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]

QIC 5. "If they can plausibly claim ignorance, [...] they can save face" (Kraut, p. 152)

It seems like people don't like to be directly confronted about their poor actions. Shocking. Kraut (2012) found that when enforcing community guidelines online, it is far more effective to give those who have broken the guidelines a chance to save face when calling them out. He gives the example of an MIT email, which was sent to students who broke online codes to inform them of their awareness of this. Instead of scolding them, they used only 3rd person in the email and prioritized explaining that someone else could have used their account to break rules, even with clear evidence that the recipients were the actual perpetrators. I think insinuating that someone is capable of doing something wrong feels insulting, even if they did it knowingly. People have a perception of themselves as good and righteous, and tend to criticize other people's poor behaviors but justify their own. Confronting someone directly places them in the position of a "bad guy," effectively disrupting their self-image.

On the contrary, if you give someone a chance to understand their behaviors were bad from an external perspective without making them feel like they are guilty or a bad person, they can correct their behaviors and get right back up on their moral high horse without tarnishing their reputation. This somewhat contradicts Garfinkel's (1967) idea of universal communication. While breaking down communication norms by essentially overexplaining things so that meaning can go across seamlessly, clear communication can in certain contexts come off as offensive. Perhaps common sense is more effective in some cases, as I think people care more about saving face then about universal understanding. Mobyoctopad44 (talk) 04:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi :Mobyoctopad44, what was "universal communication"? -Reagle (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

8. One of my friends was recently banned from Twitter. She was banned for making fun of Elon Musk, interestingly. I immediately thought of her while reading the Kraut et al. excerpt on how external rules are perceived by community members, especially the example of Digg. This anti-Elon censorship is kind of well-known on Twitter, and similar to Digg users, a lot of Twitter users reacted to Elon's takeover by roasting him, posting unflattering images of him, and even spreading a picture of him with Ghislaine Maxwell.

When you break Twitter guidelines, you typically get told what rule you broke, how you broke it, and then you get a timeout period. However, this case of Elon-posting is interesting in that the social norm of the website seems to be making fun of it's owner, yet the website's moderation actively censors those that do. While Kraut et al. carefully described how to design a platform to build a successful community, what happens when a platform is already big and its design starts betraying its users? When the rules themself are antinormative? From what I've seen on Twitter so far, not much. My friend who was banned? She just made a new account.

Unrelated, but relevant the Kraut et al. reading described how important reputation, feedback, and the like are in building trust within a community. I thought about how websites I'm familiar with utilize these concepts. While Reddit outrightly has "karma," it is a lot harder to discern a user's reputation on, say, Instagram. I was then reminded about some of the community norms on one of my favorite sites: Tumblr. There, it is very uncommon to use any person details in your username. Typically, the only accounts that do so are bots. While there is nothing in the intentional design of the website that shows reputation, the norms of the website itself dictates what accounts are real, trustworthy people and what accounts are just bots. There's a million more examples of this, but I found this one worth sharing. Peanutbutterisbad (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peanutbutterisbad, is this by you? Please sign. -Reagle (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

6. "We need to be able to stare embarrassment and discomfort right in the face, look it right in the eyes." This---or something really close to this---is what my intro to acting professor told us on the first day of class. A new endeavor for me, I was not prepared for just how true this would become over the last few weeks.

When reading about breaking social norms, my acting class was the very first thing that came to mind. Like George Ritzer is cited as explaining in the wiki article, "individuals engage daily in building up "rules" for social interaction, but also that people are unaware they are doing so." This was true of the classroom experience for me. I have developed an expectation for the way an undergraduate class operates and rarely is this challenged. I was not used to coming to class and sitting on the floor. Likewise, on the first day of class, we did the usual introductions and personal facts, but we did it in a way that no one was familiar with---we each started with 15 seconds of silence while everyone else in the class looked at us. Then we were prompted to spend a minute talking about anything we wanted, there were no guidelines or checkpoints. From the very beginning of this class, we were asked to do things that were outside the norm of a classroom social setting, like maintaining silence when it was your turn to speak. Every experience in intro to acting seems to push the social norms that all of us in the class have unknowingly been prescribing to for many years. Alise boal (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

QIC 2. I found the breaching Experiment article on Wikipedia to be quite interesting. I was particularly surprised by how many people gave up their seats after being asked without justification. It made me think about what I would do in this situation. Would I be willing to give up my seat to a clearly able-bodied person? Definitely not, but I have never experienced that interaction before. How often does someone ask a person who is already sitting down on a train if they can have their seat? Barely ever. I think a major factor that played into more than half of the subjects giving up their seat with no justification was that they have never been in that situation before. This relates to the idea of social norms. As mentioned in the Wiki article, "a residual rule of everyday interaction on the New York City Subway is that seats are on a first-come, first-served basis, and individuals are not supposed to talk to one another in such close quarters", . Clearly, the interactions that the subway users had with the experimenters do not align with the norm they encounter daily. I would be interested to know if anyone else would get up from their seat if an able-bodied person asked. If you say yes, are you saying that because you want to sound like a nice person? Or are you saying yes because you don't know the correct response as this goes against commonly accepted social rules or norms? Cbrann (talk) 11:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

QIC6: "Don't cut the line" is something we're taught from our early years in preschool and elementary school. Usually when individuals do cut the line, they do it sneakily and sheepishly, trying not to draw attention to themselves. What's so interesting about this is how there's no formal law (to my knowledge) stating that you cannot cut lines of people-- it's more of a community norm. Upon reading the breaching experiment page on Wikipedia, I thought about the connection to Kraut et al. The specific connection is to design claim 25 that states "verified identities and pictures reduce the incidence of norm violations" (Kraut et al., 2012, p.156). When individuals are interacting in real life, and not through a computer mediated system, they have no choice but to be seen in some capacity by those around them. Most of the time, individuals don't do much to conceal their identity in person when going about their everyday lives. Because we're concerned about being identified by those around us and potentially receiving blow-back for our norm-breaching actions, we're less likely to engage in bad behavior. Those that do choose to engage in poor behavior, according to the study mentioned on Wikipedia, "experimenters in this study also experienced negative emotion associated with the task of intrusion into lines" and reportedly felt "nauseated" and "anxious" as a result of their actions (Milgram, 1978). A large portion is due to our incessant need to manage our "faces," another term discussed in Kraut et al. Nustudent1120 (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

4. Are my instagram likes my reputation? According to Kraut and Resnick's (2012) 26th design claim, "Reputation systems, which summarize the history of someone's online behavior, encourage good behavior and deter norm violations," (p. 157) which parallels systems such as instagram 'likes' and reddit 'karma'. This quote really made me think about the deterrent properties of these features-- someone who gets very few likes or upvotes is unlikely to post as often as someone who gets hundreds, or even thousands; accounts that do reach such high levels of internet acclaim are most likely not accounts that violate any community guidelines. In this way, not only are likes, retweets, upvotes, etc. a measure of status within the community, but also a valid method of "encourag[ing] good behavior and deter[ing] norm violations" (p.157).

What is interesting to me is that any of the various methods to garnering community acclaim in a specific social media will always promote the intended use of those social medias, overall. Even though the guidelines on instagram specifically are externally created and enforced, the community internally fine tunes the guidelines by curating successful content creators. Posts that receive more acclaim on any platform are likely to generate similar content from that creator and other creators.

--JonNotJohn (talk) 18:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

QIC 2: When reading about Garfinkel's demonstration on how to use disorganized interaction in order to highlight the structure of the social norms, the first question pops up in my mind is "what is the important factor that makes the conversation continues in an interpersonal communication?" The concept of visibility and invisibility is also interesting to think about here. People tend to be visible and invisible at the same time in the everyday life: they want to be visible to share meaningful things to the peers but also remain invisible in terms of following the social norms. The claim that I agree with the most is Claim 25: Verified identities and pictures reduce the incidence of norm violations. I think the more comprehensive one's account it, the more commitment they have put in it. Zhifanfu (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

QIC 5: Trolls exist on all social media platforms, but they're rare to find on Instagram. As kraut mentions, "The internet is filled with trolls and griefers, people who derive satisfaction from disrupting communities. Trolls pose as legitimate members and post inflammatory comments designed to provoke other members." (Kraut, 2021). Trolls can be dangerous, but only when they're discrete and conscious of community member demographics. I find it particularly intriguing that Instagram seems to be a deserted island cleansed of trolls. Bots are a different story. Bots are incredibly common to see on Instagram on public and private accounts and seem to be a very difficult problem for Instagram to keep up with. These bots are far less damaging than sentient trolls attempting to weave their way into a community. Bots tend to have profile pictures of half-naked women while posting under public pages like the NBA or Bleacher Report etc.

Bots are annoying but rarely does anyone fall for a comment that says "please DM me if you want to have a good time!". Something that is very clearly off-topic and void of true recognizable human communication. I truly believe that trolls don't exist on Instagram as often because the platform and its verified accounts are far too public and well-regulated for them to stand their ground. Not only would they be chewed out by existing community members, but it's easier for Instagram to keep up with deleting a few rude comments from a troll rather than continuously deleting bot comments that pop up consistently and constantly one after another. Another important point made by Kraut is that "Trolls and manipulators are outsiders who have no vested interest in the community functioning well." (Kraut, 2021). On Instagram, the communities are so large and well-developed that trolls and manipulators also may not believe they can affect the structure of the community, therefore there's no point in trying. I strongly believe that Instagram is unique in this way and as long as you don't poke the bear in a comment section, you likely won't have many dedicated trolls on your tail.Mr. Lestah (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

QIC 7: As soon as I read a couple of the design claims from this Kraut et al. reading, I immediately remembered the Cialdini (2001) reading from earlier this semester. More specifically, design claim 3 that noted that "members are more positive about moderation authorities if they feel this power is deserved through past contributions to the community or demonstrated expertise" (Kraut et al., 2012, p.133). While Kraut et al. does cite Cialdini elsewhere in the article, I want to connect this component from design claim three to Cialdini's idea of authority as a persuasive tool. Cialdini (2001) states that "those touting their experience, expertise or scientific credentials may be trying to harness the power of authority" (p. 80). We listen to those who we deem deserving of authority and thus our attention. These individuals have the background and knowledge necessary to inform others, make decisions for a larger group of people, and be a tool for guidance when navigating online communities. Similarly, Cialdini's idea of social consensus and validation is another concept that feeds into who is chosen to moderate a community. With "past contributions" that contribute to a moderator's credibility, some of these gain their credibility through social consensus. In that case, the social consensus would be other users upvoting or liking the post, giving it traction and popularity, and thus more credibility. Cialdini (2001) said that "if many individuals have decided in favor of a particular idea, we are more likely to follow because we perceive the idea to be more correct, more valid" (p. 78). So, by this logic, seeing other people upvoting a user's post would likely persuade you to upvote it as well, giving them more authority and credibility in the process. Nustudent1120 (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

QIC 3: There are many real-world illustrations of using Claim 13 to guide people's behaviors. According to Claim 13, "Publicly displaying examples of appropriate behavior on the site shows members what is expected and increases their adherence to those expectations"(Kraut et al., 2012, p.143). Almost all movie theaters have the public announcement video before the film starts. It aims to inform the audience what is allowed and what is prohibited during film. For example, they will create a cartoon and use a story to show people flash light will disrupt others' watching experience and film a video on your own devices without the consent will violate the copyrights law. By using the form of the cartoon to show what is appropriate behavior and what is not, people will more likely to follow the rules. In addition, by using the strategy of publicly displaying examples, people are more likely to follow due to the aspect of social validation. According to Cialdini, "Taking advantage of social validation, requesters can stimulate our compliance by demonstrating that others just like us have already complied" (Cialdini, 2001). When people see others are following the rules, they don't want to be the "weirdo".

In addition, In Reagle's 2010 article "Be nice", it discusses the supportive and defensive communication and elaborate on the concept of Neutrality and Empathy. I think empathy is a very important factor to keep in mind and practice in the online world. Imaging yourself in other's shoes and consider what will you feel if you are in the same situation, but remain neutral at the same time. Although having empathy and being neutral toward others at the same time might be hard, it is still worth practice because it can effectively improve trust and enhanced the online interpersonal relationship. Zhifanfu (talk) 01:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

9. Instagram has threatened to deleted my account probably three times now (for nothing too egregious, I promise). Needless to say, I'm pretty familiar with their content moderation protocols and subsequent consequences for breaking the rules, so it was pretty easy for me to compare my experiences with the design principles set forth in the Kraut reading. Instagram does not hold up very well, by the way. While they let users appeal moderation decisions, oftentimes, the context of these posts are not considered and certain phrases, words, or images are immediately removed because of the automated moderation. They indiscriminately censor certain posts about controversial political topics, but let misogyny and hate speech run rampant, especially on more popular pages (which typically belong to "influencers" and "content creators"). Users have little to no say in what rules exist, how they are upheld, and how to defend themselves. Each time I get a strike, I appeal them, but this appeal request is not accompanied by a text submission box or anything. It's just a button you press for their moderation team to take a second look at it.

Interestingly, Instagram's failure to uphold many of Kraut et al.'s design principles (especially on a functional level) has not really hindered its ability to maintain users and continue to foster online communities. Even my friends who run moderate-sized meme pages and have been banned multiple times still keep coming back (because where else will you get the same reach?).

Further, is it even possible to have quality community guidelines and norms on really big platforms like Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, etc.? While Facebook groups and Instagram group chats have more autonomy in rule-making, this cannot be said for the platforms as a whole. Peanutbutterisbad (talk) 05:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

QIC 2: Perhaps I should have expected my Fifa 19 (a console card collecting soccer game) ban considering the number of CAPTCHA tests I was prompted to complete in the weeks before my removal from the game. Per Kraut et al. , CAPTCHA tests are designed to prevent harmful bots from spamming online communities with false or irrelevant rhetoric (2012). The Fifa market has historically been riddled with bots sniping cards in mass quantities for significantly cheaper than their market value. EA sports, the creator of the game, can do very little about this issue that has plagued the game for almost a decade. So, in an effort to limit the number of bots exploiting the market, Fifa 19 bans almost every account suspected of being a bot. They don't do this, however, until multiple CAPTCHA tests are run in order to differentiate malicious bots from unsuspecting players.. I like to think of these tests as the 'Danger, Electric' that accompanies an electric fence. Let's say I'm interested in touching the electric fence so I approach it precariously and notice the sign. For anyone thinking of touching the fence, the sign clearly indicates something bad will happen if you proceed. Like the CAPTCHA test, it offers a warning. This allows those who break community guidelines to reconsider their actions before proceeding. In my instance with Fifa, I was not not deterred by the repeated CAPTCHA tests warning me of the consequences of my actions, and so I was removed from the online community. DovC123 (talk) 15:53, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

QIC 3: Conflicts are inevitable when it comes to social interactions across all social media platforms. One of the underlying factors of this is the fact that everyone has their own definition of what is considered "normal". As mentioned in the reading, this happens a lot in Wikipedia and is known as the "edit wars". This occurs when editors undo each other's work because each individual believes that the version one will be right is the correct one.

Now more than ever conflicts are seen on TikTok and other social media platforms. It is so easy to report one another on any platform because it is simply done with a push of a button. "Expectations about how to handle conflicts are especially important to keeping a community productive" (Kraut et.al, 2012). When it comes to handling conflict on social media platforms I believe that clicking a report button isn't solving the issue. People are afraid to have conversations and it is one of the ways to grow and learn about topics that one might not agree with.

Kraut discusses how one can limit the effects of bad behavior with help of moderators, but how do we know that the moderators' choices are the right ones? And is it fair we give the power to all people to report any type of issue they may have on a platform? Should we limit the number of things one could report?

Anabellakb (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

QIC 4: In Kraut et al.'s book chapter, "Regulating behavior in Online Communities", they discussed different types of online users who gain satisfaction from destroying norms and disrupting communities. These disrupters are known as "trolls" and "griefers".

I have been personally troubled by these people online, and I once had hard time understood why they would disturb a healthy and friendly online community by venting or posting inflammatory comments. One popular social networking app in China is called Weibo, which is kind of mixture of twitter, Instagram and Facebook. Fan groups are built up to chat within separate communities, and users can share their thoughts at any time (similar to tweets), which are then shared with all users in chronological order. Users can also comment on popular topics by adding a hashtag. The more people participate in a hashtag, the more popular that topic becomes. It was supposed to be a very interesting app and one that allowed the huge Chinese Internet community to interact with each other.

However, "trolls" took over the platform gradually. Whether it is persistently denigrating a famous people, put forward false conspiracy theories about controversial social topics, or posing as normal participants in a community and then generating inflammatory comments, many normal users had difficulties to recognize their behavior as undermining community norms. Because these "trolls" are very good at disguising themselves. In the last class discussion, we mentioned the possible harmfulness of reputation system. "Trolls" will take advantage of their posts' high click volume to obtain a higher-level account or marks proving their contribution to Weibo community. Usually, people with higher account levels will gain more popularity and support in a particular community. And people with higher account's comments will appear at the top when they comment people. Which means, people may view inflammatory and negative comments even oftener than other normal users' comments. Users of Weibo platform rely heavily on reputation system to identify users who participate in discussions more orderly. But "Trolls" take advantage of such user mentality and start disguising themselves or destroying the online community environment.

So, my personal experience proved sometimes it's really important to remain "neutrality" and provide opportunities for people to "evaluate or judge" in online community. While maintaining a neutral viewpoint may be perceived as a "lack of empathy" for others' opinions or contributions, objectivity helps us to prevent "trolls" from existing in online communities. Inflammatory language works well in an empathetic online community, where "trolls" can pretend their opinions are genuine by posting some lengthy arguments with seemly reliable sources . However, few people actually help verify the authenticity and credibility of the information they provide. This leads to the inability of social media platforms to effectively curb the presence of "trolls". However, when I was checking Small-town swot's wiki talk page, I noticed that Wikipedia user would actually click on the link to determine whether the information was reliable and point out the reasons why he thought some sources had to be replaced. The objectivity of Wikipedia's community is an important part of what helps maintain community norms. Susususushi (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

QIC: 7. "Moderation actions that do not silence the speaker will be met with less resistance" (Kraut, 2012, p. 132)

Attempting to define the line between moderation and silence is equivalent to stating "I'll know it when I see it", a phrase filled with ambiguity and uncertainty. It's next to impossible to define explicitly. In my communications law class, we analyze where this line falls in regard to blasphemy, obesity, and the extent to which the first amendment protects speech. The conclusion --- even the Supreme Court is unable to define terms such as obscenity due to its contentious and interpretive nature. Further, with contemporary and social norms being an evolving body, one definition can quickly become outdated. With that in mind, how do we encourage vibrant debates on differing opinions without silencing?

Additionally, where has the class best seen online communities regulate this fine line? As Kraut was written in 2012, it might be considered outdated to some of the platforms we use on a daily basis. Further, are there any techniques Kraut neglected to include that online platforms do well to encourage moderation?

Analyzing Kraut's writing seems especially applicable after the racist and anti-semitic rhetoric Kanye West was putting out on Twitter. In your opinion is this an example of an online community failing to moderate? Although it's challenging to decide where to draw the line on silencing versus moderation, his rhetoric, in my opinion, is clearly out of line and punishable. In a perfect world, how should have Twitter handled the situation with Kraut's suggestions in mind? NUstudent1316 (talk) 17:06, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

QIC 3.

I think that internet trolls are inevitable. Yes, there are ways to mediate and restrict them, but can you eliminate them completely? No. The first thing that came to mind when I thought about internet trolls was fake Instagram accounts. I am not very active on social media, but when I was, I was always amused by the random account that would comment on my friend's posts telling them to "dm me" or complimenting how "pretty they are". In most cases, the one who made the post or a friend would either reply, calling them a "weirdo" or just delete the comment. Kraut et al. talk about people's attention being a limited resource. But when I think about one of my friends posting on Instagram and their comments being bombarded with compliments from people within their social circle, the one comment from the random spam account will get my attention more than 20 friends telling that person "how good they look". Does this mean that my attention is focused on the wrong thing? Or do other people agree with me? I think that Instagram is full of low-quality contributions, but it's hard to not have low-quality contributions on a platform that is centered around posting pictures of yourself. Kraut et al. put it nicely, "like the herdsmen using up the limited grassland for his own herd, members of the community may use up everyone's attention on messages that meet their own needs but not those of the recipients" (Kraut et al. 2012, pp. 130). Cbrann (talk) 12:21, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feb 14 Tue - Newcomer gateways

QIC 4 There have been an increasing number of online gaming guilds in recent years, and many of them use different ways to welcome new users. The Joining GoonWaffe 101 page separates users into different categories, including new users, returning users, and existing members. Each category will have its unique route to logging in. As a first-time user of this page myself, the instruction is pretty straightforward, and the layout of the page is fun to browse as well. It uses a smoking bee as its mascot to show the fun side of this online gaming guild, and I think this can be attributed to one of the branding strategies. The more fun the page is, the more exposure it will pass to the audience. As an audience myself, the next time I think of GoonWaffe, the smoking bee will pop up in my head. This strategy reflects design claim 8: recruiting materials that present attractive surface features attracts people who are casually assessing communities (Kraut, 2012, p. 191). Zhifanfu (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

QIC 6. "If you consider yourself a "lurker" we do not want you, go away."

Whatever happened to greeting guests with tea and cookies? Even after a bit of extra research, I am not entirely sure what the GoonWaffe is. What I do know is that they don't want me there (I am okay with that). The GoonWaffe needs to recruit newcomers for fear their community may die out, but they have found more subtle strategies to do so. Along with the quote above, the site explains that one can only join the group as a newbie if you have proven yourself loyal by spending 3 active months on a "something awful" forum, or if you have been invited to apply by someone deemed "cool." In their reasoning on how to find new members, Kraut et al. (2012) explain that some sites avoid active advertising, but rather rely on trusted word-to-mouth strategies, so that no outsider may suddenly come in one day and essentially destroy everything. One way to do so, according to design claims 1 and 5, is to turn to interpersonal communication from trusted members (Kraut, 2012). They say that communication with a familiar face or face-to-face in general is far more effective than impersonal banners or phone calls. Moreover, members that are considered most influential hold more power in deciding who may join a community, and thus may be encouraged to recruit outsiders. It is interesting that the GoonWaffe's definition of influential is "cool," but they certainly get their point across: if you don't pass the vibe check conducted by a highly-trusted and admired member of the community, you are not welcome here. This definitely points to a hierarchical structure within the online community, which I can't help but wonder about. Are some members less "cool" than others? What is the balance of power between members? I understand that communities feel the need to defend themselves and don't want to be polluted by uncommitted or ill intentioned newbies, but there is something to be said about elitism here. How is this better than any offline community? Mobyoctopad44 (talk) 02:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mobyoctopad44, good engagement with K&R; do try to break up large paragraphs like this into coherent units. -Reagle (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10 A couple months ago, I was walking around campus with some friends and these two girls wearing bright red jackets with a Redbull logo on the top chest and backpack coolers that looked like large Redbull cans walked by. At first, I was extremely confused, but as someone who loves free things, I immediately asked them for a Redbull, partially joking, really. But lo and behold: one of them unzipped her extra large Redbull backpack and handed me a cold, fresh Redbull. Later, I learned these girl were "campus ambassadors" for Redbull. This idea that students can serve as marketing agents to the campus community as a whole is being harnessed by more than just Redbull.

In fact, campus ambassadors are arguably a huge part why BeReal got so big. They used Kraut et al.'s claim 2 (2012) about word-of-mouth to have on-the-ground BeReal advertisers and, essentially, recruiters on many college campuses all around the US (they also used claim 3 about using the existing networks of currents members, in this case, the ambassadors by having them promote it to their irl friends and on their socials). Further, the app itself allows users to easily share their photos to other social media networks is exactly what design claim 4 is all about. While BeReal as an app is far from an online community, and its adherence to Kraut et al.'s design claims (20120) stops at the recruitment level, their tactics were unique and why I believe a lot of college students enjoy the app. Peanutbutterisbad (talk) 02:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

QIC 5: "In the face of inevitable turnover, every online community must incorporate successive generations of newcomers to survive" is one important standpoint sharing in Kraut et al.'s book chapter 5. However, I had a lot of trouble finishing today's Wikipedia assignment. Due to my Covid illness, I was absent from the class on teaching citation and how to create an outline in the sandbox. So, for now, I have concerns about helping others improve in Wikipedia's strict community censorship environment. Do I really have the power to change someone else's writing? Is the link or source I provide really a credible argument that the Wikipedia community demands? Will my modification cause trouble to others? Therefore, when I completed the task of citation hunt, I was hesitant to publish even though I spent a lot of time searching for credible link. Since I'm not sure if my citation format is correct, I don't want to bother other users or cause any problems in the community. Even though professor kept mentioning in class that we could avoid being heavily criticized by declaring ourselves as a new contributor to the community. And I also found that there is a community on Wikipedia dedicated to asking new users questions, and users are very willing to help each other. However, I am still afraid to contribute or make changes to someone else's article due to Wikipedia's high academic and accuracy requirements. I remember tutorials on how to change the content of other users' articles stating that if we wanted to change original content, we had to ask for permission on the talk page, rather than directly changing it. However, when I used citation hunt, the instructions were more like we needed to directly change the existing unreliable links. So, until now I have not dared to make any changes in my father-in-law's article. I don't know if it's just me, or if what I describe is also some confusion that everyone also encountered when trying to contribute. My other question is whether a strict community culture will result in new users not feeling welcome or having too many barriers to entry, so they stop contributing or joining the community? Susususushi (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Susususushi, feel free to raise these questions during the latter part of our class today; also, do try to break up large paragraphs like this into coherent units. -Reagle (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

QIC 4: Kraut discusses the problems online communities have when there are newcomers. One of the five that is discussed is "Socialization". It is important to note that this means those who will be joining the group must behave appropriately according to what guidelines the online community has set. While continuing to read what Kraut has to say, the more I read the more I realized that the challenges of dealing with newcomers is not just something that happens in online communities. Whether it be in person or online there is always that difficulty of bringing someone into a community.

I am not familiar with what GoonWaffe is, but the idea of separating everyone based on who is new or not does not seem right. I believe the true meaning of a community is for everyone to be together and united, not separate and distant. GoonWaffe seems to be a place that someone gets to by word of mouth just as Kraut had mentioned how some newcomers might find someplace.

Do you all think online communities should divide people into categories based on how long they have been part of it? Or will this cause a drift and make things more complicated for online communities?

Anabellakb (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anabellakb, interesting question. Communities often do have stratification/hierarchy, which might alienate some, but it also gives newcomers something to aspire towards. -Reagle (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

QIC 1: Reading the excerpt from the Kraut and Resnick text, I noticed that the ways in which online community members interact with newbies applies a considerable amount of psychological terminology to the recruitment strategies of online community members, many of which my previous AP Psych course has familiarized me with. For example, Kraut and Resnick make reference to the social proof heuristic, or the mental shortcut humans take based on the assumption that what others are doing is beneficial/safe to do as well. Community members will generally vet new recruits, manually or automatically via newbie self-selection, to ensure that newbies benefit and subscribe to the values of the online community. Could this both unintentionally or intentionally create an echo chamber or force conformity? From this I gathered that community members must be largely aware of the ideological vulnerabilities of newbies (if not by name, by concept), leading me to ponder how this is applied in hate group recruitment. I have witnessed a TikToker discuss being gradually manipulated into the TERF community (cannot find the references material, unfortunately) by a member who established a long-term, online friendship with her in preparation. While effective, it is also potentially disturbing how individuals may rely on heuristics in conjunction with the trust-building "long game" in hateful contexts.

Siedle.g (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feb 17 Fri - Newcomer initiation

QIC8: Where does the line between cyberbullying and "initiation" get drawn with online communities?

After completing the Kraut reading, I found myself left with questions about cyberbullying and what the difference between that, hazing and harsh-initiation lies. As someone well-versed on Greek-life hazing and initiation rituals from personal experience and research, it doesn't seem to differ too vastly from the same activities in an online community. While laws differ based on state and country, Kraut (2012) states that on Fark, "newcomers who make mistakes that violate the norms of the community can be publicly criticized or humiliated," (p. 206) which sounds a lot like cyberbullying. Design claims 18-21 encourage positivity and friendliness between existing members and newcomers which makes it difficult to understand why hazing has gained so much traction and why it's such a large piece of initiation into an online community. For many in Greek Life, hazing is a turn off and also illegal so where does that line fall for online communities? Is it with the individual user? Are there policies that draw that line?

Another point I would like to draw is the connection to Kraut's (2012) design claim 23 (p. 217) that suggests mentorship between an existing member and new member to help them acclimate to the rules, norms and the community itself. For many Greek organizations, we have "bigs" and "littles"-- when an individual first joins the organization as a new member, they receive a big and eventually they will receive a little, becoming a big themself. The purpose of having this point-person of sorts is to help new members gain their footing as they get used to new bylaws, norms, activities and other new aspects of being in Greek-life. Most of the time, these relationships/mentorships are wildly helpful and there is a long cycle of keeping the big/little lineage going as once a little knows the organization well-enough, they will take on a little of their own, paying the mentorship forward. Nustudent1120 (talk) 15:51, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nustudent1120, good engagement and application of K&R. -Reagle (talk) 17:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

QIC 5: When things are too easy to get, people become less likely to cherish them. I think this phenomenon is because when you have made an effort towards a certain goal, you will think this goal deserves special attention. I think the same concept works and vice versa.^{[clarification needed]} According to Kraut's (2012) design claim 5 (p. 217), newcomers might be viewed as a "threat" to the whole group mainly because they lack commitment and are not fully aware of the group functioning procedure. This design claim can be applied to the sororities and fraternities on campus. In order to be part of the group, newcomers need to attend a series of rushing events to show their determination and passion for the group.

In my recent co-op, I worked as a comm/change-management intern, and I didn't know anyone in the group. In my first week, I was assigned a mentor who was a previous northeastern co-op but is now a full-time employee. She introduced other Northeastern co-ops to me and had me join several company clubs and organizations. Having my mentor means a lot to me since I'm new here, and finding a sense of belonging with others who have already experienced the same stage is very encouraging. In addition, I think using formal and collective mentorship functions as a great way to help newcomers adapt to the new environment faster. Zhifanfu (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zhifanfu, good engagement and application of K&R. Check out the history to see my edits to your prose. -Reagle (talk) 17:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

QIC 6: People want what they can't have. That's the basis of reasoning for people to feel, or want to feel, closer to those that shut them out. This idea of exclusivity can be an incredibly large motivator in terms of influencing others. Elliot Aronson and Judson Mills mention cognitive dissonance multiple times in the literature. A betterment of self-confidence and inclusion seems to also play a part in this study; "If he has undergone an unpleasant initiation to gain admission to the group, his cognition that he has gone through an unpleasant experience for the sake of membership is dissonant with his cognition that there are things about the group that he does not like." (Aronson & Mills, p. 177). This sense of "membership" seems to trump any negative thought toward the group and its abusive initiation process. This cognitive dissonance causes the joining members to have an inner conflict between their recognition of the abuse and the benefit of being welcomed into the group.

I also strongly believe that the subjects in this study found the group more attractive because the exclusivity makes it seem as though the group members are "above" others. Feeling special and included only happens when you make an effort or face some adversity to get what you want. This happens when you're cognizant of the fact that not everybody can be in the position that you are in, so therefore you are in some way better than those who are not in the group. In the end, it often isn't the content or the people involved in the group that attracts and motivates newcomers, but the exclusivity and the way they are treated.Mr. Lestah (talk) 01:54, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Lestah, excellent engagement with A&M. -Reagle (talk) 17:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11. Work smarter not harder is my life motto. However, this translates more into me finding sneaky ways to maximize my laziness. That's why Aronson & Mills's experiment finding were so weird to me. Personally, if a group fancies itself so important that I have to jump through several hoops to confirm my membership, I would rather be on my own. I just think that initiation processes are so deeply unserious, it makes me think, "Who are you to act so self-important?" Even though the evidence points otherwise, I fear I quite before the process begins (or find a way to cheat out of it, lol).

This is why I relate more to Kraut et al.'s design claims 18, 19, 20, and 21 about building relationships to newcomers by being friendly and encouraging positive, human communication and connection. While tough initiation processes might result in increased liking and commitment, personally, that is built more through inclusion and positive first-impressions. If the first thing I am expected to do is something difficult, insulting, or generally unpleasant it will make me view the community in a negative way. I guess what I'm is that I'm just built different, lol. But for real, I think that while it might be an effective way to build high involvement from newcomers, I don't think it's particularly ethical or worthwhile - there are other ways to achieve this end, even if they might take more time. This is way I particularly liked Kraut et al.'s design claim 23 - the feeling of having earned something from an "elder" is rewarding and still good for increasing commitment without causes the newcomer stress. Peanutbutterisbad (talk) 02:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Peanutbutterisbad, excellent engagement (with both readings). See the history to see the two typos I corrected. -Reagle (talk) 17:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

QIC3.

Could online communities learn anything from the college admissions process within the context of initiating newcomers? As I consumed Design Claims 17-25, I couldn't help but relate them to the process of applying, touring, and committing to a University. Growing up outside the country, my opportunities to tour schools were infrequent at best. The aspect of touring that always left a lasting impression on me was the attitude and personality of the guide. Connecting this to DS 18:

When newcomers have friendly interactions with existing community members soon after joining a community, they are more likely to stay longer and contribute more. (Kraut, 2012)

I didn't end up going to Northeastern because I thought the science buildings were the most impressive out of any university I toured. A strong indicator for me was Nathan the tour guide, who's personable demeanor made the idea of attending the school much easier to digest. Moving on to DS 19:

Encouraging newcomers to reveal themselves publicly in profile introduction threads gives existing group members a basis for conversation and reciprocation with them and increases interaction between old-timers and newcomers. (Kraut, 2012)

Again, a clear connection can be made here to Facebook groups created for individuals interested-in or about-to-join a University. These online communities create, as the design claim suggests, a forum for individuals to publicly introduce themselves. While there isn't that direct contact with 'old-timers' in the community, I would certainly argue these pages are used by clubs and greek like to scout potential new members for their own communities. DovC123 (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DovC123, good application of K&R. -Reagle (talk) 17:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

QIC 8: "In general conducted one of the most worthless and uninteresting discussions imaginable" (Aronson & Mills, 1959, p. 179)

Regardless of the mind-numbing conversations participants were forced to listen to, Aaronson & Mills (1959) found those with more severe initiation processes to the group were more likely to view the conversation in a more favorable light and have a stronger desire to stay in the group. Similarly, Kraut (2012) affirms this hypothesis in design claim 17, sharing that newcomers who must overcome barriers to entry are more likely to stay in the community and be committed to it.

How can this phenomenon be applied to larger societal structures and institutions? For instance, do we view Northeastern in a more favorable light due to the sacrifices we made to get into the school? I'd also wonder how these findings could be applied to sought-out companies, such as Deloitte, EY, PwC etc. I often find students aiming for these co-op opportunities, making immense sacrifices to secure a position and then glamorizing their experience. In attempts to reduce cognitive dissonance, we often find ourselves framing issues in a more positive light despite the glaringly obvious sacrifices we're making.

I'd find it particularly interesting to see how the class might reassess some of the communities they take part in after completing the readings for class. Did it remove the glamor of any organizations they are a part of or result in feelings of cognitive dissonance? NUstudent1316 (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:NUstudent1316, excellent engagement (with both readings). -Reagle (talk) 17:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

QIC 5: In this week's reading, it was interesting to see the distinct kind of rituals that newcomers have to undergo. There are some that do require an extreme type of initiation, such as the website Fark.com mentioned in the (Kraut, 2012) readings. On this website, if a newcomer makes a mistake and violates the norms of the community they can be publicly humiliated. This goes hand in hand with Design Claim 17 made by (Kraut, 2012). What that claim is entry barriers for newcomers may cause those who join to be more committed to the group and contribute more to it.

While reading more it makes me wonder to what point does this not become some sort of bullying. Online communities and communities that are in-person have made this seem that it is normal. However, this could end up being extremely damaging to an individual and cause pain during a process that should be something that is enjoyed.

Do you all think that initiations should still happen? I think that if I would be joining a community all I would want is maybe a certificate from the leader or something, but not an initiation process. It really doesn't intrigue me that much, but that is my personal opinion.

Anabellakb (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feb 21 Tue - Collaboration and feedback

QIC 7. If Wikipedia were a freestanding society, perhaps it would be a democratic commune. Engelbart's prediction that the Internet would thrive on "regenerative feedback" that circulates back unto itself has a highly political undertone to it, and as such is a very perceptive analysis of online communities. Wikipedia is like a marketplace, or economic system, where knowledge is bartered and replaces currency. Feedback is the only currency which benefits all parties involved. Though Zhu et al.'s study contradicts previous ones, the overall consensus is that feedback is a long-term motivating factor that keeps people interested. Thus, Wikipedia has managed to thrive without needing to introduce new features to keep users' attention.

When we began to use Wikipedia earlier this semester, I remember being pleasantly surprised by the discovery of the talk page feature. I see it as a sort of town hall, in which ideas are brought forth and openly discussed by anyone who would like to be involved in the sharing of ideas. Other than the perceived credibility of users who have more experience on the site, there is no attribute that creates any hierarchy within this town hall. All ideas are taken into consideration, and no one has any position of power to determine the weight of their words. Wikipedia users gain nothing from it other than knowledge, and yet, as a social platform, it fully operates on its own.

If I had designed an open encyclopedic site (which is an extremely unlikely hypothetical haha), I am sure I would have never thought of a space wherein community members can openly discuss and plan edits together endlessly, and they actually do so civilly. This is a kind of relational maturity that can't quite be found on social platforms like Twitter, which can perhaps be argued to be a knowledge-sharing space but functions like an attention economy. On Twitter, likes and retweets are currency that determine a strong hierarchy. What gets the most attention (usually the most controversial content) is spotlit. There is no search for truth, neutrality, or a kind of knowledge that benefits all. There are no likes on Wikipedia, no attention to be gained on a wide scale. There is only knowledge to expand on. This, I think, type of democratic economy where seeking attention and stirring the pot have no benefit, is the key to avoiding the "wars" mentioned in the code of conduct line of the five pillars of Wikipedia. Mobyoctopad44 (talk) 03:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mobyoctopad44, there were wikis before Wikipedia, but its Talk page was one of its innovations in this space. -Reagle (talk) 17:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12. If someone was mean to me on Wikipedia, especially about the article for this class, I would probably cry. This is why the results from Kittur et al.'s study were not so shocking to me. While I might want to really improve the article, just to stick to the mean person, my confidence in my abilities would be diminished, and I would likely stop there. Thus, the results from this study just make sense. As we discussed earlier this semester, intrinsic motivation is super powerful. Receiving nice comments meant to boost the user's confidence and make them feel more like part of the community would increase their intrinsic motivation to contribute, resulting in more edits (which is what the Kittur et al. study shows). If someone on Wikipedia left a nice comment on my work, I would absolutely have more drive to contribute more.

Switching gears a little, I want to briefly talk about the "Good Faith Collaboration" reading. While reading it, I was quite shocked by how different Wikipedia is from every other community or platform I've been a part of. I think that because the members are all working towards the same common goal that is inherently collaborative --- all users have a similar purpose --- the differences actually make a lot of sense. Still, I think that assuming the best of others is something that can (and should) translate to other platforms.

Recently, one of my favorite musical artists announced an album tour. One of my friends (a semi-prominent artist in the scene that most considered pioneered by this artist) quote retweeted the tour announcment saying it was ridiculous that they are announcing another tour before the new album even drops. I replied saying I don't see an issue with this, I'm hyped to attend. Another user replied to me and said that they don't want to pay to listen to the album. Immediately, I was confused. Artists rarely, if ever, perform their whole album in a show, even if it's a tour for their new album. I felt a little irritated by this person's, what I would consider, stupidity. I replied saying that the album drops before tour begins anyway and that concerts are about paying for the performance, not just the music (and that it is unlikely they will perform the whole album, anyway). They replied saying they had never been to a concert before, and when I checked their profile, they were high school aged. This reality had not even occurred to me; sometimes I forget that every time I log onto twitter.com there is a nonzero chance that I might interact with a child. Although I didn't come at them harshly, a lot of times these interactions can sour in that way because Twitter users don't assume good faith, or stupidity, or, sometimes, that the person they're speaking to is a human with feelings just like them. I think it's about time more user do, though. Peanutbutterisbad (talk) 04:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peanutbutterisbad, congrats, you are already done! -Reagle (talk) 17:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

9: As shared by Reagle (2010), "The stance of neutrality implies that contributors should abandon efforts to convince others of what is right or true". Wikipedia's fundamental community pillar is neutrality. What other communities or organizations are rooted in neutrality, and in doing so, demand that members abandon their innate human drive to persuade? Inherent to neutrality is a level playing field for all opinions and research. Given that history has overwhelmingly been written by a small group of privileged individuals, this allows us to broaden our understanding of history, events, and so forth by giving everyone an equal opportunity to share their beliefs (back by the science of course).

That being said, having to defend pro-choice activists or argue that healthcare shouldn't be a universal right could be considered my personal torture or --- writing for the enemy. With emotionally latent views I've spent my education defending and learning about, it's challenging to picture myself writing a clear description of the opposing point of view. However, some of the beauty of Wikipedia lies in this reality. Often the best possible exercise in evaluating your belief system is challenging them.

However, when we choose to push the boundaries of our beliefs, we often experience cognitive dissonance as discussed in our prior class. This same notion was similarly echoed by Kraut et al. (2013) while describing the feedback intervention theory (FIT). In the article, the authors outline a core belief of FIT is people who experience a difference between performance and standard will go to great lengths to reduce the discrepancies. NUstudent1316 (talk) 16:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NUstudent1316, related concepts are Principle_of_charity and Steelmanning; this "epistemic stance" is an important critical thinking skill, even if difficult. 🙂 -Reagle (talk) 17:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

QIC 4. "For many teachers, Wikipedia's open editing policy made its content inherently problematic, if not inherently incompatible, with formal institutions of teaching and learning". All through school, from primary, to intermediate then high school, we were told not to use Wikipedia as a source of reliable information. This has been a rule I have followed since, which has definitely influenced my minimal use of Wikipedia in the past. This perspective I had towards Wikipedia was a large reason as to why I chose this course. It was interesting to me being able to explore a platform I barely had any knowledge on, except for that its good for finding out the height and net worth of your favorite celebrity. I think I can speak for most people when I say that Wikipedia has always been viewed as an unreliable source for research. It was something indoctrinated in us from a young age. In the Benjamin mako reading, there is a section on Wikipedia and education. It says that there has been a shift in the study of Wikipedia, "The focus of academic writing about the pedagogical role of Wikipedia is no longer on the questions of if students use Wikipedia or how to discourage them from doing so. Instead, researchers of Wikipedia in education now focus on how to engage students in contributing to Wikipedia as part of course work". I think that learning how to contribute effectively to Wikipedia at a younger age would have been extremely beneficial, shifting the perspective that had shaped my view towards Wikipedia before taking this class. Do you think Wikipedia can be used as an effective tool for research? Cbrann (talk) 12:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cbrann, I agree! 🙂 BTW: Who is your first quote from? -Reagle (talk) 17:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

QIC6: In Hill and Shaw's 2020 article "The most important Laboratory", I was surprised by the statistics that male Wikipedia editors make up 80% of the field. The number makes us wonder about the reason behind this gender inequality. In addition, people of color are also less likely to be editing the source. These facts made me think that Wikipedia as an online community is experiencing the same situation the real world is going through: women and people of color have less voice in society/community than their male counterparts. In the section "Wikipedia and Education", the authors also mention that many educators viewed Wikipedia as a threat since everyone can "edit" the content to some degree. The professors do not allow us to use any Wikipedia sources because of its lack of credibility. I have experienced this phenomenon in some of my writing-intensive courses.

In Zhu et al.'s experiment, I was surprised that newcomers would be more motivated when they receive negative feedback from the community. Since Wikipedia has little or almost no supervisor to guide you and ask how much content should be produced, the newcomers' motivation will decrease if any negative comment is placed on their work. I have a question on the research: will the result be different if the negative comments only express discouraging language or if it contains suggestions as well?Zhifanfu (talk) 17:45, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zhifanfu, let's discuss your question in class today. -Reagle (talk) 18:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

QIC 4. Wikipedia certainly is incredible, however it is interesting to me that you imply that Wikipedia has no hierarchical infrastructure. Although there are no likes and retweets, many Wikipedians seem to be lauded and have a lot of "badges" or "credits" on their own Wikipedia pages. There does seem to be a lot of pride associated with successfully editing articles, and maybe in this way Wikipedia has its own social currency- however the currency works to serve Wikipedia's core tenets. Users are rewarded for being neutral, and unbiased, and though there is some attention to be gained from the general public the attention is only gained through articles.

I too find talk pages to be like miniature town halls, what is so interesting to me is that no talk pages are barred off, and some talk pages are completely vacant. Being a part of a talk group is as easy as clicking a button, endless Wikipedians could be at the town hall meeting, or no one could be. Something about that feels very much like the real world to me, you can go anywhere and some places are more populated that others. Theres something very organic about that. --JonNotJohn (talk) 17:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feb 24 Fri - Moderation: Frameworks

QIC 7: Without moderation, online abuse would make it virtually impossible to maintain a productive online community. Confidence is an important talking point when referring to online abuse. People gain confidence through anonymity. Typing behind a screen and a username provides this guise for abusive users. Not only is this the case for individual users, but this "advantage" can spread through entire online communities. As described in The Virtues of Moderation, "In its extreme form, abuse involves an entire community uniting to share content in a way that harms the rest of society, such as trading copyrighted movies pre-release, planning the assassination of doctors who perform abortions, or starting offensive hoaxes." (p. 54).

Not only is confidence found in anonymity, but it's also found in groups. When others share the same views or rhetoric as you, online abuse can be weaponized at a greater scale. Moderation is simple when it comes to dealing with a single abusive user, but when the entire community shares the same abusive values, this makes moderation impossible, and can even influence the moderators to fit into the group and its beliefs. This is why quick and efficient moderation is so important. This prevents dangerous ideas/users from destroying online communities and spreading these ideas from one user to another.Mr. Lestah (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

QIC.4

Moderators of online communities can be rigorous with excluding and removing negative-value content and those who post it. But what if I told you an online community exists who’s face, or leader, encourages this type of behavior. Let me introduce you to IShowSpeed, a young Ohio born Twitch streamer who has gone from virtually unknown to dozens of millions of followers on every social media platform in only a year. IShowSpeeds rise through the Twitch ranks was not attributed to his skills in a particular game, no. Instead, viewers were captivated by his obnoxiously-loud over the top reactions to the games he played. Very quickly Speed developed a reputation for his angry outbursts and promotion of ‘toxic, ‘troll’ behavior. The chat log during his Twitch streams would therefor quickly fill with toxic, as Grimmelman would call, negative-value content. The viewers of the stream recognized how easy it was to egg Speed on, and so they did as much as they possibly could. Basically Speed would get annoyed at something in a game, and his chat would spam him with phrases they new would make him even more angry than he already was. Speed used very minimal moderation to prevent this from happening, and it is consensus amongst those who've charted his rise that the spreading of negative information helped him grow exponentially faster.

Speed’s case offers evidence to suggest that members of communities can adopt the persona of their ‘leader’. Within Speed’s community, the spread of harmful, negative information can almost be considered as community norms. If a new viewer of Speed tunes into his stream and submits a kind message to the chat, that would go against the ‘norms’ of the community. Can this lack of moderation give the information being exchanged within the community less valuable? Can minimal moderation even be considered moderation at all?

The world of Twitch streaming provides a plethora of niche communities inconspicuously molding their behaviors to those of the creators they follow. I would be very interested in doing additional research into how and why online twitch communities adopt characteristics of the person they’re watching. I’m interested to see if the class can think of an example of this that promotes more positive messaging. DovC123 (talk) 23:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

7. “Advertising is a prevalent form of implicit pricing: readers pay with their time and attention.” Grimmelmann discusses pricing as an inhibitor of participation, “both good and bad, by raising its costs,” and explains that various different roles in a community can be priced separately. The above quote about readers paying with time and attention made me think about another form of payment: content itself. I have always found it very interesting that platforms like Instagram essentially rely on users to produce the content that keeps people engaging with their app. People have made whole careers out of this, of course, but most of us create content for free. Is this a price we pay in order to partake in community on Instagram? I am providing free labor to generate content for an app that needs me to do so. I can say I hate Twitter or Facebook, but every time I post on these platforms I am creating the user-generated content they rely on to make money and stay alive.

On a different note, I found Nicolucci and Zuckerman’s discussion of “local logic” particularly enthralling. I think the emphasis on why some local logic apps are successful should absolutely be placed on the strict identity requirements many of them have, as the authors point out. Anyone who remembers the 2013 anonymous social media app YikYak would tell you that, while restricted to a local area, it was far from productive or helpful. People did not have to identify themselves, leaving room for a wide variety of locally based hate, trolling, and bullying. Alise boal (talk) 05:40, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

QIC 5: “Getting local social media right is important. Local platforms present an opportunity to strengthen social capital and civic life. At their best, they can keep residents informed about local issues, encourage civic organizing and action, and facilitate new connections and greater understanding” (Zuckerman et.al, 2020). Local Logic: It’s not always a beautiful day in the neighborhood, made me think about my relationship with Facebook groups I have been a part of in the past. It made me realize the significant difference between two groups that were created with the same intention but are riddled with completely different content. The two groups I am talking about are called ‘Vic Deals’ and ‘Cambridge Grapevine’. These are both neighborhood/community groups that were initially created for community members to express concerns, get to know each other or ask for help. Vic Deals has transitioned into a group that is more politically influenced, whereas the Cambridge Grape is still very community conscious, with people asking for at home help or vacant rooms. Victoria (in Wellington) and Cambridge are two very different places demographically. Victoria is located in the capital of New Zealand and is where the New Zealand parliament building is located. Cambridge is a blue-collar farming town an hour south of Auckland that tends to have a more traditional political perspective. The article talks about the characteristics that make up local logic platforms, these are, technology, revenue model, ideology, governance. When I think about the two Facebook groups mentioned previously, do you really think that these characteristics define the content that is being produced within that online community? Or does the location and social norms of the people that belong to that community define the content that is being produced?

Cbrann (talk) 01:01, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2.) In his writing, Grimmelmann notes that once laid down, community norms are very difficult to significantly modify. The section on ex ante / ex post argues that leaving unwanted content in place for enough time can be dangerous. Here, I can see a relationship between ex-post organization and the establishment of norms. I am interested in how this connects to the article on Nextdoor and Front Porch Forum (FPF). Nextdoor’s local communities lean towards toxicity and abuse, ranging from vile racial remarks to members of the network being encouraged by their neighbors to follow “suspicious” individuals while armed. Since these norms are already in place, they may be difficult to shift.

How does the decentralization of Nextdoor contribute to its norms? Can universal norms be established, or will the local norms of individual nodes prevail? Grimmelmann argues that norms cannot be fully centralized, so perhaps we can look to FPF as a model that can be built on to create healthier communities.

FPF only publishes user posts once a day, encouraging users to take their time or retract posts before they go live (as a form of ex-ante organization.) I can envision a system similar to FPF’s where publication is similarly delayed, but users are given more power as moderators. What if users had the opportunity to collectively review one another’s posts before they go live as a form of collective moderation? Would this place too much “pricing” on users? Could the additional transparency afforded by enabling users to be their own rulers outweigh the costs? Would this separate community of moderation supersede the original community, tarnishing its appeal? NoahConstrictor (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

10: “The first amendment extends to online communication and to social media” Elonis v. United States.

Elonis posted a series of threatening posts to Facebook threatening his ex-wife, kindergarten class, and law enforcement. Nevertheless, his conviction was dismissed by the Supreme Court, ruling his speech could not be classified as a “true threat” as outlined in Watts v. US.

As discussed in Millhiser (2022), most speech is protected unless it produces “imminent lawless action”. The cases outlined in the readings show the complexity of this standard and its shortcomings. The precedent outlined by Brandenburg v Ohio likely means that Gonzales v. Google will be ruled in favor of Google. However, it’s important to note roughly 3-4 of the justices on the Supreme Court have noted the precedent dictated in NYT v Sullivan went too far in protecting freedom of speech. This case outlined that for public officials (later public figures) actual malice must be proven to convict the defendant. In effect, this precedent, and many which followed, largely expanded first amendment allowances. Current justices argued what was once a pivot decision to encourage free speech has now allowed for gossip sites to run rampant, and that there’s a strong argument to constrain the allowances afforded to publications.

Freedom of speech is undeniably a source of strength in American governance. As shared by Barlow (1996) “I declare the global social space we are building to be naturally independent of the tyrannies you seek to impose on us.” Although Barlow (1996) shares a noble sentiment, the reality that has ensued has led to videos of ISIS being promoted. At what point should the government infringe upon first amendment rights for the safety of its citizens? NUstudent1316 (talk) 00:43, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...

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]