Questions, Insights, Connections

Leave your question, insight, and/or connection for each class here. I don't expect this to be more than 250-300 words. Make sure it's unique to you. For example:

Here is my unique question (or insight or connection).... And it is signed. -Reagle (talk) 12:49, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful of overwriting others' edit or losing your own: always copy your text before saving in case you have to submit it again.

Jan 10 Tue - Introduction and community

1. Much like Greek philosophers in their understanding of what comprises the universe, McMillan and Chavis define sense of community as having four elements. Not fire, air, earth, & water, but the elements of membership, influence, reinforcement, and shared emotional connection come together in varying ways to facilitate a sense of community. McMillan and Chavis also outline their definition as applying equally to "the territorial and geographical notion of community" and the relational notion, "concerned with 'quality of character of human relationship, without reference to location'".

My initial question, then, came after reading Kendall's descriptions of early internet communities. Can these internet communities be territorial? Gusfield lets us know that the two designations are not mutually exclusive, but it raised the question of how these internet communities would be classified, especially as we move into descriptions of virtual communities that simultaneously exist both online and in physical places. Durheim (1964) outlined how "modern society develops community around interests and skills more than around locality," which I think to be true, even more so than at the time of this 1986 piece. Regardless, Covid-19 and subsequent the integration of even more virtual practices into everyday life seem to complicate this question even further.

Would a regularly scheduled Zoom meeting, which happens every week at the same time, be considered a territorial notion of community, as it pertains reference to location, albeit virtually? Larger questioned appeared for me as I pursued this line of thought: Have these definitions (like what defines territorial and relational, like what makes a sense of community) been updated or further inspected in recent years? As we've seen the emergence of a post-covid society where a large portion or work, learning, and socializing now happens in virtual spaces, it seems as though some of the ideas laid out in these readings would be challenged. Alise boal (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alise_boal, excellent. Please number your posts so you don't lose track, sign using the Wikipedia:Signatures and, by the way, McMillan made a typo, it's "Émile Durkheim." -Reagle (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reagle Thank you! Will do on the numbering and signing. Thanks for the clarification on the typo.

1. During this reading I couldn't help but connect it to my own life and experiences. Given that it was published in 2003 and I was born in 2002, the cases I was reading about hold little to no relevance to my experiences. Kendall's descriptions of LambdaMOO, WELL, etc. were everything but familiar to me. The cultural context of these early-internet groups is so widely different to what I know, that it really made me wonder how much of what I was reading still applied. As I continued to read I noticed that the users' experiences were actually a lot more similar to the world I am familiar with. For example, I've been involved with an underground music scene that manifested during the pandemic, so much of the content between these community members have been entirely online. They would even hold online performances, even in unconventional mediums such as Minecraft. For me, the connection stems from the adaptive way internet communities choose to include and exclude people, sometimes even developing into new online communities. The organic growth works the same no matter what time. People begin to form relationships, friendships even, that can (and often do) manifest into material, real life relationships and events. For this music scene, it's birthed many a concert and even a couple larger festivals. While internet etiquette, culture, and websites have gotten far more complicated, the fundamentally human drive to connect with other humans remains.Peanutbutterisbad (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC) - QIC 1[reply]

Peanutbutterisbad, very good. Please number your posts so you don't lose track. Try to engage the "primary" reading as well in your response and watch out for typos (i.e., "realationships"). Don't forget to number and sign your QICs. -Reagle (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jan 13 Fri - Wikipedia introduction

1. I find it so bizarre and ultimately impressive that such a polite and cordial community can be formed between all demographics on a website as large as Wikipedia. Pride is often something people don't let go of easily, especially on public forums or social media. WIkipedia is incredibly unique in the sense that its members are often willing to take constructive criticism and apply their intellect together onto public pages. In the first chapter of "Nazis and Norms" ^[1], "collaboration" is mentioned as an all encompassing noun to represent the growing Wikipedia community. This widely understood goal of collaboration seems to be the basis of cordiality and politeness on Wikipedia. As mentioned in this chapter, the community's unique ability to be collaborative allows those involved to feel as though they are adding value to a great collection of the world population's knowledge. All of this being considered, the density of collaboration has also led to many problems such as decision-making. An abundance of intellect and an eagerness for Wikipedians to make their own contribution makes final decisions and fact-checking that much more competitive and difficult. Although Wikipedia can be "messy", it is still one of the greatest collections of public knowledge that the internet has to offer, thanks to its collaborative and polite members.

^ Nazis and Norms, Joseph Michael Reagle Jr., 2010

Mr. Lestah (talk) 18:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Lestah, very good. Please number your posts so you don't lose track. And do watch out for typos (i.e., "WIpedia") -Reagle (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you want to use references, which is fine, using the Reflist template to put the references with your paragraph. Don't forget to number and sign your QICs. -Reagle (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2. Right off the bat, the connection to H.G. Wells really stuck with me. I really like this idea that Wikipedia, like many human creations, is indicative of a larger human need, something that spans across lifetimes and generations. Bringing this concept of global connection into more modern times, it reminded me of Reddit co-founder Aaron Swartz, who killed himself 10 years ago exactly yesterday. As you probably know, he was a fierce activist fighting against the privatization of knowledge. He was caught downloading swaths of JSTOR articles, and the government went after him for it. They (unfairly) persecuted him, making him face over 30 years in prison and fines. Before the trial could even start, he killed himself. I thought this connection was both timely and applicable, especially because Wikipedia, in many ways, seeks to achieve exactly what Swartz was fighting for. Further, the collaborative nature of Wikipedia is also something I find really interesting. Unlike online communities I have involved myself in, the common interest here is to provide for other people. While I use Wikipedia possibly every day, I have never contributed (other than attempting to edit Northeastern's page). I did not realize how much collaboration and community moderation goes into developing an article. The dedication of Wikipedians is quite impressive to me. While building a large Minecraft base takes a lot of creative energy and vision, adding to revising, and checking a Wikipedia article takes a lot of mental and intellectual effort (not that Minecraft does not require this), so I was not surprised by the statistics about how few Wikipedia accounts actually add to the website. Overall, Wikipedia seems like a very unique case of community that I'm excited to engage in.Peanutbutterisbad (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC) - QIC 2[reply]

Peanutbutterisbad interesting connections. A decade later I followed on the H.G. Wells connection with a republication of his World Brain, the introduction is here, if you are interested. Also, coincidentally, I had known Aaron since he was a boy participating in W3C activities -- and around MIT/Cambridge in general. Don't forget to number and sign your QICs. -Reagle (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. Wikipedia was the first online encyclopedia I ever used, and I still constantly research concepts on Wikipedia. So, I frequently used Wikipedia in personal daily life, but I never thought that Wikipedia could also form an active online community and collectively achieve a "good faith collaborative culture"^[1]. The September 2008 "Editing Frequency" page data -- "41,393 registered users" -- proves that Wikipedia is fulfilling its seemingly idealistic vision^[2]. Wikipedia encourages all users to edit information freely and work together politely to improve the richness of knowledge. Both users who make major contributions to knowledge and users who occasionally make minor edits can realize the recognition of membership at their personal level. The continued contribution of editors has undoubtedly made the Wikipedia community more active and long-lasting. At the same time, Wikipedia offers "talk" pages that help facilitate communication among editors in the online community. When I finished the Wikipedia tutorial, I thought about following questions - why can everyone edit others' contributions? Why should we communicate politely before editing other people's contribution even if that's wrong information? Then I realized that the prerequisite for Wikipedia to exist as a community is that it has clear policies that guarantee everyone's editorial freedom and encourage everyone to gradually realize a "good faith" culture ^[3] - respecting others' editorial rights, understanding the objective nature of Wikipedia, admitting the necessity of online communication... Moreover, ensuring individual editor's free editing rights does not seem to compromise diversity of views, but rather Wikipedia's Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) policy ^[4] ensures knowledge enrichment while preserving diversity of objective views within this large community. Susususushi (talk) 16:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

^ Nazis and Norms, Joseph Michael Reagle Jr., 2010
^ Nazis and Norms, Joseph Michael Reagle Jr., 2010
^ Nazis and Norms, Joseph Michael Reagle Jr., 2010
^ Nazis and Norms, Joseph Michael Reagle Jr., 2010

Susususushi, excellent engagement and specifics from the reading. Also, if you want to use references, which is fine, using the Reflist template to put the references with your paragraph. Don't forget to number and sign your QICs. -Reagle (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. A fundamental component of Wikipedia is its ability to maintain a neutral point of view and believe the best in other users, being civil and courteous. I find this aspect of Wikipedia remarkably unique and an attribute I cannot find in any other community I've participated in. However, it makes me consider how far one can go with freedom of speech ingrained in the online community as well as the anonymity aspect. It's important to note that references must be cited and that opinions are not to be shared in the online forum. With that being said, I wonder if there have been instances where Wikipedia members have been challenged for slander, hate speech, etc. How do you approach justice in an online community, particularly in the case of Wikipedia?

Considering the differences between online and offline communities, I also wonder how a sense of security and boundaries impact online communities. As noted in the reading by McMillan and Chavis, membership alongside boundaries and emotional safety is vital to developing intimacy and relationships in communities. Does the anonymity aspect strengthen or dilute the opportunity for intimacy in online settings, particularly Wikipedia? In one sense you might feel more comfortable sharing thoughts and opinions without knowing the receiver or the receiver knowing you. Is that found to be invigorating or deterring to intimacy? NUstudent1316 (talk) 17:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NUstudent1316, excellent connection with an earlier reading. And anything you can imagine could happen on Wikipedia (claims of censorship, slander, etc.) probably has happened on Wikipedia! Don't forget to number and sign your QICs. -Reagle (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

QIC 1: After completing the reading, I found myself asking the question: what's next for Wikipedia? Will they add new offerings and extensions as we delve into AI, Web3 and other technological advancements? They're the "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit," so will this also extend to AI writing technologies? In my digital storytelling and social media course, AI and Chat GBT have been a hot topic. While Wiki has always been considered a technological advancement due to its constant updates and collaborative nature, if AI begins to contribute to Wikipedia, this could change the mission, the community, and the future of the website. In terms of the Wiki-community, their "anyone can edit" reputation, that the reading noted, could be in jeopardy. A large piece of the Wiki-community is the "talk" page that is linked with each main resource page where editors can collaborate on finding solutions, updating pages, conflict resolution, and so much more. However, with the threat of new technologies, one may find that the humanity aspect that Wiki can deliver with the talk feature may soon be invaded by bots and AI as we continue to make technological advancements. On the other hand, though, AI may propose a new opportunity for Wikipedia. Something discussed in another course of mine was the automation of tasks that AI can help with (in particular, Chat GBT). The reading discusses the administrative functions that administrator accounts are responsible for, which leaves room for potential human error or things falling through the cracks. This is where AI could come in and not only automate these services, but also collect more information and data that it may have previously been too time-consuming for the administrators to collect. So, the question I would like to pose: What's next for Wikipedia as technology continues to advance? --- Preceding unsigned comment added by Nustudent1120 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nustudent1120, interesting question about and connection with current events. Two suggestions: break up prose into paragraphs when appropriate, and don't forget to number and sign your QICs. And you might be interested in this article: Should ChatGPT Be Used to Write Wikipedia Articles?. -Reagle (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jan 17 Tue - Persuasion

2. I found the reading about the science of persuasion extremely interesting especially as someone who has an interest in psychology and why we are the way we are. I would like to make a connection in this post to the behavior of liking. While liking may seem like common sense, it reminds me of a previous course I took called Sex, Relationships, and Communication with Joseph Schwartz. We discussed something called the halo effect which explains why we tend to favor better looking individuals. Before I go into detail about the halo effect, though, I'll first explain what we look for. Humans tend to look for a mix of mature and neotenous (young-looking) features in individuals and see them as better looking. Mature features would be bodily shapes like the curves of a woman, for example, and neotenous features would be something like a small nose.

Once we've found an individual whose looks have a mix of these features, we favor them based on the halo effect which essentially says "what is beautiful, must also be good." While this isn't always true, we are typically more trusting, more willing to help, and more willing to believe these individuals as a result of the halo effect. This can be a dangerous bias to have as many celebrities may be attractive and promote the use of a certain vitamin or lifestyle, and we're more prone to believing them because of their looks. In reality, their followers blindly purchase these products endorsed by their favorite celebrities. This was an article I found on the halo effect that I found interesting, especially the section about teachers and their biases. https://www.simplypsychology.org/halo-effect.html Nustudent1120 (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nustudent1120, good connection, but don't forget to engage with some specifics from our readings. Also, be wary of "very interesting". -Reagle (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2. "These days, of course, we all carry slot machines in our pockets" (Leslie, 2016).

Technology is bad for our brains, our sleep, and our children. These sweeping overgeneralizations we claim about technology make a very complex and multifaceted issue black and white. In my last class with Professor Reagle, we unpacked these all-or-nothing statements concluding that the impact technology has on our lives is uncomfortably grey. It can enhance or dilute our lives depending on how we engage.

Leslie's quote illuminates the dopamine response our devices give us --- often unconsciously. He also notes in his interview with scientist Nir Eyal that we have a tendency to reach for our phones due to different adverse feelings, but we do so before we have the time to register these emotions. What if, instead of reaching for our phone, we took a second to talk to ourselves and ask --- how do I really feel? And why do I feel the desire to grab my phone? As I endeavor on my mindfulness journey, I like to take these moments to evaluate my why.

In my favorite podcast, Healthier Together, host Liz Moody interviews former Munk Dandapani^[1]. Dandapani talks a lot about focus in the podcast episode, dictating that we need focus before we can achieve mindfulness. As we aim to counteract the addictive nature of our devices, how can we train our minds to focus on what we're feeling, why we need to pick up our phone, and what impact it will have on our day? On another note, I would love to have Leslie interview Dandapani! I also linked the podcast if you're interested in listening to it. NUstudent1316 (talk) 01:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC) -Isabel (#2)[reply]

^ Moody, Liz. "How To Figure Out Your Life's Purpose, Improve Your Concentration, & Develop More Willpower with Dandapani". Healthier Together. Healthier Together. Retrieved 16 January 2023.

NUstudent1316, good connections. Also, you can link here on the QIC page. If you use a reference use the "Reflist" template (in double curly brackets) so they sit below your pose. -Reagle (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. Hi Isabel,

As I engaged with Leslie's writing for The Economist, I experienced some similar insights, and have some further inquiries. Eyal's assertion that "users trigger themselves" stood out to me, following his claims about the unconscious feelings that drive digital behavior before we are even aware of them. First, I am wondering if there is any real way to prove this claim. I believe that his assertion falls into the "uncomfortably grey" area you mention. Specifically, I would challenge Eyal's belief that users are unconsciously opening apps which meet their unrealized emotional impulses. While I agree that the "trigger" is somewhat internal, I think a more realistic understanding is one where users have internalized a trigger like the feeling they get when they use Instagram, and over time, Instagram use becomes an easy response to sudden feelings of loneliness. I'm unsure if this is too pedantic a disagreement, but my point is that scientists like Eyal should be careful when making such bold, precise claims about the operation of consciousness.

I also have a personal experience that seems to counter the idea that each of these apps fits a different subconscious emotional niche. Over the past couple years I have made an effort to cut out some of the apps that were taking up lots of my time and ultimately making me miserable and confused, namely Twitter and Instagram. However, I have found that in their place, my use of other apps such as YouTube has increased - not to fill up all the cut time, but an observable phenomenon nonetheless. Based on this single example, it seems like, at least for me, these digital tools prey on a more singular aspect of my attention, rather than staking claim across different regions of my brain. Of course, I know very little about my own brain, and this is only what I can observe from the outside.

NoahConstrictor (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NoahConstrictor, interesting reflection; make sure to engage with specifics from the readings. -Reagle (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3. The first reading really made me think about this National Geographic show "Brain Games." In it, they found entertaining ways to teach the audience about how our brains work. While the show is quite old and I don't remember a lot from it, one scene that I recalled was essentially the same experiment that researchers did regarding social validation. Instead of having people look up to the sky, they had people wait in line in a mall. They realized that more people were willing to wait in a line (without knowing what they are waiting for) if the line is longer. Just as the researchers had found, Brain Games discovered that if more people were doing it, the more people were willing to join.

Further, the article about how app developers use behavior design to hook users on their site really made me think about a discussion I participated in another class. We discussed the popular app TikTok and how it changes our attention spans. While many people are quick to claim that Gen Z (or Zoomers, as I like to refer to us) are at fault for poor attention spans, our discussion was quick to blame the app designers. Not only are these apps using dopamine rushes to hook us, they are increasing the amounts of dopamine rushes with short-form videos and extreme deluges of content every time one opens the app. You get notification pop-ups, lots of tabs (and thus options to stay on the app and produce more capital through ads), and powerful algorithms that hone in on your interests. Thus, it only makes sense that humans acclimated to this online landscape need a higher bar of stimulation to remain engaged.

One last thing, I thought the discussion of ethics in technology quite interesting. This was a popular topic on Twitter a few months ago, and an interesting point a lot of people were making really stuck with me. A lot of STEM people hate on the humanities, but then develop apps that sell peoples data, monetize their attention, etc. It's almost like being able to understand and criticize the ethical and philosophical implications of ones behavior is important. Peanutbutterisbad (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2. While reading "The scientists who make apps addictive", I began to recognize how blatant the signs of persuasion are on social media and other popular apps, but nobody recognized this potential like B.J. Fogg. As mentioned in the text, almost everyone, especially average consumers have been placed in a "Skinner Box" without being aware. There's no question that implementations such as time or screen time limits should continue to be promoted on certain apps or even the devices they're on. As mentioned by Fogg, there are many possibilities through technology that include "educational software that persuaded students to study for longer or a financial-management programme that encouraged users to save more" however, unfortunately, these apps are yet to keep up with the popularity and addictiveness of useless social media apps and mindless games.

In order to mitigate the detrimental aspects of "cut and dry" persuasion, companies engaging in these persuasive tactics must hold ethicality close. This is where analyzing and categorizing "Captology" comes into play. Captology, coined by B.J. Fogg himself, not only expanded the understanding of technological persuasion but also dove deeper into how to be ethical and persuasive. Unfortunately, apps get more leeway than they should and ultimately pull people into long bouts of media consumption. Rarely are the consumers considered when creating an app that requires constant use from its consumers in order to profit. As Fogg explains, "The techniques they use are often crude and blatantly manipulative, but they are getting steadily more refined, and, as they do so, less noticeable"^[1], and just because these tactics are less noticeable that doesn't mean that they aren't just as malicious and manipulative. Lastly, I find it so important and enticing that B.J. Fogg was able to so accurately predict the future of this aspect of technology, it seems as though his knowledge on this subject served as a warning.Mr. Lestah (talk) 03:17, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

^ https://web.archive.org/web/20200712195812/https://www.economist.com/1843/2016/10/20/the-scientists-who-make-apps-addictive

Mr. Lestah, I changed this to "2." because this is your second QIC. Good engagement. If you use a reference use the "Reflist" template (in double curly brackets) so they sit below your pose, as I added here. -Reagle (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2. You're in Target, at a concert, or at the park and suddenly tens of teenagers and 20-somethings are frantically pulling out their phones and scrambling to snap photos of each other and themselves. Thus is the phenomena of BeReal, one of the newest social media apps that seemed to come out of nowhere and dominate the internet. Ian Leslie's description of motivation as it relates to technology and how "when motivation is high enough, or a task easy enough, people become responsive to triggers such as the vibration of a phone, Facebook's red dot" can be likened to that of the BeReal notification that reads "Time to BeReal."

The app seems to be based almost completely on Leslie's description of "hot triggers," as users all receive the notification prompting them to post at the same time, and at varied times of day, with the added incentive of only having two minutes to do so before you're marked as posting "late" (which sounds a good bit like the idea of public commitment that Robert B. Cialdini outlines). Here, it also plays into the principle of variable awards, as Leslie describes. Leslie explains that research has shown successful digital products to incorporate this principle, when "Facebook, Pinterest and others tap into basic human needs for connection, approval and affirmation, and dispense their rewards on a variable schedule." BeReal allows for these things--basic human needs for connection, approval and affirmation--as your friends can comment, respond, and even react to your post with photos of their own faces displaying different emotions. And it all happens on a varied time table, which keeps people coming back.

It sure seems like the BeReal creators understood and expertly employed, knowingly or not, the ideas explained in these readings to create a huge, dedicated usership on their social app. Alise boal (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jan 20 Fri - Kohn on motivation

QIC 3: "I find this reading interesting, but just because someone is requiring me to read it, I don't want to." "Why do I need to memorize these facts to do well on a test when I will always have Goggle just a click away in a real job?" These are things my roommates and I have said to one another numerous times as we drudge through readings for class or flip through a stack of flash cards before an exam.

Kohn seems to be one who would agree with these sentiments, telling us that rewards and extrinsic motivators like grades, scores, and even praise are "enemies of exploration." Kohn explains that the presence of extrinsic motivators (i.e. rewards) while often good for motivation, are only good for motivation, and can actually have a negative impact in some instances, especially when "incidental learning" comes into play. When a reward is up from grabs, Kohn emphasizes, we tend to hyper-focus on doing whatever it takes---and only what it takes---to get that reward. In this way, the presentation of rewards limits an individuals' desire and willingness to take chances, risks, or explorations, as well as deviate from repetition, which in turn limits creativity and problem solving. Furthermore, extrinsic rewards actually alter the way we engage with tasks and goals, and decrease interest and intrinsic motivation---even when the original task is something we previously enjoyed.

Kohn employs the discussion of grades in a classroom to explore this idea, and how students do what they can to maximize their grade as opposed to anything else. I then, ask: are intrinsic motivators enough? Because extrinsic motivators like rewards actually decrease interest, what is the answer to education? Can we get rid of grades? What would a system rid of grades, scores, evaluations, and perhaps even praise look like? I can't see this type of environment taking shape, likely because the only education I know is grade reliant.

Kohn offers ideas for ways to mitigate the decline in interest and intrinsic motivators that extrinsic motivators and rewards cause when rewards must still be present, but I am interested in considering if it would even be possible to have an education system entirely based on intrinsic motivators and what the logistics of such a thing would be.

Kohn also challenges us to ask why we're forcing people to complete boring tasks. How many of these boring tasks are truly essential, if few are actually intrinsically motivated to complete them? This makes me consider curriculum, and if the way curriculum is created would have to be drastically altered for interest to remain. Alise boal (talk) 04:59, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alise_boal, excellent, though, FYI, they need not be this long (430 words vs ~250 words).

...

QIC 3. - In Chad Whitacre's article regarding "Resentment" he highlights the important concept of analyzing our resentment toward people. Initially, I found it difficult to connect this article to the idea of "Online Communities". It was easy for me to write this article off as someone's deep dive into their own emotions, however, this article has everything to do with online communities. Although it's niche, the online crowdsourcing community exists, and is especially prominent in Whitacre's life.

Chad Whitacre creator of Gittip (crowdsourcing app), had the unfortunate opportunity of watching similar apps, such as Patreon and Subbable, take off and get the attention that he felt Gittip deserved. This small online community that had formed around a massive part of his life caused him to grow familiar with resentment. Not only was he seeing other similar creators of these apps become rich and influential, but he felt that he put in just as much work. This is something that I find particularly dangerous about being involved in certain online communities. It's difficult to take the high road when you see others succeeding at something you feel that you're just as good at. Not only is it bad for your mental health but it thwarts your motivation. All of this considered, I found it particularly intriguing that Chad was able to build a team that was communicative about their individual resentments. Not only did this become a healthy way for his team to work through hardships, but to form a team with a strong foundation of honesty.

Chad's article led me to believe that resentment, although it can be toxic, can also be a healthy way to be brutally honest with yourself and others. Identifying why you're resentful and how to understand the person your resentment is geared toward, as Chad showed, can lead to life-changing realizations. Using your analysis of personal resentments can be extremely healthy in being transparent, ultimately giving you the motivation to continue working on your passion regardless of its success in comparison to others.Mr. Lestah (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Lestah, be careful of choosing the easier reading, and if you do, try to relate it to the main one. Here, the point is how to design a community platform relative to feelings of resentment. -Reagle (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

QIC 1. - Kohn's views on rewards and motivation remind me a lot of discussions I have been having of late surrounding policy. For example, the reading brings to mind a conversation I had with my father about the recent Biden-Harris Student Debt Relief Plan. My father voiced his opinion that the Debt Relief Plan seemed to be rewarding students for going to expensive schools, where there are more inexpensive public and community education available. I argued that the Debt Relief was not a reward, but a bandaid on the problem of astronomically expensive universities.

Biden's administration seems to follow what Kohn calls a behavioralist's mentality, retroactively rewarding student's for being students; "For having helped me out yesterday, here's a banana," (p53). Although, as Kohn would agree, this reward is nothing more than a punishment. There is now more incentive to become educated at expensive institutions, but only through the threadbare hope that somewhere down the line, future generations of students will be relieved of some of their debt. Even as someone who is benefitting from the debt relief, I can't help but find myself resonating with the concept of rewards being empty promises that enact no long-term change.

While debt relief is in fact a nice reward for deciding to become educated, "rewards do not require any attention to the reasons that the trouble developed in the first place," (p59). Education in the United States is by far more expensive than is reasonable at both private universities and public. Debt relief, while appealing on the surface, does nothing to address the root of the issue. --JonNotJohn (talk) 00:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JonNotJohn, excellent engagement and connection. -Reagle (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

4. This Kohn reading was quite illuminating for me, as I had never considered the vast negative effects of extrinsic motivators before. Sure, as a student, I had recognized the clear issue with reducing tasks as a means to an ends, but I had not ever even though about just how deep this issue goes. As Jon has already discussed, and something I really latched onto in this reading is how this reward-driven (or Skinnerian, as Kohn describs it) mindset plays into public policy. The example of paying low-income/at-risk youth to stay in school really stuck with me.

As Kohn pointed out, rewards in public policy tend not to address the larger, systemic issues that cause the problems it's attempting to fix. For example, my mother recently got all her student loans forgiven. She's been a public school educator for about twenty years now, and I think anyone who says she doesn't deserve it would be lying. While it's great that my family no longer has this financial burden looming over our heads, this one-time event does nothing to solve why she had to go so much into debt in the first place. Instead of spending billions on say, making education free and accessible or, rather, cracking down on predatory student loan companies the Biden administration has chosen to finally extend Public Service Loan Forgiveness to the people they had been promising it for years. This "reward" for time served as a public service worker does little to change the systems that produce more debt for future workers.

Something I found particularly entertaining was Whitacre's endorsement of radical honestly, especially when it comes to online interactions. One of the biggest problems with online communication, especially when it's just text, is reading tone. For many, we assume this nebulous other that's

I don't think radical honesty is the way, I Think radical empathy is. While setting clear intentions and articulating specific grievances is useful in developing relationships and reaching goals, not seeing the other parties as just as human as you is a fatal flaw of any type of communication, especially online.

This is why I particularly enjoyed Whitacre's reflect8ve section on his relationship with resentment. By understanding his resentment through a relational lens Whitacre sees his mistakes in talking more than listening or in disliking Hank Green over the two having different interests/goals. Essentially, I believe it's more important, especially when approaching online interactions, in seeing the interaction through the other party's eyes. Peanutbutterisbad (talk) 03:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peanutbutterisbad, remember to break your prose into coherent thoughts via paragraphs. -Reagle (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

QIC 1. Chad Whitacre's article "Resentment" is a particularly interesting reflection on his own work in the industry of online crowdsourcing and the culture of resentment that may stem from it. While his platform, Gittip, was created with the intention to direct spectators' appreciation of others' work into financially supporting them, I feel that it only reinforces a prominent attention-seeking culture that has been engendered by online content and audience engagement. Whitacre quotes Tegan Mulholland as having said of Gittip that it is the "opposite/complement of a gift economy." In response to this, he explains that the point of Gittip is to present the effort before being promised a reward, and that is why the platform should work as a reflection of generosity rather than payment. But this can only become cyclical if performed more than once. Someone who begins with an effort and is then rewarded with the gift of money will only then escalate their first behavior in an attempt to escalate the sum of the reward they will receive. Though it starts with good intention, it may easily become an act of greed and a performance more than a genuine effort.

The fact that Whitacre is able to see this clearly, reflect on what that means about his work and respond to it productively is rather impressive, especially in an article where he is exploring the idea of resentment. The response in and of itself illustrates Brad Blanton's "radical honesty," which he mentions as being an approach he likes to follow to strengthen his connection to others. I wandered on the link he attached and realized that Radical Honesty is not just a concept but an actual movement which aims to teach people to overcome their internalized anger and communicate their genuine feelings to better their relationships. In doing so, and in writing this piece about his own resentments earnestly, it seems like he is truly coming to peace with his position in the online crowdsourcing industry. I'm sure more people in tech could benefit from this approach, to be radically honest. Mobyoctopad44 (talk) 04:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mobyoctopad44, be careful of choosing the easier reading, and if you do, try to relate it to the main one. -Reagle (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3. Being a political science & communications major is a sophisticated way of saying I read and write endlessly. For a while, this extinguished my desire to find solace in novels and journaling. As put by Kohn (1993), "A single, one-time reward for doing something you love can kill your interest in it for weeks" (p. 74). However, a tactic used at every grade level is rewarding students for their performance, whether it's writing a report, completing a presentation, or finishing a book. In doing so, do we kill their passion and excitement for learning with these rewards? In your opinion, what would be a better way of motivating students to find joy in learning?

Further, contradictory to this truth expressed by Kahn we're often told to do what we love and follow our passion. My question for the class would be after engaging in Kohn's evidence, is it better to follow this notion and engage in our passions for work? In doing so we're rewarded --- a stable job, money, benefits, etc. Does this in turn kill our passion? What has your personal experience been?

Additionally, Kohn's chapter "The Praise Problem" I found to be insightful and troubling. In this chapter, he sets out to explain the challenges praise presents including how it signals low availability in children, can increases pressure, can reduce excitement over the task, and decrease the likelihood of risk-taking (Kohn, 1993, p. 101). Clearly, there are consequences of praise, especially when doing so carelessly. However --- what Kohn fails to address is how a lack of praise might impact self-esteem. Is there evidence in the literature to support how praise does or does not impact self-esteem and self-image? NUstudent1316 (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NUstudent1316, excellent response. -Reagle (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

QIC 3: The connection I immediately made to the Kohn reading was how much it reminded me of the book Atomic Habits. The book talks a lot about the psychology behind change, creating new habits, breaking bad habits, and the motivation behind doing so. The first piece that reminded me of the book was the quote on the first page of chapter 5, "If our goal is quality, or a lasting commitment to a value or behavior, no artificial incentive can match the power of intrinsic motivation" (Kohn, 1993, p. 68). This is consistent with the teachings of the Atomic Habits author, James Clear. Once the reward for the behavior is taken away, the motivation to continue that behavior goes with it.

For example, imagine working a job and one day your boss decides to stop paying you. Your motivation to go to work would be gone because your reward was taken away. This was an extreme example but it speaks to the basic psychology behind motivation and extrinsic reward. On the other hand, when an individual has intrinsic motivation, they're doing the behavior for themselves, not for the reward they'll receive. Clear looks at how one can develop more intrinsic motivation in his book as opposed to constantly working toward the next extrinsic reward.

I don't currently have access to the book to cite an exact page or chapter, but the book explains that science backs the hypothesis that behaviors that are intrinsically motivated and not extrinsically rewarded are more likely to become a habit than those lacking intrinsic motivation but consistently being extrinsically rewarded. Another example I would give is going to an internship you truly enjoy. You enjoy the work you're doing, you know it will benefit you later in your career, the job makes you happy, so you're motivated to do it even if its an unpaid internship. Nustudent1120 (talk) 17:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nustudent1120, good engagement with Kohn, can you connect it with something from class or online communities? -Reagle (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jan 24 Tue - A/B testing & Wikipedia: Finding a topic

4. A/B testing is the ultimate reward at face value for marketers. When you're constantly trying to get inside your customer's minds and provide valuable online experiences, what better solution than having your customers choose their best experience?

"The practice of rewarding people conveniently spares us from asking hard questions about why we are asking people to do things in the first place" (Kohn, 1993, p. 89). As Kohn predicted, the emergence of A/B testing has stopped employees from questioning the reason behind certain success elements as articulated in Christian's (2012) research. He particularly cites that meetings have ended over discussing the why because it didn't hold real value --- A/B testing would figure it out for them. Why do users prefer one experience over another? What does this mean about our target audience and how can we better reach them? Arguably, one of the most grueling and tantalizing parts of marketing is the why. However, personally, I find this to be the excitement and appeal of a marketing job. And in employing A/B testing, do we ruin this creativity?

Further, Christian (2012) claims that the emergence of A/B testing has resulted in reduced risk-taking. There's less motivation or necessity to take risks when the data will point you in the right direction. Kohn similarly presented this fear of the impacts of rewards, also citing that they can increase pressure and reduce interest in the task itself (Kohn, 1993, p. 101). In an era of marketing where perceived authenticity is lucrative, how might this impact brands' success? NUstudent1316 (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

QIC 2: Brian Christian's article on A/B testing surprised me a lot, as I had no idea about the prevalence of live website testing on its users. My first instinct when he mentions that website users have no idea that they are essentially being experimented on was to wonder about the ethics of website testing. Am I okay with being a lab rat for these big companies to generate more clicks? I suppose it does not matter, as being on these websites in the first place is generating endless amounts of data for engineers to compare and take notes on. I noticed on the Wiki 2010 Fundraiser Banner testing page that the "if every user donated $5..." prompt generated way more clicks and donations than the same one but with $10 instead. This obviously makes sense, because $10 feels like a lot, but I found it funny because I have definitely seen both on Wikipedia and neither have been effective on me, so I wonder if any different messaging would actually convince me.

The idea of being tested bothers me more when thinking of Silicon Valley giants rather than smaller companies or websites, so I quite like the idea of Optimizely, Siroker's web-testing company. The description of the website reminds me of other easy-interface web design platforms, like Squarespace or Wix, or easy digital design tools like Canva. Making website design easy to achieve is the only way to truly democratize the Internet as a space for creation rather than just consumption of content for people who are not computer scientists or data engineers. I think a lot of successful startups would have flopped had it not been for interfaces like that which enable them to improve their websites. Mobyoctopad44 (talk) 02:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dov.1

Whilst the digital world of A/B testing is one ripe with innovation and efficiency, its darker implications and ethical concerns raise questions about how we understand data.With the help of a few lines of code, resource-rich companies can make more informed decisions concerning the efficiency and effectiveness of their marketing strategies. Before Siroker invented Optimizely (an application I think is brilliant), the process of A/B testing largely favored the more valuable, fast-working giants of the Silicon valley. These companies possessed the cultural foundation, market pull, and tangible resources to continuously make small tweaks to the way they deliver their products through A/B testing. A huge part of this for me is the amount of traffic sites like google endure over the course of a day; millions of visitors to a main page provides the perfect opportunity to conduct these 'multivariate tests', compared to a smaller startup that might only get a few dozen daily visitors.

Before reading Brian Christian's article on A/B testing, I was unaware of the surprisingly large chance that the digital pages I consumed on a daily basis were involved in multivariate tests. An employee of Google admitted the percentage of users experiencing a tweaked version of the original webpage is near 100%.

Startups simply lacked the time, money, and traffic to rigorously involve A/B testing within their strategy. While Optimizely provides these companies a chance of their own to write up A/B tests, is it as valuable to them as it is to the larger conglomerates? In my opinion, the answer is no. A/B testing inherently negates risk-taking, and more often than not these startups require immense dare and courage throughout the first few years, if they can make it that far. A startup can't coast off of minuscule, unidentifiable changes, a fact proven by the notion that many startups will completely change the direction of their company all together. DovC123 (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

4. Anyone can log into Facebook's ad manager and set up their own A/B test to run on a specified audience. And they can do it easily---it only takes a few minutes and a Facebook account.

I took a Social Media analytics class where we ran A/B tests across platforms and about all different aspects of a social media campaign. Similar to what Wikimedia did to test elements of a page to drive donations (languages, phrasing, background images), we tested everything. It was fascinating to see the ease and speed at which we could gain information from unsuspecting social media users, all because they were in our specified audience.

Something that I found especially exciting, though, was the wealth of information I had at my fingertips as merely a student being provided basic skills. Christian explains the way A/B testing often negates the HiPPO effect, where the Highest Paid Person's Opinion reigns. We spoke about this often in class, and about how relevant this idea was to us as college students, as we enter internships and entry-level jobs where we may have ideas that are taken less seriously. Having access to the same A/B tests as anyone else evens the playing field. We spoke about the power of coming to our bosses or teams with an idea and already having the testing to back it up--to prove that the data already made the call, as Christian says, and that we know what we're talking about. Having competency in this kind of testing can empower younger generations in scenarios where they may otherwise be disregarded. Alise boal (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

5. The Christian reading, in the beginning, made me think a lot about our discussions on persuassion, especially the story about Google's Siroker and his involvement in the Obama campaign. The banner testing page was the same wy for me. It had me thinking a lot about the purpose of A/B testing. While it's great that this testing produces a lot of data and can easily show what works better to , say retain active users on a certain website, I began to wonder if these people even thought about this texting beyond the internet and sales and clicks, etc., etc.

While it is useful for Amazon to test which website layout yields greater sales, most people are the users on the other side of A/B testing. They are the test subjects, and I found the lack of discussion on how these tests affect those being tested to be a little concerning. As companies rapidly improve and perhaps even automate pays to increase screentime and sales, how does that affect the masses that are constantly consuming? And, as Christian pointed out, this testing mechanism only makes tiny improvements typically and foregoes large changes, as he said, "10,000 ongoing tweaks don't add up to fundamental change of direction when one is needed." This means that companies that use this will instead follow the (possibly predatory) pattern of increasing revenue, donations, etc. instead of implementing changes that protects its users.

Take Instagram, for example. This app is well-known for its popularity as well as its tendency to take-on features popular on other apps. While implementing short-form videos known as Reels (which were mostly re-uploaded TikToks for a while) may increase users' time on the app, it also harms the popular creators who use Instagram for its existing popular features. With the focus more on A/B testing and pure numbers, the purpose and effects of these changes can become difficult to determine, and sometimes harming everyone but the company in the process. Peanutbutterisbad (talk) 02:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

QIC 2 I have personally experienced a similar A/B testing with Wikipedia's "$10 vs $5" ^[1] test on a Chinese local restaurant mobile app last year. I rarely donate money because of time efficiency and limited money received from parents when ordering online meal. That restaurant app always has an option to donate 15 RMB for help solving poverty problem, but one day it suddenly changed to 5 RMB and immediately catch my attention. And few days after that test, that restaurant lower their average price. That's a smart choice for this local restaurant to use A/B testing both help non-profit organization receiving more donation, also collect data about consumers' average consuming level and get reliable date for future pricing strategy. But even though I personally experienced the success method and benefit of A/B testing, I still doubt if there are pitfalls of A/B testing. As Christian (2012) mentioned A/B testing may only achieve "local maxima"^[2], which means the data reflected from A/B testing can trapped people and not be risky enough to try new experiments and realize big changes. Which can also link back to Kohn (1993)'s argument about how "rewards discourage risk-taking"^[3]. A/B testing's result can lead to a short-term donation amount increase and consumer data collection, but the consumer market is keep changing and can even trapped the restaurant to lower their price and receive lower marketing margin. And the rule of "data makes the call", can also lead to a question: what if the donation amount get increased is not because of consumers' income level but because of the consumer groups those days are coincidentally more frequent donators? That can easily draw a wrong causation. So, I personally worried about A/B testing may sometimes blind website designers. Susususushi (talk) 05:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

QIC 1: It is interesting to see how A/B testing might be part of our day-to-day lives, however, it is something that one is not paying attention to. Constantly, creators of websites and other technologies are experimenting with different wordings and imagery to captivate a user. I found it surprising how just a simple phrase or word can impact the number of people wanting to click on it. For the Obama campaign, the article demonstrated this in a real-life example, "They broke the page into its component parts and prepared a handful of alternatives for each. For the button, an A/B test of three new word choices---"Learn More," "Join Us Now," and "Sign Up Now"---revealed that "Learn More" garnered 18.6 percent more signups per visitor than the default of "Sign Up" (Christian, 2012). As a communications major, it is vital to use captivating wording and reiterates the impact it could have. This is something that I will continue to keep in mind as I pursue my career and be open to testing out different types of things, in order to get the best result.

As the article mentions one must remember to keep in mind the audience one is targeting. The best results come from extensive research and the process of elimination. It is important to keep in mind that just because there is data supporting a specific decision that should be made, taking risks can sometimes lead one to surprise.

Anabellakb (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jan 27 Fri - Platform affordances: Twitter and Mastodon

5. "The goal is to yell into the void, loud enough to perhaps reach a crowd of strangers" (Chayka, 2022).

Social media is often propositioned as attention-seeking, self-promotional, or yelling into the void as shared by Chayka. However, what happens when yelling into the void brings to light the voices that are often hampered and dismissed by the media? Enter the case of black Twitter. Clark (2015) expresses that black Twitter has ushered in social-changed and sparked mass media attention to acts of violence and racism against the black community (p. 209). That being said, 250 words isn't nearly enough space to go into the, politely said, "mess" that Twitter is these days. However, is Mastodon a worthy replacement for the vibrant black Twitter community?

I'd be curious to know what the class thinks would be the best replacement for this online community --- if one exists. As noted in (Charyka, 2022) Mastodon is "designed to be against virality". Further, she describes Twitter in opposition as a "global town square". Although the interface of these two platforms might appear to be similar, their goals and algorithms differ tremendously. Arguably, the purpose of black Twitter is it amplifies voices that have historically, and continue to be, marginalized and ignored. If Mastodon aims to show you what you want to see, does this have the opportunity to turn into an echo chamber? I'd ask my classmates, is there a world in which you could see Mastadon being a worthy opponent to Twitter for the black community? NUstudent1316 (talk) 15:04, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

6. In the Clark and Parham readings, I thought a lot about my experiences on Twitter and compared it to their descriptions of Black Twitter. While Clark's conceptions are a bit outdated, I thought the transformational power of Black Twitter to trun online events and discourse into real-life ones still rather relevant, escpecially given the power of the BLM movement in 2020. I remember, as I hope we all do, the amount of people in the streets, even amidst the COVID pandemic. As Parham notes, even this Black Twitter of 2020 is not really the same Black Twitter of 2023. Still, the great influential power remains. Just take the now-popular meme of "rizz," a slang term meant to refer to "charisma." This, like many other phrases and terms regarded as "internet culture" come from AAVE.

The cultural influence of Black Twitter is not really something I believe can be replicated on a platform like Mastodon, like Parham posits. I'm not too familiar with the inner workings of Mastodon, as I believed Twitter is too big to fail and did not feel the need to flee, so the Chayka reading really helped me develop my view on the platform. It really shocked me that there is so much gatekeeping on the platform, as once you are on a server you can only post on that server. It kind of reminds of Truth Social because it lacks the crucial element of a varied online environment. While your Twitter feed is absolutely informed by your interests and accounts you interact with, when something goes viral, regardless of the corner of Twitter in which it originated from, you are very likely to see it (or at least see people talking about it). Twitter is the modern public square, for better or for worse. Peanutbutterisbad (talk) 21:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

QIC 3. I find it interesting that Clark's analysis seems to represent Twitter as being overall pretty empowering for Black voices, as I feel that Twitter is probably the most toxic social media platform for anyone, even those who are able to amplify their ideas to large crowds. While it's clear that Black Twitter has been able to achieve a lot, especially with #PaulasBestDishes and #SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen, viral hashtags or certain meme formats inevitably spread to too wide of an audience and end up reappropriated, diluting the strength of their initial purpose. Once something goes viral, it belongs to the masses and no longer to its original creator. Ownership is addressed a bit differently on Mastodon, which definitely might sway me to switch to it. Chayka explains that on Mastodon, feeds are less centralized and more adapted to specific interests, which reminds me a lot of Reddit's configuration. I rarely post anything on Twitter but I do check my feed daily, and have grown quite tired of it as a platform for some of the reasons he describes in the article: Twitter functions as large and unfiltered space of gathering where whatever attracts the most attention will be essentially placed on a speakerphone and distributed to just about everyone's feed. This makes it really difficult to focus on topics you are actually interested in, or to avoid some of the blatantly mean or ignorant tweets that go viral because, if you only have 280 characters, people end up focusing on how controversial they can be in so few words than on actually expanding on their ideas. Now that I see that Mastodon is largely growing and approved by many, I may consider trying it out (very much social approval from the persuasion model). Mobyoctopad44 (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

QIC. I deleted all of my social media just over two years ago now. It was something that I was initially very reluctant to do, but I have not been the slightest bit urged to re-activate my accounts. Though I do agree that social media does have its perks, mainly from a communicative point of view, the negatives still heavily outweigh the positives. I don't really know anything about Twitter as I have never had an account before, but after reading "Black Twitter: Building connection through cultural conversation", it was eye-opening to me as to how a simple hashtag, in this case, #SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen and #PaulasBestDishes can influence so many people. To me, the reading really did make it seem like Twitter was such an important avenue for people of color to make their voices heard. Then reading, "There is no replacement for black Twitter", I was quite surprised by the immense hatred towards Elon Musk, which seems to be a theme among these readings. "under the ownership of Elon Musk, however, all of that could fade away in an instant". I'm intrigued to know why Elon Musk is faced with so much scrutiny by this community. It is confusing to me that a platform that is commonly known to silence people with controversial points of view, can also be an advocate for free speech at the same time. Are people drifting away from Twitter because they don't like Elon Musk? Or are they drifting away because they are against a platform being open for any individual to express concern, insight, or ask questions? These readings further reinforce my reluctance to get back on social media. User:Cbrann --- Preceding undated comment added 16:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cbrann, please don't forget to number your QIC, and sign in and sign when posting it. -Reagle (talk) 18:00, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3 Just as Clark discussed, Black Twitter community succeeds with using "culturally resonant language and phrases combined hashtag" to humorously or sarcastically clarify the facts about the black community and express the resistance of the black community to the racial discrimination portrayed by the mainstream media. Highly active online communities like Black Twitter community can let the public and journalists who actively involved within social media know what the voice of the minorities are through huge numbers of retweets and public "stats such as 'favorites' and 'boosts'". Social change can be achieved through online community revolt. But Clark's concern -- community outsiders may miss the tools to interpret "Black cultural conversation" and "being thrust into the dynamic without a buffer of social courtesy can create a sense of unease", are two common problems in public comments on social platforms these days. Recently, under The British Museum's Twitter feed, Chinese twitter users are also fighting for cultural appropriation and posts pictures containing the hashtag "#merrykoreansmas" and photoshop the picture with a Korean man's face. Personally, I understand why those angry Chinese users want to use this kind of satire awakening people's understanding of culture appropriation of Chinese New Year to "Korean New Year". But how people describe those Chinese users are "British Museum facing the wrath of the angry mob who say the correct term is Chinese New Year". Both Chinese user and Black Titter community get described as "mob" and both just want to reshape cultural/personal identity and fight for their right. However, the mainstream media narrative does not give the public the opportunity to fully understand the reasons of these communities' anger. From perspective of the public, these angry posts/ comments are just irrational and impolite Internet "mobs". Thus, Twitter, while providing weapons to reshape in-group identity, does not provide the outside crowd with a way to understand. However, I personally still think a public social media and enough transparency for the popular trend can keep the diversity and help people acknowledging other people's culture. Within` Mastodon which should be a new platform created more safe and private atmosphere and suitable for small communities, what I am concerning for is the Information flow degree and lack of knowledge effect mainstream media's description. If people start to value more about the privacy of online communities and reject cultural exchanges, will we go back to the days when media coverage ruled and shaped the group image? Susususushi (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Susususushi, interesting connection; please break your mega-paragraph into coherent units. -Reagle (talk) 18:00, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

5. "[T]hey show how participants can use these traditional communication patterns as markers of cultural and racial authenticity." Clark shared this quote from Bryne explaining the use of African American Vernacular English, which is employed on Black Twitter and in other Black online spaces like it is in spoken language. Although Clark was using this discussion of AAVE to illustrate the flaws of prior research into Black Twitter use, it immediately brought me back to one of our earliest conversations about symbols with McMillan and Chavis.

Because AAVE could be considered a symbol of the Black community, it can be assumed that its use helps create boundaries and helps identify members of the community, both by other community members and those outside of it. I then question if AAVE loses some of its symbolism for the community when it is co-opted by white people. We see, online especially, the ever increasing number of non-Black people using AAVE, oftentimes incorrectly. TikTok and Twitter seem to have exacerbated this issue. When these symbols are stolen, do they lose their value as such? Is there a symbol that steps in to fill that hole? Alise boal (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alise boal, I like the connection to McMillan & Chavis and the resulting question. -Reagle (talk) 18:00, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

QIC4 Prior to reading Clark's Black Twitter article, I had not previously thought about how much community can come from the use of a hashtag. The quote that stood out to me most from the reading was "where boundaries of class, education, gender, and geography might otherwise stratify Twitter's Black users, the use of culturally resonant hashtags affords them the opportunity to form multilevel networks online, developing a sense of online community (Blanchard, 2007)" (Clark, 2015). Upon reading this, I immediately made the connection to our initial discussion of what constitutes a community based on the McMillan and Chavis reading. The membership and sense of belonging comes from the utilization and interaction with tweets from #BlackTwitter can trump boundaries that may otherwise would have been put up by class, gender, etc. The shared experiences between many of the members of Black Twitter are what gives individuals the shared emotional connection that helps to create a community.

Considering Twitter has millions of users, there is no cap to how large the community of Black Twitter can grow, something we discussed during one of the first classes of the semester. Because the opportunity to participate in this community is so accessible due to Twitter being free and only requiring internet access and a device, the boundary to enter or exit the community is more accessible than an in-person group for example. Furthermore, Tweets can be shared to all of Twitter, in theory, in seconds. With such an accessible community of individuals leaves more opportunity for multi-directional influence to take place. The reading from McMillan and Chavis (1986) states that "members are more attracted to a community in which they feel that they are influential". The opportunities to influence others simply through the use of a hashtag and Twitter's algorithm are frequent and open to nearly any user who chooses. I personally believe that this openness of the platform and lack of strict boundaries is what made Black Twitter such an attractive, influential, and successful community for those participating. Nustudent1120 (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nustudent1120, yes, Clark actually cites McMillan and Chavis! -Reagle (talk) 18:00, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

QIC2: Black Twitter has been an online community for those who want to have that "cultural conversation" which is "engaging in the banal, chatting about television shows, and notably, lampooning and lambast- ing offenders. Their communicative acts contribute to an ever-evolving sense of community" (Clark, 2015, p. 206). This concept of cultural conversation is something that has been a great asset to many who are minorities or just want to find their belonging with others who reciprocate and understand either the hardships or just make friends in general. Twitter is not the only place where this occurs and in a way, it is a huge advantage with social media. It allows many to get informed and educate themselves about other cultures.

This Black Twitter community seems formed and unlikely to switch to Mastodon. The short word count is what makes Twitter unique and keeps the format of writing concise. With Mastodon a five hundred word count does not seem as a conviving factor since I think many do not have or want to read something long. Mastodon is said to be "better for this kind of small community than Twitter---it's generally a friendlier environment, encouraging, less combative interaction" (Chayka, 2022). I believe that even though it would be a friendlier environment, those on Twitter enjoy the arguments and debates that go on and opens conversation among many.

Do you guys believe that Mastodon could be a better platform for cultural conversation, in this case, those who are part of Black Twitter? I am curious to see what everyone thinks.

Anabellakb (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jan 31 Tue - Wikipedia: Creating an outline with citations

...

Feb 03 Fri - Ethics (interlude)

QIC 4: Amy Bruckman's research project for her students challenged her and her students to push the barrier between ethicality and breaching privacy. Not only is the project interesting, but as she mentions it also poses many risks. This research project she proposed was heavily dependent on the ethicality and trust of her students and their actions. Bruckman sent her students, after getting permission, to study real individuals in online communities. The risk factor of this project also remained in the hands of certain gatekeepers. Online communities often contain moderators that keep track of the actions and behavior of all community members. This made it even more difficult for her students to get the information they needed for said project. Conducting online interviews can be far from fruitful when collecting in-depth information from online community members. However, having an "in" for an online community is a life-saver. Bruckman mentions one of her students' successful projects analyzing and gathering information from an online community that only included co-workers. On the other hand, this provides another ethical risk of tarnishing relationships with co-workers. Formal interviews, especially online interviews, can be very difficult to navigate when considering communicative ethics and responsiveness. Mr. Lestah (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Lestah, can you think of a snappier opening line? -Reagle (talk) 17:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

QIC 1: Amy Bruckman's Essay provides many new insights to me in terms of the potential ethical issues in the online community world. The points she brought up such as the site selection and the usage of direct quotation are things that I haven't think about when making a move in the online community. Personally, I think maintain an ethical manner in the online community is as important as giving credit to the author(s) of the source we are using. One concern that I have toward conducting phone interviews is the credibility of the interviewees. Since each research project has its own target demographics, it is hard for students to determine who is the right fit. If the interview audience is inaccurate, it might influence the credibility of the research. I also agree with Dr. Bruckman's point that phone interview related to international interviewees requires accurate translation of the project and consent. It requires careful translate and communication in order to obtain a precise and trustworthy reseach. Zhifanfu (talk) 18:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

6. As shared by Bruckman (2006), vast challenges arise in creating an ethical study of an online community. With that in mind, Bruckman and her students extend great care to protect the rights and privacy of those who choose to participate in the study. On the other end of the spectrum, Facebook and OkCupid were brazen enough to publish the experiments that were done on their platform, without the consent or knowledge of their participants. Many companies gather data on consumers --- through their websites, social media, etc. This information is shared internally and used to tailor marketing messages, hone in on their target audience, and further develop their products. However, how do we draw a distinction between a company collecting data and conducting research on individuals without consent? Is the line drawn when this information is publicly shared? Further, can algorithms be considered a form of privacy invasion or data collection?

Some users select to share information on sights that are known for their public nature, such as having a public Facebook, LinkedIn, or Instagram account with their real name. In these instances, it seems reasonable for researchers to conduct studies on platforms where anonymity is not expected or preferred. However, in more delicate and personal settings, such as support groups, or communities designed for anonymity, researchers should hold their work to a higher standard. If individuals hold themselves to the same standards Bruckman (2006) provides include: an IRB protocol, consent forms, upfront identification as a researcher, and so forth, a study should be considered ethical. NUstudent1316 (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NUstudent1316, the first line could be snappier, but otherwise excellent engagement and connections across the readings. -Reagle (talk) 17:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

QIC: 5 In this QIC I would like to pose a couple of questions. The first being: Why are individual researchers who receive funding required to be cleared by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) but not larger corporations like Facebook or OkCupid. The first article by Bruckman (2006) discussed in-depth the measures of precaution that are taken to ensure the privacy, safety, ethics, and consent of all parties involved in the research. From what the article made the IRB process out to be, it wasn't quick or easy, they truly make researchers jump through hoops for the good of the study. However, upon scrolling past most of the fine print for social media websites like Facebook or OkCupid, we simply hit the "I accept" button. While this is in partial accordance with regulations for research studies, why is there no formal "I consent to my data being used" button if our data is going to be profited from? At the time of Facebook's 2014 emotional contagion study, "Facebook did not state in the Data Use Policy that user data would be used for research purposes" (Wikipedia). In the case of individual researchers, like the students in the Bruckman article, if they're receiving institutional or governmental funding, the IRB must approve the study. Facebook and OkCupid have analytics and research teams that are included in their company yearly budgets that receive funding (from within the company), which should hold them to a similar standard as the students are held.

The second question I would like to pose is, how at fault are we as individual Internet users for not knowing our data was being collected? People, like myself, rarely read the fine print simply because we're lazy. If we weren't as lazy and actually read the entirety of what social media sites give to us before we hit "I accept", would we be as careless as we are currently upon knowing how our data will actually be used? Nustudent1120 (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nustudent1120, excellent questions, let's discuss today. -Reagle (talk) 17:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

QIC 2:

I very much enjoyed what Bruckman had to say about ethics in the study of online communities. Besides from the obvious connections to the other readings this week, which were interesting in their own rights, I was more so fascinated by the ethics of online identity and self-presentation. For instance, when a female student presented herself as male to a male dominated website for the purpose of research it was deemed unacceptable. Even though gender deception was common on the site, Bruckman (2007) determined that "what is acceptable for a member is not necessarily acceptable for a researcher studying the site," (p. 89). I don't entirely agree with this.

Most online forums and communities I have knowledge of, and all of those I personally interact with, utilize anonymity. The anonymity does not serve as a function of these forums, but as a default setting for most online communities. Granted, there are some who would intentionally mislead about their identities in a harmful way, and some websites such as dating sites require a high level of transparency, but when researching Reddit forums, Instagram and TikTok comment sections, and discord servers, researchers should not be forced to a higher standard of transparency than the average user. Anonymity also tends to vary depending on your role in a platform. Famous TikTok content creators may be likely to use their real name, but their commenters typically have usernames such as "kanyewestlover1025", or "thatboyyawny".

I believe that the ethical conduct standards for research should vary according to the purpose, and culture of the individual community. --- Preceding unsigned comment added by JonNotJohn (talk • contribs) 18:23, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JonNotJohn, can you think of a snappier start? Otherwise, excellent engagement with reading specifics and question. -Reagle (talk) 17:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

7. I really liked the Bruckman reading, it all made sense to me. There were even suggestions and best practices for issues that I never even considered like quoting someone in your paper and their identity being uncovered that way. It makes perfect sense, of course, and I think it was a helpful reading for our class. Pretty thorough and still mostly applicable even over 15 years later. In stark contrast, the Wikipedia article and the Rudder readings completely disregarded rules of informed consent and experimented on and researched their users anyway. At first, especially with the Wikipedia reading, I was really disappointed with this, but then I thought about our conversations regarding A/B testing. If I don't know what the A version of the site looks and acts like, does it matter that I am only receiving the B side? For me, not so much.

I think the main crux of the issue, especially the Facebook one is that the findings were not just for the company, they were shared with researchers. Keeping the informational internal to inform future updates to the site is one thing, sharing it externally to, I don't know, test a hypothesis is pretty shady, to me at least. This makes the argument for informed consent even stronger, in my opinion. How can you, a researcher agree when you know your subjects haven't? Of course, this problem can be solved by tacking on a few extra clauses in Facebook's terms and conditions, but who even reads those things? Is it really informed consent if the users don't even read the clauses? To me, not so much. In the Bruckman reading they described how researchers typically go about this (like, by meeting face to face and witnessing the signing of the agreement) and I don't think that even a terms & conditions clause lives up to that standard. Peanutbutterisbad (talk) 03:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

QIC 4. Bruckman's (2007) conclusions about ethical research for students made sense to me overall. Conducting research on people is tricky, especially in online communities where users are likely to seek anonymity and a sense of freedom to be oneself with likeminded people. But Bruckman makes her students declare their role as researchers very openly during their study and encourages protection of users' anonymity pretty much the best she can. Having students add in their user profile that they are conducting a study or if possible send a message to the community they are studying to explain their role, as she mentions, seems like a solid and fast way to gather consent to observe. I was, though, surprised that she discourages her students from using direct quotations. I hadn't considered the consequences of the digital footprint but, if something has been posted by a user online and their content or community is public, I do not see anything wrong with quoting that content. With the exception of minors, I perceive public online posting as consent to being observed and shared. I must say I was slightly disturbed by Rudder's (2014) article on OkCupid. I read it after Bruckman's text and was struck by the difference in tone they adopted in discussing experimenting on people. Bruckman clearly has good intentions in mind and is humble throughout her conclusions, because she is aware that researching a community can easily be disruptive and interpreted as insulting by members of that community. I agree with Rudder that collecting data from the website you are running to be able to improve on it is not unethical, not because other sites do it too, but because data conceals individuals' identities. However, he gets so confident with the humor of his article that he uses a woman's profile picture with only her eyes blocked out to exemplify OkCupid's rating system on appearance. The joke is misplaced and defeats the purpose of the article; it comes across as him mocking the users they are observing instead of being respectful and protective of them. Mobyoctopad44 (talk) 15:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mobyoctopad44, excellent engagement and details; can you begin with a snappier start? Also, break your prose into coherent thoughts/paragraphs. -Reagle (talk) 17:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feb 07 Tue - Norm compliance and breaching

7. “Seen but unnoticed” (Schutz, A. as cited in Garfinkel, 1976).

How frequently do we make heuristics — assuming the behaviors and thoughts of others without noticing what we’re doing? What proportion of our daily lives boils down to being seen but unnoticed? And can we boil this proposition by Garfinkle as either good or bad?

Interestingly enough, Garfinkel’s experiments have made their way onto social media for their shock value and humor. Many Tiktokers make videos violating expected social norms. For example, individuals will cut someone’s headphones while they are listening to music, watching their disbelief and frustration only to give them a pair of AirPods. Others will share sensitive and vulgar information in a public place recording the reactions of others, violating what we’d typically classify as appropriate or ‘normal’. This also leads me to question whether the seen but unnoticed is another way of defining cultural norms, expectations, and what we deem to be “normal”.

Similar to the propositions made by Garfinkel, Kraut (2012) suggests that online communities thrive when norms are clearly communicated, decided, and shared. Those who violate these norms are frequently subjected to some form of punishment. In public, these punishments are made vocal when violating an expectation, like when someone cuts the line in Garkfinkel’s experiment. Online, communicating these norms is uncharted territory, and Kraut makes many suggestions to introduce the same seen but unnoticed practices into digital communities. In practice, how has the class witnessed the suggestions made by Kraut in their own online communities or social platforms? NUstudent1316 (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2023 (UTC) ...[reply]

...

Feb 10 Fri - Regulation and pro-social norms (and writing workshop)

...

Feb 14 Tue - Newcomer gateways

...

Feb 17 Fri - Newcomer initiation

...

Feb 21 Tue - Collaboration and feedback

...

Feb 24 Fri - Moderation: Frameworks

...

Feb 28 Tue - Moderation: U.S. law/policy

...

Mar 03 Fri - Debrief: Social breaching

...

Mar 07 Tue - NO CLASS

...

Mar 10 Fri - NO CLASS

...

Mar 14 Tue - Reddit's challenges and delights

...

Mar 17 Fri - Governance and banning at Wikipedia

...

Mar 21 Tue - Cancelling vs Censorship

...

Mar 24 Fri - Algorithms: Reddit and Tiktok

...

Mar 28 Tue - Parasocial relationships, "stans", and "wife guys"

...

Mar 31 Fri - FOMO, growth hacking, and ethics

...

Apr 04 Tue - RTFM

...

Apr 07 Fri - Community fission and the Reddit diaspora

...

Apr 11 Tue - Gratitude

...

Apr 14 Fri - Debrief: Wikipedia

...

Apr 18 Tue - Exit and infocide

...

[1] Nazis and Norms, Joseph Michael Reagle Jr., 2010

[2] Nazis and Norms, Joseph Michael Reagle Jr., 2010

[3] Nazis and Norms, Joseph Michael Reagle Jr., 2010

[4] Nazis and Norms, Joseph Michael Reagle Jr., 2010

[5] Nazis and Norms, Joseph Michael Reagle Jr., 2010

[6] Moody, Liz. "How To Figure Out Your Life's Purpose, Improve Your Concentration, & Develop More Willpower with Dandapani". Healthier Together. Healthier Together. Retrieved 16 January 2023.

[7] ttps://web.archive.org/web/20200712195812/https://www.economist.com/1843/2016/10/20/the-scientists-who-make-apps-addictive

[8] "Fundraising 2010/Banner testing"

[9] The A/B Test: Inside the Technology That's Changing the Rules of Business

[10] Alfie Kohn. (2018). Punished By Rewards: Twenty-Fifth Anniversary Edition : The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A's, Praise, and Other Bribes: Vol. Twenty-fifth anniversary edition. HarperOne.

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]