DIMINISHED THOUGHT

What Exactly is Wikipedia?

Wikipedia is a controversial and revolutionary free online “encyclopedia” that allows its users to edit most of the available entries. The debate concerning the quality of Wikipedia has been the subject of many news articles lately, including the public controversy concerning the false biography of John Seigenthaler Sr. Additionally, there has been a well publicized debate concerning the rigor of a recent study conducted by the periodical Nature which suggested that Wikipedia was of comparable quality to the Encyclopedia Britannica. However, a more fundamental question than accuracy is “What exactly is Wikipedia?” Wikipedia can be perceived as either an information resource or as the community of users actively involved in its creation.

First, Wikipedia can be conceived of as an information resource. As information resource Wikipedia does a good job of being relatively complete, having a wide availability, and a high degree of interactivity (Sanger, 2006). Wikipedia has managed to grow at an almost unbelievable rate by allowing all its users the ability to create and edit practically any article. This has made it a relatively complete information source by allowing it to address topics thought to be too unimportant for space limited encyclopedias. Wikipedia sidesteps the bottle necking process that slows down traditional publications, in which a few editors confirm the quality of many articles, by allowing anyone that views the site to edit its content. This process has allowed for the creation of over 1,000,000 English language contributions with its size constrained only by hard disk space (Wikipedia.com, retrieved 2006).

Additionally, its high level of interactivity, by allowing it’s users to interact via the editing of entries, creates an environment where users are able to learn large amounts of information (Sanger, 2006). Furthermore this interaction benefits future users by theoretically improving the quality of information available. While Wikipedia is less interactive that information resources such as librarians or professors, the use of hyperlinks makes Wikipedia more interactive than books, films, or audio recordings. Hyperlinks allow users to reorder information in creative ways not intended by the original author. Finally, it can be accessed by anyone with a device capable of accessing the internet and is available in 123 active language editions. As a result it has the widest audience currently possible (Wikipedia.com, retrieved 2006).

Wikipedia functions on the principle of “radical collaboration” that encourages constant editing in order to achieve polished articles. While constant revision of articles by many individuals may lead to a more complete and interactive project, editors with little expertise in their area of revision can detract from an article’s accuracy. Although Wikipedia is often compared to open source software projects, this is an inappropriate metaphor. For example, Wikipedia, unlike open source projects, does not have any mechanism in place to ensure that its articles are accurate. Open source projects go through a two-step process in which code is solicited from many individuals and then compiled by an editor to ensure the stability of the code (Stross, 2006).

Co-creator Larry Sanger, who currently believes Wikipedia is inadequate as an information resource, has said that Wikipedia was “pretty good for what it is”. However, what it is a random aggregate of smart people that do not necessarily have any expertise and who resist the expert’s efforts to clarify and correct information (Sanger, Lecture). He proposes that future information resources should more closely mirror open source projects in that they defer to a pool of experts who will judge whether content is appropriate to include. Wikipedia historically has resisted according any special editorial authority to experts and maintains firmly committed to a somewhat anarchical spirit of collaboration in which anyone may edit anything.

Rather than being perceived as an information resource, Wikipedia may also be considered a community of users. Individuals that work on Wikipedia and perceive it as a community rather than as an information resource may value the processes through which articles emerge over the articles themselves. Social norms, such as revision of other user’s text and the somewhat egalitarian distribution of authority, which were founded at Wikipedia’s inception, are very well rooted. Therefore, it is not surprising that suggesting that a minority, such as academics, should be given deference has met with resistance. Furthermore, since academics are likely to be a minority of contributors on Wikipedia, they may be seen as an out-group with whom the majority is in competition.

One important weakness of Wikipedia as a community is that it fails to safeguard against certain abuses (Sanger, 2006). Indeed, one critique of Wikipedia’s accuracy is that what evolves via collaboration is not necessarily representative of factual information but rather a consensus of collaborator views concerning a subject. For example, contested articles may be subject to editing wars in which several individuals monitor an article and constantly revert it to a format that reflects personal opinion or a special interest (Sanger, 2004). Abuses such as these serve to
diminish the value of the article as a resource available to the public.

Several aspects of Wikipedia’s structure as a community may make it especially resistant to developing voluntary cooperation in creating truly accurate articles. First, it has been found that small groups were more likely to cooperate voluntarily during experimental games than larger groups. Additionally, in larger groups unless coercive measures or social sanctions are employed to spur individuals “rational, self-interested individuals will not act to achieve their common or group interests” (Rheingold, 2002, pg. 35). Wikipedia may be particularly susceptible to special interests because the number of contributors is extremely large and it does not provide social sanctions to individuals who abuse the system. Second, edits may be made to Wikipedia anonymously with only an IP address available to identify the contributor. This hinders Wikipedia because reputation and identity serve to maintain social contracts by allowing social pressure to be exerted on an individual who does not act for the common good (Rheingold, 2002).

Wikipedia can be viewed as either an information resource or as the community of users that surrounds it. If the focus of Wikipedia is on community, the ultimate accuracy of its articles is of less importance than the processes and the collaborative efforts through which they emerge. However, the Wikipedians have clearly defined their goal; they seek to create an online reference source. As such in order to develop credibility they must restructure their community so that users are identifiable and a graduated system of social sanctions exists to deal with problem participants. In the absence of these changes efforts must be made to increase the public’s media literacy and to encourage the development of alternative reference sources that take these factors into account.

Works Cited

Rheingold, H. (2002). Smart mobs: the next social revolution. Cambridge , MA: Perseus.

Sanger, L. (December 31, 2004). Why Wikipedia must jettison its anti-elitism. http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/12/30/142458/25 Viewed March 2006.

Sanger, L. (2006). The Future of Free Information.

Stross, R. (2006). Anonymous Source is not the same as open source. New York Times, March 12.

Wikipedia. Article on www.wikipedia.org. Viewed March 2006.

Everyones heard from the media the dangers of social networking websites. You know, how they can be used to gather highly personal information about an individual and allow people to stalk you in the real world, right? But what happens when they are used to fight crime. One student at Purdue put it to exactly such a use by turning the tables on her assailent. After being assaulted by an unknown man, she searched the Facebook website until she was able to find his profile. She then provided his information to police who in turn arrested him.

Researchers have always been interested in how people use technology in new, unexpected, and innovative, and the Facebook is definitely being used to in creative ways by law enforcement. Not only do police use it but job recruiters and college administrators do as well. What's more disturbing is that studnets don't think about what they're posting online. Just a note boys...it may be time to take those underage pictures of you drinking down.

If you only see one movie this summer see SNAKES ON A PLANE. This promises to be one of the campiest movies produced by a major studio in a long time. God bless New Line! This is the sort of movie you're either preordering the tickets for the midnight showing or you really don't get what all the buzz is about.

The story seems to be relatively straight foward: An FBI agent (Samuel L. Jackson) is escorting a mafia witness to trial when an assasin opens a crate of poisonous snakes on the flight. Chaos ensues!

Personally I think the whole thing is hilarious. See this ....

Quote from Wikipedia: "Snakes on a Plane has quickly become an Internet meme after its announcement on Something Awful, Slashdot, 4chan, and other Internet portals. The phrase is often used on Internet forums as a phrase to indicate that a given topic is nonsensical. With creative uses of capital letters and bold or italic text, the title can be manipulated to reflect surprise, horror, or absurdity, among other things. The meme is often interspersed with images of Samuel L. Jackson reprising his role as Mace Windu and quoting lines from both the Star Wars series and Pulp Fiction (both starring or prominently featuring Jackson). The slang form "SoaP" is used in place of "s*&^ happens" or "oh well, what'cha gonna do?"."

Only Samuel L. Jackson is hardcore enough to take on a cobra with a TASER!!

So don't get me wrong. I've seen better movies. But somehow V for Vendetta does address some compelling themes despite being an action flick. Notably when is it our responsibility as citizens to rebel against our government for violations of our civil rights. There are some not so subtle jabs at our current administration in there.

"People should not be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people. " - V from V For Vendetta

So why do I have a poster of Josè Rívera's Marisol up here to? Because it explores in many ways the same themes as V for Vendetta but in much more subtle (and in my mind more satisfying) ways. Marisol, a young Puertorican woman, is asked by her guardian angel to join the angels in their rebellion against God but she is parlyzed y her fear of betraying her faith. Meanwhile the wicked are allowed to run amuck on earth, men become pregnant, and acid rain burns those who are caught outside as the angels battle an old and senile God in a post-apocalyptic New York. In the end the play leaves you with the realization that one is obligated to rebel even against the highest power (ie. God) if it does not protect and serve those dependant upon it.


NOTE: While Rívera is notably more subtle in his message, he also attempts to comment on too many issues leaving the play a muddled mess at times, but I'm not going to get on him too bad in this post.

I've decided that transcript may be tedious but in some way's it's very rewarding. Right now I'm working doing some transcription work for a member of my department who is working on her dissertation. I'm not going to go in depth (because that would be unethical...I'm sure the interviews were conducted with a statement concerning confidentiality) but listening to the stories being told by this old couple of the trials and tribulations they had to face in life is heartbreaking but at the same time it makes me want to meet them. They're very much the salt of the earth, but they stress honesty, hard work, perseverance, and equality. I mean if they really live the way they talk it makes you want to be a better person. This isn't even my project and I guess I can see how people can become intimately involved in their interviews. Weird.

_________

That being said if you're ever doing transcription from digital recordings make sure to download the free Express Scribe software....

Liminal - that's the word I would use to describe travel. I always feel neither here nor there just kind of awash among a big surge of humanity as you push your way through the airport security and guide your self among the terminals to your gate. It's weird...I loose my sense of place in airports. Their impermanence and activity lends them a surreal element that doesn't really embody the character of the city which they are supposed to serve...

___________



That being said check out William Gibson's Blog and see the legendary writer work through parts of his writing online.

Far be it for me to laugh at anyone but...well I can't help myself. I think I'd be insulted if I was asian...check out the users comments...

I’ve been meaning to blog this for a while but I’ve been too lazy. Does anyone remember Ashley Highfield’s article on the future of television? He states that consumers are entering an era when they want to control their media consumption and that technologies such as DVR’s allow them to do this by fast forwarding, rewinding, recording, and skipping advertisements. He believes that the ability to download and manipulate video content will eventually undermine the existing format of television leading to the need for more live events that must been seen and interacted with (think American Idol).

So what has KFC done to combat this? They’ve produced a comercial that rewards the fewer for engaging it’s content. With the use of a DVR (or possible a really good VCR) you can playback the commercial at a slow speed to earn yourself a coupon for a Buffalo Snacker chicken sandwich. They’re rewarding the viewer to engage the advertisement in an effort to prevent them from skipping over it…"

This is from my Communication and Technology class's blog. The subject of this posting is an issue I brought up in class the other night. In this post I'm only the author of the second comment.


I Think » Why Choose a Lesser Medium?: "ncategorized at 1:50 pm by Cory W. Palm

In their interaction last night, Scott brought up an interesting point while talking to Dr. Walther, concerning instances where we choose to communicate with a lesser technology despite better options, all things being equal. I know I have done this on numerous occasions, in both professional settings and in personal settings, and I’m sure I’m not alone.

There are several reasons for my doing this with each situation being a bit different. If I am seeking to simply be heard without immediate feedback, an email is better than a phone call. Perhaps I wish to measure my words better, again done more effectively through text rather than telephone. This is particularly helpful if dealing with a situation where the rules of interaction may define what can and can’t be said (when speaking to a subordinate or to someone you don’t want to anger).

I definitely think this is an interesting are for further research, especially given the fact that I know it exists on a personal level. I’d be interested in other thoughts on the matter and perhaps expanding this topic a bit more.

Permalink
2 Comments »

1.

Sorin Adam Matei said,

March 2, 2006 at 7:20 pm

Strategic use of communication channels has been an intriguing research issue for a long time and media richness theory was invented to answer some of the challenges created by it. However, the theory is in need of some reworking, because its main tenet is that people will always use the most appropriate channel for the task. Defining “appropriate” can be, as we know, problematic. What is appropriate in one situation, might not be in another, so there is no linear association of specific choices and goals with specific media. How do we account for the human need to hide and manipulate their environments via mediated communication? This is an issue we are still pondering on.
2.
#

Scott Sanders said,

March 3, 2006 at 1:44 am

I’ve been doing some thinking about this issue and I think I’ve come up with a way to reconcile it with the theory of electronic propinquity. The sixth major proposition of propinquity reads:

The smaller the number of choices of channels, the more propinquity.

I started out with the assumption that people would want to use the technology to increase propinquity. What I’ve come realize is that it’s likely that they are using leaner channels to accomplish the opposite. Rather than use it to increase propinquity they may be doing it to distance themselves or to avoid interaction.

O’Sullivan (2000) found when conducting research for his mediated impression management model that individuals preferred to use leaner mediated channels when their preferred identities were being threatened. For example, if one conceives of oneself as a good person but you are going to tell your girl friend that you cheated on her you are more likely to use a mediated channel than if you have a positive self-disclosure. You seek to decrease propinquity and increase ambiguity as a way of managing face. In contrast, a positive self-disclosure, such as telling your girl friend you were promoted at work, would be more likely to be told in a richer medium or preferably face-to-face. This is because you would be available to receive the positive feedback associated with the disclosure.

In conclusion, I think that the sixth proposition may hold true, it’s simply a matter of what people are trying to accomplish with the medium. People choose the most “appropriate” medium for their purposes with less consideration given to their partner’s desire for information than to their own need to regulate face. Cell phones have the potential to increase propinquity by providing access to one another 24/7, but the I think that people sometimes may be using features such as SMS, caller ID, and voice mail to regulate their relationships in a way that decreases propinquity…kind of dystopian isn’t it?

I’d appreciate it if we could keep this thread going because I’d really like feedback from the class.

O’Sullivan, P. B. (2000). What you don’t know won’t hurt me: Impression management
functions of communication channels in relationships. Human Communication
Research, 26(3), 403-431.

A Matter of Tactics: Interpersonal vs. Social Identity Relationships in Virtual Teams

Many organizations now recognize the potential of internet based work teams which allow individuals from all over the world to communicate and send information cheaply. These “virtual teams” can be quickly created to meet shifting business needs. Such teams offer a means by which individuals with wide ranging technical and cultural expertise can work from geographically dispersed locations. Additionally, these teams may provide higher flexibility, responsiveness, and more economic advantages than collocated work teams (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1998). Individuals that participate in virtual work teams are likely to relate to one another either on an interpersonal or social level. Therefore, managers may wish to establish rules or guidelines to encourage team members to relate to one another in a particular manner based upon the situational factors that may lead one approach to be more effective.

One tactic managers could use to encourage team members to relate on an interpersonal level is to increase the level of propinquity among participants. Propinquity refers to proximity in both space and time and is a necessary condition to the development of interpersonal relationships (Korzenny, 1978). When placed in mediated contexts, functional propinquity refers to the use of various media to lessen feelings of psychological distance between individuals. One way that propinquity could be increased is to encourage team members to take full advantage of the bandwidth available to them. Team members should be encouraged to develop their own web pages with pictures of themselves as well as relevant work history and personal information. Not only does the information on these pages serve to individuate team members but the pictures serve to increase propinquity by widening the bandwidth. However, the use of pictures for promoting social relationships must be used with caution. Groups that have functioned together for long periods of time affinity for one another may suffer with the introduction of pictures because it violates previously held expectations regarding team members’ appearances. In contrast, short term or new groups are likely to benefit from the introduction of pictures as it reduces their uncertainty (Walther, Lecture).

Another major proposition of electronic propinquity theory states that “the more mutual directionality of the channel, the more propinquity” (Korzenny, 1978). People may perceive some channels as providing more feedback than others. Communication technologies should be carefully selected to ensure that they have the potential to provide active feedback. Instant messaging systems should be chosen which include features that allow team members to see whether other members are active, idle, or typing. Likewise, asynchronous message boards should include time and date stamps. Knowledge of how actively engaged other team members are in a discussion can function to increase propinquity. Research shows that lags in feedback contribute to negative attributions concerning their partners and make it difficult to handle problems among virtual teams (Cramton, 2001). Individuals should be encouraged to post, at a minimum, of two times a day or even more frequently depending upon the rate at which the work is progressing.

It should be noted, however, that the increasing the ability for teams to gage feedback may backfire if team members do not provide it. While higher bandwidth and more mutual directionality of the channel may contribute to the creation of interpersonal relationships, they are not sufficient conditions to guarantee its development. Any man who has sat next to an attractive woman in a bar knows that proximity is not enough to initiate a relationship; interaction is necessary. Interestingly, the first messages among online teams seem to set the tone for how individuals interact thereafter (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1998). Therefore, to foster interpersonal relations it may be important to start the team out by offering personalized introductions that focus on social characteristics of the team rather than the project at hand. Following these introductions, an icebreaker exercise, or even a short game that deemphasizes task behaviors while encouraging social interaction, should be conducted. Another factor that should be considered when attempting to foster interpersonal relationships online are the communication skills of individual team members. When choosing team members, selection should be based upon their general interpersonal communication skills as well as their ability to use the internet effectively.

The social identification model of deindividuation effects suggest tactics several that managers might take to encourage group members to relate on a social level. First, group members must be encouraged to maintain visual anonymity and discouraged from exchanging extraneous social information. Side theory holds that “different media might make personal and social attributes more or less visible, and thereby influence the relative importance of (inter)personal and (inter)group differences in users’ perceptions and in group processes more generally (Postmes & Bayes, 2005). Assigning neutral handles, such as “User 1,” to the team members may prove useful in eliminating the social cues with which names such as “Antonio” or “LaShara” are imbued. It is extremely important to include as little individuating information as necessary as “individuating information may result in a broader range of partner evaluations or stimulate attributions of dissimilarity and negative evaluations” (Walther & Parks, pg. 539, 2002).

Another tactic that may prove useful to managers attempting to create social relations among group members would be to foster competition with a relevant out group. Usually social demands to behave normatively are relatively weak until they are presented in the context of intergroup behavior (Postems & Baym, 2005). Intergroup comparisons bring about tacit social comparisons which serve to strengthen group cohesiveness and transform the group from a mass of differentiated individuals to a coalescence sharing a social identity (Postmes & Baym, 2005). This shared social identity will help to create group norms and a clear purpose as the group compares and contrasts itself to salient outgroups. These comparisons and intergroup competitions may also lead to the development of both in and out group stereotypes which may affect how individuals attribute certain behaviors by creating a positive group bias, thus effecting group processes.

Finally, managers should try to establish a common group history and future as well as trying to develop group norms regarding task behavior. A social identity is a shared conception of the defining features and boundaries of a group and can be broken down into the processes of self-categorization and social identification (Postmes & Baym, 2005). The introduction of a common group history may introduce a salient category that in context will lead to a social identity. As earlier noted, the first interactions among group members lead to the development of relatively stable group norms. Additionally, it is important to start off the group with an assignment that may not be conducive to the sharing of individuating information but will allow the group to develop trust through interaction.

Managers may want to encourage people to relate on an either social or interpersonal level based upon the tasks and context of the interactions. Managers may want to encourage team members to embrace a social identity for short term projects or one shot interactions. A singular social identity may be conducive to the development of swift trust in which members of a team import trust from other more familiar settings due to time constraints which prevent the development of more individuated trust. However, teams that work together for long periods of time or that are likely to interact in the future may be benefited by the use of an interpersonal strategy. In conclusion, overall context of the project would heavily influence which strategy I would recommend a manager embrace. However, if a project will extend long enough to allow interpersonal relationships to develop, I would recommend an interpersonal approach. The rules and suggestions associated with the development of interpersonal work teams seem less restrictive and may feel more natural to team members than those intended to encourage social relationships.

Works Cited

Cramton, C. D. (2001). The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organization Science, 12, 346-371.

Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organization Science, 10, 791-815.

Korzenny, F. (1978). A theory of electronic propinquity: Mediated communications in organizations. Communication Research, 5, 3-24.

Postmes, T., & Baym, N. (2005). Intergroup dimensions of the Internet. In J. Harwood & H. Giles (Eds.), Intergroup communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 213-238). New York: Peter Lang.

Walther, J.B. (Lecture)

Walther, J. B., & Parks, M. R. (2002). Cues filtered out, cues filtered in: Computer-mediated communication and relationships. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (3rd ed., pp. 529-563). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.