Questions, Insights, Connections[edit]

Leave your question, insight, and/or connection for each class here. I don't expect this to be more than 250 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 16 Tue - Persuasion[edit]

1. "Give [people] superpowers" (p.20). This is one of B.J. Fogg's, the founding father of behavior design, main principles. The central idea of this principle is that emotion plays a major role in human behavior, and if the emotions associated with an action are positive then one is more likely to repeat said behavior "repeatedly-- and 10. unthinkingly" (p.19). This concept is especially prevalent today in a world of social media where users are seemingly supplied with the basic human need for validation and connection just by swiping right or hitting a like button-- which is also what makes these apps so successful. Tristan Harris, a former student of Fogg, questions the ethics behind behavior design and technology-- claiming that "there is a fundamental conflict between what people need and what companies need" (p.49). Those creating apps such as social media are concerned with engagement and profits, while those using the apps are looking to connect with the world around them. Using behavior design principles it is easy for these companies to manipulate human behavior in their favor.

As much as we as individuals all like to think that we are in control of our behaviors, how much of our lives are truly being dictated by outside forces? This is the main question that arose for me when reading through this piece. It also made me question, if there is anything we can really do to prevent such behavioral manipulation, or if it is just inevitable? Despite Robert Cialdini's notion that understanding persuasion techniques can help us "truly analyze requests and offerings" (p.81), does it really matter if our behaviors remain unchanged? -Fairbanks-Lee 15 1:58 January 2024

E23895, excellent QIC. Don't forget to log in when writing on Wikipedia, and sign your messages with tildas. -Reagle (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technology puts "hot triggers" at peoples' fingertips (Leslie, 2016). It is easier to act on these triggers than to ignore them. The opportunity for a frictionless response heightens the motivation to entertain the triggers, and is the crux of addictive technology, according to author Ian Leslie. Technology makes it too easy not to think: "When you're feeling uncertain, before you ask why you're uncertain, you Google" (Leslie, 2016). Nothing tells users to go on certain apps, but their emotions dictate which app they seek out, and each app triggers new emotions, guiding the user to stay on the device. Technology uses the "six basic tendencies of human behavior, reciprocation, consistency, social validation, liking, authority and scarcity" to keep users committed to their device (Cialdini, 2001, p.76).

Robert Cialdini argues that understanding these basic human tendencies allows us to recognize the persuasion techniques being used and to make educated decisions (Cialdini, 2001, p.81). However, I disagree that identifying this manipulation is enough for us to stop falling for it. These are innate psychological human principles and acknowledgement of these tendencies will not stop us from feeding into them... especially when it can be so fun! The concept of variable rewards keeps us constantly checking our phones because we don't know what awaits us: is it a text from Mom, a like on instagram, a job offer? Even when we recognize this manipulation, we still let it happen because we rely too much on technology to sacrifice it entirely.

Although captology can influence us to create healthy habits, it can also exploit our innate human behaviors. Maybe humans find comfort in being influenced. It's less thinking. It's less work. It's easy. Lvogel1 (talk) 00:07, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your last statement. I think we find comfort and ease in following along and conforming to what the majority does. We are cognitive misers - we seek for quick solutions and use mental shortcuts in making judgments. In short, we can be lazy thinkers! Jinnyjin123 (talk) 03:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lvogel1, excellent QIC. -Reagle (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. There are six components that can govern our decisions, as discussed in Robert Cialdini's article. Of the six tendencies, social validation seems to be the most pervasive component that exists in our daily, digital lives. Although written before the rise of social media, the concept helps explain many of our behaviors online. The article by Ian Leslie explores the evolution of behaviorism into modern "behavior design", examining the ethical implications of shaping user behavior through digital interfaces. "Variable rewards", a concept devised by Skinner, play a crucial role in behavior design, as seen on social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and Tinder. Receiving likes, comments and followers on social media plays into our human need for social connection and validation. Continuing to open and check such apps for social interaction and affirmation is a common behavior, also contributing to the success of social media platforms.

In a digital age where many, especially the younger generation, are chronically online, many concerns have been raised about its impact on social skills, attention span, and mental health. A question that arose for me as I read these articles is how should designers balance inventing products that "enhance" lives with the risk of inadvertently fostering unhealthy habits? Addiction to technology and social media is another concern that is consistently raised, especially when it comes to teenagers. Although there are benefits to the advances in technology, too much of anything is bad. One other question that I have left with is where should the line be drawn in using user data in customizing one's social media feed? As the nature of these articles lie in persuasion, it made me recall all the times that I had googled something, or discussed a product with a friend, and then seeing an advertisement for the same very product on my social media feed. Alexistang (talk) 01:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexistang, excellent QIC, but longer than necessary (~250 words). You don't need extensive summary; you need enough detail/content to make your unique question, insight, or connection. -Reagle (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. "Knowledge is power" (p.80) is the key idea expressed in Robert Cialdini's The Science of Persuasion, as he takes through the basic tendencies of human behavior to cater towards the techniques of persuasion. The understanding of the principals of reciprocation, consistency, social validation, liking, authority, and scarcity give us the power to not be "helplessly manipulated" (p. 81) by them. Although in some cases the power of knowledge can aide us in analyzing persuasive materials and situations, individuals can still be negatively affected by persuasion.

In regards to the concept of social validation, the modern age of social media plays a major role in the persuasion of individuals in the online space. Influencer's hold the keys to persuasion within platforms such as Tik Tok and Instagram, with everything from fashion trends to, travel to physical appearance. Despite the positives of social media with community online, the social validation of users is extremely manipulated with after effects various struggles with self-esteem and mental health because of the unattainable societal expectations expressed through influencer content. This phenomenon is an example of the "backfire" that can produce perhaps the opposite of the intended request, generating more "undesirable behavior" (p. 78).

These conclusions can cause us to question the legitimacy of our ability to resist persuasion, despite having the knowledge of how the tactics can influence us. The important of social validation in today's society is essential to everyday life, increasingly with the growth of social media. "If everyone is doing it, why shouldn't I" is a constant question one may ask while using social media, despite the negative effects that participating in those behaviors may have on or their own well being (p.78). - kbill98 (talk) 21:13, 15 Jan 2024 (UTC)

kbill98, excellent QIC. I tweaked the formatting of your paginations. -Reagle (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Tech companies have become masters in the art of persuasion as they "hijack our psychological vulnerabilities" (Leslie, 2016) to hook us into engaging with their products. While it sounds extreme, marketers essentially prey on our vulnerabilities to social approval -- they know we want to feel important, loved, and socially validated so they strategically design their tactics to appeal to our needs. Marketers will go out of their way to promote their product as a "hot commodity" to trigger the pressure that everyone else is buying it, so you should, as well. They take advantage of our tendency to conform and make us feel bad if we do not follow the trend that "everyone" is participating in. Consider the Asch conformity experiment and the power of conformity. Even when individuals don't agree with the majority group's opinion, most people will conform to the majority in fear of being ridiculed -- and this is the power of social pressure and validation. Marketers take advantage of this power by stimulating our compliance and showing us that others have complied or bought their product. The practices of these persuasion professionals raise concerns regarding their genuine intentions and morals as their "financial well-being depends on their ability to get others to say yes" (Cialdini, 2001, p. 80). In a digital-conscious era, we have become more wary of the risks of scammers and tricky marketers who appeal to our need for social validation and acceptance by making use of manipulative tactics to grab our attention.

Will we forever be held captive to the power of captology in this advanced digital age of marketing? Companies spend millions of dollars to promote their products, and we as customers fall victim to their games of persuasion. Genuity and authenticity become a huge concern as we must now continuously question the intentions behind these marketers and quality of products. It is dystopian to think about the reality of how much individuality and free choice we have in our daily lives and choices as we are constantly being swayed by the subtle yet manipulative tactics of these 24/7 targeted advertisements and marketers. As much as we rely on the Internet to search for information or buy products, these tech companies and marketers rely on us to gather and make use of our data, so they know exactly how to appeal to our ego, interests, and needs. - Jinnyjin123 (talk) 03:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jinnyjin123, excellent QIC, and I appreciate your comment above. This is longer than necessary (~250 words). You don't need extensive summary; you need enough detail/content to make your unique question, insight, or connection. -Reagle (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. "No matter how useful the products, the system itself is tilted in favour of its designers." In their respective articles on the processes of influencing and controlling consumer behaviour, Robert Cialdini and Ian Leslie explore the underlying debate on the power dynamics feeding this novel science. Using the Skinner box, an experiment that in many ways marked the start of the study of "behaviourism," Leslie points out how the user is essentially trapped by a box (their device) that holds the promise of constant rewards. The designer of the box not only controls the thing itself, but the mechanism behind it which provides varied results, keeping the person hooked and willing, to a certain extent, to remain trapped by the box.

What I think provides a good contrast to this point of view is the notion of reciprocity spoken of by Cialdini. He argues that there are six basic tendencies of human behaviour necessary to produce a positive response to attempts at controlling behaviour. One of these tendencies he names as the "code of reciprocity," the societal norm that requires an individual to repay what they have received in some kind of way. I believe this raises an important question about the extent to which designers can truly be said to have the upper hand in this dynamic. The system may be tilted in favour of its designers -- but without the consumers, the system is just an empty, useless box, no matter its intricacy. In some ways, I would argue that this means the greater system at hand is tilted in the favour of the consumer. In order to enter the box and thus feel the need to reciprocate, customers must feel they're getting what they want, at least in the beginning.Tiarawearer (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tiarawearer, excellent QIC. -Reagle (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. "Captology (Computers as Persuasive Technologies)- later became behaviour design, which is now embedded into the invisible operating system of our everyday lives." Leslie touches upon how this concept is further used and designed to essentially "hack" users and place emphasis on the technology's quirks often times manipulating the users. The question that arises is to what extent do we allow ourselves to be manipulated by these quirks? Are we the problem for entertaining the concepts of the emerging technology which then poses the other question mentioned in Cialdini's article of "If everyone's doing it why shouldn't i?" (Cialdini, p. 78).

Cialdini touches on the concept of "social validation", that social media can ultimately take advantage of us users by showing us that users similar to ourselves are using and interacting with their product allowing the user to fall in the trap of "peer pressure." We see our peers conforming to these notions, we like our peers (concept of liking) then we conform falling into the trap ourselves. This leads back to the question "to what extent do we allow ourselves to be manipulated?"

Leslie's article speaks about how social media has not only impacted this generation's decision making but most significantly mental health. After an interview mentioned in Leslie's article, young women created "fake" personas through Instagram to gain this sense of "liking" that was mentioned in Cialdini's article. However, the new followers and every new comment and like was similar to a dopamine rush in the moment. Ultimately, this lead to a realization that the concept of "chasing" and organizing life just to be "liked" and conform to typical societal "expectations" made them unhappy. Moseley describing it as a "sickness" Dena.wolfs (talk) 11:26 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Dena.wolfs, excellent QIC. -Reagle (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jan 19 Fri - Kohn on motivation[edit]

1. "Rewards Punish" (Kohn, p. 50), was one of my main takeaways from Friday's reading on motivation. Using multiple research studies to support his claims, Kohn argues that although one typically has a positive connotation while the other is negative, both rewards and punishment have more in common than one may think regarding motivation. Not only can rewards be harmful, but Kohn also discusses that they can be damaging to relationships in places of work, creating "An undercurrent of 'strifes and jealousies'" (Kohn, p. 55) One of my main takeaways from Chad Whitacre's piece, Resentment, is that these feelings of jealousy that can stem from rewards is not solely negative, and can create "healthy competition" (Whitacre).

Through more studies on motivation, it was found that "extrinsic rewards reduce intrinsic motivation" (Kohn, p. 71). This is where I found the connection between Whiteacre and Kohn's readings. From how Whitacre described Gittip, no extrinsic rewards were being offered. There was personal satisfaction that came with seeing his creation on the home page, but the users of this platform were not promised anything in particular for good performance. Although Whitacre described that seeing his competitors succeed made him resentful, it was not necessarily negative. Rather than letting resentment overcome him and affect his work, it motivated him to work harder. I know I feel the same as Whitacre when it comes to watching others succeed, it lights a fire in my stomach, pushing me to do more.

This is where I agreed the most with both readings. When someone is promised something, that is all they can think about, whether it be a reward or punishment. Nobody can do their best work when they are promised a reward by someone else, they must do it for themselves. The resentment that comes from punishment and rewards can only affect us in the way that we let it. Stuchainzz (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stuchainzz, excellent use of detail and connection between readings. -Reagle (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Kohn challenges the practice of motivating people with extrinsic rewards, explaining that this is not the most effective method, as it causes people to lose intrinsic motivation, or interest in the actual task they are completing. He summarizes it with a simple question and answer: "Do rewards motivate people? Absolutely. They motivate people to get rewards" (p. 67). Kohn expands on this idea by describing rewards as a "'how' answer to what is really a 'why' question" (p. 90). He explains this in the context of students in school that are given assignments and told to complete them for a good grade, without any further explanation as to why the assignment is necessary.

Kohn's argument brings up an important discussion. Most schools are structured in a way that prioritizes completing assignments to receive a grade. From a young age, students are taught to write a paper or study so they receive an A, but rarely are students told why they are completing the assignment or what other benefits they may receive from doing so, other than just receiving a good grade, or a reward. Schools are typically modeled around extrinsic motivation and rewards when it has been proven that this makes people lose interest in the actual task at hand, as Kohn explains. This then raises the question of why schools continue to follow this model so closely when there is research and evidence to prove this may be completely ineffective. But would it be widely possible for schools to move away from typical grading systems and devalue extrinsic rewards like receiving As on assignments? Would all students be able to achieve success with a model that relies solely on intrinsic motivation instead of extrinsic motivation if this is what they had always known from a young age? - Lmeyler02 (talk) 18:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lmeyler02, excellent response. -Reagle (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. I agree with Kohns opinion that reawards what is functioning as extrinsic motivators, has risk of reducing intrinsic motivators like interests and enthusiam. I know Patreon because of my interest in animation. I found many professional users on that platform who provide usefull tutorials, resources and tips. Many of those are charged. I can see the necessity of this because those are all hard works from creators. But I meanwhile question the overall atmosphere of monetizing these kinds of open-source communities.

As Kohn precisely pointed out," Anything presented as a prerequisite for something else-that is, as a means towards some other end - comes to be seen as desirable" (p.76). Learning animation, if made into a means to earn money, risk undermining the passion and interests of many animation lovers all over the world. People would think whether their time or labor spent are worthy. This will also engender what Whitacre(2013) called as a resentment problem, "We plant the seeds of discontent by selective monetary rewards." A piece of work made out of pure interests will not lead critical judgement or even blames, but often a charged piece will. So is it possible to offer rewards while without undermining passions and interests? This issue is important as it's usually intrinsic motivation that results in more creativity. Letian88886 (talk) 12:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Letian88886 good use of detail and connection; make use of spellchecker to address typos. -Reagle (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2. "Rewards and punishments are not opposites at all" (p. 50) was a thought-provoking opening to Kohn's reading. When I first read that, I was confused; how could they not? Rewards are "prizes" awarded to those who live up to a certain standard, while punishments are "penalties" given to those who fail to live up to those standards. By right, they are opposites. However, Kohn goes on to explain how they really are just two sides of the same coin. Kohn discusses that punishments and rewards follow the same psychological model, positing that motivation is nothing more than the manipulation of behavior (p.51). As explored in a later chapter, both rewards and punishments alike contribute to extrinsic motivation. Along with the issues that arise from rewards, such as ignoring reasoning and being controlling, Kohn argues that they undermine intrinsic motivation. More specifically, he notes that "extrinsic rewards reduce intrinsic motivation" (p.71).

I have always looked at rewards as a token of achievement and never thought about its negative impacts on motivation. Having read Kohn's arguments, along with the studies/experiments cited, it is clear that extrinsic motivation does not reap optimal results, despite it being the "norm". Taking sports for example, most athletes are motivated extrinsically. They look at winning as a goal for reasons such as being awarded a trophy, money or a good reputation, rather than an intrinsic reason such as achieving a personal best. Thus, I walk away with the question of how do we cultivate intrinsic motivation when most of us have been accustomed to having done things from extrinsic motivation? Alexistang (talk) 00:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexistang, excellent engagement with Kohn; do you see any relevance to online community or Whitacre? -Reagle (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2. "Rewards also disrupt relationships in very particular ways that are demonstrably linked to learning, productivity, and the development of responsibility" (Kohn 54). When I read this in the reading, I had no clue how a reward could disrupt relationships. As I read more, Kohn mentions that managers are recognizing that excellence will stem from intrinsic motivation by a well-functioning team rather than extrinsic motivation by a select few "talented" individuals. Kohn further adds the well-known slogan typically heard in classrooms: "I want to see what you can do, not what your neighbor can do." However, Kohn argues that creating this sense of an individualistic culture sets the students up for a naturally extrinsic motivated work environment. Whereas, this leads to issues of jealousy and a fight for "goods" which ultimately leads to lessened quality work.

After reading this, I am left with the question To what extent does extrinsic motivation affect our ability to form connections and trust with other individuals in our work environment? If a group of individuals are all working individually towards achieving the same extrinsic motivated reward there is bound to be a lack of community and willingness to help peers. This all leads up to competition and resentment that Whitacre touches upon. "Feeling resentment is a sign that something is wrong: with a social system, with a relationship, or with myself" (Whitacre). Another question that I ask myself is, Is there a slight feeling of resentment when individuals are completing an extrinsically motivated task?Dena.wolfs (talk) 9:22, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Dena.wolfs excellent engagement with Kohn and connection with Whitacre. -Reagle (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2. I have never thought about how "rewards change the way people feel about what they do" (Kohn, 1999, p. 68). In other words, receiving rewards for tasks impacts the intensity of our motivation. When we perform a task, we expect compensation for our effort and time. We are more encouraged to succeed in a task if we are rewarded for it -- and usually, we want to receive material rewards. However, after reading Kohn's arguments on how rewards "fail" us, I began to understand the difference between being intrinsically and extrinsically motivated. If we are used to receiving extrinsic rewards for our efforts, will we forever lose our intrinsic motivation to perform tasks? Can we ever enjoy doing things just for the sake of it? These concerning questions also make me wonder how extrinsic motivation impacts the relationships we create. Specifically, when looking at our connected society of networked individuals, we can see our society is built around networks to receive resources. We maintain networks for job opportunities. Do we now live in a society where even the efforts we put within our relationships are extrinsically motivated? It sounds wrong to think that our motivations for connecting with people can be superficial in that way.

Kohn (1999) argues that intrinsically motivated people "display greater innovativeness and tend to perform better under challenging conditions" (p. 69). This makes sense to me -- given that these people are performing the task without any extrinsic rewards, they have learned to gain motivation simply through the process of doing it. Athletes who are intrinsically motivated have genuine love for sports and are motivated to perform better for their own benefit -- not just to win games or earn money. They find satisfaction in their own efforts. To respond to @Alexistang: in the context of sports, there are several ways sport psychologists work with their clients to cultivate intrinsic motivation - receiving positive feedback on their "process" rather than "outcome", shaking things up during practices (avoid stale/boring environments), and involving everyone in decisions and learning processes. - Jinnyjin123 (talk) 06:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jinnyjin123, excellent work. -Reagle (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2. We've been trained to believe that "the reason to learn or work or live according to certain values is to get a reward or avoid punishments" (Kohn, 1999, p. 91). That's why everyone goes to work, pays their taxes, goes to school, and does other basic necessities to function in society. The goal is to gain rewards (money, status, connections, etc.) and avoid punishments (tax avoidance, poverty, jail, failure, etc). Kohn (1999) argues that "people lose interest by virtue of feeling controlled" (p. 81). Whether it is "positive" control through rewards, or "negative" control through punishments, "rewards and punishments undermine intrinsic motivation..." (Kohn, 1999, p. 69).

For example, the reading discusses an old man who was harassed by children on their way home from school. He decided to give them each a dollar for yelling insults at him. The next day he gave them only 25 cents, and the following day just a penny. The kids felt that it wasn't worth it to harass him for just a penny, even when they began doing the activity for free (Kohn, 1999, p. 71). Another study in the reading discusses children drinking Kefir for rewards. The group who got rewarded for drinking the yogurt the first week were much less interested in it the second week, whereas the children who got nothing "liked the beverage just as much, if not more, a week later" (Kohn, 1999, p. 72). These studies reveal that rewards "smother people's enthusiasm for activities they might otherwise enjoy" (Kohn, 1999, p. 74).

Can intrinsic motivation die within us entirely if we are exposed to enough extrinsic motivation? Will we want to do anything anymore if we are so used to everything we do being transactional? Does the reward need to be tangible or is making a loved one (or ourselves) happy enough of a "reward" to motivate? The extent to which someone considers something a reward will vary, but maybe not all extrinsic motivation is bad and maybe it is inevitable. Lvogel1 (talk) 14:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lvogel1 excellent engagement with Kohn -- and I love the old man story. How might this apply to online community and/or Whitacre? -Reagle (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2. "Some things ought to be made available unconditionally" is a phrase that stuck out to me from Alfie Kohn's 1993 work, Punished by Rewards. The two chapters I read of this book were fascinating in their description of the many ways in which rewards, which we tend to think of as intrinsically good, can often be as harmful as punishments. One potential effect that I found particularly interesting was that rewards had the tendency to turn the prerequisite task into something burdensome, and no longer (or less) enjoyable to the person seeking the reward. This made me think of the concept of scarcity from Robert Cialdini's article on the science of persuasion.

According to Cialdini, we are more drawn to items and opportunities that we perceive as being limited in availability. Combining this concept with the idea that we begin to resent or dislike tasks that we see only as a means to an end, I began to wonder how much of this growing lack of interest could be moderated by the way in which we present the task, even if we leave the reward attached to it. Would this effect be as prominent if there were more specific restrictions placed on when a person was allowed to undergo this task-reward process? How much does frequency and repetition play a role in this process? All of this led me to reflect on the phrase I quoted at the very beginning -- how do we decide what can be limited, what we are allowed to portion, and at what rate? Creating scarcity is one thing -- deciding how far you can (and should) take it is another. ; Tiarawearer (talk) 15:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tiarawearer excellent engagement with Kohn and connection with Cialdini. Be careful of "recipe" type verbose prose: "The two chapters I read of this book were fascinating in their description of the many ways". -Reagle (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2. "'Do it and you'll get that' automatically devalues 'this'" (p.76). This is one of the reasons Alfie Kohn provides for why reward systems are actually harmful. While these systems are rather effective when it comes to getting one to perform a desired behavior, there are long term consequences often not considered. Kohn uses the example of Greg Prestegord. Greg loves baseball and when the library set up a summer reading 10. program where Greg could earn prizes, such as baseball cards, by reading books he began checking out library books and reading them. While the outcome of this reward system seems positive, as Greg's mother puts it "at least he's reading now" (p.73), there are 10. long term effects not being accounted for. By buying this behavior (aka extrinsically motivating) now it solves the problem only for a short period of time, but as Kohn points out, after the baseball cards run out the Greg, and the other children, are not only unlikely to continue reading, but are even less likely then they were before the rewards program.

This example really stuck with me because I remember summer reading programs like this from when I was a kid. My elementary school would offer rewards to kids who read the most books over the summer, and previous to this reading I had never really thought anything but positive of these programs. However looking back, I can remember not reading as much in the school year, unless books were assigned, as I did in the summer. I think I would often chalk this up to just having less time in the school year, but truthfully there was a lack of motivation to just read for fun rather than get rewarded for it. This makes me wonder if there is anyway for reward programs to exist without causing long term harm? I also wonder if in an example like Greg, where he wasn't reading otherwise, the good of a reward system outweighs the bad? E23895 (talk) 16:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

E23895, good engagement with Kohn and connecting Prestegord with your own experience. How might this connect to the online realm or Whitacre? -Reagle (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jan 23 Tue - A/B testing & finding a Wikipedia topic[edit]

1. The concept of A/B testing brings a massive form of convenience to the idea of website and user interface design. With multiple companies "constantly testing potential site changes on live (and unsuspecting) users" (Christian, 2012), it appears as though basic website design choices and inclusions can easily change as time passes. Overarching updates to design choices on websites can happen frequently and quickly upon viewing real time data. With this use of data coming as evidence for certain choices succeeding or failing over others, supplanting the "highest-paid person's opinion" and allowing for those lower in the projects hierarchy to work on their ideas are both sizable benefits that A/B testing provides.

One question that I do have is how far can this testing go in terms of website variations? As Christian mentioned, "the percentage of users getting some kind of tweak may well approach 100 percent," and that is with just Googles search engine. Taking the scope of how many people experience different website pages, how different can these variations then become? Could organizations utilize A/B testing for broader design choices rather than inclusion of specific phrases or media? Could A/B testing eventually be utilized for some form of personalized website page design, built for the consumers specific design preferences much in the same way that social media chooses what content to present on your "for you" page based on what you previously watched? Kindslime (talk) 07:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2. "It's now the standard", says Brian Christian in his article about the world of A/B testing throughout Silicon Valley and beyond in regards to websites and online products (Christian, 2012). It allows for companies to understand the user experience when engaging in their websites through the testing's production of important data. More power is given to consumers in this way as organizations build their websites and products around them, "rewriting some of the fundamental rules of business"(Christian, 2012).

After Christian takes the reader through the ways in which new business decisions are made with the help of A/B testing, he raises the question on the possibility of A/B testing in the offline world. To companies all over the globe, data is essential to marketing and other features of consumer product creation. Although in this article it explains how society demands data to be offering instantaneous feedback to companies, thus offline A/B testing wouldn't be possible, are there some ways in which this process would be helpful to business in an offline sense? Would this process aid in bringing people offline and into stores if the data were to help companies improve the customer experience in a face-to-face context? What would it look like? Christian describes an offline testing example of pricing differences at a restaurant as "purely intuitive", but how different is this example to one of ordering food in an online space (Christian, 2012)? The testable web maybe safer as the author claims, but perhaps a little introspection in the offline world would be helpful in being more accessible and relatable to customers. Kbill98 (talk) 14:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2. It's easy for us to discover the power of data. A very simple social media post that people make for fun or a meme might receive then thousand clicks, but a well-designed post may only receive clicks no more than one thousand. This suggests that our instinct, common-sense, or even knowledge-based content does not usually work well. For me, the described experience here is what people often undergo when running their social media channels, which now has made me believe in the power of data. It is for this reason that A/B test could become such a powerful tool. As Brian(2012) suggested, "On a fundamental level, the culture of A/B cuts against our common-sense ideas about how innovation happens." Data offers us an effective way to solutions that could be beyond our understanding. For example, In the A/B test done by Wikipedia (2010) to promote donation, the banner text "Help protect what we've created" received 69% clicks, while the banner "Wikipedia: Edited by volunteers, supported by readers like you" only had 31% clicks.

It is hard to figure out why through our human way of thinking. It just works, and data offers us the quickest way to reach the solution that really works. What I am concerning is what end our current focus on data will ultimately lead us. I know that big data is ubiquitous in our modern society. Does our complete trust and reliance on data create ethical problems? Letian88886 (talk) 23:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3. "The testable web is so much safer. No choices are hard, and no introspection is necessary" (Christian, 2012). Companies have become reliant on A/B testing, focus group studies that yield immediate results, due to convenience and the ability to rely on fact rather than intuition. The reading discusses the Obama Campaign and redesigning the website using A/B testing. The team found a pattern of their instinct being wrong in terms of increasing the sign-up rate: if they had "kept 'Sign Up' as the button text and swapped out the photo for the video---the sign-up rate would have slipped to 70 percent of the baseline" (Christian, 2012). Although A/B testing helped to improve this statistic easily, I do not think that relying on it for every business decision is healthy for humanity or for businesses.

A/B testing introduces a disregard for critical thinking and intuition which guides businesses to make more educated decisions. However, honing in on big data could dissuade businesses from making larger changes since they will be caught up in the minutiae of the data.

In the 2010 banner testing, there was a pattern of increased donations when the banner read, "If everyone reading this donated $5." People responded well to there being a general consensus and all users being a part of something bigger. Social validation, one of the six basic tendencies of human behavior according to Cialdini, is evident in these findings. This is related to the allure of A/B testing because both are examples of how humans like to rely on external validation, whether that is other peoples' actions or hard data, to make decisions rather than their own intuition. My instinct is to resist total reliance on A/B testing, but it is inevitable. Maybe I am just resistant to this shift away from human intuition and succumbing to technology/data. Lvogel1 (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3. Christian (2012) claims that "the single biggest evolution in A/B testing over its history is not how pervasive it has become but rather how fast it has become". The quick results for feedback have become integral for businesses to implement real-time data. Due to its convenience and its ability to generate accurate and live results, A/B testing has become the main source of decision-making within business operations. These test results help us decide the best decision to make regarding yielding quality business results.

"What does it matter if you can get the right result?" (Christian, 2012) While it is productive and efficient to rely on technology and objective data, I worry that our overreliance on data has diminished our ability to use our intuition and critical thinking caps. A/B testing automates the whole process of creating results and skips from point A to Z without helping us understand how the tests are making choices. We miss out on the intricate processes of learning how to run a business. We can thank A/B testing for helping us generate smarter business decisions, however, since A/B requires "no human oversight" (Christian, 2012) whatsoever, the culture of A/B has taken over the humanity and intuition involved within our innovation and vision for business. The testing culture within our data-driven society has helped us successfully run businesses, but I think it is crucial that we step back from our overreliance on data and appreciate the power of humanity in business. Business at its core is about human relationships and how we work together to cater to our society's needs and wants, and I worry that the culture of A/B will erase the collaboration, relationships, and visions that make up businesses. - Jinnyjin123 (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jan 26 Fri - Platform affordances: Twitter and Mastodon[edit]

1. "Over the past decade, we've been conditioned to think of life on social media as a relentless pursuit of attention from as many people as possible. The goal is to yell into the void, loud enough to perhaps reach a crowd of strangers" (Chayka, 2022). Due to this type of thinking a social media platform like Twitter would be the perfect place for people to do just this. Many types of communities can exist on Twitter as it is a place where people can voice their opinions to the masses as well as begin discourse with people they never would've been able to do before. Since its conception, the kind of communities that can exist on Twitter are those made up of people with similar interests, identities, or goals. The communities on Twitter can revolve around a plethora of different topics and it is all about the idea of sharing ideas and getting a response. A specific community is Black Twitter. Black Twitter is an internet community used to communicate within the black community as well as to have a space where people can talk and reflect on their experiences. The biggest way that the platform facilitates community is through the use of hashtags. In a way, hashtags allow for an easy way to navigate the site and find exactly what sub-group you are looking for on the app. However, as mentioned by Chayka in an article for the New Yorker, users are unhappy with Twitter in more ways than one. One of these is the character limit when drafting a post. If Twitter is supposed to be a place for people to yell into the void how is that possible when they are given only 280 characters? Many of these unhappy people are moving to an adjacent platform by the name of Mastodon. In terms of Black Twitter, moving to Mastodon, I believe it could be a good option for a new home for Black Twitter, however it's all a matter of getting people to migrate over and it needs to be a palace that'll serve the needs that they need as a community. Jfeldman26 (talk) 14:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Jfeldman26, good engagement. But with a 360 word paragraph, I'd encourage you to split it into two or ease of some of the summary and focus on your unique Question, Insight, or Connection. -Reagle (talk) 17:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jfeldman26, also, I think this is your second QIC? -Reagle (talk) 17:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3. Black Twitter is known for its ability to "get things done" (p. 205) and mobilize valuable action. Through processes of self and group-identity maintenance, Black Twitter creates its hashtag public. "Blacktags", referring to the "culturally resonant language and phrases combined with hashtags" (p. 206), allow Twitter's Black users of all backgrounds and walks of life to form multilevel networks online. Citing examples of #PaulasBestDishes and #SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen, it is apparent that Black Twitter's communicative acts prompt real consequences and contribute to the social construction of hashtags as artifacts that carry meaning between both virtual and physical worlds.

With Elon Musk taking over Twitter's ownership, many users and employees alike made the decision to leave the company/app. Musk's lack of effort to promote inclusion in business had also sparked concerns of how it would affect Black Twitter. At the same time, many users made the switch to Mastodon, where conversations on the platform were compared to Twitter's as "murmurs" rather than "shouts" (Chayka, 2022). Mastodon's unique feature of allowing users to create individual servers aligned with specific interests sparks curiosity about cultivating niche communities. While this may be seen as a good thing in general, Parham (2022) argues that no other social media platform can replicate Black Twitter.

Mastodon connects people of similar interests, but also disconnects people by its nature of forming "subgroups" through its servers. In that way, Mastodon may not be able to replicate Black Twitter, where multilevel connections can be formed through "Blacktags". With Elon Musk's controversial takeover, how can we continue to encourage and foster minority and marginalized online communities such as Black Twitter to persist? -Alexistang (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2. "The communicative acts of these interlinked communities have prompted real-world consequences and lead to the social construction of hashtags as artifacts that carry meaning between the virtual and physical worlds" (Clark p. 215). In this quote, Clark summarizes one critical feature of Black Twitter, and that is its tendency to facilitate conversations and movements around important social issues, both online and in person. Members of the Black Twitter community, who are often underrepresented in other arenas, are able to come together virtually despite possible "physical, economic, and social barriers" (p. 215). This is especially important to recognize in the face of threats to Twitter as a platform under Elon Musk's ownership. While other platforms like Mastodon may be able to host a new version of Black Twitter, Jason Parham worries that Black Twitter will become harder to replicate each time it is forced to relocate.

This analysis of Black Twitter and its purpose and future raises questions not only for Black Twitter but also other minority communities. Ideally, social media and the Internet allow for groups to come together and form communities in ways that may not be possible or as easy in the physical world. But looking at the example of Black Twitter and the effect Elon Musk's ownership may have on this community, are there any other examples of marginalized communities being affected similarly that we may not even hear about as much? How could these communities prepare for or respond to something like Musk's takeover? -Lmeyler02 (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. While I left Twitter long before Elon Musk's eventual takeover, I was nonetheless intrigued by Mastodon when I first heard about it in the wake of these events. It seemed like it would be something right up my alley, as I try to use free and open-source software whenever it is feasible. However, I was admittedly discouraged by its sheer degree of decentralization, especially after being first exposed to Twitter. To say that Mastodon is a "Twitter replacement" misrepresents the service, as it is more akin to a framework upon which others can build than an actual social network.

In relating "Black Twitter: Building Connection through Cultural Conversation" to "There Is No Replacement for Black Twitter," I believe that Parham comes close to reflecting my own thoughts on Black Twitter's existence in a changing internet ecosystem. Parham's conclusion that Black Twitter cannot feasibly be recreated on another platform primarily rests upon the fact that other services' digital infrastructure is different from that of Twitter. I agree wholeheartedly with Parham's conclusion here. However, I also think that the overall environment of Black Twitter could not be replicated on any other platform. This environmental aspect is important, as it is within this environment that discourse takes place.

In my personal opinion, I think there is great potential for decentralized social networking. However, I also think that these social networks would be better off seeking new ways to innovate within the social networking sphere, rather than simply providing alternatives to their centralized counterparts. --- Toothlesswalrus (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Toothlesswalrus, good engagement and connection between the readings. -Reagle (talk) 17:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4. "It's the end of Black Twitter and Black people at Twitter" (Parham, 2022). Once again, and to no surprise, Black people's voices have been taken away... from Twitter -- the first platform to provide Black people a collective voice. Digital evidence of "the success of individual Black users tapping into their communities to gain visibility around an issue" (Clark, 2015, p. 215). As a woman of color, I am impressed with the power of internet communities such as Black Twitter in allowing users, who are usually silenced from the offline world, to engage in cultural conversations, mobilize crucial conversations, preserve customs and culture, promote social change, as well as expose "the hegemonic in-group's competing social construct of dominance" (Clark, 2015, p. 209). This active meta-network provided a platform for Black users to take back freedom and control of their voices without being silenced or manipulated by mainstream media narratives, as well as confront the systematic disadvantages and oppression they face.

Unfortunately, Black Twitter has lost the authenticity of its earlier days as our digital society is slowly prioritizing virality. "Black Twitter today isn't even the Black Twitter of a few years ago" (Parham, 2022) - and this is my concern for the future of social media. Social media has clearly proven to be a powerful tool in driving social change, providing autonomy and affirmations for marginalized communities. However, I believe that this power is being abused by our greed for online attention. "The goal is to yell into the void, loud enough to perhaps reach a crowd of strangers" (Chayka, 2022). Digital presence is crucial in our digital society driven by capitalism. I worry about the humanity of our online world as our intentions of digital usage have become heavily driven by social validation, commercial capital, and monopolization. Regardless of the platform used, I believe the responsibility lies within the community and its users to maintain a healthy, productive, and supportive online community. - Jinnyjin123 (talk) 07:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2. With Twitter having been a prominent platform for helping movements spread critical messages, the takeover of Twitter by a man who initially let go thousands of employees has led many users to worry (Chayka, 2022). Looking at hashtags such as #SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen, we can see that Twitter users that participate within Black Twitters messages are able to stand behind critical trends that gain a lot of traction by likeminded critiques of certain beliefs. With the discussion of racism and prejudice then getting attention by media outlets outside of Twitter, the platforms hosting of critical groups, such as Black Twitter, allowed for widespread condemnation of harmful, prejudicial thought (Clark, 209-210).

With that said, due to the aforementioned takeover of the platform by Elon Musk, it seems as though Black Twitter will struggle to gain more traction than it has in the past. Many have left the platform in initial "twin exoduses" (Chayka, 2022), and many more have followed afterwards due to various decisions made by Mr. Musk (Parham, 2022). I don't believe that Black Twitter would be able to thrive elsewhere close to the same way it did on Twitter, as both format and user base is so vastly different for other social media platforms that would prevent it from performing its best (Parham, 2022). However, I do think that that Twitter, with its current notoriety for recent decisions, will continue to gain the attention of external media sources tuning in to see what is happening with the platform. Kindslime (talk) 07:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3. Black Twitter is framed for its powerful ability to "get things done" through online communication as described by Meredith Clark in her text on Black Twitter (Clark, 2015). The passage describes two viral hashtags that stemmed from Black Twitter and infiltrated mainstream media, #PaulasBestDishes and #SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen.

However, with the changes in twitter (now X) has seen with leadership from Elon Musk, researches are looking for new solutions where online communities can form. Mastodon is one platform in a "a fleet of new tools for so-called decentralized social networking" where some have moved to from Twitter (Chayka, 2022). Although Mastodon has a similar interface to that of Twitter, the platform defers in many ways. There are different functions and much smaller communities that you must enter and exist. Mastodon users reported that you don't "feel the same level of hostility" then you do on twitter, and yet is it a proper replacement for the platform (Chayka, 2022)?

What is interesting about these articles in conjunction is that the apps are very different in the way communities emerge. On Twitter people find common interests and be-friend other users while still having full access and connection with the "global town square" while Mastodon has more exclusive communities with no central shared area (Chayka, 2022). The reason that the Black Twitter community was able to make those hashtags viral and attack injustices what because of the shared space of Twitter, where Mastodon wouldn't allow for those same communities to act the way they do now. It does not seem like a proper next step and really a different platform where exclusivity could cause feelings of isolation online. - kbill98 (talk) 09:48 , 26 January (UTC)

3. "A lot of times on Twitter there are just a lot of words, but then something gets done" (Clark 1). Various cultures have created a cultural community through Twitter. For example, through Black Twitter individuals and groups can "get things done" by representing a particular identity through this social media outlet by using various hashtags and tweets to voice topics of values and inclusion. "Blacktags" were created as a way to continue representing the African-American community through language prevalent in their own culture and community. Additionally, these specific tags they create form a sense of inclusion and boundaries within the Black Twitter community. They can recognize and interact with other members of the community through shared interests and beliefs.

Questions arise as to the detrimental effects that Musk's ownership of this platform. To what extent could Musk's ownership impact the culture and community these individuals have created in this space? I believe that after the issues with Musk's ownership, Mastodon can be a new home for Black Twitter. With a new and improved management style, Mastodon includes various servers where individuals can cater to different groups and communication styles. However, Brock believes that Black Twitter can not be replicated elsewhere. He states "Mastodon is siloed. Discord is voice-centric. TikTok is too busy. Nothing else closely replicates Twitter's feature set." He says Instagram is the most obvious contender because it "has seen a slow Black Twitter exodus over the last five years." My final question is: To what extent will a new version of "Black Twitter" be a reflection of the concept and platform rather than a replica? Dena.wolfs (talk) 09:50 , 26 January (UTC)

4. Black Twitter hashtags are "artifacts that carry meaning between the virtual and physical worlds" (Clark, 2015, p. 215). Black Twitter brings Black communities together "across physical, economic, and social barriers, giving their members greater agency and visibility" (Clark, 2015, p. 215). The community does not "gatekeep or silence Black people's opinions," allowing members to identify through shared experiences and emotional connections (Parham, 2022). Through the use of #Solidarityisforwhitewomen and #PaulasBestDishes, Black Twitter influences the focus of mainstream media and begins important conversations.

Community members of Black Twitter use social validation and consistency, two of Cialdini's six tendencies of human behavior, to shape the media and draw attention to overlooked issues. For example, #Solidarityisforwhitewonen demands coverage due to a "threat of bad publicity" for the feminists who choose to avoid this discussion (Clark, 2015, p.213). This leads to users acknowledging and participating in online conversation to gain social validation for speaking up. Black Twitter capitalizes on users' desire to be consistent through the use of hashtags. If a user participated in a previous conversation through posts or retweets, they might feel committed to the community and obligated to stay consistent with their participation in discussions.

Elon Musk's leadership puts Black Twitter in danger for dissolution. With Black Twitter potentially coming to an end on Twitter, these members of the community may shift to a new platform called Mastodon which is more friendly and intimate than Twitter. Although nothing can compare to the original Black Twitter, many users' willingness to stay committed to the community even across platforms reveals the intrinsic motivation keeping people involved. Users could blame their disassociation on the switch of platforms or Elon Musk, but those who decide to remain part of the community must genuinely want to be involved. Lvogel1 (talk) 16:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lvogel1, very good. Notice the spaces I added to citations: "p. 215". -Reagle (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jan 30 Tue - Creating a Wikipedia outline with citations[edit]

...

Feb 02 Fri - Ethics (interlude)[edit]

3. "It is important that ethics - and the humans who comprise the data - are not forgotten in the chaos" (Lukito et al., 2023). This quote essentially summarizes the overarching theme across all three readings. Lukito, Matias, and Gilbert worry that by restricting independent research, there will be no one to expose injustices at the hands of major corporations and government. This kind of research can then be used to shape policies that have very real effects. So, while ethics, privacy, and the human component of research are always of concern, independent research cannot be done away with entirely. Instead there must be new forms of accountability to manage the tensions of independent research.

Amy Bruckman writes about her own experiences with managing independent research and ethics while conducting a class where her students ran studies of various online communities. In doing so, Bruckman was able to develop guidelines over the years that allow students to research while balancing concerns of privacy and ethics, which is exactly what Lukito, Matias, and Gilbert instruct people to do.

Finally, the example of user influence experiments on Facebook highlight the necessity of protecting the people behind the data. In a 2014 study, Facebook examined the effect of positive and negative messages seen by users and did so without user consent. The study was criticized because users were unknowingly having their emotions manipulated for the purpose of a study, or as the quote says, forgetting the humans behind the data in the chaos of research. When it comes to independent research and the various considerations that come along with it, Lukito, Matias, and Gilbert capture it perfectly in one sentence. - Lmeyler02 (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2. This past semester, I took the class COMM2105 Social Networks with Professor Lungeanu. Around the middle of the semester, we were to design a small-scale research project and send it to a small group. This prompted an overview of the ethical considerations that must be taken into account when researching these networks. Studying social networks---as well as the underlying concept of network theory---is a relatively new field of study. And because of this, IRBs are usually skeptical of allowing research into this field. The Lukito et al. piece reminded me of this discussion, particularly the sentence "Prior work has uncovered a number of challenges faced by IRBs, such as keeping up with evolving technologies and practices..." I do not think that this skepticism from IRBs in the field is unwarranted, but at the same time, I think that this shows the hesitancy IRBs have towards accepting new research methods.

From the readings, I was able to draw connections between the ethical considerations discussed in that class to our current discussion for this class. Both subject matters deal with how people interact with each other in a certain space. However, I believe that social network research focuses more on in-person interactions and how people are explicitly connected to each other. Within the online communities space, the focus seems to be more on the community at large than the individuals who compose it. ---Toothlesswalrus (talk) 13:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feb 06 Tue - Norm compliance and breaching[edit]

4. "Communities need some more automates and tangible ways to limit damage" claimed Robert Kraut in his chapter on building successful online communities (p.167). Throughout this text, Kraut offers various design claims and alternatives for current online communities to follow in trying to regulate behavior that violates social norms online. The claims referenced punishments and benefits for new online rules and the problem with anonymity online, which can be seen in many online platforms today. An example of this is the live streaming world, what I wrote my influence and motivator paper on, is the idea of moderators. These "formal sanctioning roles" help in finding chatters who violate the community guidelines of that platform (YouTube, twitch, etc.) (p.165). Often with the use of pseudonyms, it can be difficult to punish those violating norms because of their anonymity and ability to create other online personas even if they get banned from a platform.

In order to understand the breaking of these social norms, one must be "a stranger to the life as usual character of everyday scenes" (p.36). Garfinkel's study on social briefing was a great expansion on the idea of looking at how norm violations affect the community surrounding them. The study highlights various experiments conducted with experimenters breaking social norms through asking for someone's seat on a subway or asking to cut in a line. After concluding my reading of the text, there are some questions that can be posed about Garfinkle's experiments. After last week's discussion, are there an ethical concerns that should be discussed involving intentional social breaching? Were these ever justified? And how do experimenters feel about participating in these experimentations? -kbill98 (talk) 14:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4. "'Please, no more of these experiments. We're not rats you know'" (Garfinkel p. 49). This quote from the sister of one of the students conducting a social breaching experiment on their family references some of the ethical concerns that may be involved with this type of research. A breaching experiment involves violating accepted social rules or norms to evaluate people's reactions in these situations. For this to work, however, the people involved cannot know they are part of a study because researchers are trying to examine their natural reactions. many of the families involved in students' social breaching experiments were somewhat annoyed after the student's explanation of what had happened. While Garfinkel makes sure to note that none of these experiments caused irreparable damage to students and their families, could there still be an argument that the families were unfairly manipulated for the purpose of a study? As discussed in last week's class and readings, informed consent is usually considered a crucial part of research studies. It is generally agreed upon that it is unfair to involve people in a study which they know nothing about and have not agreed to participate in. So how is social breaching different? What arguments might there be that this type of research and experimentation does not require informed consent? - Lmeyler02 (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

5. Sociological theorist Alfred Schutz described the "unnoticed background expectancies" that we take for granted as the "attitude of daily life" (Garfinkel, 1976, p. 37). In our day to day life, there is a lot left unsaid. When there are too many questions, humans get exasperated and impatient. It is expected that we follow a set of societal norms that we are rewarded for following, and punished for disregarding. People follow norms for social validation. "The ability of others to see and judge actions and associate them with the actor---encourages good behavior and discourages bad behavior in the moment" (Kraut, 2012, p. 156). This emphasizes that people want to be seen as if they do what they are supposed to: they follow norms. In a study when students did not follow norms, their families "demanded explanations: what's the matter?... are you sick?" (Garfinkel, 1976, p. 43). This demonstrates our discomfort when someone disregards societal norms. Along with the norms that we are expected to abide by in daily life, there are also norms in online communities and the expectations are the same. For example, "97% of Vandalism on wikipedia is done by anonymous editors," proving that many will not deviate from the norm if their name is attached to the work (Kraut, 2012, p. 155). Is this visceral reaction to the disruption of norms due to our innate discomfort with a "norm-less" society? Is this reaction rooted in our fear of others knowing that we might not understand/be aware of this norm and that is why we are not following it? Perhaps we are subconsciously seeking social validation in our mindless norm compliance. Lvogel1 (talk) 03:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3. In today's readings, I was particularly interested in reading about the "design claims" offered by Kraut et al. in Building Successful Online Communities. One of the ideas discussed in Design Claim 27 of the book is the implementation of online reputation systems that link users' reputations between communities under a single pseudonym. However, it also mentions that previous attempts to create such a system have failed. While I can certainly see the benefits of such a system, I do not believe that this would work well in practice. Having a singular core online reputation would help to hold users accountable for any negative actions that they carry out, but this comes at the cost of having the potential for abuse.

If users are required to have a singular pseudonym under this system, users could be targeted across forums. This is already a problem if users use similar (or identical) usernames on different platforms, but if such a reputation system were to be implemented, a users' reputation can be "attacked" (for lack of a better word) and influence their standing on multiple forums at once. Additionally, users might prefer the anonymity that is provided by having multiple pseudonyms across multiple websites. I believe that the other design claims discussed by Kraut et al. would be much more effective at incentivizing healthy online interactions than a global reputation system. ---Toothlesswalrus (talk) 05:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

5. In a 1962 episode of Candid Camera, unsuspecting subjects entered an elevator where actors were all facing the back of the elevator. The power of conformity was clear -- the subjects started turning around to conform to the group's behavior. This breaching experiment demonstrated how individuals conform to group dynamics. Without questioning the odd behavior of facing the back, the subjects imitated the actors' actions in a subconscious attempt to conform to the group. Even though facing the back of the elevator is considered a violation of elevator norms, the subjects prioritized fitting into the group in the given context. Erving Goffman argues that "the most common rule in all social situations is for the individual to fit in" (Wikipedia). To fit in, one must comply with the given social rules, so they blend in with the group. We feel uncomfortable, awkward, and embarrassed when we or others fail to comply with norms because we attribute violations of norms to the individual's poor character. Associating the compliance of norms with the individual discourages individuals from breaking norms for fear of a bad reputation or exclusion. Humans have an inherent desire for belonging and we enter this world learning that if we obey social rules, we will not only fit in but be respected by others and rewarded for our compliance. A good citizen is someone who abides by the law. A good member of society is someone who abides by norms.

Although compliance with norms is heavily encouraged within our society, I'd like to argue that, sometimes, breaking the social rules can be an important driving force in fostering a culture of innovation and creativity. Innovators, entrepreneurs, and pioneers are rule breakers who defy the norms of society, think outside the box, and take a unique approach to their line of work -- even if it triggers a public outcry. If we step away from the "normal" way of approaching life, we can see the world from a fresh new perspective, away from the influences of society. - Jinnyjin123 (talk) 05:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3. Time is a thief, and some of what it steals (or changes) in online communities is meaning. Harold Garfinkel's "Studies in ethnomethodology" (1976) and Robert Kraut's "Building Successful Online Communities" (2012) both spoke about the role of the passage of time in their respective books about social norms and breaching. While Garfinkel was more focused on highlighting the transformative role of time as it relates to changing and producing meaning in social interactions, I was interested to see how this connects to Kraut's evidence-based claims about how one way to ensure safe and appropriate use of online spaces is to increase the benefits of long-term pseudonyms for its users. While Kraut spoke about this mainly from a design perspective, listing ways in which to get users to stick to one pseudonym, I believe that Garfinkel's analysis is a great support as to why users might find this beneficial on more social grounds.

I think that staying on a platform under the same account for longer periods of time is desired by users not only because of ease of access or material gains, but rather it speaks to their desire to be known by the platform which they themselves learn to create meaningful content with. Platforms such as TikTok or Spotify have made a brand out of their famous algorithms that give back to users, catering entire "For you pages" and personalized playlists built from users' listening habits. To break use of that platform under a certain account would feel like a broken relationship, a goodbye that is made more meaningful by the app's personalized design, which relies on social norms to simulate human interactions. Tiarawearer (talk) 15:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4. In his book, Kraut notes that a lesson for online communities is that "there must be a high probability that norm violations will be detected" (p. 163). Online community members who violate norms should be detected and dealt with appropriately. Kraut discusses one method of detection, by allowing members to report such violations. An example of a social media platform that has this feature is TikTok, in which one may report a post with prompts to identify the type of violation. The other method Kraut discussed makes use of a software which can flag photographs with "large flesh-colored areas" as potentially pornographic (p. 163). In his chapter, Kraut explored many design claims with regards to regulating behavior that violates social norms, and proposed potential design alternatives. Earlier in the chapter, he discussed how anonymous individuals are less likely to adhere to social norms than those who are identifiable (p. 155). This reminds me of keyboard warriors, who still persist with great online presence to this day. It is often easy to violate rules and norms when one is able to hide behind a pseudonym or fake identity. Thus, one method that Kraut cites as increasing members' willingness to abide by community norms is to prevent or minimize anonymous participation, as Wikipedia has done.

Most commonly associated with Harold Garfinkel, breaching experiments work by essentially taking a regular interaction but changing the context of the interaction as something unfitting. He claims that society has created implicit "rules" in how we interact with one another, however, these rules often come about naturally and are difficult to distinguish. Breaching experiments help highlight these rules/social norms that would often go unnoticed. Although violations of norms in online communities are often seen as divisive and wrong, I believe there are benefits to going against certain norms. Alexistang (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3. "Their seen but unnoticed presence is used to entitle persons to conduct their 10. common conversational affairs without interference. Departures from such usages call forth immediate attempts to restore a right state of affairs" (Garfinkel, p.42). When it comes to our communities certain norms are established, whether we are aware of them or not. Even the language we use, as Garfinkel points out, is a result of these rules. I also saw a connection between this idea by Garfinkel and Kraut's claim that, "community influence on rule making increases compliance with the rules" (Kraut et al., p.152). The idea behind this claim is that when people violate norms and that violation is pointed out, they are more willing to stop that behavior and correct course to more accurately comply to the rules. Personally, I witnesses this phenomenon when I first came to college. I never realized there were some common phrases that I used on a daily basis back home that confused people when I came to Northeastern. When people started pointing out some of the words or phrases I used that they did not understand I began to stop using them, and conform to the norms of the people around me. Leaving my community and joining a new one led me to reflect on my former norms, and adjust to fit my new ones.

These statements by Garfinkel and Kraut also made me wonder how much these norms are meant to form a community, and how much they are used to exclude others from said community? E23895 (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feb 09 Fri - Regulation and pro-social norms (and writing workshop)[edit]

2. "In the face of inevitable turnover, every online community must incorporate successive generations of newcomers to survive" (Kraut et al). Communities are always gaining and losing members at all times. This can be good but it can also be bad. Newcomers can bring in new ideas and creativity but a new member's presence can also create diversity in the group until they learn the group's norms. Kraut mentions in Chapter 5 that there are five basic problems that must be dealt with before integrating into a newcomer. These include recruitment, selection, retention, socialization, and protection. These problems involve the new members and the current community and make sure that they would be a good fit.

I believe that these rules are good guidelines that can be applied to any type of community whether in person or online. When thinking of the Dreddit example, they utilize these types of rules for integrating new members by allowing people to apply and then waiting for an acceptance which mostly likely means that the existing community needs to vet you before you are integrated. This goes hand in hand with the recruitment and selection section of the five problems. As someone who is part of many communities myself in person and online I feel like this method is used by all as it is the more fair and equal way to ensure that communities aren't being exclusionary but they are still maintaining the order they want and taking someone in to follow their norms rather than changing it all up for one person. Jfeldman26 (talk) 11:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3. Focusing on the various design claims of Kraut, one claim in particular stuck out to me, that being the fifth claim. Design claim five specifically talks about the power that the most influential and engaging members of a community hold in their ability to convince others they know to join said community (Kraut et al, 188). The section dedicated to claim five then goes on to talk about how people are "more likely to be exposed to beliefs that they already agree with" (Kraut et al, 188). Taking these different factors into account, we can see that some communities can begin to intersect with others due to previously existing groups.

Taking the social networks of influential individuals who are a part of communities, and then seeing direct encouragement towards said network to join the community being an effective recruitment technique leads into the idea of both groups having common interests. With the social networks and communities having common beliefs and interests, these influential community members do have great power as they act as the bridge between these two groups. These influential members, as a part of this community, have an interest that, due to social networks members often having common things they agree with, is able to bring in more people due to the fact their peers often have more than one common thing they agree with. This allows for a large amount of intersection between different groups and circles by just the actions of a select few members. Kindslime (talk) 03:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kindslime can you start with something snappier? -Reagle (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

5. "Because they lack experience, when newcomers try to participate, they imperil the work that other community members have already performed" (Kraut p. 179). This quote from Kraut captures the tensions of newcomers entering a community. While new members are a necessity to keep communities flourishing, there also may be some difficulties that arise from new participants that do not yet understand the way a community functions. Kraut outlines several design claims that can be useful to address challenges associated with newcomers, from recruiting them to maintaining them as part of the community.

Design claims 8 and 9, dealing with recruiting members through advertising tactics reminded me of Cialdini's persuasion techniques. Design claim 8 states: "Recruiting materials that present attractive surface features and endorsements by celebrities attract people who are casually assessing communities" (Kraut p. 191). This claim relates directly to authority and liking. Cialdini explains that people can often be easily persuaded by those that seem to have authority or influence, like a celebrity in this case. Similarly, people are more likely to agree to something when they like the person that is asking, and even more likely when the person is attractive. Again, a celebrity meets those requirements which is why this could be a successful tactic for recruiting new members. Design claim 9 suggests highlighting the number of people that have already joined the community to persuade more people to join. Kraut references the example discussed in class of increasing people's willingness to reuse hotel towels by using phrases like "join your fellow guests. . .", which emphasizes what others are doing, speaking to Cialdini's identification of social validation, which is the tendency to look to others to decide what to do in a situation. -Lmeyler02 (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lmeyler02 good connections. -Reagle (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2. "The community should select only those potential members who fit well. This process may occur through self-selection, in which potential members who are a good fit find the community attractive and those who are not a good fit find it unattractive. Or it may occur through screening, in which the community screens out undesirable members, while encouraging or selecting the others" (Kraut p. 180). This is how Kraut described the process of selection, one of the five basic problems when dealing with newcomers in online communities. This concept, along with recruitment, retention, socialization, and protection are the five problems communities run into when determining whether a new member is fit to join their ranks.

After reading the rules for joining the online community, Dreddit, I feel as if selection is the main concern for this community in particular when deciding whether to admit a new member. I believe this is the case because of their guidelines on "Applying with a recommendation." These rules made it clear that if a recommended member is removed from the community, the person who made that recommendation may also be punished as a result. I think that this rule makes the selection process more nitpicky because it emphasizes not only the applicant but also those who vouch for them. This requires that both the applicant and their recommender align with the community values, adding another evaluation to the process, and making it that much more selective. Stuchainzz (talk) 21:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Stuchainzz[reply]

5. Just like the rest of the world, communities can only survive if members who leave are replaced by new ones. As Kraut notes, "without replacing members who leave, a community will eventually wither away" (p. 179). In this chapter, Kraut discusses the importance of recruiting new members into an online community along with the associated design claims. He described newcomers as members who may be a new source of "innovation, new ideas, and work procedures or other resources that the group needs" (p. 179). As it is crucial to recruit new members to preserve an online community, it is important to be aware of its challenges so that recruitment is as effective as possible.

Looking at Dreddit, an online community that consists mostly of Reddit users and their peers, their recruitment of new members falls in line with several of Kraut's design claims. As an example, those who apply with a recommendation from a Dreddit member underwent "interpersonal recruiting" (p. 183). While it appears that Dreddit permits lurkers in its community, GoodWaffe 101 does not unless the prospective member meets an alternative criteria. Having a system in place that allows a community to consider prospective members before admitting them has many benefits, but it leads me to question whether the elimination of lurkers in certain online communities is necessary, considering that many may feel strongly about a specific community but choose against being vocal. Having said that, I believe that GoodWaffe 101's alternative criteria is a fair one. Alexistang (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

5. "Online communities will inevitably die without a constant supply of newcomers" reveals Kraut as he emphasizes the important of recruitment of newcomers for online communities in his recruiting design claims (Kraut, p.182). The claims begin with speaking to interpersonal recruiting, and how current members of communities can use word-of-mouth recruitment instead of "laissez-faire" approaches is much more powerful (Kraut, p.183). Along with this, design claim 4 looks at the affordances of the platform where the community lives can affect recruitment. Kraut further introduces the ideas of having credible endorsements, familiarity, and an involved selection process and how these ate extremely important for recruiting and admitting newcomers.

This concept of having members "undertake separating tasks" in hopes it will weed out the "undesirables" can be seen on the Joining Dreddit webpage (Kraut, p. 200). In order to apply to becomes part of the community on your own, you must already be an established Reddit member or else you need a recommendation from a current Dreddit member. Creating these specific steps will make is harder for more "undesirable" or unwanted newcomers to join the community because of the extra hoops they must jump through in order to join. Similarly on GoonWaffle, a perspective member must have a sponsor to join, and that sponsor is responsible if the newcomers behaviors violates the communities laws. We can see how there in-depth recruiting application processes have attempted to find the best newcomers possible through other offline endeavors such as college admissions to joining honors societies and Greek life organizations. What do we think are the benefits of this process for these smaller online communities and would they work for bigger platform's like Instagram or Twitter? - kbill98 (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3. It is indeed a double-edged sword for online communities to recruit newcomers. On the one hand side, they have to get newcomers in order to keep the communities thrive. As suggested in "Wikipedia: Seven Ages of Wikipedians," there is actually a cycle where new people enter and old people exit. To keep this cycle work healthly, the number of incomers must be at least equal to the number of those exiting. Nevertheless, this does not mean that the more newcomers, the better, because newcomers have the potential to disrupt or destroy the entire online communities. As highlighted by Kraut (2012), there is the issue of anonymity, which means that the true identity of the newcomers is usually hard to be verified and lies may exist that destroy the community accord.

Online communities have to carefully select newcomers through some recruiting strategies and tactics. I never joined any game guilds, but as a member of many online communities, I deeply feel the challenges faced by those communities to have the best-fit newcomers. I always see the players of different games dismissing each other's game as naive or tasteless. And I feel like this kind of attack could happen in online communities like Wikipedia as well.Unlike games whose interests are just to attract more and more new players, online communities like Wikipedia have to guarantee the qualities of the newcomers for the sake of the entire community. My remaining question is what can be done to resolve such challenges brought by animosity?-Letian88886 (talk) 03:10, 9 Feburary 2024(UTC)

6. Although newcomers are crucial to the survival of an online community, there are challenges when familiarizing them with the norms of the group. For example, a wikiInfant "may fail to follow the policy of writing with a neutral point of view..." (Kraut, 2012, p. 179). The motivations behind newcomers joining and remaining in a community can be linked to Cialdini's Principles of Persuasion. Design claim 1, which states that a "persuasion attempt" from a familiar person is more effective at influencing attitudes than a general advertisement, demonstrates how liking can influence a newcomer to join a community (Kraut, 2012, p. 184). Additionally, design claim 2 discusses how word-of-mouth is even more effective than impersonal advertising, proving that liking and knowing the individual is an effective way to influence. Not only must the newcomer like the community, but the liking must be reciprocated. For example, to join Goonwaffe you must be referred by a Goonwaffe member and that member must have been in the community for at least 30 days. When building a community, there must be a general consensus amongst the individual and the community that they are a good fit for each other. B. J. Fogg had his students create Facebook apps to attract newcomers through psychology. "The result: in just ten weeks, the students had attracted an aggregate of sixteen million users to their apps" (Kraut, 2012, p. 186). This reveals the impact that credibility of friends and social validation can have on a user's decision to join a community. Given the connection between Cialdini's Principles and newcomers' motivations, what proportion of a community is genuine interest versus performative? Lvogel1 (talk) 14:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lvogel1, excellent engagement but break into coherent paragraphs. -Reagle (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4. How transparent does the glass need to be to feel like you have a good idea of what's hiding behind it? In his chapter on dealing with the challenges of newcomers to online communities, Kraut (2012) opens by saying that newcomers are generally happier and better contributors if they have a "complete and accurate impression of the community before they join it." This made me think about the importance of design choices not only for individual platforms, but across them. Most online communities these days are shared and understood by more than users who have a registered account. On TikTok, a popular form of sharing content is by reading funny Tweets or reposting Tumblr posts in a slideshow of images, set to either a humorous or emotional song based on the context.

The consumption of platform-specific content on foreign platforms is extremely prevalent in today's online environment. This could be because of a number of reasons, including the desire to limit online presence and accounts or a particular ethical or moral aversion to a platform, as evidenced by the departure of many from Twitter, now X. How effective is this propagation of content in advertising the platform itself, and would this drive engagement or limit it? As a member of an online community, if I feel like I can get the same content from one place, why would I join another? I wonder how these considerations affect design choices in making specific platforms stand out enough that once people do take a peek through the looking glass, they're motivated enough to break through it. Tiarawearer (talk) 14:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4. "In the face of inevitable turnover, every online community must incorporate successive generations of newcomers to survive." (Kraut p. 179). Kraut explains that while newcomers are a great addition to a community providing new insights and perspective to the group there can also be downsides. He states that these newcomers don't yet have a level of loyalty or commitment to the group that old-timers have developed and obtained. Additionally, newcomers can be somewhat unreliable as they may leave the community after facing a slight and minor inconvenience. "They have less motivation to be helpful to the group or to display good organizational citizenship characteristic of many old-timers" (Organ and Ryan 1995).

In order to successfully integrate newcomers into their fold they must use an effective retention approach. They are essentially fragile in the beginning and the community should create a space where newcomers can feel a tie and understanding of how the group functions to integrate them more smoothly.

The question that I ask myself is: Would incorporating a sense and concept of mentoring between old-timers and new individuals interfere m with the community and create barriers between people or essentially help assimilate the new members into the community? Within these applications, old-timers can also create FAQ pages for the new timers to allow them to review archived conversations enabling them to gain an understanding of simply the communication methods within the specific online community.

Overall, the main issue is that many of these online communities lack recruiting initiatives for new members due to the fear of the new members not being able to assimilate which creates this issue to begin with.Dena.wolfs (talk) 09:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dena.wolfs please number this, I think it is your 4th? -Reagle (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6. Kraut et al. (2012) asserts that "interpersonal recruiting is more effective than mass communication" (p. 183). In other words, it is much more productive to actively recruit potential members through the mutual networks of existing members who already understand the expectations and goals of the community. Due to fear of bad reputation, existing members may be more encouraged to bring in potential members who they are confident will positively reflect them and the community. The potential members are more likely to be persuaded by people who they know, trust, and like, as opposed to those in the community they don't know at all. In discussing the behaviors of persuasion, Cialdini (2001) makes a point that "familiar faces sell products" (p. 79) which emphasizes the power of the familiarity heuristic. We tend to like and trust people, things, and ideas we are already familiar with; therefore, our peers (who are already liked) are powerful salespeople. The growing popularity of referral codes utilized by social media platforms to increase engagement through existing members' mutuals, as well as the increasing use of referrals from existing employees in job recruitment, displays the power of interpersonal recruiting and advertising.

Tinder takes advantage of our need for social validation by allowing users to share match profiles with peers instantly through text, AirDrop, or other social media platforms. When we make decisions, we like to look for help from others as a form of validation that we made the correct or "best" decision. Tinder essentially combines the promotion of the app with users' needs. The convenience and accessibility of sharing content with peers easily allows Tinder to increase visibility and, therefore, gain heavy attraction through users' networks. This is a strategic way of promoting the app to potential members who are not on Tinder yet, without the need to directly request users' recommendations. - Jinnyjin123 (talk) 16:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4. Design claim 9 states that, "emphasizing the number of people already participating in a community motivates more people to join than does emphasizing the community need (10. Kraut et al., p. 192). Reading this claim instantly reminded me of Cialdini and his six methods of persuasion, specifically Social Validation. Here, Cialdini claims that people are influenced by their peers and therefore if enough people are doing something or saying something, it will motivate others to do so as well. This idea directly supports Kraut's notion that highlighting those already participating is more motivating when attempting to recruit new members. If a community is perceived as popular it leads others to believe that it must be popular for a reason. This not only makes people curious, but makes them want to be "in on the joke". Furthermore people want the value that comes with being a part of a group, whether that be the social network, a sense of belonging, and so on.

Overall reading Kraut's piece reminded me a lot of the job hiring process, especially the 5 basic problems outlined in the beginning: recruitment, selection, retention, socialization, and protection. First a company posts on a job board, or lets people know through WOM, that a job position is available and they encourage people to apply. Then they begin selecting the best from the group of applicants until they find the best fit. From there, companies work to retain their employees by offering them perks and creating a good work environment, and they socialize them through onboarding training. E23895 (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feb 13 Tue - Newcomer gateways[edit]

4. I was interested in the different scenarios that could occur from the interaction of design claims seven and nine. Claim sevens main proposal is to not interact with trolls as that "limits the damage they can do" (Kraut, 135). We then see claim 9 discuss how gags and bans are able to limit trolls damage as well, mentioning that this is mainly effective if the trolls are unable to come back on different accounts to persist later (Kraut, 138). These claims both propose solutions to prevent community disruption at different stages, where at first a troll may be ignored, then followed by harsher repercussions.

With bans being employed to limit interaction on account of "bad actors," could these gags and bans be seen as interactions with bad actors to further embolden them? Could these interactions, despite their intent to limit damage, potentially lead to new developments for how online communities could be disrupted by bad actors? We've seen people try to implement methods such as fake accounts to disrupt groups before, and developments were made with CAPTCHAs to prevent that. That said, much like gags and bans potentially emboldening bad actors to try new methods of community disruption, how will new modern developments, such as CAPTCHA creation, further cause new methods of trolling? I think that research into how new technology, such as artificial intelligence, could be used for forms of trolling should be done, to best prevent methods of community disruption ahead of time. Kindslime (talk) 01:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

5. "In thriving communities, a rough consensus eventually emerges about the range of behaviors the managers and most members consider acceptable, what we will call normative behaviors, and another range of behaviors that are beyond the pale" (Kraut 125). According to Kraut, a norm in Wikipedia is creating a neutral standing when communicating through articles. This is a well-known norm of Wikipedia which does an effective job at preventing bad behavior and its effects. "Personal insults may be the primary way to interact in one community, but frowned upon in another" (Kraut 125). What is interesting is to see the shifts in social norms between different online platforms. This poses the question of, To what length does an individual need to be a member/user of a specific online platform to gain a solid understanding of the respective platform's norms?

While Wikipedians don't use bias in their articles, at times there are what's called "edit wars." One Wikipedian may view the information in an article as not suitable for that specific page and may speak up."This conflict can lead to editors repeatedly undoing each other's work in an attempt to make their preferred version of the article visible" (Kittur et al. 2007). In Wikipedia, this can be seen as their norm. The content may be seen as "bad behavior" on one Wikipedian's end where maybe the other user may have a different viewpoint. However, between the Wikiepdians undoing one's actions may be seen as the norm on this platform, whereas on another platform it may be seen as rude. Dena.wolfs (talk) 09:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6. "Having a rough consensus about normative behaviors" is essential to having a thriving online community, according to Kraut in chapter 4 of his book (p.126). Throughout the chapter, Kraut offers design claims around the pillar of limiting the effects of bad behavior with moderation, ignoring tolls, compliance, and displaying examples of appropriate behavior. In his section on encouraging voluntary compliance, Kraut explains that the way sin which peoples learn the norms of a community through observing other's consequences for violating norms, seeing generalizations of codes of conduct, and receiving direct feedback about behavior (p.141).

These strategies are being used in both offline and online communities. Being student at Northeastern means you have read and agreed to the school code of conduct, therefore are in compliance with the rules and regulations of the school. You also observe others around you to understand the norms, and face them even more so if you were to break the norms and face consequences. Similarly on a platform like X (formally twitter) these ideas of learning the norms of users also come into play. The newer function of community notes is a prime example of people observing the consequences of behavior as one of the norms of the community is to not spread misinformation. This can also been seen on Wikipedia, as mentioned in the "Be Nice" article. This can be seen through the ability to comment on Wikipedians talk pages in giving feedback on articles. Although norms are still broken with such strategies in place, they are helpful in understanding how communities act and function. -Kbill98 (talk) 11:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

7. "One bad apple soils the barrel" (Kraut et al., 2012). The presence of even a single "bad apple", or a member engaging in nonnormative or harmful behavior, can detrimentally impact the productivity and well-being of the entire community. Online communities often rely on pro-social norms to maintain a positive and productive environment. Pro-social norms are cultural traits which govern social actions which enhance the community's well-being. When a member of the community violates these norms by engaging in trolling, harassment, or other negative behaviors, it can disrupt the community's well-being and lead to a spillover effect where others may start to imitate or tolerate such negative behavior -- leading to decreased productivity, decreased participation, and even the departure of previously active members.

In discussing norms, Kraut et al. (2012) differentiate between descriptive and injunctive norms. We tend to interpret descriptive norms (typical behavior) as social evidence of underlying injunctive norms (behaviors people approve or disapprove of). Due to our inherent desire to belong and feel socially validated by others, we look toward the typical behavior of others as a reference or guide for our own behavior as a way to navigate ourselves around a given space. However, to understand what norms are in place within a community, it is crucial to observe not just the common online behaviors of others, but also to observe the responses to those behaviors. If the observer sees the consequences of the behavior, they become aware of the appropriateness and effectiveness of the behavior and gain an understanding of whether the behavior is approved or disapproved within the community. When we receive feedback from others regarding our behavior, we start to understand and integrate the community norms by complying with normative behavior. - Jinnyjin123 (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4.Before taking this class, I never thought that there is so much underlying mechanism of Wikipedia and there are so much going-on in this community. According to Reagle (2010), the community actually oftentimes involves in heated debates and even quarrels, but I did not have any idea where such quarrels might take place. The readings made me realize that it takes no easy work to make a free online community like Wikipedia to thrive. "'Vandals' and 'trolls' are people who come to Wikipedia so as to purposely cause mischief or argument" (Reagle, 2010). According to Kraut et al. (2012), trolls could actually turn away many members. To institute an effective regulative system, Kraut et al. (2012) proposed many design claims, to which a central idea has been that regulation must be imposed, but justice and democracy must be guaranteed and made known to all members. I totally agree with this idea and consider this hugely important to the regulation of any online community.

There's a Japanese and Chinese based game called Onmyoji, for example, has been a topic of debate in recent months, primarily because the operating and managerial team of the game are perceived by the player community as ill-intended and corrupted that disregard the opinions of players and imposed penalties on players arbitrarily. This actually break the trust of the entire community and risk disintegrating it. Letian88886 (talk) 18:39:29 Tuesday, February 13, 2024 (UTC)

7. All communities have a series of behaviors that members consider acceptable. "People learn the norms of a community in three ways: 1. Observing other people and the consequences of their behavior 2. Seeing instructive generalizations or codes of conduct, 3. Behaving and receiving feedback" (Kraut, 2012, p. 141). Many users adhere to these norms because there is a general consensus that following them is good and will lead to social validation.

We often don't think about norms in a community that we are used to following. "Abstractions and routine behavior can be hard to make salient, but negative behavior catches people's attention" (Kraut, 2012, p. 143). This relates to our class discussion regarding the high visibility of a norm that has been breached. Maybe we notice these breaches because it disrupts our blind following.

Sometimes having rules too visible can encourage nonconformity. As described in Design Claim 9: "prominently displayed guidelines may convey a descriptive norm that the guidelines are not always followed" (Kraut, 2012, p. 150). This can be explained by a general consensus that despite established rules, there are more casual norms. For example, the reading describes the Gaia site and its listed rules. The fact that these rules are so prominent makes teens want to do the complete opposite.

Social validation and general consensus shape who follows norms and who opposes them. Users fall into roles and we expect certain behaviors depending on whether they are a committed member or a troll. A troll seeks validation through breaking norms, whereas the rest of the community strives for approval. Lvogel1 (talk) 00:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. While reading chapter 4 of Krut et al. (2012) and "Be Nice" from Reagle (2010), I kept on thinking about how can/do online communities and platforms make sure everybody can express themselves freely and give their opinions while still maintaining a respectful interactions, especially for newcomers? Reading Krut et al. (2012), specifically claim 4, stood out to me because it talked about how moderation, when done by members that are fair, do not have a lot of power and seem to switch their roles now and then, are seen as more effective. In my interpretation, it is like the saying, "When you are part of making the rules, you are more likely to play nice". It got me thinking about how we can welcome new members into online spaces and communities like Wikipedia. It is not about giving them a rulebook and expecting them to follow it, but more of showing what is acceptable and what is not. Imagine joining Wikipedia for the first time and instead of facing a list of prohibitions, you see a welcome post with guidelines written by active Wikipedians. It turns the initial phase into a dialogue.

Kurt et al (2012) also talks about the importance of understanding a communitie's unique culture, which is essential to Wikipedia. Newcomers need to understand both the explicit guidelines but also the unspoken rules within the community. Reagle (2010) emphasizes the need for a positive community that not only through guidelines but also encouraging others to contribute constructively. Wikipedia offers a platform where anyone, does not matter their familiarity, can contribute to shared knowledge in a respectful and ethical manner. Looking back to my initial question, I believe the challenge would be welcoming the newcomers in a way that reflects community values, spoken and unspoken rules, and sets the stage for a positive and encouraging community. Bcmbarreto (talk) 09:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bcmbarreto, good to see your first QIC! BTW, you have a few typos: "Kraut" and "communities" -Reagle (talk) 17:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feb 16 Fri - Newcomer initiation[edit]

3. "People come to like things for which they suffered because this is the only way they can reconcile their views of themselves as intelligent people with the actions they have performed (Aronson 1997). Although everyone wants to join a group where they feel a sense of belonging and that their peers care about them, there is also a closeness and bond that comes after being a part of a group that "abuses" you. This is similar to a sort of "trauma bond" which usually means that there is a psychological response to abuse or trauma which in turn leads to creating a strong emotional bond between individuals. This can be because of the fact that the others in the group are the only ones that can relate to what you went through and that is where the sense of belonging comes from. In the experiment conducted by Elliot Aronson and Judson Mills, they verified the hypothesis that people find a group more attractive than those who join without going through severe initiation.

This concept and experiment is of course true in online communities such as Wikipedia which is mentioned in the article, but when I think of this concept I relate it back to Greek Life. Within Greek life, there is a joke that everyone is trauma bonded and everyone is always complaining about their respective organizations yet no one leaves. The members within the group can complain but if an outsider says something negative about the organization those inside will defend the chapter no matter what. Especially in terms of hazing, these groups say that this ritual is what bonds people together. Jfeldman26(talk) 12:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC) --- Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfeldman26 (talk • contribs)

Jfeldman26, don't forget to sign! -Reagle (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6. Not only is it crucial for online communities to recruit new members for its continuous survival, it is also important that they retain these new members. In his book, Kraut states that "a severe initiation process or entry barrier is likely to drive away potentially valuable contributors at the same time that it increases the commitment of those who endure the initiation or overcome the barrier" (p. 206). He explains that putting prospective members through a more troublesome process of initiation first narrows down the pool of potential members, and increases new members' commitment to the community. The design claims in this section discusses this in more detail, as well as the topic of teaching the rules and norms to newcomers and "protecting" the existing community from new members.

The article by Aronson and Mills (1959) explores a similar concept, in which the findings of their study support Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance, showing that individuals who undergo severe initiations increase their liking for the group to reduce dissonance between their negative perceptions and the unpleasant experience of joining the group. This reminds me of Facebook, wherein some groups have strict entry requirements, such as invitation-only or approval by admins. My personal experiences align with Kraut's claims. Through exploring several Northeastern Facebook groups, I was turned away by those who had more severe initiation processes such as providing proof of being a Northeastern student, unless they were groups of high value to me. For example, when I was looking for a sublet for the summer, I did not mind the more tedious process. Additionally, my membership in these groups have sustained, perhaps due to my increased commitment to the groups. Alexistang (talk) 19:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6. "Although newcomers are essential to the survival of online communities, they also pose real threats" (Kraut p. 217). While walking through several design claims for handling newcomers in a community, Kraut explains one of the central challenges with newcomers, and that is that they are essential, but sometimes met with resistance from current members because of the potential damage they can cause to an existing community, even if it is unintentional. This quote also relates to and helps explain why some groups come to embrace the practice of hazing or making newcomers undergo some kind of unpleasant ritual to join a group. The idea is that this shows a newcomer's devotion to the group and genuine desire to be part of the group, therefore hopefully reducing the level of threat that some newcomers can pose to a group when they are not fully dedicated.

Aaronson and Mills conducted a study examining this effect and found that people going through an undesirable initiation in order to become a member of a group actually did increase their levels of liking for a group. So not only is the newcomer able to prove their dedication to the group and decrease resistance from current members because of this, but they also end up becoming even more dedicated to the group after initiation. Greek life is one of the more common examples of groups that rely on initiation rituals, but what are some examples of online communities that require an unpleasant initiation process to join? - Lmeyler02 (talk) 20:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3. "Entry barriers for newcomers may cause those who join to be more committed to the group and contribute more to it" (Kraut, p. 206). Kraut's 17th design claim explores one of the many reasons why jumping through various hoops for the invitation to a group may encourage them to participate more. When I think of this claim, I like to look at it from the perspective of my own experiences. It particularly relates to when I pledged to a fraternity my sophomore year and the experiences I had both during and after the process. I found that during the process, those of us who were more active, such as volunteering for various tasks, developed a closer relationship with the members of the fraternity. Coincidentally, I found that those who were not actively involved during their pledge process tended to slowly fade from chapter activities. I believe this comes from a sense of entitlement that one has after they pledge. Most boys developed a mindset of "Well, I went through the hard part, I might as well reap the benefits".

Aronson and Mills made a similar claim at the start of their reading, "It is a frequent observation that persons who go through a great deal of trouble or pain to attain something tend to value it more highly than persons who attain the same thing with a minimum of effort" (Aronson, p. 177). Even when pledging frustrated me, I always told myself that it would be worth it. Being active in the process not only made me more involved socially as a member, as I frequently find myself spending time with those with whom I completed the process, but it also made me a more dedicated contributor. I found myself running for positions and taking initiative because I felt like I had finally earned it. Stuchainzz (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Stuchainzz[reply]

8. According to Aronson (1997), "people come to like things for which they suffered because this is the only way they can reconcile their views of themselves as intelligent people with the actions they have performed." When we go through a great deal of trouble or pain to achieve membership in a certain community, we are more likely to value it highly. By embracing the sacrifice of our time and energy in achieving membership, we are proving our strong dedication to joining the community. The process of this painful initiation also weeds out those who do not have a strong desire to become members of the exclusive group as they are not willing to go through the trouble of entering a community.

Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance emphasizes that it is not the initiation process itself that leads to liking for the group. Specifically, it is the consequence of the unpleasant experience of the initiation that determines newcomers' affinity toward the community. Depending on the severity of the initiation, this experience leads to the presence of cognitive dissonance as we suffer through a long initiation process but still may positively perceive the group. If we believe the initiation is "worth all the trouble," we have proven our genuine investment as we have reduced the dissonance by downplaying the extent of the pain and trouble involved within the initiation. The "outcome" of the initiation becomes more important than the "process" of it.

However, severe initiation processes can also drive away potentially valuable members. While these processes may reflect exclusivity and dedication, they are only beneficial if there is a surplus of prospective members. Once members have gone through initiation processes, it is important to maintain the promise that the community provides high-quality in membership, so members are assured that their commitment to the community is worth it. Imagine you went through a painful and long initiation process just to find out that the community is not supportive or beneficial to you. - Jinnyjin123 (talk) 00:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4. It was interesting to read the Kraut et al. chapters about how newcomers are gradually incorporated into a community, especially after last week's Wikipedia task to find two articles on the public site to edit. Looking back at these edits, I recently checked to see if I was the last to edit either of these pages. For the first page, my edit is still the current version of the page. Whereas for the second page, it has since been edited by another user. This made me worry that I had messed up editing the article and that my changes were reverted. However, the edits made by this other user involved a section that I did not alter in any way through my revisions.

Even though I did not directly interact with anyone through these edits, it made me feel like my edits were valued to some degree. As a newcomer to Wikipedia, I was worried that my edits would quickly be reverted due to my inexperience. Design Claim 18 in the Kraut et al. reading states that "[w]hen newcomers have friendly interactions with existing community members soon after joining a community, they are more likely to stay longer and contribute more," (2012). Perhaps that wordless interaction I had with another user editing the same article could be considered to be a friendly interaction in this sense? I certainly feel more confident in my Wikipedia editing because of this, and it feels like I was able to contribute in a small but meaningful way. --- Toothlesswalrus (talk) 05:48, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6. "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 208). According to Aronson, newcomers face a very intense initiation which ultimately leads to a heightened sense of respect and liking for that community. This is a prime example in many business or pre-med frats. It is normal that these individuals join with a somewhat negative perspective of the club due to the rigor of the initiation process. However, when they are assimilated into the new group and are considered "members' conversing with the oldtimers allows for a se3nse of comfort and familiarity which is quite different than the process of initiating entailed.

Many of these clubs follow Kraut's design claim 19 which is, "encouraging newcomers to reveal themselves publicly in profiles or introduction threads gives existing group members a basis for conversation and reciprocation with them and increases interaction between old-timers and newcomers" (Kraut 209). For example, the business and pre-med frats will allow new members to create slideshows of their likes and dislikes to share with the chapter. Then, the current members will learn more about the newcomers, create a bond with them, and then allow for a positive environment. The question that I ask myself is: To what extent may newcomers create their own personal positive experience in a new community rather than having their experience shaped by senior members? Overall, it is an interdependent responsibility between the newcomers themselves and old-timers to create a welcoming and inclusive community with a sense of universal liking.- Dena.wolfs (talk) 09:48, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

5. "Individuals who undergo an unpleasant initiation to become members of a group increase their liking for the group" (Aronson & Mills, 1959). This hypothesis based on the concept of cognitive dissonance made me reflect on my experience with the process of college admissions, and ways in which I have "increased my liking" of Northeastern to justify all the effort it took to get here. The most obvious way I do this is by reminding myself that it's "free," an education essentially covered by my scholarships. The university also accepted me into the Honors program and has placed me both on the Dean's list and Scholar Awards without my having to submit any form of additional application. Drawing on Cialdini's principles of persuasion, there is an element of reciprocity at play here. While I may have worked for these things, in the moment it does feel like Northeastern is just giving me something I was not entitled to. It forms a kind of loyalty and gratitude for the university and makes me prouder to be associated with it.

Another way I've increased my liking for Northeastern has been by immersing myself even deeper into the group, joining clubs and associations wherein I am producing something under the Northeastern nameplate. By taking "ownership" of my experience at Northeastern, and becoming an actively engaged member of the group, it becomes harder to resort to a "victim mentality" whenever I become displeased with the university. The more I associate myself with the Northeastern name, the more I want to ensure that name is only employed in a positive way. Tiarawearer (talk) 15:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

8. The Fark online community hazes its newcomers by "automatically turning the words 'first post' into the word 'boobies'" (Kraut, 2012, p. 206). Hazing newcomers heightens their loyalty to the community. This strong commitment can be attributed to the theory of cognitive dissonance which states "that if people have two ideas that are psychologically inconsistent, they experience the negative drive state of cognitive dissonance and try to find a way to reconcile the ideas, generally by changing one or both to make them consonant" (Kraut, 2012, p. 205).

Social validation is significant in newcomers assimilating to a new community. Kraut's reading discusses newcomers' positive reaction to receiving ratings from current members of a group. This warm welcome encourages newcomers to participate more in a community (Kraut, 2012, p. 207). On the contrary, users who did not make the best first impression were eager to post again to redeem themselves.

Both newcomers and current members seek social validation. For example, Wikipedia assigns users to be welcoming to newcomers. This reveals that many users would not naturally be welcoming to newcomers and that no one wants to be the first person to act differently. Does the exclusivity of a community make it challenging for existing members to be naturally inviting? Wikipedia has a "Don't Bite the Newcomer" Policy which illustrates the general consensus to be nice to newcomers, but are users scared to be the first user to welcome in someone new in fear of disapproval?

Current members may be welcoming to newcomers because they recognize their value. Newcomers can keep a community alive. Both current members and newcomers may reciprocate warm behavior to one another because of their potential value: newcomers keep a community alive while current members approve of and teach the ways of the community. Lvogel1 (talk) 15:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feb 20 Tue - Collaboration and feedback[edit]

7. "Wikipedia works by building consensus" claims the Good Faith and Collaboration text as it details the idea of collaboration in online communities including Wikipedia (Reagle, 2010, p.2). The first few pages speak to the idea of good faith and collaboration, defining collaborative culture as "a set of assumptions, values, meanings, and actions pertaining to working together within a community" (Reagle, 2010, p.3). Throughout the rest of the text, the values of collaboration and respect are explored as well as the idea of a neutral point of view where contributions to the Wikipedia site must stay away from trying convince readers of the truth and instead take a neutral position on a topic (Reagle, 2010, p.10).

The examples provided of wikipedians speaking to each other respectfully regarding the "Evolution" page are extremely interesting. Since Wikipedia has but these policies in place of respecting your "fellow wikipedians even when you don't agree with them' is a stark contrast to other online communities (Reagle, 2010, p.9). Even if respect is common sense, discourse found on other platforms like twitter seem to be much more aggressively charged as opposed to this response: "likewise, I owe you an apology for the contributions I made in escalating that argument" (Reagle, 2010, p.12). Although not all cases of connecting with wikipedians online may be positive, it seems that more productive discourse and understanding is occurring compared to other media.

In the peer feedback research paper, they answered their hypothesis of "positive feedback and social messages increase their motivation to work" as they showed how productive positive interactions online can be (Zhu et al., 2013, p.9). If there were more negativity amongst wikipedians, there would be never ending arguments about what to include in articles and editors not staying on the platform. For online communities that are working towards common goals, it is extremely important for them to follow in Wikipedia's footsteps in their good faith agenda. Kbill98 (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

kbill98, "use signal phrases and the author, not the article title, as your subject." -Reagle (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

7. In a field experiment conducted by Zhu et al. (2013), Wikipedia users who had recently created a new article were sent different types of feedback messages to investigate its impact on members' contributions to the online community. They were categorized into four types --- negative feedback, positive feedback, directive feedback, and social feedback. The results of the experiment confirmed their hypotheses, in which "positive feedback and social messages increase people's general motivation to work" (Zhu et al., 2013, p. 9).

Similarly, Reagle (2010) discusses the unique characteristics of wikis as a collaborative platform, citing their asynchronous, incremental, and cumulative nature as factors that foster Wikipedia's collaborative online community. Acknowledging the potential pitfalls of these features, Reagle (2010) argues that the success of Wikis also depends on the online community's norms and values such as assuming good faith and fostering a culture of patience, civility, and humor to ensure productive collaboration among contributors with different perspectives.

This made me ponder on how different online communities' cultures vary. For example, Instagram reels are notorious for receiving unproductive, nasty, and mean comments. Many videos on TikTok have been receiving comments like "post this to IG reels", telling users to share it to reels to receive unfiltered, and likely hateful, comments. Unlike Instagram, TikTok is great at filtering and removing hateful comments. Perhaps unintentionally, this has fostered a more supportive environment for TikTokers. Being aware that such hateful comments could exist under a post may discourage people from posting to reels. I feel that this is a great example that supports the notion that both the technological features and the online community's culture are major players in determining user contributions. Alexistang (talk) 23:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

9. "It is easy for discussions to degenerate into flamewars" on Wikipedia (Reagle, 2010). However, Wikipedia is built on collaboration. The policy of keeping a neutral point of view allows for users with opposing opinions to still work together and create informative articles. In an online community like Wikipedia, feedback is crucial for users to learn and articles to improve. There are four types of feedback: positive, negative, directive and social. Negative and directive feedback lead users to put more effort into a task whereas positive and social feedback increase "general motivation to work" (He et al., 2013). This study found that newcomers were significantly influenced by feedback compared to older members, who dismissed feedback and even took offense.

Festinger's Cognitive Dissonance Theory is present in newcomers' reaction to feedback. Users compare their performance to their standards and "when they note a discrepancy between performance and standard, people are motivated to reduce it. Typically people choose to eliminate the discrepancy by attempting to attain the standard" (He et al., 2013). Similarly to how the participants in Mills' experiment who only received $1 tried to convince themselves that the experiment was fun, users will attempt to attain the standard they set for themselves by trying harder.

One explanation for why newcomers are more influenced by feedback than experienced editors could be that new members seek approval as they may be less familiar with the norms of the community. Although in our previous class discussions social validation has been significant in the behavior of both newcomers and current members, maybe an experienced member finds validation in the absence of feedback?Lvogel1 (talk) 01:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

9. Collaborative culture allows us to understand how groups interact, work together, and handle conflict management. It "creates a shared meaning about a process, a product, or an event" (Reagle, 2010). Beyond merely serving as platforms for information exchange, online communities like Wikipedia represent virtual communities where individuals from diverse backgrounds work together to co-create knowledge on an unprecedented scale. Within these communities, contributors are not bound by traditional hierarchies or organizational structures; instead, they operate within a fluid and dynamic network where expertise is valued over authority.

Collaboration within online communities is facilitated by the presence of shared norms and values that guide behavior and interactions. These norms, such as the principles of neutrality and verifiability on Wikipedia, serve as the foundation for effective collaboration by providing a framework for resolving disputes and maintaining quality standards. It is also important to acknowledge intrinsic motivations, such as a sense of purpose or a desire for recognition, in driving participation within online communities. While external incentives (i.e., financial rewards) may play a role, the intrinsic satisfaction derived from contributing to a collective endeavor often serves as a more powerful motivator for sustained engagement.

Analyzing the collaborative culture within Wikipedia offers insights into how online communities can effectively harness the collective knowledge of their members to achieve common goals. Moreover, the decentralized and participatory nature of online platforms fosters a sense of ownership and belonging among members, further incentivizing collaboration and collective action. - Jinnyjin123 (talk) 03:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2. I really enjoyed reading "Good Faith Collaboration" Reagle (2010). It was interesting to see his take about platform culture and assuming good faith amongst its users. This idea is more than just being polite, it is critical to Wikipedia's foundation, making sure people feel safe and valued when they contribute. This got me thinking about the critical role that trust and respect play in any collaborative environment. This approach for collaboration focusing on the human element and the need for support highlighting the importance of creating communities where people are motivated to share, learn and help each other grow together.

Connecting these thoughts with the findings from the feedback survey helps to create a deeper understanding of the dynamics that lead online collaborations. The study pays close attention to the impacts of feedback, explaining how the way feedback is given can really affect a communities' dynamics. While positive feedback can motivate and empower, constructive criticism (when delivered nicely) can help with improvements and skill developments. The study summarizes the need for thoughtful communication, where feedback is not only a tool for improvement but can be a source of confidence and community. Reading about the different impacts of feedback got me thinking about the balance between critique and encouragement when giving feedback. Should it be 50/50? 40/60? I guess it depends on the outcome we want but it also depends on how a person takes and uses the feedback.

Both of the readings highlight the significance of nurturing environments that foster not only participation but a sense of belonging and achievement among its users. Bcmbarreto (talk) 08:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4. "Jenkins defines participatory culture as one in which there are low barriers of engagement, support for creation and sharing, and some form of mentorship or socialization, and members believe that their contributions matter and they "feel some degree of social connection with one another." (Reagle, 2010) With this being said the most important thing about collaboration is the sense of belonging. Due to this, collaboration seems to be an uncanny match for communities. In terms of Wikipedia, the identity of this site is based on the concept of collaboration and it is something that contributes greatly to its success. The collaborative culture cultivated on Wikipedia allows for a wide range of contributions given by people from all over the world with different levels of knowledge and perspectives. Additionally, because of the collaborative culture articles are always being updated and rewritten by others so that the information is always up to date for the readers. This also goes hand in hand with the "talk" section of articles where users can comment on questions and ideas they have for the article and if something needs to be rewritten or fact-checked so that this is a reliable source of information.

Additionally, collaborative culture can foster a community that is passionate about a cause and that is important when dealing with Wikipedia because everyone who contributes does it out of their own want so a collaborative nature heightens the sense of community and makes it so that users continue wanting to contribute to the site. An experiment done at Carnegie Mellon University studied the effects of peer feedback on contribution sites like Wikipedia and they found that positive feedback from peers positively impacts work motivation, this adds to the list of why collaborative culture is integral to Wikipedia's success(He et al., 2013). Jfeldman26 (talk) 11:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6. How does real-life experience with collaboration shape, form and prepare individuals for the type of online work required on platforms such as Wikipedia? Reagle (2010) says, "A productive contributor who cannot collaborate is not a productive contributor." This made me think about how the discrepancies between being a "newcomer" to a space, and thus being considered inexperienced in the type of work being conducted, and the experience which years spent working in a similar, yet separate, environment might influence user interaction. Does the creation of an online collaborative space like Wikipedia only attract people who do not have any other such outlets for the type of information and content appropriate for this platform? What about professionals whose work experiences and careers have revolved around academic contributions to physical encyclopedias, is there a place for them in this space? Does the NPOV scare away experts who might contribute something worthwhile to the platform?

As a college student who has begun editing Wikipedia for the first time after years of using it for my own needs, I have found this experience both frustrating and exhilarating. My frustration mainly arises from the fact that while I feel like I could be a helpful and careful contributor to the platform, I am competing for space with experienced Wikipedians who feel I am encroaching on their territory. Even if this is just an inaccurate impression, it affects my motivation to begin (and continue) producing content for this platform. Tiarawearer (talk) 16:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feb 23 Fri - Moderation: Frameworks[edit]

7. Grimmelman (2015) describes moderation as a way to "help communities walk the tightrope between the chaos of too much freedom and the sterility of too much control" (p. 42). In more specific terms, he defines it as "the governance mechanisms that structure participation in a community to facilitate cooperation and prevent abuse" (p. 42). Different online communities choose to moderate in different ways, with varying degrees of success. Grimmelman cites Wikipedia as a success story, explaining that it has just the right amount of openness which is actually what makes it successful as this allows community members the power to intervene and moderate themselves, sometimes catching issues that even official leaders would miss. Wikipedia is a particularly successful example when contrasted with the LA Times situation, which leaned more towards "the chaos of too much freedom", with no integrated way to block those with bad intentions (p. 42).

Zuckerman's article explores some similar themes relating to moderation, especially in the context of local, neighborhood-based online communities. Even though users are usually required to disclose their identity in these communities, this does not stop people from making racist remarks and profiling their neighbors in communities like Nextdoor. Zuckerman looked at Nextdoor compared to a smaller platform called Front Porch Forum and found that discussion on FPF tended to be more constructive, thanks to the proactive moderation enacted by the platform. While it's clear that moderation is crucial for productive online communities and there are different ways of moderating, some more effective than others, I am also wondering if some issues within online communities simply come down to the type of people attracted to the platform and if moderation can only go so far in some cases. - Lmeyler02 (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lmeyler02 excellent engagement. -Reagle (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

5. Effective functioning moderation is critical to the survival and thrive of online communities. Basic options of moderation include proactive and reactive methods, as suggested by Zuckerman and Rajendra-Nicolucci (2020) in the article. A proactive method usually designates specialized personnel to review posts before they are punished. This is one of the most common ways of moderation in online communities. For example, Wikipedia has specific users devoted to fighting vandalism who either delete posts of vandalism by hands or run automatic algorithms that identify and screen vandalism (Grimmelmann, 2015). These moderators are pivotal gatekeeps for a healthy and thriving online community. Reactive moderation works in an ex-post way, namely, taking measures when misconducts are spotted, which is different from proactive pre-screening.

I personally think that simply relying on proactive and reactive moderation could be ineffective and costs-consuming, because there need huge numbers of staff to check and review when the number of posts skyrockets. There must be structural designs that create a mechanism where users mutually check each other's action so that the online communities have an automatic moderation mechanism. -Letian88886 (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Letian88886, excellent engagement with specifics; though you can polish some of the prose with grammarly. -Reagle (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

5. I found the section on moderation coming into play as a way to balance two tragedy of the commons problems to be a very interesting way to look at the topic. With online communities, I sometimes fail to recognize that these groups exist through physical means, that being hardware. "On the one hand, they depend on shared infrastructure with limited capacity. Hard drives don't grow on trees" (Grimmelmann, 2015). Online communities need to balance the over-saturation of created content, and the limited capacity that they need to act within for activity. This is in order to both function properly and to be more accessible to those within, and looking to join, the community.

With that said, moderators then act as the ones who keep balance in place. They act to prevent overuse, through forms such as spam posts and those that don't follow community guidelines. They seek to promote creation, discussion, and appreciation of the community they are a part of. To go back to earlier course readings, moderators can be seen as figures of authority who can guide those in the community to post in certain ways and follow certain trends. Acting as agents to balance overuse and underuse in their communities, and having the ability to fix these problems, they have authority and can be seen as reputable figures to better persuade others who want to be a part of these communities trends (Cialdini, 2001). Kindslime (talk) 04:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kindslime thoughtful response, though I found some of the prose hard to follow. Also, consider snappy starts. -Reagle (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

5. In James Grimmelmann's "The Virtues of Moderation", the section that discussed the contrast between transparent and secretive moderation techniques interested me. I think that we tend to see more examples of these secretive moderation techniques on the most popular social networking services. For example, on Instagram, the only person who is notified if a post is removed is the original poster. One's followers will not receive a notification that the post was taken down, and there is likewise not any form of public logs that document what posts were removed on any given day.

However, there are a few cases that I am unsure about whether or not they would be considered transparent or secretive. For instance, if a video is removed on YouTube, any links to that video will still function properly. However, instead of the video playing, you will receive a message along the lines of "removed for violating YouTube's Terms of Service". Would an example like this be considered transparent or secretive? I could see it as transparent because it is acknowledging that the video once existed and explains (to some degree) why it was removed. But this could also be seen as a secretive moderation technique. Users who have the link are not notified that the video has been taken down before they attempt to view it again, and the actual process behind what warrants a YouTube video being taken down is notoriously vague as well. ---Toothlesswalrus (talk) 05:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Toothlesswalrus excellent question, feel free to raise in class. Also, consider snappy starts. -Reagle (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10. Online communities aren't always the idyllic communities we hope for. Reading about Cameron's wife and daughter being alerted to others as 'suspicious' on Nextdoor is chillingly reminiscent of real-world discrimination -- a toxic environment displaying naked racism. The dichotomy between Nextdoor's reactive chaos and FPF's proactive moderation poses a crucial question: How can we cultivate online communities that reflect the best of our real-world neighborhoods?

FPF's approach of employing professional moderators to ensure civil discourse not only prevents toxic online behavior but also fosters genuine connections among members of the community. The ability to appeal to professional moderators offers a lifeline for users dissatisfied with community-driven moderation. Platform affordances shed light on the crucial role of design in shaping online interactions. FPF's deliberate choice to publish content once a day encourages thoughtful and intentional contributions, "like a local newspaper landing on your neighbors' front porches at the same time every day" (Rajendra-Nicolucci & Zuckerman, 2020). FPF presents itself as a promising model for online communities and reflects a call to action for the use of multifaceted approaches to online community moderation. Specifically, we must rethink how we design and govern our online communities. From empowering professional moderation to reimagining platform affordances, there is an abundance of approaches to proactively foster healthy and positive communities. The key lies in how we leverage these approaches to foster online communities that mirror the best aspects of our real-world neighborhoods: inclusive, positive, supportive, respectful, and civil. - Jinnyjin123 (talk) 07:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jinnyjin123 excellent engagement with RN&Z, perhaps connect with Grimmelmann? -Reagle (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

7. "Why do some communities thrive while others become ghost towns? The difference is moderation" (Grimmelmann 45). Moderation is a necessity to ensure that a specific online community thrives and stays engaged with the users while maintaining specific boundaries. One of the many options he poses for the moderation of online communities is Transparency. Grimmel states, "On the one hand, transparency enhances legitimacy, providing community support for moderation, while secrecy raises fears of censorship and oppression" (Grimmelmann 66). Moderators will openly share the values, rules, and guidelines of the certain community to ensure there are no miscommunications. Additionally, Grimmel works on providing an inclusive sense of moderation through community involvement. He mentions that members of a certain online community may "moderate by flagging unwanted posts for deletion because they enjoy being part of a thriving community" (Grimmelmann 50) while having a say in moderation policies.

For example, in Cameron Childs' experience with Nextdoor, the conversation around moderation through online communities becomes quite prevalent and important. The members of this online community are in moderaton control of moderation on the platform. At times, this can lead to racial profiling and an abusive environment. An alternative that was discussed is using the FTF approach, which is a series of moderators who reviews all content before it is posted, making sure it follows all community guidelines. "Nextdoor is like most social media: as soon as you post something it appears on the platform. That means posts and comments can quickly devolve" (Rajendra-Nicolucci & Zuckerman, 2020). This can be dangerous as users are not thinking about the content they are posting beforehand.- Dena.wolfs (talk) 08:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dena.wolfs excellent response. -Reagle (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

5. "In its extreme form, abuse involves an entire community uniting to share content in a way that harms the rest of society" (Grimmelmann, p.54). Abuse, when a community generates negative-value content, is one of the common problems that occurs in online communities. Grimmelmann describes abuse as "distinctively a problem of information exchange" (p.54). He goes on to say that in its extreme abuse involves an entire community uniting to share information that harms society. This can be seen in the online community on Nextdoor, as Chand Rajendra-Nicolucci and Ethan Zuckerman mention in their piece. Nextdoor has been criticized for its tendency to racial profile, one example is the local social network in Bethany Beach, Delaware, using the phrase "Spook Alert" to let neighbors know when black people are spotted in their neighborhood. This led to Cameron Child's wife and daughter having the police called on them for just being on vacation, for being "suspicious" and trying to break in -- just because they were black. This serves as an example of the extreme abuse that can form within an online community, and the impact it can have outside of the forum. This makes me question, are there ways to permanently prevent these online communities from devolving into such patterns? Are exclusive communities more susceptible to giving into abuse? E23895 (talk) 16:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

E23895 good response; but how do you think RN&Z would answer your question? (I think they make a suggestion.) -Reagle (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The story of FPF has shown that implementing proactive moderation in other online communities can significantly enhance the quality of interactions. By reviewing content before it is posted, platforms can prevent harmful or divisive material from entering the community, thus fostering a more positive and respectful environment. It can be inferred that FPF encourages the posting of content that contributes to building and strengthening community ties, prohibiting personal attacks and other basic standards. It resembles an informal newspaper/news organization more than a forum. The benefits are clear, but the article does not specify the criteria for moderation or who is responsible. This might not be a significant issue in purely online forums, but FPF, based on real communities, could see its moderation power as a form of agenda setting, and people should be aware that the content on its site could have a greater impact on their daily lives than typical forums. FPF, straddling the line between newspapers and internet forums, remains to be seen whether it truly serves as a substitute for either or ends up as an awkward compromise. It lacks the timeliness of most forums yet doesn't match the professionalism of traditional newspapers. The idea of involving more residents as creators is commendable, but could such a concept be realized through reforms in traditional newspapers instead? Annan Jiang

Feb 27 Tue - Moderation: U.S. law/policy[edit]

6. Looking at Barlow's work, I can't help but feel somber at the way the internet has progressed since. He mentions that some countries had then made restrictions towards how the internet worked for them. "These may keep out the contagion for a small time, but they will not work in a world that will soon be blanketed in bit-bearing media" (Barlow, 1996). The contagion he is referring to being the liberty and freedom the internet offers to many. That being said, there are now many rulings put in place by certain government bodies, dashing hopes by Barlow that the internet can be truly free of sovereign influence.

There are still many forms of good that Barlow discussed that have still survived throughout the internets lifespan. Take Wikipedia for instance, as many people are able to come together and unite under the idea of making knowledge accessible to everyone who wishes to learn. As mentioned by Grimmelmann, "Other than the Internet itself, Wikipedia is the preeminent example of successful online collaboration" (Grimmelmann, 2015). With that in mind however, its sometimes hard not to think of Wikipedia as an exception of collaboration in the internet, carrying the same zeal as many did when the internet first began. Ultimately, I believe regulations should be in place surrounding the internet, to give protection to platforms in specific instances. I also feel, however, as though the internet has become saturated and confined, not by countries influence, but rather those of companies. Kindslime (talk) 07:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kindslime, those of us who were optimistic that Wikipedia exemplified the positive potential of the Internet are now disappointed that it is an exception. -Reagle (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

8. "In our world, whatever the human mind may create can be reproduced and distributed infinitely at no cost" (Barlow 1996). At face value, this quote from Barlow's "A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace" may seem like a solely positive perk of the Internet and developing technologies. But this feature of the Internet has its dark sides too. For example, the gossip website known as The Dirty, which allows users to submit gossip, usually malicious and targeted at young women, highlights a situation where the ease of distributing content through the Internet does not always lead to exclusively positive results. Sarah Jones, a teacher and NFL cheerleader, found herself in the middle of a court case after multiple defamatory statements had been made about her on TheDirty, which she felt would have serious negative effects on her life and career.

Another example that highlights the difficulties that can come along with easily distributed information on the Internet is the possibility of the information being used to promote and incite violence. The situation at the heart of the Gonzalez v. Google case involves Nohemi Gonzalez, who was killed in Paris in a terrorist attack orchestrated by ISIS. The family sued Google for allowing ISIS to post radicalizing videos and using their algorithms to show this content to people that may not have seen it otherwise. While the case is complicated, it demonstrates a situation where the qualities of the Internet that are often seen as positive, like the ease of creating and distributing content, can also be used for evil. Negative examples like these in combination with all the good the Internet has done raise the question of how we can find a balance between regulation and freedom of expression on the Internet. - Lmeyler02 (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

8. "We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace...May it be more humane and fair than the world your governments have made before" is the quote that Barlow ends his "declaration of the independence of cyberspace (1996). It speaks to the hopes of creating an online world that is more respectful and humane then the offline governments that ruled the world previously, full of war an tyranny. However, the other readings uncover the more dark side of the web where online users take advantage of resources for evil.

In the case of Gonzalez vs Google, the YouTube algorithm was promoting the radicalized content on the platform to those "users whose characteristics indicated that they would be interested in ISIS videos"(Millhiser, 2022). This puts in to perspective various ethical questions involving the lack of human control of platform algorithms and the first amendment. The first amendment typically protects video content, unless it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action" (Millhiser, 2022). However, the case never made it that far in the litigation despite that exception of the first amendment being obviously relevant to this situation. What is the line between freedom of speech and speech inciting violence or misinformation?

Further, in social media New York Times article , the supreme court is assessing whether social media should have more capabilities of free speech on platforms and limiting the moderation. Would this ruling be beneficial in that equal sides can speak their minds on topics, or would it be detrimental to the state of the platform's community? - Kbill98 (talk) 14:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

8. In John Perry Barlow's declaration of the independence of cyberspace, he asserts that governments lack authority in the world of cyberspace and advises them to refrain from any interference. He argues that cyberspace is inherently independent and governed by its own principles and is not subject to traditional governance. Barlow advocates for an online world where individuals can express themselves freely and without restrictions. "You do not know our culture, our ethics, or the unwritten codes that already provide our society more order than could be obtained by any of your impositions," Barlow (1996) argues in addressing the government. Not only does he claim that those in the government are completely oblivious to the culture and norms of cyberspace and thus are not equipped to have authority in this world, but he also claims that cyberspace has more order than there could ever be in the real world.

These claims may have been true at the time, but may not hold the same truth in the current day. The case of TheDirty, a website that allows users to submit gossip that are usually "mean-spirited and misogynistic" (Goldman, 2013), involves allegations of defamation against the website's operator by Sarah Jones, a former teacher and NFL cheerleader. In another case of Gonzalez v. Google in which Nohemi Gonzalez was killed in an ISIS attack in Paris, her family sued Google as the owner of Youtube for facilitating the dissemination of extremist content. The two aforementioned cases provide real-world examples that go against Barlow's claim, highlighting that platforms alone may not be powerful enough to maintain order and civility. Instead, perhaps there should be a balance between platforms curating their own guidelines and enforcing government laws. Alexistang (talk) 23:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

7. Although both Milhiser and McCabe's articles referred to Section 230 as outdated, I was still surprised to see that one of the first "findings" listed by Congress was that "[the Internet and other interactive computer services] offer users a great degree of control over the information that they receive." Although I wasn't around to witness the very start of the Internet, I'm still not sure this statement stood true at the time. While it is true that users had a greater control over the information they searched, they did not necessarily control what content they received, which is what many people, including those suing Google and YouTube, are protesting. One of my professors once made the following claim, which really stuck with me: "We used to teach students how to seek information, now we have to teach them how to filter it."

The question of whether the websites and platforms that host this abundance of information should be held responsible, or considered "publishers" of it, made me further think about the radical difference in how students are trained to approach information nowadays. When they had to go to peer-reviewed books and encyclopedias, there was a physical trace back to the source of the information, and a clear purpose to it. Encyclopedias contained knowledge that was largely considered accurate or relevant that was to be used by students in their research. Now, thanks to the internet, students have access to a lot more use-blind information, or information that is so ambiguous in its nature and format, it could be interpreted in a million ways by billions of people. Tiarawearer (talk) 14:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10. "A platform's decision about what content to host and what to exclude is intended to convey a message about the type of community that the platform hopes to foster" (McCabe, 2024). Online communication is pervasive, and platforms are more involved than we think. "Facebook's algorithm's function is to 'proactively create networks of people' by suggesting individuals and groups that the user should attend to or follow" (Millhiser, 2022). However, companies that enable users to communicate with one another have immunity under Section 230 which protects websites from liability "even if they exercise editorial control and even if they know the content posted could be defamatory" (Millhiser, 2022).

In the 2022 Gonzalez v. Google case, the Gonzalez family sued Google because of its algorithm that incited hate and violence through distributing ISIS content to users who may otherwise not have viewed it, leading to the terrorist attack in Paris that killed their 23 year-old daughter. However, the court ruled that Google was mostly protected by Section 230, other than its approval of ISIS videos as advertisements.

Although Barlow (1996) argues that the social space should be "naturally independent of the tyrannies you [government] seek to impose on us," I believe that there should be regulation of online communities. Algorithms create all types of online communities, even violent ones. As a big platform like Facebook or Twitter, it is important to regulate and remove speech that incites hatred and violence toward any group of people. In the example of Gonzalez, ISIS took advantage of their online community to collect participants and orchestrate the attack. I believe that there is an ethical responsibility as a platform to not tolerate violent and dangerous online communities. Lvogel1 (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6. Regarding Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, I do not believe that such a statute should be modified in any way. For a previous writing intensive class---Free Speech Law and Practice with Professor Ryan Ellis---my final paper dealt largely with Section 230, and a substantial portion of that paper was an argument against proposed modifications to the law such as the "EARN IT Act" of 2023. To briefly restate one of my primary points made in that paper, the issues that Section 230 reform seeks to redress wrongly focus on the law as the sole arena that these problems can be resolved. These are larger societal issues, and should be addressed as such. Other legislative areas (if it is decided that legislation is the best means of remedying these issues) would potentially be better suited for this, as they would have lesser ramifications on the internet ecosystem.

Additionally, I must say that I was not aware that the joint Supreme Court hearing of the Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton cases was so soon. We discussed those two cases very early on in class, and Professor Ellis even said (before it was announced that they would be heard) that they would very likely be heard in the coming year. I am very curious what the eventual Supreme Court decision regarding this case will be, as its outcome could have significant impact changing how we use the internet in its current state. ---Toothlesswalrus (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6. "Much of the internet falls into a gray zone..." (Millhiser). I think this quote 10. sums up all four pieces we read for class today. There is a lot of debate surrounding the internet and its harms, and how those harms should, or should not be, regulated. I 10. was particularly interested in the article by Ian Millhiser about the Gonzalez v Google case, and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Section 230 outlines two protections for websites that host third-party content online, first it protects those websites from legal action arising out of illegal content posted by the website users, and second it continues to protect those sites even when the site engages in content moderation that removes users or material posted from their site. However, as Millhiser points out, it is not clear about whether it protects sites from promoting illegal content. We have discussed at length in this class the efforts social media platforms go to in order to make their sites addictive, using the Skinner's box as an example, and the influence these platforms can have on our behaviors. It begs the question of if these sites should be held responsible for promoting harmful content, such as terrorist recruitment, knowing they have been modeled in such an influential way? Furthermore, where do we draw the line on what is considered harmful and who gets to make those decisions? As stated earlier the internet often falls into a gray zone, and content that is perceived harmful by one group may be seen as educational to another. It's important when making these decisions we keep in mind the motives of those making them. E23895 (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

E23895 good questions; BTW be wary of using Begging the question this way. -Reagle (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mar 01 Fri - Reddit's challenges and delights[edit]

5. "Small online communities play an important and underappreicate role". Small communities give people the sense that they can control the narrative and with the internet being so big, having smaller sub communities is beneficial for those individuals who want to find their own corner of the internet. Reddit realized this was the case and although they were founded as one big page with a stream of consciousness, subreddits came to be and this introduced a whole new aspect to the internet both good and bad.

Reddit is a good place for discussions about niche topics with those all around the world who share this passion. It is also positive because of the anonymity behind the poster and it is said that people feel more comfortable saying things from the comfort of their screens. Something "bad" about Reddit is that they face challenges regarding moderation. Although they have rules and regulations about the type of speech said, there are so many communities and such a high amount of posts and comments being made daily that it is hard for them to see this in time and regulate it. There is also much information being spread through Reddit because of the lack of fact-checking since it is by the people for the people. This was seen in the Pizzagate subreddit in 2016, which was a forum where people dove into and created a conspiracy theory that Clinton and her team were partaking in sex trafficking. Reddit can do a lot to fix the platform especially in terms of moderation especially with the toxic behaviors and negativity. In the subreddit "Ask Reddit" users are asked for what they would like to see improved on the site and many said getting rid of the voting system and improving "freedom of speech" which is interesting especially since Reddit seems to be a bit less moderated than other sites and there are complaints contradicting this asking for more moderation. Some weird subreddits I found are one that just has photos of wolves with watermelons called r/WolvesWithWatermelons/ and the other is u/totallynotrobots_SS which is robot pretending to be a human pretending to be a robot pretending to be a human. An uplifting one is r/MadeMeSmile and it is all uplifiting personal, content and good news in current events. This community stays positive by having rules such as "no ragebaiting" and "don't be a jerk" Jfeldman26 (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6. I'm not using Reddit, so I do not have lots of knowledge about the overall culture of this online community. However, based on the descriptions from the readings and some quick browsing of the site, I saw that the site is prone to problems because of its open and free culture that, at least in the early days, received little inspection and regulation. Many people flocking to Reddit are particularly fond of the sub-groups called subreddits on the site. Research suggested that users favor this small online communities, possibly, because of their need to avoid a toxic and hating online environment (Community Data Science, 2021), but the fact, as suggested in the case where a popular streamer led his fans to destroy artworks created by the online communities (Sivaprakash, 2022), is that this small online community is still prone to falling into toxicity and hatred. In the past, there were actually serial negative subreddits such as the r/Jailbait and r/Creepshots, which has led to stricter regulation on Reddit (Wikipedia, 2024). However, the situation seems not much improved as seen in the comments of hatred posted on the site after the election of Trump (Marantz, 2018). To totally end disorder, I think a stricter screening of posts by automatic algorithms and a mechanism encouraging users to mutually check may be needed, but a remaining question is: how to maintain the founding principle of reddit that is to protect the freedom of speech while also end speeches with those negative impact? An example of a weird subreddit I found is r/birdswitharms that collects images showing birds with arms. The uplifting one I found is r/HumansBeingBros. Letian88886 (talk) 23:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

7. While I do not use it often, Reddit seems like a helpful resource where people can come together and form different communities large, small, broad, or niche. That said, smaller communities have certain appeals to them and Reddit is able to support them well. As mentioned by Hwang and Foote "we found that participants saw their small communities as unique spaces for information and interaction. Frequently, small communities are narrower versions or direct offshoots of larger communities" (Hwang, 2021). Even if they're in discussion of larger topics, some groups have come together to discuss specific facets of their topic. I feel like reddit itself allows small, niche communities to come together easily, and I think that small communities as a whole may struggle to form easily elsewhere.

Adding on to this, one subreddit that I found, which isn't small but instead hosts an uplifting example of collaboration, is r/boardgames. Every month the subreddit has a "Monthly Board Game Bazaar," where people post what board games they're selling to others. It's very interesting to me that the subreddit has even formed its own marketplace for itself. For an example of a weirder subreddit, I found r/BreadStapledtoTrees, which hosts a variety of strange "rules," and seems to be more of a collective joke by its users. Either way, a smaller group like this allows people to curate what content they consume more closely, despite the posts there being a little out of the ordinary (Hwang, 2021). Kindslime (talk) 02:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

9. "Reddit feels proudly untamed, one of the last Internet giants to resist homogeneity" is a claim by Andrew Marantz in his article regarding online communities and the debate over free speech (2018). Reddit is a community for individuals to come together and discuss more niche topics with a level of comfortability in the autonomous nature of the platform. However, in the rising debates over to what extent the online world should be moderated in terms of free speech, the platform is showing resistance. "Reddit is made up of more than a million individual communities, or subreddits, some of which have three subscribers, some twenty million" which makes the moderation of the platform extremely difficult (Marantz, 2018). In the "reddiquette" article, the community encourages norms of "remembering the human" and not being rude to one another in order to keep the peace in the platform. There are positive threads like r/aww and r/doggos that cut through negativities However, the Wikipedia article "controversial reddit communities" represents the long history of individuals hiding behind their anonymity and spreading misinformation, violence, and hate.

The description of the positives and negatives of Reddit's community remind me of a platform I am more familiar with, X (formally known as Twitter). Despite the lack of "official" threads, there are communities that form on the platform. Similar arguments can be made for the inability to manage moderation where there are millions of anonymous users spreading negativity online. What platforms have better moderation? Are they less popular than X or Reddit because of this? - Kbill98 (talk) 23:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

8. After hearing about r/place for the first time, I was more surprised to hear about the ability of large groups of individuals to organize themselves and formulate a plan for a sustained period of time than I was to hear that no overtly negative symbols figured on the final image. Both Sivrapakash and Marantz' articles mentioned the basic rule of r/place, that each user could change one square and wait five minutes to place another one. Considering that most apps or websites are designed for convenience and speed of access to any given action or piece of information, my first reaction to this rule was that it seemed excruciating to have to wait five minutes just to place another color, time during which my original square could very well be erased. That is where the role of community, and particularly small subreddit communities, becomes evident in manufacturing these very unique moments.

According to Hwang & Foote (2021), "At the platform level, small communities seem to have a symbiotic relationship with large communities...[they] likely help to keep a large set of users engaged." Based on what I've learned about Reddit, I think that without subreddits, a project like r/place could have never happened. Even if people didn't necessarily resort to organizing in their subreddit groups when planning which squares to color, their regular engagement in subreddits meant that they were already familiar with ways to organize thoughts and find like-minded individuals on the platform. In order to engage in this experiment, users had to have at least a little faith that Reddit was a place where collaboration was possible, something that would have to be supported by their engagement with smaller, more cohesive communities.Tiarawearer (talk) 13:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3. Even though I do not use Reddit, I am familiar with the platform since I had to do a market entry research during my last co-op. In my opinion, Reddit is almost like a big online playground. In the platform, you have a wide range of communities, from helpful advice on r/LifeProTips to dark corners that can make you question life and humanity. I find it very interesting and a bit weird at the same time. Marantz'(2018) The New Yorker article talks a bit about hw Reddit has been struggling with keeping the platform from turning and being seen as 'hot garbage'. They are trying to figure out how to let everyone speak their mind without letting things get inappropriate or fake news spreading.

On the other hand, there are very positive and united sides on Reddit. On example is r/place where millions of Redditors come together to create huge pixel art. It is amazing to see what happens when you give anonymous strangers a 'blank canvas' and a space where they can collaborate and fill the canvas. Reddit also has subreddits that are wholesome where users find their 'tribe' by sharing stories or geeking out over niche hobbies or topics. Hwang and Foote's (2021) blog post highlights how these small communities offer a break from the vastness of the internet, making it feel more like a bunch of friends hanging out. Reddit, like all other platforms, has its ups and downs. On one hand, you have to navigate trolls and dodgy content but on the other there are communities that are safe and welcoming. Bcmbarreto (talk) 18:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mar 15 Fri - Governance and banning at Wikipedia[edit]

4. "But if consensus is a discussion, who is invited to the conversation" (Reagle)? Today's reading was focused on the idea of achieving consensus in online communities and the various challenges that arise when trying to make it happen. While consensus may be one of the best methods for making a group decision, many questions come into play when trying to reach this, such as who is involved in consensus-making decisions? On a platform such as Wikipedia, total consensus is near-impossible to achieve because of the amount of inactive participants. This is why the English Wikipedia has formed committees such as their Arbitration Committee, or ArbCom. ArbCom is a group of experienced Wikipedia users entrusted with reviewing disputes that cannot be resolved by the community. The second reading on Wikipedia's code of conduct highlighted the banning of a user, Fram, who had been accused of harassment in 2019. After he was banned by the Wikimedia Foundation's Trust and Safety team, there was unrest in the community as many editors thought the foundation had overused its power, and that the fate of Fram should be up to the community rather than a collection of employees or editors. The problem I see arising from it being left to the community stems from the first reading, and makes me wonder this: should everyone in the community have a say in Fram's fate? What about trolls? How can the community truly come to a well-formulated vote if half the users are inactive? This second article just highlighted the challenges of consensus using real-world examples. Stuchainzz (talk) 15:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC) Stuchainzz[reply]

6. "Consensus certainly seems like an appropriate means for decision-making in a community with egalitarian values and a culture of good faith" (reagle). The most important part of making a decision is having everyone be on the same page. Consensus was been an integral part of the collaborative nature of the Internet since its start. In addition to consensus, there is much that must be done in order to make decisions both in person and online. Some of the things that need to be done include research to inform you further on what to do, comparing options, emotional factors, and trial and error. Decisions can be positive or negative. There are many sanctions and processes that are available to ensure users, especially online.

Some of these sanctions include moderation systems, reporting systems, and enforcing community guidelines to name a few. An example of these systems is Wikipedia's new code of conduct which states " concepts such as mutual respect and civility and makes clear that harassment, abuse of power, and content vandalism are unacceptable" (slate.com). They always had a code of conduct and terms and conditions but these policies didn't affect hateful speech in different languages until recently and I think that is quite interesting. Applying these changes to the code of conduct was a decision that was made by Wikipedia and it is one that will impact user's decisions in the future as well. Jfeldman26 (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

9. Specifically in the context of something as fluid and ever-changing as an online community, it is important to ask, "how long might any decision be considered the group's consensus?" (Reagle). Online communities are constantly welcoming new members and adapting to new community standards. So, this raises the question: how do people know when it is time to change common practices or come to a different decision? This connects to the issue at hand in the article, "The Tensions Behind Wikipedia's New Code of Conduct." This article uses the story of Molly White to highlight the need for a new code of conduct on Wikipedia. White was one of Wikipedia's top female contributors, and she was constantly harassed and doxed on the platform. Wikipedia always had a policy for conduct, but it was not universal or written in clear and straightforward terms. In this example, instances like the Molly White case seem to have driven people to come to a new consensus and create a new universal code of conduct that would be more effective at empowering smaller communities to defend themselves and stand against deplorable actions like harassment. This updated code is obviously positive if it prevents the type of harassment Molly White faced, but it is unfortunate that it took such extreme lengths to prompt a reevaluation and new consensus. This may be an extreme example, but does there always have to be a breaking point for a group to know it's time for a new decision and the current policies can no longer be considered the group's consensus? -Lmeyler02 (talk) 16:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

9. "I've been fighting with the same people over issues with reliable sourcing for well over a year." This admission from Wikipedian Philip Sandifer cited in Reagle's Good Faith Collaboration (2010) struck me as highlighting a particular barrier of entry (or perpetuity) for Wikipedia collaborators. My first thought when reading about these governance and consensus struggles that can take up days, weeks, months and even years to come to a close was that it must take a very particular type of person to stick around for that long, someone who does not get afraid or tired of defending their stance even when pitted against potentially thousands of other users who are eager to get a word in.

While reading Harrison's Slate article (2021), I began viewing this through the lens of a "survival of the fittest" scheme, especially considering the harassment that some users face. At the very end of his article, Harrison claims that "The difference here is that we're talking about a community," when explaining why Wikipedians are particularly invested in matters of governance when compared to other platforms such as Facebook, that seem more engineered to foster disaccord rather than consensus. This made me think of discussions we've had about the trouble in translating small communities to larger spaces -- if the conversation must involve as many people as possible to reach consensus, but the conversation falls apart after a certain number of people join it, how can these differences be resolved? And how can we ensure that the last ones left standing are not only the ones who can speak louder (and longer)? Tiarawearer (talk) 12:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

9. "Consensus is 'Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making'" (Reagle, 2010). When it comes to making decisions about editing on collaborative platforms such as Wikipedia, reaching an agreement is crucial. Reagle's (2010) article emphasizes that consensus is the cornerstone of Wikipedia's decision-making process, in which editors are urged to participate in debates and act in good faith in order to come to decisions. It also explores the difficulties and complications of reaching an agreement in an open community, drawing attention to situations in which reaching an agreement becomes difficult because of conflicting opinions, necessitating the involvement of organizations like the Arbitration Committee. In response to challenges that Wikipedians like Molly White, who has been subjected to harassment including doxing and threats of violence due to her contributions, the Wikimedia Foundation has introduced a new "Universal Code of Conduct" with an aim to make Wikipedia a safe and inclusive online community (Harrison, 2021). Unlike social media platforms like Facebook, Wikipedia relies on its community to moderate content and behavior, a model that advocates for a sense of ownership and responsibility among users. A question that arose for me is how effective will the implementation of the new code of conduct be given the decentralized nature of Wikipedia? Alexistang (talk) 14:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

7. "Who is invited to the conversation" (Reagle)? According to the reading consensus is defined as "overwhelming agreement" but not "unanimity" (Reagle). However, oftentimes 10. when it comes to making these decisions a select few are given the power to make them. This means that certain people are always going to be left out of the equation, whether because they weren't invited to the conversation in the first place or because they are not in agreement with the majority. We have seen the long lasting effects just in American society today of leaving certain voices out of the conversation. Systematically, certain groups, such as women and people of color, are at a disadvantage because they are only more recently, if at all, being invited to join the conversation. I think we often are led to think of consensus as a positive thing, but it is important to look deeper at who is actually allowed to be involved in the consensus forming process.

Furthermore, reading about Wikipedia's harassment problem reminded me a lot about our previous discussions about regulations and norms. Harassment, in a way, is an extreme, and harmful, form of breaching. It wasn't until after harassment began taking place in their community that Wikipedia saw a need to start adjusting their code of conduct to make it clear that this behavior isn't allowed. In a sense, the harassment was a breach to the norm and made them realize an adjustment needed to be made, and the norm needed to be more clear and salient. As the article points out, "a code of conduct is only ever as good as its implementation..." (Harrison, 2021). E23895 (talk) 16:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4. Wikipedia's way of making decisions and handlings bans is trying to keep a balance between allowing everyone to have a say and making sure rules are followed. While reading Reagle's thoughts on how Wikipedia uses consensus, it made me think about how hard it must be to get everyone to agree, especially when people have strong opinions (Reagle, 2010). This situation makes me wonder - how well does trying to agree on everything actually work when it comes to solving problems and keeping everyone working together?

The rules about banning users from Wikipedia also caught my attention. They show how Wikipedia relies on its community to decide when a user is causing too much trouble. This approach can be very powerful but also a bit tricky. The new Universal Code of Conduct adds an interesting aspect (Harrison, 2021). It is trying to make sure everyone on Wikipedia is friendly to each other, no matter where they are in the world. This got me thinking about how hard it might be to mix this new rule with the way Wikipedia usually does things. Cultures vary from each country and something that seems nice and ethical in the US might not translate to some other country. It is almost like trying to make sure a big, worldwide family, can all get along using the same house rules.

These efforts to keep Wikipedia a friendly and fair place for everyone to share knowledge really shows how much work the community puts into it. Before this class, I never really thought about all the challenges and how hard it must be to run such a huge online community, balancing open sharing with keeping this respectful and safe. Bcmbarreto (talk) 16:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mar 19 Tue - Artificial Intelligence and moderation[edit]

11. It is inevitable that students will use AI. Professor Ethan Mollick used a different approach and required AI to be used by his students for certain assignments. Findings showed that with basic prompts, AI produced mediocre work. However, when the student provided feedback to AI it was much more effective. This process allowed students to learn the material in an interactive way since they had to fact-check everything produced by AI. This reminded me of Milgram's point that you don't identify norms until they are violated. Although facts in an assignment are not social norms, it makes sense that they were more memorable to students when AI recited them inaccurately in the work they had to submit.

Not only is AI relevant in learning, but due to "the quantity, velocity, and variety of content," CEOS of large social media platforms have looked to AI to moderate content (Gillespie, 2020). Although AI does not moderate perfectly, it is argued that this may be more ethical than overwhelming human moderators.

ChatGPT does not know everything, but it talks like it does. You can ask ChatGPT to "'write a Wikipedia article with five cited sources' and it appears to do so --- even if some of the sources don't, in fact, exist" (Reagle, 2023). The concept of verisimilitude can be applied to AI because although what is produced seems polished and official, for all we know it could be fabricated. There is a level of trust that we have with artificial intelligence and these readings made me think about what this is based on. We have been taught to not believe everything we read on the internet, but if AI is trained by this data then how can we verify what it produces other than by doing our own extensive research? Lvogel1 (talk) 01:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10. Technological problems require "technological solutions" is a central quote believed by the mindset of Silicon Valley that Gillespie expressed in his article Content Moderation, AI, and the question of scale (2020, p.2). Throughout the essay, Gillespie critiques the current claims and definition AI and machine learning and ends with questioning whether or not platforms "should only be made by humans" (2020, p.3). Professor Regale in his article also touches upon the concerns about AI, specifically for workers. "AI's threat to jobs and human happiness is real" and is currently happening for many workers. An important case study in this realm is Amazon warehouse workers and how they are being commodified and treated as mere entities of the company rather than skilled workers. AI cannot replace human judgment, and should only be there to assist and compliment human work behind the scenes. On the other side, arguments can be made for how AI is also creating jobs and giving opportunities for human input. Individuals can apply to work for different services that gives writing prompts in order to train AI using guidance from human-generated writing.

Knowing how to use AI properly can be beneficial, especially in education. This semester, several of my professors have discussed AI at length and even encouraged it's use, as long as it received the proper citation information. In Ethan Mollick's blog post, it is discussed how his students were asked to use AI functions in helping them "generate idea, produce written material, help create apps, generate images etc..." (2023, p.1). He also highlights the importance of receiving training and truly understanding how AI works in an academic setting. - Kbill98 (talk) 15:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10. ". . . focusing on how people use AI in class rather than whether they use it will result in better learning outcomes, happier students, and graduates who are better prepared for a world while AI is likely to be ubiquitous" (Mollick 2023). By now, most people have already accepted that AI will become more and more present in our daily lives, and if they haven't yet, they should soon. Instead of debating whether it should be used, the question is how it can produce the best results, which is what Mollick touches on by explaining his experience requiring students to use AI. Different situations may require different uses of AI, so it is important for people to be able to distinguish these uses in order to use it most effectively, instead of assuming AI will just do all of the work for you.

This article and Mollick's point about the importance of fully understanding AI and its uses made me think of a connection to my own experience with AI and discussions of its future uses in our world. At my internship last summer, the interns were tasked with creating projects outlining how AI could be used in fashion in the future, specifically at our company. Many people worry that AI will take over jobs like design, but this project demonstrated how AI could assist humans in design roles instead of taking over their jobs. This connects to what Mollick found through his experience because AI cannot always just pump out perfect results, as demonstrated by the C essays produced when students simply copy and pasted a prompt. Instead, when people fully understand AI's proper uses, it can be used as a tool to help people along the process, in turn producing better work overall. -Lmeyler02 (talk) 22:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

7. "As social media platforms have grown, so has the problem of moderating them---posing both a logistics challenge and a public relations one." AI has arrived and it is here to stay, and over the past year not only have great advances come about relating to AI, but also great dangers. Some of these dangers include catfishing and false works being released, but also there are dangers and limitations when it comes to filtering and moderating content. For starters, AI algorithms can over-censor content that may not even be violating any guidelines but inversely they may under-censor at the same time by focusing so much on the wrong content and allowing real harmful content to go unchecked. AI is also unable to understand certain ways of speech which are needed for understanding certain posts such as satire and sarcasm.

The best way platforms and communities can go against spammers, scammers, and plagiarists from using AI for bad is by having humans review it afterward. Platform CEOs are even "beginning to acknowledge that AI should not entirely replace human judgment, even as the coronavirus pandemic forced their hand. And it is good that platforms use automated tools to spot duplicates" (Gillespie). As the article by Mollick mentions, it is also important to note that ultimately AI is here to stay so rather than be scared of it and disregard it, we should embrace it by learning how to best use it to facilitate our lives without letting it get autonomous control over our society. Jfeldman26 (talk) 22:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

8. With content creation and moderation in mind, the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning brings about some concerns. Take the idea of verisimilitude for example, as AI sometimes shows information that appears to be true on first glance but doesn't hold up upon closer inspection. "The latest bots can produce content that looks good but substantively fails --- even if the substance is spot on most of the time" (Reagle, 2023). Seeing AI as potentially unreliable, it works in tandem with the claim by some that AI is already being used for moderation. This claim isn't entirely factual, as discussed by Gillespie, with machine learning being based on the past reviews of human moderators. Machine learning is often misattributed as a form of AI and is used as an argument that AI is already a helpful success. "Stats like these are deliberately misleading, implying that machine learning (ML) techniques are accurately spotting new instances of abhorrent content, not just variants of old ones" (Gillespie, 2020).

I think that the best course of action would be some form of regulation for AI on online platforms. Spam accounts already run amuck, and the fact that generative AI can appear real has dangerous implications if used widely without some form of control. Otherwise, important claims could be made using incorrect, wide-reaching data presented by AI and nobody may know for quite some time. What these regulations would be and how they would work though, I do not know. Kindslime (talk) 03:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11. The integration of AI within our academic and societal spheres holds both promise and peril -- that is, while AI has allowed platforms and projects to grow further, it is not without its algorithmic biases and the loss of human oversight. As Strickland (2022) argues, "AI's threat to jobs and human happiness is real."

In the face of AI integration, a significant challenge for epistemic communities is that of verisimilitude. Specifically, AI bots are easily and quickly able to generate content that appears to look accurate, even when it is not. "Poor quality content can now evince a brilliant sheen" (Reagle, 2023) and this property of deceptive reality can pose a risk for online communities. If AI produces passable but inconsistent knowledge, "the worry comes when the bad and good are indistinguishable from one another" (Lih, 2022). For example, while ChatGPT can produce a large quantity of responses, if you look closely, you may notice nuanced flaws and errors within the responses. In a society where we are already struggling with biases and misinformation, I question how we can grapple with verisimilitude within this advanced digital age.

Mollick's approach to teaching students is very effective and accommodating to this digital age of AI integration. Within his classes, he provides AI guides and workshops on how to generate ideas with ChatGPT. It is an undeniable fact that AI is now everywhere. Instead of focusing on whether students should be allowed to use AI in class, I believe teachers should focus on teaching students how to use AI appropriately and effectively to support students' learning and growth. Although one could argue that AI has contributed to students' blind reliance on technology and perhaps laziness, it is essential to recognize that the benefits of AI are contingent upon how effectively we utilize it. AI will only continue to advance and integrate into our society, leaving it to us to decide how we wish to incorporate AI integration into our societal productivity and needs. - Jinnyjin123 (talk) 04:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

7. Tarleton Gillespie's "Content Moderation, AI, and Scale" provides a strong case against the usage of AI and machine learning in the context of content moderation. A quote that illustrates his central point well is "[p]erhaps, if moderation is so overwhelming at [a large] scale, it should be understood as a limiting factor on the 'growth at all costs' mentality. Maybe some platforms are simply too big," (Gillespie, 2020). Gillespie points out that the initial integration of these tools for content moderation was far from perfect, and these models were prone to errors in some areas that humans could easily identify. He also writes that these tools might not offer the perfect "end-all, be-all" moderation that some companies might strive for.

While I still do not have a very strong position in either way, I think that each of these points are valid to consider as a growing number of platforms utilize these tools to moderate their platforms. I believe it is inevitable that companies will seek to further implement AI as a means of moderating their platforms---likely to lighten any perceived strain on human moderators regarding this content. However, despite the tools' current shortcomings, I still think it is important to recognize the potential benefits that this AI can offer. We have talked before about the offensive content that moderators can be exposed to, and I believe that taking steps to reduce the likelihood of this is a step in the right direction. ---Toothlesswalrus (talk) 15:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

8. With the recent rise in social media and online platforms, there has been increased pressure to ensure these communities are constantly being monitored and filtered. "Twenty years ago, online communities needed to answer only to their own users after incidents of harassment or trolling (Dibbell, 1993; Kiesler et al, 2011)." However, with the rapid spread of communication through a multitude of platforms, founders of respective online communities are now responsible for the information spread extended beyond their platforms. This leads to the discussion of the most viable ways to respond to this increase in scales of information. With a wide range of data and violations, AI allows for a more efficient and quicker way to meet these heightened obligations to address all of the concerns present in these communities.

However, AI comes with many dangers and limitations that CEOs and leaders are recognizing. There is a lack of quality content being produced by AI which leads me to ask the question: To what extent is the "good" content being produced by AI ultimately bound to fail? This can be discussed around the definition "1. The property of seeming true, of resembling reality; resemblance to reality, realism. 2. A statement which merely appears to be true" ("Verisimilitude" 2022). This creates difficulty within online communities to identify which information is substantial and which is not based on reality.

To prevent this specific limitation, platforms, and communities can raise awareness to users of the possible limitations of AI. For example, Mollick requires his students to use AI, enabling the students to become "trained" and "informed" by using AI recognizing the limitations and dangers creating this sense of awareness. -Dena.wolfs (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

5. "Students understood the unreliability of AI very quickly, and took seriously my policy that they are responsible for the facts in their essays" (Mollick). This article described how AI has been used in schools and both the advantages and disadvantages it creates when it comes to generating academic content. This was similar to what was said in the article about Verisimilitude, which outlined the struggles that online communities like Reddit and Wikipedia face due to AI-generated content. "The challenge for epistemic communities in the face of AI is that of verisimilitude. The latest bots can produce content that looks good but substantively fails --- even if the substance is spot on most of the time" (Reagle). My main takeaway from the readings is that AI is a dual-sided sword, one that can be both beneficial and destructive. It is important to note that while it may be good at producing masses of content in a short amount of time, the quality of that content tends to suffer due to the high demand these platforms are experiencing. It is, in my opinion, a modern-day example of quality versus quantity.

"Scale is not the same thing as size" (Gillespie). This article highlighted the problems that AI has had with moderating content in online communities and social media platforms. While AI does allow for high production rates of moderation and content within these communities, it is not always accurate. This ties back into my point of quality versus quantity, and which is better for these scenarios. Some decisions should be left to the people who identify with a certain community, as learned in last week's readings about consensus. Overall, I think these articles showed how AI still has a long way to go before it becomes a real threat to "jobs and human happiness" (Reagle). Stuchainzz (talk) 16:08, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

5. Technology plays a big role in our society, including the complexities surrounding AI in content moderation on social media. Gillepsie's article highlights the resistance between AI's ability to process data at an extraordinary way and the understanding of what human moderators bring to the table. This made me think about how AI can be designed to respect the little details and aspects of human communication and the diverse cultural contexts in which the AI operates. On top of this, Reagle's insights into the challenges of how true AI generated content seems to be brings up a bigger issue - the difficulty in distinguishing what is real and what seems real. This challenge is important because we are currently in an era where fake news and misinformation are constantly being spread and the authenticity of information is crucial.

Similarly, Mollick's exploration into the use of AI within educational settings opens up a new area on how Ai can be both a tool for enhancing learning and a potential source of misinformation. CHATGPT, for example, is a very common AI Tool used by students, however their internet and worldwide knowledge is only up to 2021. Students are using a platform to help in 2024, possibly talking about current situations and CHATGPT gives them an answer with information that is not current, maybe not relevant, but either way is limiting the student to expand knowledge. If we only get answers based off 3 years ago, we will be stuck with that information and way of thinking and, in three years, when it is updated to 2024, we will still be receiving information that is 3 years behind. Bcmbarreto (talk) 17:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mar 22 Fri - Algorithms and community health: TikTok[edit]

11. Rob Reich explained to Insider that, "algorithmic models are themselves frequently riddled with bias" (Mitchell, 2021). While algorithms and AI are not the same, they are often closely related and this quote connects well to what we discussed last week, involving AI and its potential for biases. Technology like this must be trained on existing data, which can be skewed in a way that underrepresents certain identities. The readings for today highlighted two different minority communities and their experiences with Tik Tok. Both had similar concerns over silencing features of the algorithm. Some members of the LGBTQ+ community described seeing people reporting posts from LGBTQ+ creators, with malicious intent hoping to get them taken down and effectively silence the user and others like them. Actions like this can then affect the type of content shown to users in the future. Black creators also felt that their white counterparts were receiving much more recognition and engagement on the platform, also pointing to flaws in the algorithm.

But these are not only concerns for the individuals that identify with these communities. The potential for algorithms to silence large groups of people, especially minorities, is damaging to everyone. It is always important to be exposed to a variety of viewpoints and experiences and it is scary to consider how technologies and platforms like Tik Tok could be taking these voices away from us, while many people do not even know it is happening. People can do their best to expose themselves to users and content sharing different perspectives, but at the end of the day, is it the algorithms of Tik Tok and other platforms that have more say? -Lmeyler02 (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

9. "Marginalization, as presently conceived, relates to how certain groups of people are relegated to the fringes of society and denied their place within it" (Trudeau, 2011). Typically, individuals are placed into a community that best represents their self-identity. An individual's routine and community are based on algorithms through various digital platforms. In today's society, there is a lack of representation within the LGBTQ+ identity and it can be difficult for individuals who identify as such to feel accepted in expressing their identity to a larger community. For example, "the existing tensions within such spaces, such as the presence of friends and family on Facebook, which can disclose gender transition challenging (Haimson, 2015), or how when fathers sharing information about their children can become stigmatized" (Ammari, 2015). A positive step some communities are taking is creating platforms not specifically designed for LGBTQ+ communities but have implicit support to members of these communities expanding on the typical algorithm of this community allowing these individuals to express their self-identity judgment-free.

Furthermore, there has been discussion around the topic of TikTok and its lack of representation and acknowledgment of Black creators. Tyler mentions that many white creators will recreate dances and choreography which ultimately becomes "viral" appearing on many users' algorithms without crediting the Black creators who first performed these dances. "They argued the platform's For You Page algorithm, which shows users the content its artificial intelligence believes they want to see, puts Black creators at a disadvantage" (Mitchell, 2021). This leaves me with the question: To what extent are users responsible for the algorithms they create for themselves or is it up to technology and AI to create them for us? Dena.wolfs (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

8. "Online communities provide spaces for people who are vulnerable and underserved to seek support and build community" (Simpson). Although this is the intention it seems that algorithms are getting in the way and not allowing these people to have their voices heard. The point of an algorithm on social media is to personalize these platforms to the user and optimize their experience on the app. Algorithms shape the communities we inhabit, especially for those who are on the margins by determining what information users can see on these platforms. For marginalized communities, this can either amplify their voices or silence them by excluding their perspectives entirely. These algorithms can also contribute to social segregation by creating things such as bubbles where the only people being exposed to certain information and viewpoints are those who already agree and are aware of these viewpoints.

This type of bubble was seen within the LGBTQ+ community as well as in the black community. Authors Simpson and Semaan sum this up perfectly by saying that "TikTok's For You Page algorithm constructs contradictory identity spaces that at once support LGBTQ+ identity work and reaffirm LGBTQ+ identity, while also transgressing and violating the identities of individual users"(Simpson). Due to these algorithms and the lack of people seeing certain content it makes it easier for people not on the margins to steal content and ideas from black and LGBTQ creators and claim it as their own without anyone really knowing the origins of the content. This is what happened with Addison Rae when she went on a talk show and showed 8 dances that she stole from black creators. Due to this, it is important to look at and regulate algorithms to make sure that they are being used for good and to promote diversity and equity rather than perpetuating exclusion and discrimination. Jfeldman26 (talk) 19:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6. Rob Reich, the faculty director for the Center for Ethics in Society and the associate director at the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered AI, said "There's just no conceivable world in which humans can review the content because there's just so much of it. So they have to rely on these machine learning tools" (Mitchell, 2021). When one thinks about the amount of content being produced every hour, this statement makes more sense, as companies like TikTok would need to have hundreds of thousands of employees to have humans review all of the content being posted. Both of the readings for this week explored the issues that minority creators, specifically black and LGBTQ+ users have experienced with TikTok. A major focus in the readings was the functionality of the for you page, which is the user's homepage of recommended content based on their interests, or at least, that's the goal. One issue that has arisen over the years is the use of AI for suggesting content on different for you pages. Some believe that the AI has been given a specific algorithm to push a certain type of content, thus leaving out that of minority creators as discussed in the readings.

Today's readings made me think of the last two classes and our discussions about AI-generated content. As I discussed in my last QIC, there is a difference between size and scale. AI allows for higher production rates, but conversely, will be more inaccurate due to the amount of content it must comb through. The readings for the last two classes have left me with the following question: is this job of monitoring masses of content still achievable by humans? Stuchainzz (talk) 20:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

7.The impact of algorithms on minority communities is indeed a hot topic in the contemporary world, particularly given that the rise of AI has spurred further concerns about its mistreatment of disempowered social groups. The problem at the core lies in that algorithms tend to be biased and to be reproducing and even exacerbating existing power inequalities. The reason, as suggested by Simpson and Semaan (2021), is that algorithms are designed and modified by humans while humans have biases. Take racism as an example. While anti-racism movements have greatly improved racial equality and reduced racial discrimination, many people are still biased when treating certain minority races, either consciously or unconsciously. When these people design algorithms, they would either consciously or unconsciously embed their biases into the algorithms. This results in what Mitchell (2021) suggested as alleged racist tendency of TikTok that appears more privileging white content creators over black content creators. The insights of the two readings prompt me to think of our use of generative AI like ChatGPT. These are large language models fed by myriads online contents. The question is: Since many online contents are replete with biases and hatred speeches, will AI like ChatGPT pick up these biases and hatred when it feeds on those contents? I used to see a documentary titled Coded Bias which suggested that many algorithms are doing so (e.g., Microsoft's chatbot Tay). Given this, I think there is really an urgency for us to take efforts to combat these biases. Letian88886 (talk) 14:22, 22 March 2024(UTC)

8. Simpson and Semaan discuss John Cheney-Lippold's concept of algorithmic identity---writing "...digital identities are presently constructed through algorithms that process data to measure certain features about us, such as our gender, age, or race," (2020). While this is not new information to me, it nonetheless brought the reality of our current situation back to my attention. Many of the algorithms that these platforms use are able to gauge certain aspects of our identity through how we interact with the platform, and this information is stored to build an understanding of who the app thinks you are as a person.

Some platforms allow you to access all of this information, and I have requested my data from a few services just out of curiosity before. I will not pretend that I understood all of the information provided to me, but some of what was given to me was laid out rather clearly. For example, the data showed that the app knew I was a male between the ages of 18-22 who was currently in college. The sheer amount of data that these companies have is staggering, and this is all data that is more or less factored into what content is displayed to you. And while companies will provide the raw data that they have on you at your request, they likely will never disclose how each of these factors influence their algorithm to display content to you for one reason or another. ---Toothlesswalrus (talk) 15:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

8. Can a machine be racist? The simple answer is, yes. In the article by Taiyler Simone Mitchell she outlines the struggles that Black creators and users of TikTok have 10. experienced. "There have also been several allegations that TikTok's algorithm is racist, with creators alleging that their content is valued less than their white peers" (Mitchell, 2021). Tik Tok's algorithm represents a larger problem that exists in society and that is systematic racism. Past policies and practices that have historically discriminated against Black people, and other people of color, still have an impact today, even on platforms such as Tik Tok. The machine learning tools used to review and push out content have a history of being discriminatory because they learn their information from what is already out there, which historically has left out groups of people.

"As algorithms continue to become deeply embedded in the systems that mediate our routine engagements with the world, it becomes increasingly important to understand people's everyday experiences with algorithmic systems" (Simpson & Semaan, 2021). These algorithms have begun to dictate so much of our lives, as Simpson and Semann point out, and it's important they reflect the diverse groups that exist. There is a "growing need for continued analytic and scholarly attention to people's experiences with algorithmic systems, especially when considering how these systems might be suppressing and oppressing the identities of people whose identities are already marginalized" (Simpson & Semaan, 2021). E23895 (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mar 26 Tue - Parasocial relationships, "stans", and "wife guys"[edit]

12. Brittany Wong (2021) describes parasocial relationships as "intimacy at a distance." While this phrasing may seem like parasocial relationships could be problematic, it has been proven that they are almost entirely beneficial, especially for young people. They can help people identify who they want to be and boost self-esteem. Closely related to parasocial relationships is "stan Twitter", a community of fans that gather based on a shared interest like a common parasocial relationship, for example. Malik and Haidar conducted a study on K-Pop stan Twitter to understand how people come together and communicate in these communities. Their findings show that members of the community are closely connected due to their shared interest and parasocial relationships with K-Pop singers, for example, which causes them to engage in communication with each other that then leads to personal connections and bonds. Malik and Haidar used Community of Practice as their theoretical framework. Communities of practice are defined as a group formed out of necessity, existing everywhere in the world and naturally formed due to the needs of a group of people. Throughout their study, they saw evidence of how K-Pop stan Twitter could be defined as a community of practice.

So, not only can parasocial relationships boost self-esteem and help people understand their own identities, but they can also provide the basis for a community like K-Pop stan Twitter, which teaches people what it means to be part of a community, engage with others, work towards concrete goals, and forge close personal bonds with others. All these actions can be seen as positive outcomes of parasocial relationships, especially for young people that may not have other outlets to engage in a community like this. -Lmeyler02 (talk) 16:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lmeyler02, congrats, you did your dozen! -Reagle (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

7. "In fact, by and large, parasocial relationships are almost entirely beneficial" (Wong, 2021). As kids grow up, many create non-existent relationships, commonly referred to as 'imaginary friends'. In almost every case, children are told to abandon these imaginary friends, that nothing good can come from them as they give us false hope, they are not the same as real friends. Ironically, children are often told this by their parents, who, although they may not realize it, also have their own version of 'imaginary friends'. While the people adults have fake relationships with may not be completely made up, like imaginary friends, these relationships are just as fake as the ones created by infants looking to form a connection. I am of course referring to parasocial relationships, the idea of people creating fake friendships with celebrities. Oftentimes, adults will find a characteristic of a celebrity that resonates with them, and they will use that to form a bond. Although it sounds like it could be bad as you are creating a relationship with someone who does not even know you exist, they can actually lead to positives. One point discussed in the article was that of parasocial relationships between men and super heroes, and how it leads to men pushing themselves to be physically fit. After reading Wong's article, it made me wonder if adults are too hard on children who have imaginary friends. If we can benefit from these made-up friendships, why are they perceived to be harmful for children? Stuchainzz (talk) 20:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

9. Communities built on fan-based parasocial relationships thrive through the connectedness made through the shared love for an influencer or celebrity. In 1956 social scientists Donald Horton and R.l Richard Wohl first described this phenomenon by saying that "viewers were forming "parasocial relationships," or the "illusion of a face-to-face relationship" (Wong, 2021). These relationships are interesting because they are more than just being a fandom and in a way, people feel like they know the celebrity hence creating a sense of belonging and building a community of people who also feel close to these celebrities as well. Wong's article for HuffPost shows how these parasocial relationships provide a sense of companionship, especially in this very digital world where many relationships are built and fostered online as they would be in person.

Social media also facilitates these communities to grow because fans can talk amongst themselves about these celebrities and further their knowledge making them feel even closer to them. I see this happen a lot in my own life where my peers and I catch ourselves telling a story that happened to a YouTuber. Still, we preface it by saying "A friend told me" or "That happened to one of my friends" when in reality it is just these influencers who post so much of their lives publicly online that it does feel like we have a sort of bond. These communities based on these fan-based parasocial relationships are a way for people to find validation and as long as they don't harm these celebrities it is said to be very safe and beneficial because these people can be a sort of "aspirational figure" and a sort of comfort as well. After all, these people can't leave or reject them. Jfeldman26 (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11. The "illusion of a face-to-face relationship" and "intimacy at a distance" is how social scientists Donald Horton and R. Richard Wohl first described the concept of a parasocial relationship back in the 1960s (Wong, 2021). The author of the article then describes how parasocial relationships can be beneficial in helping people with low self-esteem "see themselves more positively" and can even help them in their own relationships (Wong, 2021). The K-Pop fan article expresses how these online communities associated with fan culture give users a place where they can feel seen and work together with like-minded others for a common goal. They can also often make close interpersonal relationships with fellow fans in communities.

They can become surrogates for our own dreams, however, can also cloud our judgment on what the reality of relationships can be. Everyday "stan culture" is being more and more associated with negative connotations of "hysteria, obsession, and addiction" (Malik and Haider, 2020). In the case of John Mulaney's relationships as discussed in the article, it's understandable for a fan to have interest and input on what happens with a celebrity. Nonetheless, many can go overboard with their opinions and can often spread unnecessary hate and information on the lives of people they do not know and will never meet. I" think what we're learning is we have to accept that celebrities are human beings" is an interesting quote from the article (Wong, 2021). It's important to understand that celebrities and people that fans idolize have to go through their personal lives and decisions in a very public way. kbill98 (talk) 22:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

9. With parasocial relationships, I had always thought of them in the context of real world celebrities, not so much with fictional characters. That said, I found the points made by Wong to be rather interesting, as I was more unfamiliar with parasocial attachments than I thought I was. "One study showed that having a man-crush on Batman or Cap actually *boosts* men's body image and results in guys getting stronger themselves" (Wong, 2021). This leads into another point of Wong that, even if people don't recognize it, many have some level of a parasocial attachment to someone. Following that, the concept of believing in a higher power being some form of a parasocial relationship throughout history, while I don't know my stance on that personally, is an interesting concept to think about that still discusses their positive benefits.

Moving on, we see the work of Malik and Haidar discuss how different forms of fandom form communities in regard to parasocial attachments. "The study finds that the members of K-Pop Stan Twitter form interpersonal bonds, communicate regularly, and create a close-knit community where everyone contributes in their own capacity" (Malik & Haidar, 2020). In this instance, "K-Pop Stan Twitter" is a community who comes together to discuss K-Pop bands and their various members. While they do often receive negative attention, certain levels of parasocial attachments, through community formation and forms of unrecognized self improvement and idolization, can be positive, as both works highlight. Kindslime (talk) 04:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

9. "The illusion of a face-to-face relationship" is how social scientists' Donald Horton and Richard Wohl described parasocial relationships when they discovered the phenomenon (Wong, 2021). Wong argues that these parasocial relationships are "almost entirely beneficial," and "that these one-sided bonds can help put people at ease, especially in the case of young people figuring out their identities and those with low self-esteem" (Wong, 2021). This concept raises a number of questions. How do we ensure these 'relationships' don't go too far? Due to these 'relationships' should we be paying more attention to who we make famous/put in the limelight, especially when it comes to young people?

These 'relationships' and fandoms can also be incredibly useful in helping people find and form communities as we see in the study done by Zunera Malik and Sham Haidar. As we have discussed in this class, the existence of a community centers around membership, influence, reinforcement, and shared emotional connection. These communities have formed over a shared connection with a celebrity, group, character, franchise, and so on. By being a part of these communities its members are able to feel a sense of belonging or a sense of personal relatedness. However this raises the question, are fandoms automatically communities? What more needs to exist if not? Why do we legitimize certain communities over others? E23895 (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10. There is a preconceived notion that parasocial relationships should be seen negatively and as a concern. However, "A parasocial relationship is safe," Derrick said. "Your favorite celebrity cannot reach out of a magazine article to reject you. This has changed somewhat as social media has developed, but that's still rare"(Wong, 2021). Many individuals use parasocial relationships to help them build and form their identities if they are having trouble doing so. This relates to projection, where an individual may be invested in a specific individual and their life before fame. They may compare this to their own lives with new expectations, goals, and aspirations for their future. It was interesting to read that Wong states that there are visible real-life pros to having a "man crush" on a superhero actor, pushing men to create a better body image and strengthen themselves. (Wong, 2021) He states that these men don't see this as a parasocial relationship. Many are unaware that they obtain this relationship and simply see it as an admiration for these characters. Many individuals become fascinated with the idea of celebrities and influencers, that the celebrity ultimately becomes a part of their own identity. "When we care about someone ― even a celebrity ― they feel like an extension of ourselves, so good things happening to them feels good and bad things happening to them feels bad," Gabriel said. He compares it to if an individual was rooting for something great to happen to our own friends, we build a sense of connection to them. This leads me to ask to what extent ordinary individuals in parasocial relationships are unaware of the relationship they are a part of. Dena.wolfs (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12. Parasocial relationships have evolved significantly with the advent of social media platforms like Twitter. These one-sided psychological attachments often lead to a sense of "intimacy at a distance" (Wong, 2021), particularly evident in online fandom communities such as K-Pop stan Twitter. Malik and Haidar's exploration of this phenomenon sheds light on how parasocial relationships foster a sense of belonging, connection, and community among fans, with implications for identity formation, interpersonal relationships, and emotional well-being. Parasocial relationships offer a safe space for emotional investment (Malik & Haidar, 2020), contributing to positive self-perception. Twitter, as a social media platform, amplifies parasocial interactions, facilitating real-time engagement and interpersonal bonds among fans. The stan Twitter community functions as a Community of Practice (CoP) where members bond over a shared domain of interest -- their favorite K-Pop idols. Through regular interactions, members form relationships, contribute collectively towards supporting their idols, and learn from each other.

Back in 2020, the power of K-pop stan Twitter community was evident when BTS fans, who call themselves the BTS ARMY, started trending the hashtag #MatchaMillion on Twitter to match BTS' donation of $1 million to the Black Lives Matter movement. This stan Twitter community collectively "raised over $817,000 within the first 24 hours" (BBC, 2020). As ARMY fans saw themselves more as a family than just a fandom, they believed it was crucial to stand in solidarity with their Black ARMY members. K-pop fans even drove a collective effort to take over the hashtag #whitelivesmatter by drowning out white-supremacist or racist posts using the hashtag with random K-pop images. It is impressive to see how the collaborative efforts of these fandoms can execute such effective positive change to support their global K-pop family. Understanding the dynamics of these parasocial relationships not only sheds light on human social behavior but also offers insights into the evolving landscape of online communities and their impact on interpersonal relationships, individual well-being, and collective identity formation. - Jinnyjin123 (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jinnyjin123, congrats, that's a dozen! -Reagle (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

7. The idea that we form one-sides bonds with public figures, as introduced by Horton and Wohl in 1956, feels more relevant than ever with the presence of social media platforms. It's not just about 'wife guys' or the surprise people felt hearing about Ali Wong's divorce - it's a broader phenomenon where fans develop deep, emotional investments in the personal lives of celebrities. Fans' reactions to celebrity divorces, such and John Mulaney's, and the formation of fan communities or 'stans' really highlighted how these parasocial relationships can create a sense of belonging and shared identity. Malik and Haidar's work showed the complexity of fan-based communities, showing how these relationships go beyond admiration to influence our social identities.

It got me thinking about how parasocial interaction in mainstream media has grown due to the attention on reality TV shows like 'Keeping Up with the Kardashians'. The show offers viewers a glimpse into the personal lives of the Kardashian-Jenner family, blurring the lines, for some fans, between entertainment and personal connection. After realizing this, I started questioning why I am so drawn to reality TV shows and the narratives they show and how they influence our perceptions of relationships and possible success. As social media continues to grow, how will parasocial relationships change? TikTok allowed us to have a more informal relationship with influencers, how will the next generation of social media platforms shape our connections with celebrities? Bcmbarreto (talk) 16:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mar 29 Fri - FOMO and dark patterns[edit]

10. Looking at the dark patterns some of the articles point out, I am heavily against the employment of these strategies as many of them seem unethical. Narayanan et al. (2020) point out that there are differences between sites that deceive and sites that "covertly manipulate or coerce," which indicates to me either way that they all serve only to shepherd users towards specific actions. Although people are more aware of dark patterns now, similar to how certain sales and advertising tactics are more well known these days, people are often not aware of all of them and can still fall victim to these practices. Even with a growing awareness and aversion to them, deceptive patterns can still influence many through new and evolving ways every day.

I, much like many others, have had to deal with deceptive patterns before. For instance, I once had to make an account for a class and, when I no longer needed to use it, the account was nearly impossible to get rid of. I had to spend upwards of an hour finding out how to delete my account, which was through calling an employee for the website and having them terminate my account, a process that would take upwards of a month to finalize. Taking the listed tricks described by Brignull et al. (2023) into mind, this website employed patterns of accounts being hard to cancel and obstruction. I had to go through multiple "barriers or hurdles" to be even begin the lengthy cancellation process. Kindslime (talk) 07:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kindslime, what website was it? -Reagle (talk) 16:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

8. The focus of one of today's readings was on the term FOMO, which describes it as "a form of social anxiety, "a compulsive concern that one might miss an opportunity," and linked it to social media" (Reagle, 2015). It is a phenomenon that plays off of basic human emotions and desires. What I find interesting about FOMO is it only occurs when we are aware of what is going on. By this, I mean most of the time, humans experience FOMO because they go on social media and see an event that is taking place without them or they hear about something they weren't invited to. FOMO would be avoidable if these lifestyles were not shoved into people's faces whenever they open their phones. As the old saying goes, what you do not know will not hurt you, and I think that rings true for FOMO.

The second reading discussed Dark Patterns, which are deceptive user interfaces used by online platforms to influence the decisions of their users. Many companies achieve this by using tactics like disguised ads, hidden fees, and difficult-to-cancel subscriptions. These online services also utilize FOMO when pushing these dark patterns on their users. A common example of this is when websites have a timer on their homepage, indicating a limited-time sale. However, it has been discovered that many of these websites continue the sales after the timer runs out. The users, however, are unaware of this and are urged to purchase in the time shown on their screen. This timer creates a sense of FOMO in the user, as they may fear missing out on the sale, resulting in an impulse purchase. Stuchainzz (talk) 14:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10. Marketing consultant Dan Herman wrote about FOMO by saying the "consumer who is led by a new basic motivation: ambition to exhaust all possibilities and the fear of missing out on something" (Herman, 2000, p. 335; 2011). Fomo is short for "Fear of Missing Out" and it is a psychological phenomena innate to humans where they desire to feel a part of something. This has been heightened with the over usage of social media as before people didn't know what they were missing but now people are exposed to photos and vidoes of experiences that they are missing out on. This is also now being used by marketers to highlight limited time offers or deals and drive consumption of a product by making it overly popular and in a sense "unattainable".

Some of the reasons people think this is unethical is because it can cause anxiety in consumers or it can also damage trust and brand reputation in the long run because it will be like "the boy who cried wolf" especially when consumers catch on that in fact nothing is fleeting and that they were lied to. I see this happen alot on fast fashion websites where it will have a timer which shows how much longer is left in a sale or it'll say something along the lines of "24 people have this in their cart! Check out fast!" but in reality this sale never ends and they just want you to feel rushed and ultimatley buy things. From a business point of view I think implemently FOMO is a great marketing tactic and I think as long as no one is getting hurt and it's not too big of a lie it isn't unethical. But I do think that FOMO in communities and relationships can be a big issue and is a big topic for conversation.Jfeldman26 (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12. "A compulsive concern that one might miss an opportunity" is how the idea of FOMO is defined in the reading Following the Joneses: FOMO and Conspicuous Sociality (Reagle, 2014, p.2). Although this idea of envy and anxiety over not being included in something is not new, it has been heavily perpetuated through the growth of social media. FOMO arises in people today as they see people on social media posting about their incredible experiences as one can "peruse the highlights of other people's lives in real time" (Reagle, 2014, p.7) Social media can often just be a highlight reel of people's happiest moments and not always the full reality of one's own experiences and mental well-beings. In scrolling on social media we can often get stuck in a cycle of comparing ourselves to others and letting it have a negative effect and thus feel we must project better versions of ourselves online.

More negative outcomes of the online world can come from the user interfaces themselves as discussed in the Dark Patterns article. It happens often that certain platforms use us and entice us in order to just get people to use their service while not actually helping them solve a problem. The Match.com example was very interesting in that as a dating site, the goal should be to help people make that happen. However, corporation interests outweigh the consumer interests so they allowed for scammers to enter the website just so they could turn their profit. Further, the article explains the tactic of making these services addictive, exposing people to these services over a long period of time, and trying to extract the three main resources of "money, data, and attention" from them (Narayanan et al, 2020). On these apps, design is truly power. Are there applications we can think of that are specifically designed for the benefit of consumers? Or are companies generally trying to just turn a profit and not make their interfaces easy to use? Kbill98 (talk) 17:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kbill98, congrats, that's your dozen! -Reagle (talk) 16:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10. "Another dimension of FOMO related feelings is the degree of sociality: lone envy vs. social exclusion" (Reagle 2015). This quote made me think of Cialdini's persuasion principles, particularly those of social proof and liking. As I reflected on my own experience with FOMO, I realized that it doesn't really manifest itself in my life when I am not aware of what others around me are doing. Most of the time, if I feel like I'm missing out on something it is not missing the activity, but the act of being excluded, that upsets me. I have often deleted Instagram for periods of time because I realized that no matter what, I always exited the app feeling worse about myself than when I opened it. Seeing people I knew enjoying themselves, especially if the group was made up of more than one of my friends, immediately sent thoughts of "they didn't want me around" or "I'm missing out on a better life that they're leading."

Overall, I think that social media, especially the "photo gallery" of Instagram, only serves to perpetuate cycles of proving to followers that you are not experiencing FOMO because you are actively not missing out, all the while provoking that very feeling in followers. These followers are then prompted to post their own highlights or activities to prove that they are not missing out, but simply fully enjoying life elsewhere. All of this is done with the purpose of showing that you are one of society's "most valued" members, those who are never alone. We have, over time and through the growingly constant awareness of others' activities, misconstrued being alone with being cast out (and essentially, missing out). Tiarawearer (talk) 03:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12. "Dark patterns enable designers to extract three main resources from users: money, data, and attention" (Chetty, M. et al., 2020). A dark pattern refers to the way that software can persuade users to behave in particular ways. Dark patterns invade privacy and make services addictive. These goals support one another "as users who stay on an app longer will buy more, yield more personal information, and see more ads" (Chetty, M. et al., 2020). A/B testing further develops dark patterns as it identifies the messages or alerts that evoke the desired behavior from users.

To what extent do dark patterns on social media contribute to users' feelings of FOMO (the fear of missing out)? The reading argues that FOMO is "a continuation of a centuries-old concern and discourse about media-prompted envy and anxiety" (Reagle, 2015). An example provided is the group selfie, "groupie," on social media, and how it seeks approval and presents belonging (Reagle, 2015). Groupies could spark envy in users who were not at the event because they are missing out on photographed fun. When a user is silent after an event, this can trigger MOMO, the mystery of missing out. Was this person even there? What happened?

Opposite to FOMO, JOMO is a term that stands for the "joy of missing out." Was JOMO created to normalize unplugging and practicing self-care? Many extroverts experience FOMO whereas introverts experience JOMO. Is it possible to train oneself to be more in the present and experience JOMO or will we forever gravitate towards one term over the other? Lvogel1 (talk) 11:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lvogel1, congrats, that's your dozen! -Reagle (talk) 16:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10. "FOMO is characterized by the desire to stay continually connected with what others are doing" (Reagle, 2015). As we've discussed before in this class social media was made to be addicting, and "people may gravitate toward social media because of unfulfilled psychological needs" (Reagle, 2015). FOMO is another tool in the tool box that is used to increase this need for social media. Although social media didn't invent the concept, as the expression 'keeping up with the Joneses' has been around since the early 1900s, it has been able to capitalize on this psychological need to be included. FOMO especially plays on the persuasion tactic of social validation, as it convinces people that they are out of the loop or will be excluded if they do not maintain certain behaviors, many of which exist online and on social media in today's day and age.

FOMO could also be considered a dark pattern, as Narayanan et al. discuss in their article. "Dark patterns are user interfaces that benefit an online service by leading users into making decisions they might not otherwise make (Narayanan, 2020). This is essentially what FOMO does. It convinces people that in order to be in the know they need social media, and beyond that they need to participate in certain trends. We often think of FOMO as something instigated by other people, but social media facilitates, and even encourages, the 'fear of missing out' for its own benefit. E23895 (talk) 14:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

9. In reading about both dark and deceptive patterns, I was reminded of the concept of platform decay or (less gracefully) enshittification. The dark and deceptive patterns mentioned in today's readings appear to play a significant role in this perceived phenomenon. Platform decay refers to how products and services tend to demonstrate a significant drop in quality as they grow. Websites like Google and Amazon are good examples of this concept. These sites have largely abandoned certain core design tenets that allowed them to grow as big as they have grown. To further demonstrate this, Google used to not show its users ads as they used the search engine, but now a great deal of search results on the website are either sponsored or "optimized" through SEO practices. As for Amazon, a quick search on the site should yield more low-quality knock-off goods than whatever name-brand product the user had originally searched for.

To connect these two examples with a specific pattern, I believe that the deceptive pattern of "Disguised Ads" is applicable in both situations. Both Google and Amazon have made much greater use of ads in recent years without disclosing to the user that such a pattern is occurring. However, this usage of sponsored ad placement on both websites (as well as many others) has actively been a detriment to user experience. ---Toothlesswalrus (talk) 15:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10. FOMO, generally characterized by the feelings of missing out and being left out, has likely been experienced by all of us before. However, more recently, the presence of social media has exacerbated the feelings of FOMO amongst social media users. With the use and popularity of social media rising, along with the sharing of users' highlight reels, people are more likely to consume such media and compare themselves. As a result of social media being a platform for people's highlight reels, "one of the ways in which people polish their presentation is to appear happier than they are" (Reagle, 2015). This not only aids in users' self-esteem, but also allows them to remain "competitive" in the unspoken happiness competition on social media. Although FOMO is a common feeling, the extent to which it is experienced can be severely influenced by social comparison. If social media did not exist, or if people stopped sharing their highlight reels, there would be nothing to "miss out" or be "left out" from. This reminds me of the notion that we would not know what happiness is without any sadness. In the same vein, we would not have FOMO if there was nothing to feel it from.

Dark patterns are deceptive user interfaces employed by online services to encourage users into making decisions that benefit the service rather than the user (Chetty et al., 2020). These patterns exploit cognitive biases such as FOMO and have been adopted widely across the web. This brought to mind BeReal, an app in which users have to post a photo at the same time as all other users every day, as an attempt to steer away from using social media to share highlight reels. Alexistang (talk) 15:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

8. I found it really interesting how both FOMO and dark patterns play on our fears. As Reagle (2010) discusses, FOMO comes from our deep-seated fear of not being in the loop or missing our on the experiences that others are enjoying. This isn't new; it's just that social media makes us feel it more intensely by constantly showing us what we're missing out on. Dark patterns, on the other hand, are like online traps that trick us into making choices we wouldn't usually make, like spending more money or giving away our privacy. Narayanan et al. discusses how online services manipulate these fears and anxieties that come from FOMO and create the traps to lead us down paths we might not have taken otherwise.

This made me think a lot about wether it's right for websites and marketers to use these fears against us. On one hand, encouraging users to spend could guide users towards beneficial behaviors, like saving energy or making healthier choices. However, as dark patterns exists, these same insights can be used to. manipulate users into making decisions against their best interest. Do designers and marketers have any responsibility when it comes to this?

Narayanan et al. also discussed how we trade our autonomy for convenience. As users, we are often willing to give up a bit of privacy or autonomy for the sake of convenience or FOMO on something seemingly important. Makes me question to which extent are we truly making informed digital choices. Bcmbarreto (talk) 16:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

8. As I've noticed through our class learning till so far, the underlying design logic of many digital platforms, at large, take advantage of human psychology. For example, likes and retweets on the social media take advantage of our innate socializing tendency. Many digital platforms deploy designs that are in dark patterns in order to manipulate or control users' thinking and behaving (Narayanan et al., 2020). Exemplary is the disguised ads that we usually mistake us an interface and click (Leiser et al., 2023). It is not uncommon that comments below a tweet post usually have some advertisements disguised as comments. In a similar vein, the so-called FOMO that many digital platforms take advantage of, as suggested by Reagle (2015), utilizes our century-old envy and anxiety of being missing our or being left out. This prompted me to think of my habit of keeping browsing social media for a long time. I usually found it difficult to close the page but keep browsing endlessly. I feared of missing something important or being left out in something that is important or meaningful. During my high school, I found it common that students felt proud of knowing something peculiar while those not knowing it was troubled by a feeling of isolation. FOMO is just an evolved version of this feeling of fear in our digital era. Given this, I think human psychology, including FOMO, should not be taken advantage of to market or in online communities. It is in effect unethical. The problem is: how can we regulate or remove it when they are usually claimed as the normal business activities or ordinary design features? Letian88886 (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2024(UTC)

Apr 02 Tue - RTFM: Read the Fine Manual[edit]

11. The term "RTFM" has been associated with preparing and educating oneself before joining a community. The term itself "is an exhortation for others to educate themselves before asking rudimentary questions" (Reagle, 2014). While used to direct others towards answers, it can also create a feeling of alienation. With many online communities creating FAQ pages, people seeking to join these spaces may feel obligated to know specific information ahead of time. Sometimes those looking to post are led to not even try due to the isolation and pressure caused by the obligation to know. The idea of RTFM, while it does help limit community disruption, still alienates members who may be lurking but wish to be part of the discussion and don't want to potentially disrupt the community.

To me, the subreddit of a video game I enjoy, Hollow Knight, is a good example to discuss in reference to RTFM. There is a section of the game that many new players go to the subreddit to discuss, as they are wondering if that section of the game holds a glitch or not. Sometimes these posts have comments telling new players to stop asking this question, but comments like those are quickly deleted. The vast majority of the time, these questions are met with community members encouraging the player to continue forward, or vaguely alluding to what may be happening. This shows to me that the community is actively trying to prevent the alienation and potential stigma that comes with RTFM. Kindslime (talk) 03:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

9. "RTFM, an acronym for "read the fucking manual," has been used for decades within computing and hacking culture and it is an exhortation for others to educate themselves before asking rudimentary questions" (Reagle, 2015). Today's reading discussed how certain online communities value self-education and the process new members go through when joining these communities. Unlike other communities that encourage open discussion and provide help to new members, communities such as programming forums discourage their new members from asking questions, and instead refer them to a set of guidelines or instructions, making them find the solution by themselves. An important part of these communities is the member's commitment to learn and share their knowledge, which is what was referred to as "the obligation to know (Reagle, 2015). While I have not experienced another online community that emphasizes "The Obligation to Know" or "RTFM", I have been a member of a group that values similar practices. When I pledged my fraternity three years ago, I had a very similar experience to new members in these "RTFM" communities. Frequently, when a fellow member of my pledge class would ask an older brother a question, such as how to properly paint our flag for a task, we would often be told "FITFO", which similar to RTFM, means "Figure It The Fuck Out". As I was a clueless new student at Northeastern, this frustrated me at the time as I thought these people would be helpful. However, looking back on it, I see how an "Obligation to Know" oriented community can benefit its members. The process of seeking out information myself and creating my solutions made me feel independent and capable, turning me into a more confident person. Stuchainzz (talk) 18:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11. In the discourse surrounding online communities, the expectation for newcomers to familiarize themselves with basic information before engaging is a recurring theme as it is in geek culture. Laugher's use of "RTFM" on her hot pink business cards highlights this expectation within geek culture. Although the expectations of "RTFM" might come off as blunt, they highlight the focus on self-learning and knowledge sharing in these communities. The notion of "geek knowing" as discussed by Reagle (2014) is similar to the bigger concept of enculturation, where new members learn technical skills as well as social norms and values. This process is evident in online communities, where textual communication and documentation play big roles, and where community members are to abide by the community's rules and customs in order to remain in the community. The obligation to know, suggested by directives like "RTFM," facilitates newcomers' integration by emphasizing the need to rely on self and understand community rules and guidelines.

However, I believe that this norm can sometimes be alienating, especially to those new to the community or those from marginalized groups. Dunbar-Hester's (2008) study of gender dynamics among FM radio hackers illustrates how the competitive nature and expectations of self-reliance may unintentionally exclude certain individuals, particularly women. This raises questions about the balance between integrating newcomers and maintaining community standards, especially considering the importance of diversity and inclusivity. Moreover, while resources like FAQs aim to streamline information dissemination, there also needs to be a balance between providing newcomers with guidance and discouraging genuine inquiries. Alexistang (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11. As Winston Churchill said that history is written by the victors, so it seems to me that the documented knowledge on geek communities and forums is written by a small, exclusive group of individuals who have "won" or conquered this part of the internet. While reading Reagle's (2014) article on "The obligation to know," I found myself getting surprised at how frustrated I was getting over the barriers of entry into a space that I am not a part of, nor do I have any plans to join. One quote which stood out to me was Raymond's (2014) claim that "it's simply not efficient for us to try to help people who are not willing to help themselves." While I agree that some degree of effort or interest should be shown by members looking to integrate a community, I think it is also counterproductive to place such a looming burden as "helping oneself" on a newbie who may feel lost or unsure about their place.

I am not arguing against FAQ's or 101 posts -- those are both very helpful and necessary resources. That being said, a community, even one that is primarily text-based, relies on the interactions between its members to cement its character. Assuming that you can draw and retain valuable members simply by throwing a bunch of manuals and rules or norms at them seems like an oversight. I think that this "survival-of-the-fittest" scheme is actually weeding out potentially important voices who are not willing to subject themselves to the negativity associated with joining a community they may have a lot of interest or shared interests with. Tiarawearer (talk) 03:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11. "Geek culture has a complementary norm obliging others to educate themselves on rudimentary topics. This obligation to know is expressed by way of jargon-laden exhortations such as "check the FAQ" (frequently asked questions) and "RTFM" (read the fucking manual" (Reagle). Some may see this act as alienating while others may see it as proactive. It can be productive because of the want for someone to learn on their own but by using that harmful language a person will get scared and never ask a question. I find it interesting that the article " Obligation to Know: From FAQ to Feminism 101" mentions that RTFM isn't bad but instead, it should be a way for people to want to learn improve, and share.

I believe an equivalent to an FAQ slap would be a newcomer asking how to use a platform and a seasoned user responding by directing them to the FAQ page. If the newcomer checks the FAQ and then still has a question then the seasoned user will answer as they did their prior due diligence. I think that this is a very beneficial skill and I find that this system is used a lot in academic settings as teachers will usually redirect your questions and ask if you've referred to the syllabus. Additionally, even in classes, you are told to read materials before class to be more aware during discussions so why should it be any different when being in a community? It also allows for the integration of the new member to be smoother and that way not much time is "wasted" on trying to teach the new member as they will already join with specific questions and knowledge. Jfeldman26 (talk) 14:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10. In some circles, the term RTFM (short for "read the fucking manual") is used to implore newer users to consult any pre-existing resources before asking a simple question that has already been answered. In my opinion, I can see how this way of thinking can have both a positive and negative impact on interactions that take place within these communities. On one hand, RTFM encourages new users to have a baseline set of skills before interacting with a certain community. This ensures more productive discussion, as it is not necessary to spend unnecessary time deliberating about what might have already been discussed. However, the term can be misapplied in instances where people are simply unwilling to assist others because their questions are perceived as being "below them". The phrasing of the term itself is also rather aggressive, seemingly commanding the reading of such texts rather than giving a slight nudge in the right direction.

However, if the purpose of RTFM is to encourage users to acquaint themselves with certain materials, what is the approximate cut-off for content that is deemed acceptable to miss? In other words, when does a question warrant an answer other than RTFM? Not every simple answer can be found through documentation alone. Likewise, there are also probably highly technical answers found in this same documentation. Would advanced questions concerning this topic receive the same response if they were also found in the documentation? I do not think they would---RTFM (while a valid response in some cases) is primarily used to shut-out low-level responses that are perceived as being not worthy of someone else's time. ---Toothlesswalrus (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

9. When entering a new community, especially ones that are are centered around niche interests, the phrase 'RTFM' often shows up. Originally, the acronym was to encourage self-reliance, now it carries a dual significance. According to Reagle, the acronym serves as a right of passage, passing an obligation within the community to find foundational knowledge individually (Reagle, 2010). However, this expectation of self-education, while having an environment of shared knowledge and contribution, can also alienate newcomers, creating a barrier to join. The You Know Your Meme entry on RTFM talks about its historical significance and its role in digital etiquette, suggesting that the term's original intention was to promote thoroughness and self-relience among new community members. On the other hand, the entry also talks about the criticism RFTM faces for maybe being a form of elitism, indicating a fine line between encouraging independence and fostering exclusion.

After reading the articles, the topic of RTFM got me thinking about how online communities can better balance the promotion of self-guided learning with a welcoming and supportive atmosphere. How can these norms evolve to not only uphold the value of independence but also to make sure that new knowledge remains open and inviting to all? Bcmbarreto (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11. "The enculturation of newcomers is bootstrapped by one of the first norms they are likely to encounter: an obligation to know rudimentary information" (Reagle, 2014). The obligation to know is rooted in the idea of having respect for different communities, especially ones you may be attempting to join. Knowing the basics of a community before joining is the bare minimum a new member can do to show they want to be a part of a community and that they see the value of a community. I can also see how it can be frustrating to members of a group to have the same basic questions asked over and over again, especially when they have worked to have the answer easily available for outsiders or newcomers. However, on the flip side I can see how this concept can quickly turn into the alienation of newcomers. Being a newbie is often intimidating, and feeling as if you can't ask questions or make mistakes can often create an unwelcoming environment. I can see how phrases like RTFM are seen as more alienating than helpful, especially compared to just pointing someone towards the FAQ section. I can also see how these tactics can be used to keep out certain people from joining a group and create unequal power dynamics. As they say, "knowledge is power," but everyone needs to start somewhere. This leads me to wonder if there is a way to appease both sides of this problem? Also, how do we determine who is allowed to have certain knowledge? E23895 (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

9.FAQ and RTFM are quite commonplace in today's digitalized world. Their necessity and popularity depend upon, as suggested by Reagle (2014), "the free sharing of information." Information is now made accessible to everyone, and users need to teach themselves on certain knowledge they do not know in order to grasp and use the information. However, this does not mean that FAQ and RTFM are just creations of the digital era. As suggested in the article titled "Know Your Meme," they in effect came into being quite before the digital age and are still being used in non-digital realms (e.g., political realms). Specifically in today's digital era, FAQ and RTFM are considered the essential procedures for the introduction of new services. We can sense their traces in nearly all digital services or platforms we use. When we register in online platforms, it is common that we are asked to go through some know-hows and user terms. The China-based video platform Bilibili asks users to take a survey where they are to correctly answer certain numbers of questions in order to register an account. All of the questions are about the operation and rules of the video platform. These FAQ and RTFM help users familiarize with the services. Letian88886 (talk) 16:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Letian88886, a quiz to participate, interesting! -Reagle (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apr 05 Fri - Community fission and the Reddit diaspora[edit]

12. In online communities, "fairness" can only be achieved when true representation is. For this to happen, decision makers and those in positions of power must reflect the diverse population that they serve. While controversial topics may spark negative consequences in the real world, there should be a balance between maintaining free speech and disallowing dangerous behavior. I believe that there is a fine line between ensuring a healthy online community and censorship, and that this line should be trod on with caution. In the case where Jody Williams, moderator for TheDonald, became caught amidst the controversial discussions to include violent and extremist content such as a detailed noose-tying diagram, the consequence of a real noose being hung during the Capitol siege demanded action to be taken for encouraging dangerous behavior. Speech that may harm or attack another party should be looked to as dangerous, while speech that aims to be inclusive and productive should not. In another case where subreddit r/GenderCritical was shut down, a safe space where women could discuss real issues was stripped away from them. As Fain (2020) noted, "not having to live in fear of censorship from male admins is a comfort to women who have become necessarily paranoid about where they will be banned from next". Therefore, it is my belief that online communities should foster free speech while aiming to deter harmful behavior. In order for such harmful behaviors to be detected correctly, moderators and people of power should be representative of the community they serve, and not be over-saturated by men. -Alexistang (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexistang, congrats, that's your dozen! -Reagle (talk) 17:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10. "The story of TheDonald, a furiously pro-Trump forum that became an online staging ground for the Capitol assault, is a cautionary tale about the Internet's dark side" (Timberg, 2021). The readings for today covered the moderation of controversial online communities and the difficulties these platforms experience when handling problems. This article in particular discussed the downfall of TheDonald, a pro-trump forum on Reddit. The overflow of hateful and dangerous content being posted to the page led to its termination by the page's owner. I think this article serves as a good example of a controversial community being pushed from a platform. I do believe in free speech, but after a quick Google search, I learned that it cannot be used to incite violence, which is exactly what the members of this community did, making me believe the page's termination was an effective use of moderation. On the other hand, the article discussing the FDS subreddit shows an example of ineffective moderation attempts. "The manosphere has an army of men dedicated to creating new ways to exploit and abuse women" (Sisley, 2021). While these trolls technically have the right of free speech on their side, the moderators have an obligation to their community members to ensure a comfortable and respectful environment for all. The moderators' failure to maintain the community standards showed the damage hateful speech can do to a forum. Ultimately, FDS moved to another platform due to the concerns of its members, proving that it can be effective to metastasize somewhere else. Stuchainzz (talk) 20:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10. Is the practice of removing controversial communities from platforms like Reddit beneficial for the larger online communities? In my opinion, there are two sides. On one hand, moderation is necessary to make sure online interaction safe and respectful for all users. For example, the creation of Ovarit in response to the ban of r/GenderCritical shows the lengths which communities will go to preserve their space for dialogue and discussion, even when faced with platform censorship (Fain, 2020). However, the idea of what 'harmful' content really is is subjective and differentiates across different cultural and social contexts. This subjectivity makes moderation very difficult. Sisley and Astria cover how communities might feel misrepresented or unfairly targeted by platform policies and moderation. Also, the idea that banning a community might prevent harmful ideologies from spreading seems to ignore the reality of the internet's size and how easy it is for online communities to move elsewhere. Pushing these groups from mainstream platforms doesn't get rid of their views but spreads them across the web, making them even harder to monitor and possibly more radical since they might feel persecuted.

So, should platforms support free speech to the fullest extent? Absolute free speech without any moderation can lead to an environment that feels unsafe, pushing those away who could benefit from the community. Yet, too strict moderation can restrain important discussions and lead to community separation. Expelling certain communities from platforms like Reddit might temporarily address issues of hate speech, it doesn't solve the main problems. These communities typically find they platforms, sometimes deep in the web where they became even more extreme. Bcmbarreto (talk) 04:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11. In the quote "[m]oderators at Patriots.win, where some of TheDonald community moved after it went dark...", the word "some" sticks out to me and leads me to believe that not every member of TheDonald made the switch over to Patriots.win. I used to believe that in many cases, it was best to leave these dubious communities alone and not engage with them as an outsider. A good example of a community such as this would be 4chan.. I worried that shutting communities like this down would lead them to take up residence in other spaces where they interact more with the general public. If members of these negative communities have a place to go, they will interact less with those outside of the community---effectively "quarantining" the community in question.

However, it appears that in practice, these communities will in fact become fractured if they are disrupted. This is especially prevalent if a "backup community" on another website is not clearly communicated to the community's members in the event that it goes dark. In the case of TheDonald and Patriots.win, it is suggested that the takedown of the subreddit fragmented the user base---with some making the switch to Patriots.win while others sought out other avenues. Because of this (in tandem with the other readings), I think that my prior conception that entire communities would move to a more public sphere should their community be threatened might be a flawed way of thinking. ---Toothlesswalrus (talk) 14:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12. Is it good to push controversial communities from a platform? This question touches on the balance between free speech and the responsibility that many of these platforms have to moderate the content being posted on them. The expulsion of communities like TheDonald raises the question of whether this was a fair and just act because although it's important to support free speech many fear that this expulsion just leads to them metastasizing somewhere else. However, expulsion could be good because as Sisley said in an article for Vice, expulsion can be something that can protect users from harm. In the Ovarit case, Fain shows how the space left by these controversial communities who leave can be filled by others. Fain said, "When r/GenderCritical was banned, many users flocked to these platforms to set up alternative communities, such as the new GenderCritical sub on Saidit" (Fain 2020).

I think all in all moderation is fair if these communities are spreading extremely hateful or inappropriate things because this just builds a community fueled by hate which will in turn ruin the platform as a whole. Additionally, getting rid of these communities may cause them to metastasize elsewhere but it is important for the platforms to address the issues caused by these communities and explain why exactly they were kicked off rather than just kicking them off and leaving the rest of the people to make up the hypothesis of what happened and automatically blame the platform for infringing on free speech. Jfeldman26 (talk) 15:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jfeldman26, I had to renumber some of your earlier QICs to confirm, but congrats, that's your dozen! -Reagle (talk) 17:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10. While separation from a mainstream platform and building an independent one is indeed helpful to facilitating the wellbeing of the group specific to the platform, I do not think this is a healthy trend in the long run, because this would only encourage further fraction and isolation in the online world. In the case of Ovarit, its separation from Reddit could better help women by building mutual helping network (Fain, 2020). However, in the case of the Female Dating Strategy, the site's separating from Reddit and intention to be a home for women alone in effect encourage misandry (Sisley, 2021). This seems an inevitable side effect since by separation the site makes a clear line between the manosphere and thus implicates a potential gender opposition. As suggested by Astria (2022), FDS abandoned Reddit primarily because of the gender discrimination and sexual assault women received on Reddit that are not resolved by the platform. These could be a trigger for gender opposition since from the very beginning it was patriarchy that was made as the enemy. If some extremists make some hatred speeches within the community of FDS, it is possible that these hatred speeches will gain momentum. Anyway, theDonald was closed because of an extremist tendency of white supremacy that fueled offline violence (Timberg & Harwell, 2021). When using social media platforms, I often have the feeling of being staying within a small fraction in an overall large community. If these fractions are separated from the large community, the mere connections maintained at present may be cut off which would only deteriorate the relationships. Letian88886 (talk) 16:21, April 5 2024 (UTC)

Apr 09 Tue - Gratitude[edit]

11. I have always thought of gratitude as something healthy and positive. Never did I think it could be harmful to relationships, however, after reading the article by Nathan Mathias, I now know that it is not always a good thing, "Some forms of appreciation can even foster very unhealthy relationships" (Mathias, 2014). In his article, Mathias warns us about having a "paternalistic" view of gratitude, where people justify their actions by hoping the recipient will be grateful. As previously stated, I never thought that gratitude could be bad, but learning about paternalism opened my eyes to how it can be negative. I feel as if when you do something for the sole purpose of receiving thanks in return, it makes the gratitude feel inauthentic and almost like a transaction: I give you something, you are grateful and make me feel good. In contrast, "Kittens, Baklava, and Bubble Tea: How Wikipedians Thank Each Other in Different Languages" discusses how Wikipedians personalize the way they give thanks to each other. Wikipedia offers the option to express thanks through tokens of gratitude symbolized by things like food, animals, and other images. Unlike what was written by Mathias about paternalistic gratitude and how it makes gratitude feel inauthentic, this personalization does the complete opposite. Customizing the way you say 'thanks' to another user shows that you have taken the time to make their gratitude genuine and personalized. I think this method of expressing thanks helps build community and relationships among members. Stuchainzz (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11. Growing up, one of the first lessons many of us learn is the importance of saying "thank you". This phrase becomes so ingrained in our daily interactions that it's easy to forget the profound impact genuine gratitude can have. Sometimes, our expressions of thanks become more of a reflex response than a true acknowledgement of appreciation. Recently, I remembered/noticed how showing sincere gratitude, rather than a polite response, can significantly help/grow a community and the relationships within it. a great example of this is Wikipedia, where a simple 'thanks' button allows for readers or users to express their gratitude towards contributors for their helpful edits or comments. This feature has helped the community spirit, making it more positive and welcoming (Matias, 2014). Similarly, the Kassi online exchange system shows how people navigate feelings of indebtedness by offering small tokens of appreciation. These gestures not only decreases personal discomfort but increases communal bonds(Lampinen et. al, 2013).

These examples highlight that gratitude is not just about being polite, it's about really valuing each other's contributions. When appreciation is heartfelt, it can be a powerful motivator, encouraging further engagement and fostering a stronger sense of community. But there is a fine line between genuine 'thanks' and superficial acknowledgement. It's important that our expressions of gratitude are more than automatic reactions and reflect deeper appreciation for one another's efforts. Bcmbarreto (talk) 04:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12. The ideas surrounding gratitude and "the economy of thanks" is quite fascinating to me for online activities (Matias, 2014). I have always thought of the economy of online communities and social media as revolving around likes, dislikes, upvotes, downvotes, etc. That said, I had never thought of expressions of gratitude and their role across the internet. Expressions conveying thanks "can dramatically increase the recipient's pro-social behavior," and are able to help perpetuate actions of kindness, helpfulness, and the betterment of an online community as a result (Matias, 2014). The idea of simply saying thank you to someone is nothing new, but in reference to the internet, where everyone is behind a screen and things may feel far less personal, expressions of gratitude can seem more valuable.

I had also not considered the potential downsides that can come with giving gratitude. Being used in some cases to reinforce specific power dynamics, as well as favoritism (Matias, 2014). As discussed by Nate Matias, expressions of gratitude can reinforce favoritism "because it is so closely linked with reciprocity" (Matias, 2014). The possibility of "thanks" being used as a way to form a clique of more experienced and frequent members of a community can tie back into how new members to a community may feel intimidated by others. They may see these more well known members supporting each other, and have difficulty breaking through the circle of thanks they continue to perpetuate rather than reaching out to and welcoming newer members. Kindslime (talk) 05:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kindslime, congrats, that's your dozen! -Reagle (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11. We have come to believe that gratitude is a positive way to represent "thanks" to an individual. However, while this notion is true, the concept is quite complex and various factors can be argued in response to this belief. In Matias' article, he states that gratitude is important when cultivating a community and creating connections. "Expressions of gratitude are a significant factor in successful long-term, collaborative relationships" (Matias, 2014). Additionally, Matias speaks about the difference between gratitude and thanks. General gratitude he states is simply part of our life and develops as we grow. It consists of everyday gratitude we show towards our institutions, communities, or workplaces. "The person who loses his job and reimagines this tragedy positively as more time for family. A thankful perspective has also been linked to higher well-being, mental health, and post-traumatic resilience" (Wood, Froh, Geraghty, 2010 PDF). On the other hand, Matias describes "thanks" as a way of applauding an individual for their actions increasing mental health and positive workplace environments.

However, a "dark side" of thanks is discussed which elaborates some of the negative connotations "thanks" reinforces. There is a superficial side to gratitude and thanking when individuals perform tasks simply to be thanked or recognized later. Especially with individuals of a higher power, may perform certain tasks to be perceived as showing gratitude when in return the actions they are performing are unequal and unfair. This leads me to wonder to what extent do individuals of higher power exploit the concept of gratitude and thankfulness to their advantage. Dena.wolfs (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11.Gratitude seems to be innate in online communities, since these communities rely on a kind of reciprocity to run. Take the MikuMikuDance (MMD) community that I recently joined as an example. Newcomers teach themselves how to make animations using the software by either reading the tutorials written by others or utilizing existing 3D character models and motion files prepared by others. As a result, animations made using MMD are usually required to show gratitude by acknowledging what materials or resources are borrowed from whom. This resembles what Matias (2014) described as "acknowledgement" or "credit." Many MMD content creators usually add a clause that require users to credit them when using their contents. As suggested by Matias et al. (209), this showing of gratitude helps increase productivity because those receiving gratitude are motivated to continuously contributing to the community. However, as suggested by our readings, gratitude has side effects. For example, it might result in "frustration, hesitation, and non-participation" (Lampinen et al., 2013). Based on my own experience of using MMD, there is a decreasing number of original or authentic contents, which are mostly created in five or six years ago when the entire community's enthusiasm was huge in terms of creating original contents, but at present, many people have become reliant on using contents created by others while spare the efforts to create on their own. This, I think, in effect decreasing the overall productivity of the community. Some MMD content creators now charge fees for using their motions or models. Letian88886 (talk) 14:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12. "All societies subscribe to a norm that obligates individuals to repay in kind what they have received" (Cialdini, 2001). This week's reading brought me back to one of the first readings we did in this class, Cialdini. In that reading Cialdini outlined six methods utilized to influence and persuade, one of which was reciprocity. Reciprocity is an extremely effective way of influence and community building as it not only "can increase solidarity" (Lampinen et al., 2013), but also creates an "economy of thanks" (Natematias, 2014). When one feels indebted it can change their behavior greatly, "expressions of gratitude can dramatically increase the recipient's prosocial behavior, tapping into motivations to be socially valued" (Natematias, 2014). We have talked in depth in this class about the power of social validation and its ability to influence community members, as well as potential community members. Gratitude plays into this. When one feels as if they are benefiting from a group or relationship they are more likely to continue to maintain and preserve the structures that exist within that group. Therefore it makes sense for group leaders to build up these quid-pro quo relationships early when trying to get community members to join, although may not always be morally sound.

Randomly this concept also made me think of an episode of Friends where Joey explains to Phoebe that there truly are no selfless acts because even if you expect nothing in return, the act of doing something "selfless" still makes you feel good. If we truly live in an "economy of thanks" where we expect something back for good deeds, even if it is just a simple "thank you," then are there truly any acts that we do just to do them? E23895 (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

E23895, congrats, that's your dozen! -Reagle (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, I'd never seen this clip, thanks for the reference! Friends HD - Phoebe Buffay Selfless Good Deeds

Apr 16 Tue - Exit and infocide[edit]

12. “Hence, there are instances in which events in the "real" world prompt a change of focus away from online activity” (Reagle, 2012). This reading explored the phenomenon of “infocide”, which is “the purposeful retraction and deletion of an online identity” (Reagle, 2012). One example discussed in the piece covered the idea of “Real Exhaustion”, in which people remove themselves from an online community due to something happening in their personal lives. The example given told the story of Noah Grey, who left the internet after the death of his partner. This made me wonder, what are some more recent examples of people leaving platforms due to real exhaustion? I think the most common example we see today comes from celebrities like athletes and actors. I remember Tom Holland took a break from social media platforms due to his mental health in 2022. The pressure of focusing on his image both in the real world and online made him feel overwhelmed, leading to his break. Another example we recently saw was Naomi Osaka, the professional tennis player, who took a break from the sport and social media in 2021 after facing media criticism and public backlash. She opened up about experiencing anxiety and depression, demonstrating how the demands of being a public figure can create a need to disengage from online platforms for one's well-being. I think we will continue to see this happen, especially with athletes, as social media gives their haters a platform for consistently harassing them. Stuchainzz (talk) 13:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12. When I thought about users leaving online communities, I always imagined the platform being social media. The concept of 'Wikibreak' (Wikipedia, 2024) suggests that users might need a break due to personal, health or workload reasons. This idea makes me think about the pressures and expectations within these communities that might lead to burnout or need for detachment. These pressures can push people to make drastic measures when they feel overwhelmed or wish to reclaim their privacy. This refers to the idea of 'infocide' as discussed by Reagle (2010) which means someone deliberately removing their presence and contributions from digital platforms. It made me think about how permanent are digital identities and what are the lengths someone would go to erase them. What is the fine line between engaging and overcommitting in online communities? What is our breaking point that causes us to take a complete break from a digital identity?

It's interesting to think about public figures who have taken public breaks from social media. I was thinking about Charlie D'Amelio, the TikToker. She took a long break from dancing and took around a week-long break from posting TikToks due to mental health and overwhelming pressure. Bcmbarreto (talk) 06:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12. People exit online communities for varying reasons. According to Reagle (2012), the reasons could include exhaustion, online discontent, and privacy concerns. For one thing, real-life happenings could impact individuals’ online presence. When one is exhausted in the real-world life, the person usually finds it difficult to spare energy in the online world. Meanwhile, online presence itself could be the source of exhaustion as well. I have this feeling quite often, particularly when I have browsed across varying social media platforms for a long time. My inner desire to keep browsing again and again for countless posts is present together with a tired mind that does not find any meanings in doing this. This was why I used to close my Douyin account. I did it as a way to focus myself more on the real-world life. For another, online discontent and privacy concerns could also be the reasons that a person commits infocide. The online world is complicated and replete with both real and fake information. Sometimes, people exit because they feel dissatisfied and are concerned about their privacy in the online world. For Wikipedia editors, there are the Wikibreak and Template:Retired that serve to offer a ritualized procedure for the exit, but for common online users, there is no such procedures. Letian88886 (talk) 13:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12. “Taking a break from insta for ___, reach me on ____” is a formula that most social media users are extremely familiar with. Whether it’s a friend, celebrity or random acquaintance you met one time at a bar and still can’t bring yourself to unfollow, it has become extremely common, and to a certain extent acceptable, for social media users to announce their departure from an app that no one is forcing them to be on by using “flounce posts.” While I can see the truth in the statement “Attention seeking behavior is central to the Urban Dictionary’s first definition of Internet Suicide,” (Reagle 2012), I think there is another dimension to this.

Firstly, I think that imitation and the code of reciprocity (Cialdini 2001) largely dictate this behavior. When you see your friends or people you follow and respect, such as celebrities, declare their departure, you may feel that you need to repay this favor in kind. Furthermore, I would argue that there exists a norm in today’s chronically online society wherein when you receive a message on a platform you are actively using/present on, you must respond. The fear of failing to fulfilling this norm may be further prompting this behavior of announcing one’s departure. The excuse “sorry, I didn’t see your message,” is often not enough to satisfy people, since it is pretty much a given that everyone is constantly checking their phones. If you are checking out of an online community, even for a short period, announcing your departure is a way to save face if you fail to fulfill the norms of being reachable on a given platform. Tiarawearer (talk) 13:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12. Something that stuck with me from the reading for today was the concept of infocide as it relates to projects that encourage open collaboration such as the Linux community and Wikipedia. In certain circumstances, users who wish to exit a community might not only delete any personally identifying information, but any contributions to the project that they might have had as well. The reading presents the term “Wiki Mind Wipe” to refer to this phenomenon. Because of this, a user’s infocide is not just a means of protecting one’s privacy, but it can serve as a considerable disruption to these projects if a user goes through with exiting in this manner. While I believe that users do not necessarily owe a community a reason for exiting, the “Wiki Mind Wipe” method seems both drastic and self-centered to me.

Earlier in the semester, I remember visiting the user page of someone who was seemingly very involved in the moderation and/or administration of Wikipedia in the early 2010s. However, they have since edited this user page to not only indicate that they are no longer active, but that they also used it to express their newly held negative perceptions of the website—such as claiming that the site is inherently biased and attempts towards neutrality fall on deaf ears. I found this to be a unique contrast to many of the community exits examined in the reading for today, which were typically done for self-preservation reasons. —Toothlesswalrus (talk) 14:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12. I found this week's reading on exiting a platform quite interesting. I had never seen the term "flounce post" used before, however, now after reading about it have seen many throughout my time on many platforms.“The purposeful retraction and deletion of an online identity” (Reagle, 2012) is called infocide. This term made me think in what case scenario would an individual have to go to the length of deleting all social media and realistically is all their information and identity actually gone? Could this concept be for a sense of attention to an individual, to see the reactions of other users when they announce their departure from an online community? Many different aspects can play a part in this term.

Additionally, I was intrigued by the concept of "Wikibreak" (Wikipedia, 2024) and how it parallels the term and concept of infocide. Wikibreak is the concept of individuals leaving various platforms for reasons such as mental or physical health. With increases in societal pressures and norms, it is difficult for individuals, especially influencers, to keep a sense of consistent content. Additionally, with the "cancel culture" in today's society many individuals double and triple-check all their posts to ensure that no audience can take offense. This leads to increased mental and physical drain leading these influencers to want time away from these online platforms. Dena.wolfs (talk) 15:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]