Essay 3

With the millions of different types of sources and information made easily available to us though the power of the World Wide Web, it’s hard to determine who to believe and trust. People today are becoming far more educated and able to contribute to the information that is out there. Years ago, common people, such as the housewife, the average teenager or even grandma had no idea how to add pages to the World Wide Web. It was commonly left to the scholars of the world. So now with everyone having the ability to contribute to the information that is out there, how does one determine what is credible and what is not? Is it up to us to use and trust certain search engines, or is the user responsible for searching with the correct key terms to ultimately find what we are looking for? Uncertain of the answer, what I do know is that research will help determine whether we should only trust certain search engines, or if as a user, we just simply need to search smarter.

The task that I have at hand is to search a specific Web 2.0 medium. I have chosen the fascinating world of blogging. I started my journey with a basic Yahoo search. It’s one of my home pages because I like that when you being to type text into the search box, it starts to offer suggestions. Now it is not the only site to do that, however, I believe that it was when I set my home pages. I decided to start basic by typing the word “blogging”. The first page on my list of results is the Wikipedia page for blogging. I think that Wikipedia is a good source of information because it is often written in a simple language where you do not have to be an expert in the field to comprehend the information that you are reading. There are detailed explanations that are broken down into sections to make research a little simpler. Wikipedia states that “A blog (a contraction of the term "Web log") is a Web site, usually maintained by an individual with regular entries of commentary, descriptions of events, or other material such as graphics or video. Entries are commonly displayed in reverse-chronological order. "Blog" can also be used as a verb, meaning to maintain or add content to a blog.” That seems like a pretty concrete and detailed description of what we were looking for. However, once must use extreme caution when using Wikipedia, as it is not known as a credible source. Wikipedia is a site that can be updated by anyone at any time, and although it may appear helpful and there are people constantly monitoring the information, no one can really be certain that wrongful information has not slipped through the cracks. I would use Wikipedia in a quick, informal search for personal use, but not for anything with academic purpose.

The second page that comes up on my Yahoo search is an article dated September 15th, 2005 from ABC news titled “What is Blogging"ABC news seems like a credible source. The article gives a description of the craze known as blogging, different types of blogging and even gives readers tips on how to start their own. The only thing that turns me off to this result is the date. Considering this is the second page that shows up on a list of 648,000,000 results, one would think that it would be a little more up to date. Although 2005 is not that long ago, when you consider the fact that the World Wide Web is updated every single second, and technologies like blogging have advanced since, it seems like centuries ago. With this in mind, I turn my search to a different engine. Google, the next most common search engine that I use is where I turned. The first thing that comes up is the same to the result of my Yahoo search, the Wikipedia page. Having already looked into that page, the next one on the list was Blogger, Google’s official blogging tool. I can’t help but wonder if the results all come back to paid advertisements. As I learned when creating my own profile on blogger for this course, you must provide personal information. As we read in Zimmer’s “The externalities of search 2.0: the emerging privacy threats when the drive for the perfect search engine meets Web 2.0”, search engines gather information to tailor to your needs. They have a goal of personalizing each search experience to custom what you are looking for. So does Google have alternative motives in Blogger being so far up on the results list?

Google gave me 115,000,000 hits when simply using the term blogging, so I decided to narrow it down by asking “what is blogging”. Web definitions came first. Also, a page for introduction to blogging came up which I found to be useful because it discussed different rules of the community of blogging. As we learned from Kollock and Smith in “Managing the Virtual Commons: Cooperation and Conflict in Computer Communities”, these virtual environments are communities in and of themselves and they each have their own rules. Looking at a different source, Ask Jeeves, I found articles by the BBC,a definition from What is.com , that was full of advertisments and a blogging 101 tutorial from a university’s website.

In searching through our University’s library through Com Abstracts I found an article by Li and Walejko that talks about some of the problems associated with blogging. I would use this in the future because it not only comes from a credible search, being a University, but it also talks about the downside of blogging, something not yet touched upon. In Com Abstracts, I also found an article by Hodkinson that looks at blogging as a new means for communication. These are all good resources for any research because they provide more than just the simple definition.

In my search for the perfect results for my questions regarding blogging, I found many things. Advertisements were there on sties like Yahoo and Google and Ask Jeeves, maybe because not as popular, did not yield as many results as the previous two. I would use some of the definitions that I found on the search engines, and possible some of the articles. I would feel most comfortable using the school’s library database, because I can be certain they are from credible sources. I learned that as users the particular search engines that we utilize are not as important as the key words that we use and the intellect that we personally use to filter out the non credible sources.

Sources


Hodkinson, Paul (2007). Interactive online journals and individualization New Media & Society. 9 (4, August), 625-650.

Kollock, Peter & Smith, Marc. (1996). Managing the virtual commons: Cooperation and conflict in computer communities. In Susan C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives (pp.109-128). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Li, Dan, and Walejko, Gina (2008). Splogs and abandoned blogs: The perils of sampling bloggers and their blogs Information Communication & Society. 11 (2, March), 279-296.

Zimmer, Michael. (2008). The externalities of search 2.0: The emerging privacy threats when the drive for the perfect search engine meets Web 2.0. First Monday, 13. Retrieved August 21, 2008 from http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2136/1944.

Search engine privacy

In the most recent reading I did for my COM430Z class entitled “The emerging privacy threats when the drive for the perfect search engine meets Web 2.0” by Michael Zimmer, discusses the ever so prevalent issue of privacy on the internet. According to Zimmer, search engines are on a quest to create personalized search results for each and every user. They do this in several ways. Zimmer states that these search engines such as Google and Yahoo! are using the latest user friendly Web 2.0 technologies, such as Facebook or Flickr, to compile information on each person. This craze is being referred to as Search 2.0. In Search 2.0, Zimmer says that perfect recall is used to track and monitor one’s history and the commonly searched topics you’ve looked for. The sites use resources such as you’re “… IP addresses, cookie ID, date and time, search results…” (p.3) to personalize your results leading to the user to be more likely to return to this particular search engine in the future, therefore leading to the search engine to charge more for targeted paid advertisements on their sites.

Although search engines are ultimately using Search 2.0 to better each user’s experience, the whole thing is a little frightening. The article talks about a case where a man’s emails that he thought were deleted, and search results were demanded in a court, and it was found that he searched for murder methods. Is that considered hard enough evidence to charge someone? I think the scariest thing about this whole phenomenon is that most people aren’t even aware that it exists. I learned about it for the first time last year in a course I was taking on computers, and I have to admit, I was disturbed. Something is literally tracking you, and that information can possibly be used against you at some point, when you didn’t even knowingly give it up. The whole idea of personalized search results does help to narrow ones search when there are millions of things out there on the World Wide Web, but at what cost is it affective. People should be made more aware of it. Maybe there could be a disclaimer when you enter the site, or when you set up your accounts. People should have options.


Zimmer, Michael. (2008). The externalities of search2.0: The emerging privacy threats when the drive for the perfect search engine meets Web 2.0. First Monday, 13.Retrieved August 21, 2008 from http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/inde.php/fm/article/view/2136/1944.

Web 2.0

Many have heard of the new technology Web 2.0, but very few know what it actually is, and that they probably use it everyday. The latest article I read for my COM430Z class was “What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software” by Tim O’Reilly (2005). O’Reilly explains Web 2.0 as a system that allows users to interact with one another and in a way allows the people themselves to act as servers for the system. For example, EBay is a site where people can purchase and sell items online. EBay itself acts as a mediator between the two humans. The article also mentions the comparisons and contrast between Web 2.0 and its predecessor Web 1.0. Web 1.0, for example, was technologies such as personal websites and the Britannica Online (p.1). The advancements made in the world of cyberspace can be linked to the development of Web 2.0. For comparison, we can look at the Britannica Online encyclopedia. In the days of Web 1.0, that was a main source for information on the internet. Today, many people use Wikipedia, an encyclopedia that allows it’s users to include and update information on their own. Being user friendly and oriented is what sets Web 2.0 technologies apart from anything that came before it.


Web 2.0 is used by people all over the world and people may not even realize. Do you really take the time, while online, to think of the advancements made, or do you just expect things to work, perhaps even getting frustrated that they are not meeting even higher expectations? It’s incredible that in our current status of the internet, we can determine, as users, what will succeed. According to O’Reilly, participation makes or breaks a site. Users help to make it grow. We have control over the destiny of cyberspace.


O’Reilly, Tim. (2005). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Retrieved August 21, 2008 from http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html.

Essay 2 The early Internet

September 15th, 2008, 4:45 p.m.: “If McCain should actually (God forbid) win in November, I will be convinced that America's elections are a fraud. Of course, Bush has already given us plenty of reasons to believe we're no longer living in a democracy.” The topic is politics, a very intriguing and hot topic for Usenet groups. Anytime you talk politics, there’s always an interest, especially with this being a presidential election year. One could easily assume that this Usenet group is filled with active conversations and relevant topics. So the topic: John McCain, the place: alt.sports.baseball.ny-yankees, does anything seem wrong with that? The Usenet group that I have been observing is one dedicated to the New York Yankees, a major league baseball team, yet one consistent pattern that I have noticed is the constant discussion of politics. Are people not aware of where they are, or are they simply not considerate enough to obey the culture of the community and follow the topic of the group they are in? Usenet groups are communities and in all communities there is a certain culture, certain rules that should be followed.

Usenet is, according to Kollock and Smith (1996), “…one of the largest computer-mediated communication systems in existence.”(p.111). I used Google groups to locate the particular Usenet group that I observed. Kollock and Smith (1996) mention that “No central authority manages the Usenet…” (p.111), which could be part of the problem that I noticed when studying the group. In a group clearly dedicated to baseball, there is no stopping people that want to write about any other topics. Kollock and Smith (1996) state that “…name is one of its most effective means of defining a boundary: by announcing its contents, it attracts the interested and repels the disinterested...” (p.120), with that said, people who enter the community and talk about other topics are violating standards of the group. People who come to the group to talk about the Yankees displayed their frustrations with the others. In a comment made by the member Holey Moley posted on September 21st, “Without reading all of the posts I thought this was a group dedicated to Yankees baseball. Ya know?? Ny-yankees? Well, you fooled me. Maybe if I look up "politics" we can discuss baseball. Ya think?? Maybe??”. In order for Usenet groups to be enjoyed by all, there is a necessity for all group members to work together and obey the unwritten rules. There are plenty of groups dedicated solely to political talk where these rebels can have their words and opinions heard by others who share the desire to speak about the same topic.

Another observation that I took note of from the Yankees group was the issue of freedom of speech. People are allowed to say whatever they want in the group, as we know there is no one authority to moderate the conversations. However, people are subject to the harsh and cruel comments of others. People use the Usenet group to say things that in my opinion that they wouldn’t say in a face to face interaction. Similar to the idea of playing with gender, as discussed by Danet (1998), “…the typed text provides the mask.” (p.129). People have the ability to make handles that conceal their identity. Danet says that people in cyberspace use the fact that no one knows who they really are to act differently. Perhaps a woman in a room dominated by men uses a handle that can be considered masculine, though who is to say what’s feminine and what’s masculine, to be taken more seriously. In my opinion, people in the Yankee group use text as a mask, not necessarily to conceal their gender, but to be rude and blunt. No one knows there true identity, so they take the opportunity to attack others, speak inappropriately and make offensive remarks. For example, Holey Moley, a user that I paid close attention to, expressed his or her pride in having freedom in America, as she or he was reminded by the traditional singing of God Bless America, in the 7th inning of the Yankee game. He or she was attacked by another user, one who often had something negative to say about everything. Rmjon23 responded to holey moley’s comment by saying “Yea, except you are FORCED to be patriotic in Steinbrenner Land (Yankee Stadium)…F**K "God Bless America" <---I'm free to say that too, right, dickwad?”. Although I am sure they are out there, I don’t think that too many people would have the audacity to curse America, the country that we live freely in, to another’s face, and then call them a highly inappropriate name. Holey Moley was simply expressing his or her pride, and that’s what the forum is for, saying your mind, with regards to the topic. I guess one could argue that Rmjon23 was also expressing his or her opinion; however there is no need for such language.

In order for Usenet groups to be successful, people need to realize that being a member of the group is similar to being a member of a community. They should know to treat others as they would treat their neighbors. They should know to respect the wishes of others and keep the conversation relevant to the topic of the group. Many groups do not have these “rules” written out, but I think they are common courtesy and should be considered common knowledge.

Bibliography
Danet, Brenda. (1998). Text as mask: Gender, play, and performance on the Internet. In Steven G. Jones (Ed.), Cybersociety 2.0: Revisiting computer-mediated communication and community (pp.129-158). Thousand Oaks, NJ:Sage.
Kollock, Peter & Smith, Marc. (1996). Managing the virtual commons: Cooperation and conflict in the computer communities. In Susan C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 109-128). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

essay 2 Journal #5 9/23/2008

Today in observing the Usenet New York Yankee group for my essay in the COM 430Z class, I noticed less activity. There seemed to be several ads for Nike sneakers, which at least I might consider somewhat relevant to the topic: sneakers, sprots, baseball. But still, it doesnt belong. I looked around for some rules and or guidlines for the group, I could'nt find any. I found links to the histry of Usenet, but that's it. So I did some further inverstigation. I look back into the archives of the group. Surprisingly, I found that this particular group dates back to December, 1993. I did not expect that. I knew that they existed then, but I did'nt expect that one from that long ago would still be so active today.
There was some antagonizing among the group members today, based on comments made. One particular member told another to get a life, get a boyfriend or girlfriend, and get off Usenet. The fact that this user told someone to get a boyfriend or girlfriend makes it clear that the gender identity of the user is unknown.

Essay 2 Journal #4 9/22/2008

The Yankee usenet group that I am following for my essay for COM430Z finally seemed to be dominated by talk of the Yankees, and not the usual politics. The discussions in the group got so out of line with relation to the main topic, that finally, someone spoke up. In a comment made by Holey Moley, entiteled Sorry he or she says what I've been thinking the whole time I've been observing the group. The exact comment was "Without reading all of the posts I thought this was a group dedicated to Yankees baseball. Ya know?? ny-yankees? Well, you fooled me. Maybe if I look up "politics" we can discuss baseball. Ya think?? Maybe??" I think this person might have been frustrated with the unwritten rules of the community being violated. Why would you think to start talking politics in a sports room?
Much of the discussion was regarding the final game ever at Yankeed Stadium. Many users of the group took the opportunity to share with others their feelings and experiences about the stadium with others. Then there were those who could probably be considered the groups "trolls" who just had to express their happiness while so many fans were practically mourning the great loss. I think the group "troll" might have to be rmjon23, who cursed at someone for claiming their pride in our country. Holey Moley was expressing her pride in being free and being reminded of that by the traditional singing of God Bless America in the 7th inning. Rmjon23 responded by saying"...FUCK "God Bless America" <---I'm free to say that too, right, dickwad? " among other things. I doubt he or she would ever say that to someone in person.

Essay Journal #3 9/20/08

Today, in the Yankee chat usenet room, I made it a point to look out for rosecomm4256@aol.com again, because I am interested in trying to figure out their gender based on comments they make. As a reminder, yesterday they gave out a "Rose Award" that sounded like it was commonly known throughout the room, since he or she did not give any introduction to the award itself. No comments from rosecomm4256 today. The description to this usenet room reads "New York Yankees baseball talk". Some people used the room to talk of their sadness for the final game approaching on Sunday. Others used it as a forum to discuss their hatred of the Yankees, kinda in a "haha, in your face" kind of style. People were cruel towards players, the organization and their devoted fans. Rmjon23 was one of these people. I'm going to assume it's a man because of the jon in the handle, but once again, with gender on the internet who knows. Especially since the person was using such harsh words against the Yankees, they might have felt safest looking as a man, if they were indeed a woman.