User:MichaelLopez92/sandbox

Article Evaluation

Flaming (Internet):

Content: An improvement that can be made is to shorten up the quotes that were used under the purpose heading. Another part that can be fixed is the history section. The previous author trying to give historical examples may be a far stretch for the more modern usage of the term.

Tone: The introductory paragraph seems to be very negative leaning, but the subject is about a negative topic.

Sources: Links to multiple sources open up to correct resources. Information from these sources to provide extra background on the topic and consequences of flaming.

Talk Page: Not much activity on the talk page. Some of the discussions and posts are pretty offensive and needs removal. It is of mid-importance and it has been archived by Wikipedia.

Bear2Bulldog (talk) 01:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Adding to the Article

What I plan to add to the Flaming (Internet) article is more up to date information. Even though the article is a little out of date and the term isn't used as much as others, there is still room for improvement and there are scholarly articles that do discuss this topic. Also, there isn't much action on the talk page, but I hope to address some of the older issues that were posted on the talk page.

MichaelLopez92 (talk) 03:38, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Editing

Lead

Flaming is the online act of posting insults, often laced with profanity or other offensive languages on social networking sites This term should not be confused with the term trolling, which is the act of someone going online, or in person, and causing discord. Flaming emerged out of the anonymity that internet forums provide cover for users to act more aggressively. Anonymity can lead to disinhibition, which results in the swearing, offensive, and hostile language characteristic of flaming. More than just anonymity contributes to the offensive behaviors of flaming such as lack of social cues, less accountability of face-to-face communications, textual mediation and deindividualization are also likely factors. Deliberate flaming is carried out by individuals known as flamers, which are specifically motivated to incite flaming. These users specialize in flaming and target specific aspects of a controversial conversation.

While these behaviors may be typical or expected in certain types of forums, they can have dramatic, adverse effects in others. Flame wars can have a lasting impact on some internet communities where even once a flame war has concluded a division or even dissolution may occur.

Purpose

Social researchers have investigated flaming, coming up with several different theories about the phenomenon. These include deindividuation and reduced awareness of other people's feelings (online disinhibition effect), conformance to perceived norms, miscommunication caused by the lack of social cues available in face-to-face communication, and anti-normative behavior.

Jacob Borders, in discussing participants' internal modeling of a discussion, says:

Mental models are fuzzy, incomplete, and imprecisely stated. Furthermore, within a single individual, mental models change with time, even during the flow of a single conversation. The human mind assembles a few relationships to fit the context of a discussion. As debate shifts, so do the mental models. Even when only a single topic is being discussed, each participant in a conversation employs a different mental model to interpret the subject. Fundamental assumptions differ but are never brought into the open. Goals are different but left unstated. It is little wonder that compromise takes so long. And even when consensus is reached, the underlying assumptions may be fallacies that lead to laws and programs that fail. The human mind is not adapted to understanding correctly the consequences implied by a mental model. A mental model may be correct in structure and assumptions but, even so, the human mind—either individually or as a group consensus—is apt to draw the wrong implications for the future.

Thus, online conversations often involve a variety of assumptions and motives unique to each individual user. Without social context, users are often helpless to know the intentions of their counterparts. In addition to the problems of conflicting mental models often present in online discussions, the inherent lack of face-to-face communication online can encourage hostility. Professor Norman Johnson, commenting on the propensity of Internet posters to flame one another, states:

The literature suggests that, compared to face-to-face, the increased incidence of flaming when using computer-mediated communication is due to reductions in the transfer of social cues, which decrease individuals' concern for social evaluation and fear of social sanctions or reprisals. When social identity and ingroup status are salient, computer mediation can decrease flaming because individuals focus their attention on the social context (and associated norms) rather than themselves.

A lack of social context creates an element of anonymity, which allows users to feel insulated from the forms of punishment they might receive in a more conventional setting. Johnson identifies several precursors to flaming between users, whom he refers to as "negotiation partners," since Internet communication typically involves back-and-forth interactions similar to a negotiation. Flaming incidents usually arise in response to a perception of one or more negotiation partners being unfair. Perceived unfairness can include a lack of consideration for an individual's vested interests, unfavorable treatment (especially when the flamer has been considerate of other users), and misunderstandings aggravated by the inability to convey subtle indicators like non-verbal cues and facial expressions.

History Section

Computer-mediated communication (CMC) research has spent a significant amount of time and effort describing and predicting engagement in uncivil, aggressive online communication. Specifically, the literature has described aggressive, insulting behavior as "flaming", which has been defined as hostile verbal behaviors, the uninhibited expression of hostility, insults, and ridicule, and hostile comments directed towards a person or organization within the context of CMC.

Flame War

A flame war results when multiple users engage in provocative responses to an original post—while the original post is sometimes flamebait, this is not always the case. Flame wars often draw in many users (including those trying to defuse the flame war) and can overshadow regular forum discussion if left unchecked.

Resolving a flame war can be difficult, as it is often hard to determine who is really responsible for the degradation of a reasonable discussion into flame war. Someone who posts a contrary opinion in a strongly focused discussion forum may be easily labeled a "baiter", "flamer", or "troll".

Flame wars can become intense and can include "death threats, ad hominem invective, and textual amplifiers" but to some sociologists flame wars can actually bring people together. What is bring said in a flame war should not be taken too seriously since the harsh words are a part of flaming.

An approach to resolving a flame war or responding to flaming is to communicate openly with the offending users. Acknowledging mistakes, offering to help resolve the disagreement, making clear, reasoned arguments, and even self-deprecation have all been noted as worthwhile strategies to end such disputes. However, others prefer to simply ignore flaming, noting that, in many cases, if the flamebait receives no attention, it will quickly be forgotten as forum discussions carry on. Unfortunately, this can motivate trolls to intensify their activities, creating additional distractions.

"Taking the bait" or "feeding the troll" refers to someone who responds to the original message regardless of whether they are aware the original message was intended to provoke a response. Often when someone takes the bait, others will point this out to them with the acronym "YHBT", which is short for "You have been trolled", or reply with "don't feed the trolls". Forum users will usually not give the troll acknowledgement; that just "feeds the troll".

In sociology, history, or any kind of online ethnographic academic study, flame wars as a corpus, in a STS approach of controversies, may be used to understand what is at stake in a community. The idea is that the flame war drives the actors into abandoning a polite stance and forces them to engage into debate and to unveil otherwise concealed arguments. In this respect, the most interesting parts of an online corpus are the flame wars as "outbursts of heated, short and dense debates, in an ocean of evenly distributed polite messages".

Example

In 2005, tech expert Kathy Sierra was a victim of flaming as an image of her depicted as a mutilated body was spread around online forums and the posts and comments that were made were extremely harsh. Not was her picture spread around but so was her social security number and the address to her house as well.

The 2016 Presidential election, saw a flame war take place between Republican candidate Donald Trump and the Democratic candidate Hilary Clinton. The barbs exchanged between the two was highly publicized and is an example of political flaming and a flame war.

Legal Implications

Flaming varies in severity and as such so too does the reaction of states in imposing any sort of sanction. Laws vary from country to country, but in most cases, constant flaming can be considered cyber harassment, which can result in Internet Service Provider action to prevent access to the site being flamed. However, as social networks become more and more closely connected to people and their real life, the more harsh words may be considered defamation of the person. For instance, a South Korean Identity Verification law was created to help control flaming and to stop "malicious use of the internet" but opponents to the law argue that the law infringes on the right to free speech.

Political Flaming

Political flaming typically occur when people have their views challenged and they seek to have their anger known. Through the covering of one's identity people may be more likely to engage in political flaming. In a 2015 study conducted by Hutchens, Cicchirillo, and Hmielowski, they found that "those who were more experienced with political discussions -either online or offline- were more likely to indicate they would respond with a flame" and they also found that verbal aggression also played a role in a person engaging in political flaming.

Factors of Flaming

There are multiple factors that play into why people would get involved with flaming. For instance, there is the anonymity factor and that people can use different means to have their identity hidden. Through the hiding of ones identity people can build a new persona and act in a way that they normally would not when they have their identity known. Another factor in flaming is proactive aggression "which is initiated without perceived threat or provocation" and those who are recipients of flaming may counter with flaming of their own and utilize reactive aggression. Another factor that goes into flaming are the different communication variables. For instance, offline communications networks can impact the way people act online and can lead them to engage in flaming. Finally, there is the factor of verbal aggression and how people who engage in verbal aggression will use those tactics when they engage in flaming online.

Citation Practice

Source

Source

Source

Source