In examining this particular reading, I was struck by several specifics. The first of which relates back to a brief discussion we had yesterday about the necessity of training people in the realm of social media - you cannot simply give people tools and expect them to know, not only how to use them, but to do so effectively. Social media and the Web 2.0 has become such a force to be reckoned with that while everyone from grandma to my seven year old sister is doing it, to be truly harnessing the power of the web, be it for monetary value or personal value, you cannot expect magic to happen. Social Media more and more is becoming a trained profession that requires time and a skill set to use effectively, despite the fact that 10 years ago this was hardly the case. With this parallel in mind, I was particularly intrigued by the evolution of the Wikipedia User:RickK. RickK really provided an evident example of just how rapid the evolution of the social media skill set truly is. Back in 2003 RickK, after just a few short weeks of being an active editor and contributor to Wikipedia, was nominated to be an administrator. With just six votes in his favor, RickK rose to the rank of administrator without even understanding what is was that an administrator did. With this in mind, flash forward to 2007, nominees to become an administrator on Wikipedia "[ran] the gauntlet" , requiring more than 1,000 edits and at least three months of experience on the site as an editor to even be considered. In the space of just four years, something that was '"not a big deal"' became a privy position. One thing that continues to amaze me about the innovation and expansion of social media and the web is the sheer speed and volume at which they expand. People often view change as a bad thing, however if people stop and stare, these innovations will pass them by, leaving them with a missed opportunity to take a tool and make it work for them. Social media and the web are of value because, as four years in the life of Wikipedia demonstrate, one must not shy away from the notion that the demands of social media and the web 2.0 are continually expanding and it is our responsibly to match those demands with expanded knowledge of what the web can do for you!
On a completely different note, the other issue raised by this article, which I actually found shocking was this mentality of "assume good faith". Wikipedia's mentality upon taking things at face value, while noble, is hardly embracing the realities of society. There is a good reason as to why my parents have told me time and again never to talk to strangers, be it on the web or in the living flesh. This idea seems to piggy-back what we were discussing in class about how morality exists on the web, but in doing so it does not necessarily mirror its role in the real world. Specifically, if you met someone and they claimed to be a professor with a pHD, you would for all intensive purposes believe them, especially if you saw their diploma or took one of their classes. However, if this person was simply posing as a professor and this information came to light, they would likely face sever consequences, as they are for all intensive purposes falsifying their identity. And yet the user Essjay on Wikipedia did just that, except he did it within the online community, and got promoted for it! In fact the co-founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Whales, "[didn't] really have a problem with it"!
So I guess this leaves me with my question, why is it that we do not hold individuals accountable for their actions on the web in the same manner that we would in a physical face to face social network? When it comes down to it there is still a human interaction happening, there might be a computer in the middle, but at the end of the day two people are connected, albeit by fiber optics. And yet, in the split second that it takes for data to fly between the two, why is it that people do things that would never be tolerated in a face to face context?
Hadley,
ReplyDeleteI must admit that I didn't actually enjoy this article while i was reading it at length, but your blog post on it caught my attention much more than the reading itself. I like that it is brief but makes great points. I too was shocked how quickly became an administrator, and just shocked in general that administrators even existed on wikipedia. Besides quick searches, I never really looked at the details on the site to see who was contributing and how many edits there were on a specific page to know how much is really behind wikipedia. So that in and of itself was a shock to me.
In thinking about your question, which is a good one to ask, I don't really know why people act differently via internet than they ever would in person. I think it was Maria who brought this up in class, about a company offering free bagels on their facebook site for months but would never have done it in print or in the store. That was the first time at which I began thinking about this concept as it had never crossed my mind before. I think a part of the issue of holding people accountable is that there may not always be proof of who it actually was acting inappropriately. Besides tracking IP addresses and user names on wikipedia to the various users, one could always say that it wasn't them on their account or countless other excuses. On the other hand, when someone is caught doing something like that in person, there is no question about whether or not it was that person in the situation. This is something I would like to hear more opinions on, because I am just speculating about what it could be. I think a lot of people hide behind their screen and create a new persona with the belief that they wont get caught or proven wrong, but then again I have no idea because I can't imagine advertising myself as someone other than who I am!
Jess
I would rank this article an (8.5/10) - Which I forgot to do previously!
ReplyDeleteI am also amazed at the speed of social media. I feel like just yesterday it didn’t exist and today it has become such an important aspect of business. At this speed I wonder what the consequences for a company not getting involved in social media. Will they be able to harness social media later, or will the miss their opportunity? Will social media always be a useful tool for businesses or will it only be relevant for the next couple of years? These are questions that are facing many companies right now as they decide what they should do when it comes to social media.
ReplyDeleteI think you pose a very good question about why we hold individuals accountable for their actions differently on the web. My explanation for this is that on the web it is an expected thing. Everyone has been conditioned to not assume that things people say online a true. So when people found out that Essjay was not a professor it was not as big a surprise. When we have face to face encounters, we know that people can lie but we don’t expect it. Also we use other senses to tell if people are telling the truth, which gives us more confidence in their statements. I think this is what causes the difference.
The Internet changes everything. Let me say that again. The Internet changes everything. Not in a pie-in-the-sky philosophical sense, but in real, measurable ways. People don't behave the same way behind a screen as they do in (the debatably named)"real life". People tolerate things online that would never fly in a face-to-face social network precisely because it's online. That's not going away until universal profiles, and those are still a long way off.
ReplyDeleteThere's a disconnect in the social space between anonymity using your real identity. If Wikipedia had Facebook integration in 2001 (impossible I know, but bear with me), it never would have become the amazing community and resource it is today. People judge others for spending hours and hours a day on things that don't net them physical gains, but the people who treat Wikipedia like a second job are exactly the ones who have made it work. I doubt they would have joined up had their actions as moderators been visible to the whole world. Conversely, Facebook often forces people to put their best face forward. This isn't always the case, and I've read dozens of hilarious comment threads to debunk it, but I know that most people want to present an idealized portrait of themselves to their online friends. That's why my interests section reads like a work by Plato rather than "Music, Football, Beer, Videogames, etc.". The idealized face everyone presents the world on social networking sites is not compatible with the explosive contributions that made Wikipedia great and maintain the site today. Jimmy Wales may not have known this when he founded the site, but I think it is clear today.
I don't have all that much more to say than everyone else. It's a great post - and you make some excellent points.
ReplyDeleteWhat caught my eye, especially, was your comment about Wikipedia's "assume good faith" policy about accepting things at face value. I find some of that mentality to be counterintuitive on the internet. Especially when the wikipedia community has to constantly revert vandalism on a regular basis - wouldn't they learn not to take things at face value? This is why, while i don't think EssJay acted ethically by posting false information, i am surprised at Wikipedia's outburst. To assume that everyone tells the truth on the internet seems especially naive considering that these people need to fight to preserve truth on a daily basis.
So anyway, keep writing solid posts like this one. I especially liked your comment about real-life vs anonymous consequences for claiming untrue information.