in the public sphere. It would take much more of an effort on my part to be recognized despite the fact that week after week I work hard to present an effective, meaningful and interesting blog. Other than my grade, blogging leaves me with no direct feeling of accomplishment. While I am writing as if others are reading, how do I know they are? Implied influence does not always lead to actual scrutiny on the behalf of others. But the effects of blogs such as Where is Raed, and Baghdad Burning have been far reaching in their effects. While this blog may be in the same domain as Where is Raed it does not receive the same kind of publicity mainly because it is not prurient to present culture. Rather, relative to their influence, the aforementioned blogs are groundbreaking, characteristic of strong ties because these individuals are playing an active role in collecting, reporting, analyzing, and disseminating information. Blogging is an online community that prides itself in its ability to enact social change. Individuals in networks with many links are capable of having far reaching effects, which can only be enacted through the presence of a group. Without a group you are nobody, all it takes is one node or one sensory neuron to fire to cause a domino effect in the minds and opinions of seemingly distant others.

References

* Much of this blog came directly from the mind of Jacob Perrello. Retrieved March
19, 2007.

1) Fernback, J. & Thompson, B. (1995). Virtual Communities: Abort, Retry, Failure?
Retrieved March 19, 2007 from http://www.rheingold.com/texts/techpolitix/
VCcivil.html

2) Tribalism. (2007, March 13). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved
21:38, March 19, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Tribalism&oldid=114869455

3) Virtual community. (2007, March 18). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.
Retrieved 21:37, March 19, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Virtual_community&oldid=115921446

Online Gaming With an Online Identity

E-mail, AIM, blogs, online gaming, and forums are all just a few of the many online social networks present in today’s technology mediated society. An online social network is typically composed of a group of heterogeneous individuals. Due to the variation in the group, there are many more weak ties present in its structure. In accordance, the diversity of the group allows for deliberation in terms of the relevance and abundance of information an individual is presented with to form a conclusion. In an online network, each person has an online identity. According to Wikipedia, an online identity is a social identity crafted by network users through the use of fictitious and staged names (“Online Identity,” 2007). Credibility in an online community is an interesting topic which I will briefly explore. Social Power is traditionally reflective of an individual’s position in a family or a group of friends and is often corresponding in relation to a person’s economic power. People in subsequent levels of a group display relative characteristics based in regards to their group status. In relation to the online network as a communication medium, people who are in the lower spectrum of the group are often affected more by the beliefs of those with more power than those who are in similar standing.

In order to determine whether or not an online social identity has credibility we must look at three factors. According to Donath (1996), credibility is derived from the account name, the identity’s language and/ or voice, and his or her signature. It is also important to note that the content of an online posting has the potential to reveal a much greater sense of who is doing the writing. Therefore focusing on content with juxtaposition to online identity enables the viewer to “see how he or she [the author] interacts with others in the on-line social environment” (Donath, 1996). It is this action of interaction that is characteristic to ones true-self as opposed to a manufactured image. So to sum up, it is through an integrative information gathering system subject to the beliefs and views of unknown others from which credibility is derived.

I would now like to introduce what Wellman et. al. (1996) refers to as CCSNs or Computer Supported Social Networks. A CCSN is any form of a social network, where individuals can gather and share information. Wellman et al. (1996) highlight the social utility of computer networks as enabling people to “find support, companionship, and a sense of belonging through the normal course of CSSNs of work and community even when they are composed of persons they hardly know” (p. 220) CSSNs have a unique ability in that while there may be “an absence of social and physical cues, people are able to get to know each other on the net on the basis of their communication” (Wellman et al., 1996, p. 221). CSSNs are favored due to their low cost and positive benefits that enable individual to “participate within the comfort and safety of their homes or offices, at any time, and at their own convenience” (Wellman et al., 1996, p. 222). To correlate back to online identity’s, CSSNs are characteristic of many online identities coming together for a collective reason. So it is important to keep in mind that the goal of a collective is not the self, but the community in general.

While I have many online identities, there is one that I would like to focus on. While I do not consider myself a “gamer”, I will say that I am literally addicted to the PlayStation game called SOCOM U.S. Navy Seals. I have been playing this game for PS2 since its initial conception in 2002, and currently have every single update and new release of the game. So far, Socom has developed through four generations, getting both better and worse. It an online community in which many thousands of players join and play real-time, all across the world. Online game play is characteristic of being a Seal or Terrorist/ Mercenaries and trying to defeat the other team by achieving objectives and eliminating the opposition. Here is an example of what actual game play looks like.



My online identity is situated in a virtual community representative of skill and influence. The better you are, and the easier it is for you to communicate the more people like you and want to be your online friend. There are teams, also referred to as clans, of which I am part. Clans battle other clans to determine overall skill and ranking, which lends itself to credibility. Are you as good as you say you are or are? Since no one really knows each other outside of the game, people rely on skill to make friends and become part of a clan. The more you play and frequent particular rooms, the more people begin to recognize you and give you a certain level of credibility. For example, your rank is a good characteristic of your overall skill and ability. At one point, my name on Socom was in the top 10. Therefore, I had a lot of credibility, and still do even though unfortunate circumstances led me to loose my top position. However people still recognize my name and when comes down to the wire, literally have my back and I the same. The aforementioned circumstance was actually the theft of my name. Someone hacked into my account, stole my password, changed it and messed with my rank. However this person had no intention of sustaining my rank, so it dropped very low. While I was able to retrieve my name, it is a perfect example of insecure your identity really is no matter how secure it is believed to be. If someone is dead set on getting your information, they will find a way to do so. In closing, it can be argued that video games do have an affect on social presence or lack thereof. Credibility is not just about whom you say who are, but who you claim to be in congruence with what others believe you to be.


References

Donath, J., S. (1996). Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community. Retrieved February 21, from http://smg.media.mit.edu/people/Judith/Identity/Identity Deception.html

Online identity. (2007, February 15). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved February 22, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Online_identity&oldid=108207999


Wellman, B., Salaff, J., Dimitrova, D., Garton, L., Gulia, M., & Haythornthwaite.(1996). Computer Networks as Social Networks; Collaboration Work, Telework, and Virtual Community. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 213-238. Retrieved November 7, 2006, from JSTOR.

Stealing Information for a Living and it's like Taking Candy From a Baby

Disclaimer: All the hereby thoughts and views are my expressed opinions. They are in no way a reflection of my character. My opinions are not meant as personal attacks so please do not view them as such.

In a culture where information is held in such high esteem, why is it that we are displaying our whole life, our name, our age, where we live, and other personal information on websites such as FaceBook and MySpace? If you googled your name, what would you find? Anything you wouldn't want people to know or see? Chances are, they already have found that drunken picture you were trying to find. However in the Barbie world, where everyone cares so much about how others view them, it is not a surprise that you can pay web services to routinely check your personal information on the internet to ensure no one can see anything you don’t want them to. Nonetheless, in today's society, Internet privacy is as real to me as a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.

For the sake of simplicity, privacy can be defined as a false sense of security that is manifest through the appearance of being excluded from the view of others. It is temporary and relatively short-term, for someone, somewhere can see wat you are doing. Whether this exclusion is in a physical or spatial sense does not matter, but it essential that you keep in mind the nature of privacy as a commodity; easily tradable and highly commercial. According to a 2006 MSNBC poll, a majority of American’s are concerned about the fleeting nature of privacy. (Sullivan, ln. 9). Sullivan (2006) describes online security as transient and easily traceable due to the misuse of cookies and the onslaught of spyware (ln. 6).

If there were a program or product capable of safeguarding you and your family from hackers, on-line predators and identity theft, would you buy it? Of course you would. It would be stupid not to. However, no such security system readily exists and if there were you can bet it would not be a Microsoft product. Accordingly, such a program would limit the already slim majority of mundane internet tasks that we perform daily such as e-mail, instant messenger, online shopping, and online banking.



While it can be argued that due to the presence of a shifting and overlapping culture, one must learn to adapt to the new technology. This is rightly so, however that does not mean that we should go to every Tom, Dick, and Harry’s website and supply them with our email and mailing address. That is the equivalent of taping a “kick me” sign on your back. On the other hand not going on the internet at all to maintain your privacy is just about as useful as not going outside. If privacy to most people is simply being left alone, then why don't they go strand themselves on a deserted island. There is nothing more solitary than that. And if I may, I will correlate complete privacy to living in a bubble becase it undoubtedly leaves you socially disadvantaged.

While I am not one to go sharing my social security number over the internet, there are people stupid enough to do so. I cannot attribute their action to a logical thought process; therefore I must rely on base rate information to conclude their actions as stemming from a false sense of security.

I have never been a victim of identity theft nor do I know anyone who has. I am conscious not to give out my personal information unless it is absolutely essential. Today’s economy is characteristic of highly specialized advertising and marketing techniques. Consumer’s are no longer targeted solely in stores, but dorectly at home. The sole reason for the accrual of personal information, i.e. email and mailing address, your phone number, is to send you advertisements and get you to buy products you don't need. What a shock. Yet I digress.

I would first like to point out that no one can force you to surrender personal information, perhaps at gunpoint, but not in a retail store nor on the interent. But if you want the latest designer fashion straight from Paris, you may just have to type in your credit card number. Therefore, online shopping is like a mutual give and take that is conceeded by a sense of security stemming from big business. For example, you don't go to the mall expecting to have someone steal your wallet just like you don't shop online with the expectation that you will have your identity stolen. However, you can have your purse or wallet stolen at the mall just as easily as your personal information over the internet. How secure is online banking and online shopping. If someone was just that motivated, what stands in the way between your information and their greed other than a firewall and pass code encryption? TO make matters worse, what is stopping companies from selling or misplacing your information as has been done before by AOL, Second life, and Yahoo ("Internet Privacy," 2007)? Nothing. But the word is trust. We trust that our information will not be stolen for we assume that the company has set up a safe and secure website through which to do business. According to a 2006 Scam Response Report, "despite consumer advocate and media's best efforts, consumer's still respond to scams" (p. 1). Also, it would interesting to know that a study was conducted that examined several businesses and their level of activity in notifying customers of potential scams. To name a few, these companies ranged from Bank of America, PayPal, eBay,Auto Trader, and CitiBank. IN the end, out of all ten companies that were surveyed, seven of them were found to insuffiecently warn consumers about potential frauds ("Scam Response Reprt", 2006, p. 3)

Well, I guess we just have to hope that those people who we give our information t have enough common sense to know what to do with it. Absolutely NOT! You have to be diligent. If it feels like a scam, it probably is a scam. Use your better judgement. Just because it has all the bells and whistles doesn't mean it is legitimate.

References

Internet privacy. (2007, February 11). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 22:48, February 15, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Internet_privacy&oldid=107292821.

Scam Response Report. (2006). Retrieved February 15, 2007 from http://www.idtheftcenter.org/2006scamresponse.pdf

Sullivan, B. (2006) Privacy Lost: Does Anybody Care? Retrieved February 15, 2007, from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15221095/print/1/displaymode/1098/

Gift Economies for Christmas

What is the difference between stopping to help someone on the side of the road and editing an incorrect article on Wikipedia? Other than the physical sense of the action at hand, nothing. In both cases you are offering your service without the expectation of compensation. Such is the foundation of modern gift economies. While I am not the brilliant brain child behind Linux or Wikipedia, I have found myself contemplating the utility of an economy where no one profits? In today’s society it would seem as if a “gift economy” would be unsuccessful, but on the contrary; in congruence with the rise of web 2.0, more and more people are sharing information, goods, and services, building a new internet as never seen before. Kollock (1999) refers to a gift economy as “improving the technology of social relations.” I will simply define social relations as any interaction between individuals of similar or analogous communities. In a gift economy goods and services are provided without the expectation of receiving something in return (Kollock, 1999). A gift economy cannot solely survive in a capitalistic economy, but needs a host, and it is in an online community that a gift economy finds it niche (Kollock, 1999).

As ironic as it may seem, it did not occur to me until after I began writing this week’s blog entry that blogging is actually taking part in a gift economy. I can say this with confidence because I am offering my thoughts, opinions, and intellectual prowess for nothing in return. Just like editing a wiki, posting a blog is offering your insight and knowledge to the world, the effects of which have the possibility of reaching a widespread audience. As a blogger I expect no monetary compensation; however academic praise may be appreciated when deserved. Barbook (1998) says in his article that “the New Economy of cyberspace is an advanced form of social democracy.” When you think about it, the US economy no longer relies on manufacturing, but rather the transfer of proprietary information. Blogging is at its core, a public good that has taken its form in the shape of online interaction. Blogs are only smaller sub units of larger online communities; communities which make information available to the group as a whole, while still preserving it for latter use by a subsequent viewing audience (Kollock, 1999). In addition to their social utility, blogs in general do not require group specialization. However I would like to note than unlike a Capitalistic economy, where the self takes precedent, in a gift economy, what matters most is the welfare of the group. Considering blogs once again, everything that is written in a blog has the potential to be read by billions of other people. Therefore those individuals who write blogs not only have a responsibility to themselves, but the blogosphere. Similarly Kollock (1999) also notes that motivation to the group is spurred by both reputation and efficacy. That recognition no loner resides in the eye of the beholder, but rather the group.

But does the open source revolution really stand a chance at becoming a dominant economy of scale? According to Perens (1999) the basis of Open Source relies on “the right to make copies of the program, and distribute those copies, the right to have access to the software's source code . . . [and] the right to make improvements to the program.” All of which are already available through proper licensing channels. The notion of free software revolutionizes internet technology as we know it. Gift economies are quickly gaining popularity stemming from rapid development and ease of personalization (Perens, 1999). Blogs for example are only a piece of the pie, but constitute a rather large piece of it. Not only do blogs change the way we gather information, but also how we communicate and disseminate our own thoughts and opinions. In a society where so few believe they have a voice, blogs serve as a platform where individuals can stick it to the man . . . no strings attached.

References

Barbrook, R. (1998). The Hi-Tech Gift Economy. Retrieved February 8, 2007 from
http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue3_12/barbrook/

Kollock, P. (1999). The Economies of Online Cooperation: Gifts and Public Goods in Cyberspace. Retrieved February 8, 2007 from http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/kollock/papers/economies.htm

Perens, B. (1999). Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution. Retrieved February 8, 2007 from http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/perens.html
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/138/381705450_76881c9d55_o_d.gif

Qotw3: Copyrights and Alcohol: Always In Moderation

A copyright by definition is "is a set of exclusive rights regulating the use of a particular expression of an idea or information" ("Copyright," 2007). The first copyright law was put into effect by congress in 1790 and has been updated several times since ("Copyright," 2007). However it is now 2007 and to be required to abide by the statues and precedents of past laws in a constantly shifting and overlapping culture is both nonsensical and irrational. Today's economy can be characterized as being intangible, where day after day; millions of people are buying and selling information and ideas. But be careful, for that creative idea you just thought of may be protected by copyright law.
According to Ovalle (2005) "the purpose of [copyright] laws is to ultimately benefit the public by promoting the progress of science and useful arts" (p.1). Or in other words, to enhance knowledge and understanding. In his module, Ovalle (2005) also goes on to say that "the means of this promotion is in the creation of laws that give creators exclusive rights to their creations for a limited time" (p.1). I would first like to bring to the forefront of my argument the contingency and context in which I feel copyright laws are therefore in vain. As noted above, Dr. Ovalle describes copyrights as giving “exclusive rights” to the individual who created the good or service at hand for a limited time. Here I agree with Dr. Ovalle. I feel that copyrights are useful, but should only be enforced within a prescribed time period.
Article I, section 8 of the United States Constitution gives Congress “the power to enact statutes To promote the Progress of Science and Useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Rights to their respective Writings and Discoveries (“Copyright,” 2007). Once again we see “limited time”. Although this Article has been revised since its initial conception, it still serves as the premise for all copyright law. So if it is the basis for all copyrights why is “intellectual property” protected for a possible 100+ years? The Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998, also known as Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act proliferates the copyright’s effectiveness for an entire lifetime plus an additional seventy years for properties conceived after January 1978 (“Copyright,” 2007). I find myself perplexed. What more could the propagation of this bill pose to the promotion of the Arts and Sciences than a pitiful attempt at corporate welfare. It seems more to me that we are teetering on a slippery slope that is leading to the eventual quash of the original intent of copyright law; that a property be protected for a limited time only.
While I am a firm believer of giving credit where credit is due, I feel that copyright law serves only to impede the creative abilities of those individuals who infuse their surroundings with their imagination. Take for example, Walt Disney. According to Manjoo (2007), Lawrence Lessig refers to the merging pop-culture and creativity into something unique as “Walt Disney Creativity” for that is exactly what he did (p. 2). Of course Mr. Disney purchased the copyrights to everything he used, but to try and do that today would cost not only an immense amount of time, but also money. Be prepared, if you want to purchase say the exclusive rights to Spider-Man, get ready to shell out some serious cash.
Don’t be fooled, Record labels and media moguls are losing revenue and sales because they are not paying attention to the desires of the consumer. They can point fingers at file sharing and copyright infringement, but according to a study by Oberholzer-Gee and Strumpf (1995), the effect of file sharing has done relatively little to squander the sales of companies in comparison to economic conditions, distribution, and the social utility of other forms of media. Once again, this leads us back to copyrights and profit sharing. Who is or isn’t making money.
Lawrence Lessig of Stanford Law School raises a very interesting point when he speaks of free culture (Manjoo, 2007, p. 2). It seems quite apparent that the media and all its facets do not exist in a free culture. I feel that in the age of information where everyday billions of files are transferred every day, it is important to be aware of the restrictions on digital property. But also that there be an attempt to reform or at least in some way unify the properties of the media into a single conglomeration where individuals do not have to fear being sued for violating a copyright law they were not aware of. No matter how you look at it, information needs to be brought into the public domain. It is our job to better society with a structure capable of sharing information appropriately.

References

Copyright. (2007, January 31). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved February 2,

2007, from http://en.wkikpedia.org/w/index.php?title=Copyright&oldid=104668499

Manjoo, F. (2007). The mouse who would be king. Retrieved February 1, 2007, from
http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2004/04/08/copyright_culture/index.html

Ovalle, C. (2005). An Introduction to Copyright. Retrieved February 1, 2007 from
http://sentra.ischool.utexas.edu?~i312co/1.php

I wish Technorati would work!

Technorati Profile

Quantum what!!!???

The man pictured to the left is none other than Peter Shor. You may inquire as why he is important, which you rightfully should, for it was this man who, in 1994, devised an algorithm that enabled quantum computers to determine the factorization of large integers. You may also be asking yourself how that has affected today's internet. Well in short, Peter Shor's interest in quantum computing led to a groundbreaking discovery that helped to enable enhanced web security.
Peter Shor; a theoretical computer scientist, was made famous for his work on quantum computation. He is responsible for Shor's Algorithm, which at that time, allowed quantum computers to determine the factorization of large scale numbers at a very high speed. The basic principle of quantum computation lends itself to describing data as a composition of quantum circuits; which are made up of qubits and their varying states. I meant for that just as an introduction; if I were to divulge any deeper I would not only confuse you, but myself.
What is most unique about the Shor Algorithm is that it allows quantum computers to decipher code at a much faster rate than any other conventional computer at that time. A classical computer is a machine that has memory made up of bits, typically a 1 or 0, and computes by sending bits from its memory to logic gates and then back to memory. So instead of sending information in a binary format, quantum computers communicate via qubits, which can hold a 1, a zero, or a combination of the two. This makes quantum computers, in essence, a supercomputer capable of greater speed and operation on a much more complex level a conventional computer.
The factorization of large integers is utterly impossible with an ordinary computer. On the other hand, quantum computers can solve problem of this magnitude quite easily and quickly. In turn, this ability allows a quantum computer to "break" most, if not all of the cryptographic systems in use today. However it is all contingent upon a relatively fast algorithm, Shor's Algorithm, for solving the problem. In particular, most of the popular public key ciphers that are in use today could be much more quickly broken, including forms of RSA, which is used to protect secure Web pages, encrypted email, and many other types of data. Therefore, decrypting the RSA code would have significant ramifications for electronic privacy and security.
Thanks to Shor’s discovery of an algorithm capable of deciphering such complex code has since led to increased security measures and means by which they are created. Today, we can increase the security of an algorithm like RSA by increasing the key size or the size of the algorithm that is used to encrypt the data. Computers have since been created that are capable of producing such code. Following a single paradigm, these computers must have more bits than the number of qubits in the largest quantum computer. This is to ensure that no quantum computer can decrypt the code that was used. As opposed to RSA codes of the past, the ones used today have key lengths that exceed the storage capacities of quantum computers. However, the only downside is the cost of computational time.
But let’s take a closer look at some real world examples. Large corporations and Universities have an intranet that is availiable through a local area network (LAN). When we log into UBlearns or our web mail we are often logged in using a secure encrypted access to web mail. This encryption ensures secure access which is made available only to those with authorization. These massive RCA codes prevent hackers from obataining personal information. Also, what about online banking? Our access is also encrypted when we go online to pay bills or simply check your account summary. The RSA encryption keys that are used to keep our information secure are updated on a regular basis as to ensure total security. For if someone steals our information, that person is inherently stealing our identity and can in fact use it for personal gain.
Peter Shor's discovery has lead to several important questions and realizations. If he had not developed an algorithm capable of deciphering such large code, would someone else have? I think someone may have, but what is important to focus on is that the internet is not static, but a constantly changing environment. It is due to his research that we now have greater security measures that are able to adapt and protect against those who, daily, attempt to steal confidential information.

An Introduction to Myself

My name, if you don't already know it, is Jacob Perrello. I am 20 years old and I am a sophomore communication major at the University at Buffalo. I am interested in getting an MBA once I complete my current degree so I can pursue a career in Marketing or Advertising.

I went to a small private school called Christian Central Academy from kindergarten to eleventh grade before moving to Hong Kong with my family. I played soccer since I was in third grade, but quit when I moved. Now I just play recreationally with a bunch of friends. My Dad was transferred to Hong Kong for his job so I finished my High-school education at Hong Kong International School. It was the best time of my life. It was a breath of fresh air to get out of Buffalo and America and see how the rest of the world lives and experience a different culture. However, it was also challenging to come from living in America, where I was part of the majority, to Hong Kong, where I was a guilo, or outsider.

While I was there I went on a trip to Australia where I and a group of classmates backpacked, hiked, rock climbed, abseiled, and went caving through Perth, Australia. It was a great experience being completely cut off from society and technology and being forced to "rough it."I learned a lot about myself and what I am capable of doing when I really put my mind to it.

I expect to learn some interesting theories such as; how the Internet serves to both facilitate and deter communication, how it effects society, and our every day lives. Las semester I wrote a paper for Com 450 that examined the Internet in regards to its effect on the public sphere and political mediation so it will be interesting to compare what I previously thought with what I will learn in this class.