Technologies of Politics and Control - User contributions [en]

Digital Natives and Internet Culture

2010-04-06T16:32:12Z

Kaurigem: /* Class Introduction */

Particularly among digital natives (the community of individuals growing up with the web), the explosion of high bandwidth, persistent internet access has fostered the creation of a dynamic universe of active online communities. In turn, these communities have emerged with their own unique practices, cultural touchpoints, and body of content. Particularly in the last few years, they have grown larger -- and increasingly influence the media and cultural environment beyond the Internet. Our concepts about cultural production and community, particularly with regards to concepts of celebrity and subculture -- are actively being revised.

What is this cultural universe? How does it work? What implications does this culture have for the mainstream universe? Are there social ones? How about economic ones?

This class takes up these questions and discusses some evolving theories and approaches to understanding it.

== Required Readings / Video ==

'''Theory'''
*[http://borndigitalbook.com/excerpt.php John Palfrey and Urs Gasser, Born Digital], read the entire excerpt (three pages, click "next" at bottom of page)
*[http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks_Chapter_8.pdf Yochai Benkler, The Wealth of Networks], read pgs 285-297
*[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/interactive/events/2008/02/shirky Clay Shirky, "Here Comes Everybody" (talk at the Berkman Center - video)]

'''Practice (coupla short articles and videos)'''
*[http://henryjenkins.org/2008/04/anon.html Henry Jenkins Blog, "the following post is about anonymous"]
*[http://www.avclub.com/articles/christian-lander,14296/ AV Club, Interview with Christian Lander of "Stuff White People Like"]
*[http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/10-tay-zondaychocolate-rain Know Your Meme, "Chocolate Rain"]
*[http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/13-all-your-base-are-belong-to-us Know Your Meme, "All Your Base Are Belong To Us"]
*[http://news.cnet.com/Real-money-in-a-virtual-world/2030-1069_3-5905390.html CNET, "Real Money in a Virtual World"]

== Class Introduction ==

As a teacher who has been working with digital natives since they were 12 years old, I do not feel that "digital natives" know more about computers than those of us born before 1980. A better name for this cohort might be "networked natives." It isn't the computer stuff that comes naturally, it's the network and our own ability to contribute to it. Kids today sit as blankly as any elder technophobe in front of a new piece of software. Instead, it is the concept that they can connect to anyone they want, whenever they want and produce whatever they want to share and make those connections that they take for granted. Clay Shirky, in his talk at the Berkman Center, said "The moment the technology becomes boring the social effects get interesting."

The remaining readings and video for this week illustrate the power of the prosumer (producer/consumer) and his/her ability to affect the world. The Chocolate Rain and All Your Base Are Belong to Us memes demonstrate the unpredictability of these effects. As Christian Lander says in his interview about the people he met at ROFLcon "Everyone at that conference who made it, none of them thought anything was going to happen from what they were doing. They were all like, 'I did it because it was fun for me.'" It was fun and easy to do. Anyone can make a video. Everyone has the potential to become Internet famous. Digital natives take that for granted. We are all just one blog post, one video, one song away from fame and fortune. If any "asshole with a blog," according to Lander, can make it big, then so can I. Maybe we are all just digital assholes...

The power of the network, however, is not limited to the silly and strange. The network also demonstrates the power to make political and social change. Shirky describes several examples of "collective action" where group forming on the Internet led to new laws about how long airlines can keep passengers on the runway, and to regime change in dictatorships. More recently, we have also seen these forces at work in the Iran Election. The Scientology vs. Anonymous post shows the power of a group of otherwise powerless individuals to attack a large wealthy organization. Shirky points out that these tools are used differently when deployed in high vs low freedom environments. In the US we have Chocolate Rain, in Belarus they have Chocolate Ice cream.

The network can also create virtual wealth, as demonstrated in the article "Real Money in a Virtual World." Players in Online world are buying and selling property and powers to take them to the next level. Hunter, an online player, believes "virtual economies will grow to the point where they will become a vital sector of the U.S. economy." It seems social tools are also used differently in capitalist vs communist societies.

Finally, Benkler points out "...the emergence of widely accessible, self-conscious conversation about the meaning of contemporary culture by those who inhabit it." (p 295) Not only are we organizing collectively, but we are also analyzing and commenting on our collective experiences. When we search for Barbie, we don't only discover the Mattel doll, but also commentary on the doll's affect on society. The "Know Your Meme" videos examine the meme itself, its history and try to discern what it is that made these memes go viral. As we go from being consumers of media, to producers of media (prosumers), we also become meta-sumers (I just made this word up) of our Online experiences.

Here are a few more resources on Digital Natives:

[http://www.danah.org/papers/talks/PennState2009.html "Living and Learning with Social Media" a talk by Danah Boyd at Penn State on April 18, 2009]

[http://pewsocialtrends.org/assets/pdf/millennials-confident-connected-open-to-change.pdf Pew Report on Millennials: A Portrait of Generation Next]

[http://pewresearch.org/millennials/quiz/ Take this Quiz: How Millenial Are You?]

--[[User:Lizbdavis|Lizbdavis]] 12:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

As someone who is both a Millennial and a manager of other people from my generation, I have had the unique experience of not only deciphering how my own Digital Native habits and practices play into today’s workforce, but I also have the responsibility to set the standard by which my supervisees will operate. Having walked this line, and observed my co-workers in action, one thing is clear: The current crop of young people will be defined historically by the advent of the Internet.

Due to their ubiquitous connectedness to friends and family through technology, they live in a world of instant gratification. A world where unlike their grandparents—who took pride in working for the same company for decades until retiring honorably—they have no reservations about leaving a job they don’t like, in an effort to find a position that meshes with their creative side and embraces them as an individual. They can multitask like no generation before them, and absorb information through new media at a pace that leaves their parents (and most of the rest of society) in the dust. <b>Fast, creative, and unrestricted by traditional norms—indeed, they are the Internet personified.</b>

Already, there are entire Human Resources training programs and national conferences dedicated exclusively to learning about the work habits and traits of this generation of digital natives. Companies like Google are actively recruiting Millennials to their staff, offering perks that no Baby Boomer would have ever expected, including in-office swimming pools, professional massages, three free gourmet meals a day, and wifi-enabled shuttle buses to and from work.

Like certain aspects of the Internet, they are subject to ridicule from people of an older generation, who consider them to be confusing, frustrating, or worse, a waste of time. Increasingly though, public opinion is shifting. As the CNET reading indicated, whether through companies making actual dollar-and-cent profits off of selling virtual goods on World of Warcraft and Second Life, or by students using MySpace to organize statewide school walkouts in protest of federal immigration legislation, what was once seen as a giant time-suck has morphed into a source of admirable revenue, and a breeding ground for new ideas and social movements.

It has also become clear that the laws the Internet does not inherently respect, young people raised on the Internet do not respect either. Even as far back as 2003, surveys conducted by CBS News showed that almost 70% of 18 – 29 year olds thought file-sharing was acceptable, at least in some circumstances, which runs in stark contrast to copyright laws and the music industry stance on the practice. Indeed, the law and corporate standards are both set by people outside of this demographic (at least at present), so it’s not surprising that it would lag behind public opinion on these matters.

We can’t help but wonder though, whether these idealistic young people will adapt and become more traditional with time, or whether their opinions—unreasonable as they may seem today—are the future. When this generation is running the show, will file-sharing still be seen as theft, or is it the new mix-tape? Does technology’s allowance of armchair activism—such as appropriating “Hussein” as one’s middle name on Facebook, or joining an “I’m With CoCo” group to support your favorite late-night host—make traditional modes of expression, like protests and public rallies, less necessary? If the borderless universe of the Internet is helping to shape the society we live in, which realm is the “real world”?

Additional sources:

[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5309238 "Text Message, MySpace Roots of Student Protests", NPR]

[http://www.time.com/time/photoessays/2006/inside_google/ "Life in the Googleplex", TIME Magazine]

[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/18/opinion/polls/main573990.shtml "Poll: Young Say File Sharing OK", CBS News]

--[[User:RyanHuling|RyanHuling]] 13:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

'''Digital Natives, Social Behavior, and the Internet Paradox'''

Because I was born after 1980, according to Palfrey and Gasser, I am technically a digital native. Yet I believe that my cohort--which I will generally characterize as those born between 1980-1990--enjoys a unique position with regard to the Internet. Although we have grown up alongside the diffusion of certain technologies, we can remember the time before this diffusion. I note this distinction in response to the following excerpt of ''Born Digital'': "Major aspects of their lives—social interactions, friendships, civic activities—are mediated by digital technologies. '''And they’ve never known any other way of life'''. [emphasis added]" What will the long-term social implications be for those who know no other way of life?

Although our class has focused primarily on regulatory, legal, and economic issues related to the Internet, I am curious what other students think about how the Internet might influence social norms and culture for digital natives. How will digital natives’ levels of social capital compare to those of previous generations? Is Internet use leading to greater social isolation or social integration?

I'd like to bring in some outside readings that stray a bit from the foci of memes and cultural production on the Internet. I'm curious how online culture and behavior is affecting our offline culture and behavior, or if these two distinct realms even exist anymore.

One particular [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EA-v1GWu_oM advertisement] for a portable TV player, in which a young child tells his father he is going to the bathroom and then proceeds to settle down and watch TV. Is the instant gratification, as Ryan described above, characteristic of our Internet-centric culture producing antisocial tendencies?

The question of whether social technologies promote antisocial behavior is addressed in the article 1998 article, “Internet paradox. A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being?” The authors initially found that, in their sample, greater use of the Internet was associated with “declines in participants’ communication with family members in the household, declines in the size of their social circle, and increases in their depression and loneliness” (1998).

Four years later, the authors addressed their original findings and discussed follow-up results from their longitudinal studies in their article “Internet Paradox Revisited.” Besides suggesting that the initially reported negative implications lessened over time, the authors articulated a critical finding: “Using the Internet generally predicted better outcomes for extraverts or those with more social support but worse outcomes for introverts or those with less support” (2002). In contrast to the idea that Internet use may have negative implications for users’ social capital, Bargh and McKenna have argued that “despite past media headlines to the contrary, the Internet does not make its users depressed or lonely, and it does not seem to be a threat to community life-quite the opposite, in fact” (2004: 586).

I'm eager to learn about others' opinions about how social technologies are influencing traditional social norms and creating new ones.

References

Bargh, John and Katelyn McKenna. 2004. “The Internet and Social Life.” Annual Review of Psychology 55: 573-590.

Kraut, Robert, Michael Patterson, Vicki Lundmark, Sara Kiesler, Tridas Mukopadhyay and William Scherlis. 1998. “Internet Paradox. A Social Technology That Reduces Social Involvement and Psychological Well-Being?” American Psychologist 53(9): 1017-1031.

Kraut, Robert, Sara Kiesler, Bonka Boneva, Jonathon Cummings, Vicki Helgeson and Anne Crawford. 2002. “Internet Paradox Revisted.” Journal of Social Issues 58(1): 49-74.

[http://www.newyorker.com/talk/2007/09/17/070917ta_talk_schulman Schulman, Michael. "Social Studies." ''The New Yorker'' September 17, 2007]

([[User:Kaurigem|Kaurigem]] 16:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC))

== Class Discussion ==
''''Drop any questions or comments or things you'd like to focus on here!''''

[http://www.youtube.com/user/MuppetsStudio#p/u/16/zSDj7bjAv2s A few muppets briefly muse about Internet culture]

Digital Natives and Internet Culture

2010-04-02T20:23:47Z

Kaurigem: /* Class Discussion */

Digital Natives and Internet Culture

2010-04-01T21:31:54Z

Kaurigem: /* Class Introduction */

Internet Infrastructure and Regulation

2010-03-21T23:57:45Z

Kaurigem: /* Links from Class */

In this class, we will cover the politics, policy, economics and technology of deploying broadband infrastructure. We will look at the hot-off-the-presses US National Broadband Plan and the recent Berkman Center review of international experiences in broadband policy. Additionally, we will look at the substance and politics of the net neutrality debate.

==Readings==

* [http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296353A1.pdf National Broadband Plan Commission Meeting:
National Purposes Update, February 18th 2010]

* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Berkman_Center_Broadband_Final_Report-C1_15Feb2010.pdf Next Generation Connectivity:
A review of broadband Internet transitions and policy from around the world, Berkman Center]

== Additional Resources==

[http://www.fcc.gov The Federal Communications Commission]

[http://www.broadband.gov National Broadband Plan]

[http://www.openinternet.gov OpenInternet.gov]

[http://www.ietf.org The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)]

[http://www.icann.org The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers]

[http://www.fcc.gov/Reports/tcom1996.txt The Telecommunications Act of 1996]

[http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/230.html § 230. Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material]

[http://www.cybertelecom.org/cda/cda.htm The Communications Decency Act]

[http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/default.htm?job=auctions_home FCC - Wireless Spectrum Auctions]

== Class Discussion ==

== The Internet Industrial Revolution ==

In writing this class introduction, I stopped to give pause to the question of how many people understand how much today’s internet can be tied to the development of the railroads in the 1800’s and the government's attempt at regulating the wild and chaotic growth of our nations infrastructure.

The internet has become ingrained in our daily lives as much as television, radio, and a myriad of other electronically driven entertainment mediums. However, as much as we enjoy playing our online games, chatting with friends, sending emails, purchasing trinkets to real-estate, trading stocks, finding employment and collaborating with co-workers, we often don’t realize that all of this would not be possible without the infrastructure needed to interconnect the various networks around the world in a consistent and open fashion. Without regulation and standards, the internet would not be possible. But how much do we as consumers of the internet understand how it is regulated?

The internet is very much a wild-frontier resembling the land-grab era of the 1800’s. In this day and age mega corporations including Oracle, Intel, Microsoft and Google rival monopolistic predecessors of the 1800’s like Carnegie Steel and Standard Oil. As was the case in the 1800’s, the railroads held the key to building out the infrastructure of our nation through their ownership of the national right of ways allowing them to become the natural beneficiaries of a nationwide infrastructure build-out. Even today we see vestiges of this in companies such as Sprint - whose name stands for Southern Pacific Railway Intelligent Network of Telecommunications.

Today all communications infrastructure within the United States is regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) which has been in existence since 1934 when it took over the regulation of communications infrastructure from the now defunct Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC); the governing body which was established to regulate the railroads in order to provide equal access to all Americans who wished to use them. These same goals are present today when we hear the words of Julius Genachowski – the current chairman of the FCC – as he talks about the commission’s mission of maintaining a free and open internet as they prepare to submit their proposal of a National Broadband Plan to Congress; which will have occurred just a few days prior to this class.

So how does an organization such as the FCC, funded by the telecommunications surcharges we see on our phone and cable bills, plan to balance the need to extend broadband accessibility to the millions of US residents who still do not have internet access? And how do they do so while upholding their self stated mission of maintaining a free and open internet? Is this an honest attempt at maintaining a “laissez-faire” approach to central regulation allowing the invisible hand of commerce to guide the growth and expansion of the infrastructure? Or will it turn into a “de jure monopoly” ; the government granting exclusive access to those who pay the most, just as they do now awarding spectrum to the wireless carriers at auctions? After all, wasn’t it this same organization that – after the breakup of AT&T – instituted the regulations allowing Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs) access to the infrastructure then owned by the Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs) which to this day many consider to have been one of their worst mistakes granting favoritism to few and placing an inordinate burden on others?

Can a Federal Regulatory body enforce "free and open", when they themselves rely on the surcharges and sale of bandwidth to fund their organization while also having a history of censoring the content American's are able to consume on television and radio? Are they merely a wolf in sheep’s clothing lulling the consumers of the internet into a false sense of security? These questions are at the center of a tumultuous debate within the industry today. Many grass roots and politically funded organizations have emerged to argue these issues; fighting for our rights as internet users to have access to a truly free and neutral internet.

Does current and proposed regulations governing the internet truly allow for free markets, open dialog and the unfettered growth of an online society, or are they the groundwork toward building a net that dips into our pockets, restricts our voices through censorship, and controls the content we both share and consume? Do organizations such as ICANN and the IETF promote fair and unobstructed participation or are they merely elitist groups that favor a select and desirable crowd that they themselves deem worthy. --[[User:Lunatixcoder|Lunatixcoder]] - David Jodoin 15:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

== The Last Mile ==

The Last Mile is the term that is commonly used to refer to the cabling/wiring necessary to connect a household or subscriber to the physical infrastructure of the network. Whether it be the last mile of copper for your phones and modems, or the last mile of COAX cable connecting you to your broadband provider each person needs a digital "on-ramp" for connectivity. Many times we associate that last mile to be the same infrastructure that delivers our television signals into our home. Often we think of Cable TV as having its birth in the 1980s and 90s, but in fact the first community access cable television networks were developed in 1948 in Pennsylvania, Arkansas and Oregon in order to provide broadcast television to remote viewers that were unable to receive adequate signals from broadcast radio towers. [http://www.ncta.com/About/About/HistoryofCableTelevision.aspx The History of Cable Television] The interesting note about this was that cable television networks continued to grow at a rapid pace until 1972 when the FCC expanded its regulations limiting Cable television companies to transmit local signals only in an attempt to protect local broadcasters from having to compete against the wider variety of programming cable companies could deliver.

This was not however the FCC's only attempt at control. When the ban on broadcasting distant signals was not enough, the FCC attempted further regulation by limiting the content which Cable companies could offer to that of Sports, Movies and Syndicated Content. Yet the regulation limiting the Cable companies programming was not in fact a deterrent. Consumers wanted this premium programming and were willing to pay for it. As such, the proliferation of Cable networks continued as companies sprang up to offer this premium content.

The FCC eventually realized that what they had created was a pseudo monopoly in that in order for a Cable operator to build out infrastructure in what they refer to as "local markets" they had to enter into a contract with the local community which in effect allowed them to be the only provider within that market making the Cable operator the exclusive distributor of premium content to the communities they served. This is why, even in today's market, if your town is a Comcast town, you can only get Comcast. The reason this occurred was that towns had to provide rights of way across the infrastructure (telephone poles and underground conduits) for the cable operators to run their cables. As such, a community wanted to ensure that if they allowed a Cable operator to build infrastructure that they had to do so to enough of the community to satisfy the public demand. Due to population density concerns, this led to heated negotiations as Cable companies did not want to have to run infrastructure to support remote neighborhoods where they felt the business they would get would not be enough to support the infrastructure build-out. This was further aggravated by the FCC's regulation on Cable pricing in an attempt to make the content more accessible to the public at large.

In response to this growing concern for monopolistic broadcasting, the FCC removed the restrictions that were present on who could broadcast particular content in order to introduce competition into the market by companies offering alternative broadcast mechanisms such as satellite and wireless technologies. --[[User:Lunatixcoder|Lunatixcoder]] - David Jodoin - 13:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

== Fighting for the Grid ==

The landmark legislation represented by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 opened the field to new competition by many players (see link below for full text of the act). While up until that time, what types of services could be offered were limited based on the transmission medium, the Act in effect allowed any transmission network to broadcast any content. The effects of this were that telecommunication companies now had the option of offering programming and that Cable Broadcasting companies could also offer phone services. As such the industries of broadcast video content, internet communications and telephone services now became a converged network of services allowing consumers a myriad of choices.

Over the last decade and a half, we have seen advancements in core cellular technologies with the introduction of 2g, 3g and now 4g networks. WiMAX and Femtocell technology offers bandwidth expansion in local loop networking that can allow wireless to effectively compete with physical infrastructure. Yet growth and adoption of WiMAX is still restricted based on the fact that it requires a provider to purchase wireless spectrum at auction.

Compared to developing countries from around the world, the US by far lags in the introduction of new technologies. For instance, in South Africa - due to the deregulation of the industry in 2005 - Africa has seen a huge explosion in unlicensed wireless broadband providers. Is this a sign that the FCC who regulates and legislates the wireless spectrum in the United States is in fact holding us back technologically? --[[User:Lunatixcoder|Lunatixcoder]] - David Jodoin - 13:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

== The Wolf in Sheep's Clothing ==

The FCC throughout its history has attempted to regulate and control markets based on the political pressures of various lobbying agencies fighting to protect their individual markets. This legacy of government control over the infrastructure of the United States stretches back to 1934 when the organization was first established. The organizations fighting for bandwidth, spectrum and control extends beyond just the providers of infrastructure themselves. ICANN itself spent $480,000 to lobbyists in an attempt to influence government legislation and regulatory bodies. Neustar, a DNS registry service spent $140,000. According to the Huffington Post, John McCain received $765,000 in campaign funding from telecommunications lobbyists alone during his 2008 presidential bid [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/24/mccains-ties-to-lobbyists_n_93037.html McCains Ties to Lobbyists]. And if you visit the site OpenSecrets.org lobbyist spending was in excess of $118mm in 2009 in the Computer/Internet category alone. [http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?lname=B12&year=2009 OpenSecrets.org - Computers/Internet Spending 2009]

So we as a community speak of Net Neutrality; fighting to keep our internet free and open. Yet the underlying infrastructure is controlled and regulated by a governing few. Even the organizations we have entrusted to manage the chaos of the internet in the form of registry services, name-space controls, and uniform standards all fight to prevent competing influences from diminishing the power they hold over how things are built and operated. With the excessive amounts of money being spent by these large entities are we in fact being represented properly? Or are those funds being used to preserve their self proclaimed ombudsman-ship? Will the FCC keep the internet free and open? Or are they merely lulling us into a sense of security such that they can then let the other shoe drop a few years from now when they decide what we do and say on the medium that today they are unable to control just as they do in managing what we see and hear on television and radio? [http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/obscene.html FCC Rules and Rights on the Enforcement of Censorship Laws on TV and Radio] Can the internet within our country truly prosper when you try to centrally regulate a decentralized commodity? After all... if they are successful in their Broadband plan and achieve 100% access to the internet by every American it would then mean we must then protect those same Americans from the raw and unfiltered content that is there today... Or does it? According to the FCC they not only have the authority to do so, they stand ready and waiting. [http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/obscene.html Written Statement Of Diego Ruiz Deputy Chief, Office of Strategic Planning and Policy Analysis]

Maybe this video on the Net Neutrality debate will shed some light...

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juw5Ew_fKgs Net Neutrality for Dummies: Will the FCC Control the Internet?]

So as you can see... Net Neutrality is ''not'' about whether or not content ''should'' be restricted, it is about ''who'' is allowed to restrict it. An interesting twist in the debate isn't it? --[[User:Lunatixcoder|Lunatixcoder]] - David Jodoin - 13:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

== Links from Class ==

I don't know if anyone saw Yochai Benkler's op-ed piece in today's New York Times, but I thought I'd post a link because it references both of our assigned readings for this week:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/opinion/21Benkler.html Ending the Internet's Trench Warfare]

([[User:Kaurigem|Kaurigem]] 23:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC))

Regulating Speech Online

2010-03-07T02:41:16Z

Kaurigem: /* Class Discussions */

The Internet has the potential to revolutionize public discourse. It is a profoundly democratizing force. Instead of large media companies and corporate advertisers controlling the channels of speech, anyone with an Internet connection can "become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox." Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 884, 896-97 (1997). Internet speakers can reach vast audiences of readers, viewers, researchers, and buyers that stretch across real space borders, or they can concentrate on niche audiences that share a common interest or geographical location. What's more, with the rise of web 2.0, speech on the Internet has truly become a conversation, with different voices and viewpoints mingling together to create a single "work."

With this great potential, however, comes new questions. What happens when anyone can publish to a national (and global) audience with virtually no oversight? How can a society protect its children from porn and its inboxes from spam? Does defamation law apply to online publishers in the same way it applied to newspapers and other traditional print publications? Is online anonymity part of a noble tradition in political discourse stretching back to the founding fathers or the electronic equivalent of graffiti on the bathroom wall? In this class, we will look at how law and social norms are struggling to adapt to this new electronic terrain.

== Readings ==

* [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/technology/companies/25google.html?ref=weekinreview Larger Threat is Seen in Google Case NYT]

* [http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/national-news/portfolio/2009/02/11/Two-Lawyers-Fight-Cyber-Bullying/index.html David Margolick, "Slimed Online," Portfolio.com, February 11, 2009, read all]

* [http://www.citmedialaw.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2007-11-08-AmendedComplaint.pdf Doe v. paulitwalnuts, et al., 3-07-CV-0909 CFD (D.Conn.), Complaint, filed 6/11/07, skim pp. 1-16 Warning: explicit and disturbing language]

* [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/03/a-friendly-exchange-about-the-future-of-online-liability.ars John Palfrey and Adam Thierer, "Dialogue: The Future of Online Obscenity and Social Networks," Ars Technica, March 5, 2009, read all]

== Additional Resources ==

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_v._American_Civil_Liberties_Union Wikipedia on Reno v. ACLU].
* [http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/07D0346P.pdf ACLU v. Gonzales], 478 F.Supp2d 775 (E.D.Pa. 2007), read pp. 1-7, 61-74, 82-83; skim pp. 74-81.
* [http://www.socialtext.net/codev2/index.cgi?free_speech Lawrence Lessig, Code 2.0, Chapter 12: Free Speech]
* [http://w2.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-defamation.php EFF Bloggers' FAQ: Online Defamation Law]

==Class Discussions ==
Comments on class readings by D. Jodoin:

Out of respect and deference to the victims we have read about this week, I will avoid using anyone's names. I can't help but think that due to the fact we are an internet published wiki that we are complicit - even if only to a minor extent - regardless of our intentions and motives. Jean Jacques Rousseau once wrote "Fame is but the breath of people, and that often unwholesome."

I state this because there are two questions I am forced to ponder due to this week's readings. By discussing events like this - in this forum - are we increasing the public awareness of the atrocities that occur as a result of the internet in hopes that we can work toward a positive change? Or are we inadvertently playing into the hands of the anonymous "trolls" and their desire to wreak havoc on the lives of others purely for their own amusement; contributing to their desire to see their hateful words spread in the public forum?

In class we have learned - through the progression of a series of study topics - that the internet provides a platform where people can create sites for an intended purpose. Yet often we find that users of those sites enjoy them for reasons the creators may not have envisioned. Sometimes users find new and better purposes for a site, other times the result is less desirable - the platforms being used to engage in socially unacceptable publication of content to unacceptable exhibitions of behavior to sometimes outright illegal acts. One could argue that this has always been the case in any forum. However, we have also seen how viral the internet can be in its ability to bring to national and sometimes international attention those topics, people, and events that once would have been left to obscurity.

Do we take lessons from Apple and Microsoft in their pulling the porn apps and filtering of certain lewd search terms respectively? Should we support their actions to serve as good citizens in their attempt to provide a product that they feel is in keeping with the social norms of the people they look to service? Or should we protect intermediaries like Google, who seems content in serving up whatever content they have access to index?

The public has a right to protect themselves from being exposed to inappropriate content. We also have the right to protect ourselves from public slander and libel. When you walk into a store and examine the magazine rack, you will quickly notice that magazines with adult content are wrapped with obscured plastic and kept on shelves with high wooden slats such that the content is not available to those who choose not to purchase it. What is wrong with that? Where is my plastic wrapper hiding the offensive material that exists on the net?

And as intermediaries of content on the internet - from which they piggy back their revenue generating advertisements - shouldn't they also have responsibility in the content they serve to the public? Shouldn't the intermediaries be just as responsible for the content they serve to the public as those that created it?

--[[User:Lunatixcoder|Lunatixcoder]] 13:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The example you cited of Apple pulling their apps with adult content is a tricky area and highlights the eroding division between the Internet and phones. I was personally happy that Apple decided to pull those apps. However, I can't really figure out to defend my support for the move. Perhaps because I considered my phone as distinct from the Internet, I did not want obscene content diffusing into the App Store. But smart phones are essentially computers now, so it is hard to justify regulating their content differently than the Internet. I am inclined to think that phones are much more public since users carry them around all the time. If someone wants to look at obscene content, traditionally he would be confined to the privacy of his home, but now with smart phones he could be browsing this content while sitting next to me on the train or in a coffee shop. Even this distinction is weak, because people use computers in public as well. I am curious how others might argue for or against Apple's move. ([[User:Kaurigem|Kaurigem]] 02:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC))

== Links from Class ==

Regulating Speech Online

2010-03-07T02:39:25Z

Kaurigem: /* Class Discussions */

The Internet has the potential to revolutionize public discourse. It is a profoundly democratizing force. Instead of large media companies and corporate advertisers controlling the channels of speech, anyone with an Internet connection can "become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox." Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 884, 896-97 (1997). Internet speakers can reach vast audiences of readers, viewers, researchers, and buyers that stretch across real space borders, or they can concentrate on niche audiences that share a common interest or geographical location. What's more, with the rise of web 2.0, speech on the Internet has truly become a conversation, with different voices and viewpoints mingling together to create a single "work."

With this great potential, however, comes new questions. What happens when anyone can publish to a national (and global) audience with virtually no oversight? How can a society protect its children from porn and its inboxes from spam? Does defamation law apply to online publishers in the same way it applied to newspapers and other traditional print publications? Is online anonymity part of a noble tradition in political discourse stretching back to the founding fathers or the electronic equivalent of graffiti on the bathroom wall? In this class, we will look at how law and social norms are struggling to adapt to this new electronic terrain.

== Readings ==

* [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/technology/companies/25google.html?ref=weekinreview Larger Threat is Seen in Google Case NYT]

* [http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/national-news/portfolio/2009/02/11/Two-Lawyers-Fight-Cyber-Bullying/index.html David Margolick, "Slimed Online," Portfolio.com, February 11, 2009, read all]

* [http://www.citmedialaw.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2007-11-08-AmendedComplaint.pdf Doe v. paulitwalnuts, et al., 3-07-CV-0909 CFD (D.Conn.), Complaint, filed 6/11/07, skim pp. 1-16 Warning: explicit and disturbing language]

* [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/03/a-friendly-exchange-about-the-future-of-online-liability.ars John Palfrey and Adam Thierer, "Dialogue: The Future of Online Obscenity and Social Networks," Ars Technica, March 5, 2009, read all]

== Additional Resources ==

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_v._American_Civil_Liberties_Union Wikipedia on Reno v. ACLU].
* [http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/07D0346P.pdf ACLU v. Gonzales], 478 F.Supp2d 775 (E.D.Pa. 2007), read pp. 1-7, 61-74, 82-83; skim pp. 74-81.
* [http://www.socialtext.net/codev2/index.cgi?free_speech Lawrence Lessig, Code 2.0, Chapter 12: Free Speech]
* [http://w2.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-defamation.php EFF Bloggers' FAQ: Online Defamation Law]

==Class Discussions ==
Comments on class readings by D. Jodoin:

Out of respect and deference to the victims we have read about this week, I will avoid using anyone's names. I can't help but think that due to the fact we are an internet published wiki that we are complicit - even if only to a minor extent - regardless of our intentions and motives. Jean Jacques Rousseau once wrote "Fame is but the breath of people, and that often unwholesome."

I state this because there are two questions I am forced to ponder due to this week's readings. By discussing events like this - in this forum - are we increasing the public awareness of the atrocities that occur as a result of the internet in hopes that we can work toward a positive change? Or are we inadvertently playing into the hands of the anonymous "trolls" and their desire to wreak havoc on the lives of others purely for their own amusement; contributing to their desire to see their hateful words spread in the public forum?

In class we have learned - through the progression of a series of study topics - that the internet provides a platform where people can create sites for an intended purpose. Yet often we find that users of those sites enjoy them for reasons the creators may not have envisioned. Sometimes users find new and better purposes for a site, other times the result is less desirable - the platforms being used to engage in socially unacceptable publication of content to unacceptable exhibitions of behavior to sometimes outright illegal acts. One could argue that this has always been the case in any forum. However, we have also seen how viral the internet can be in its ability to bring to national and sometimes international attention those topics, people, and events that once would have been left to obscurity.

Do we take lessons from Apple and Microsoft in their pulling the porn apps and filtering of certain lewd search terms respectively? Should we support their actions to serve as good citizens in their attempt to provide a product that they feel is in keeping with the social norms of the people they look to service? Or should we protect intermediaries like Google, who seems content in serving up whatever content they have access to index?

The public has a right to protect themselves from being exposed to inappropriate content. We also have the right to protect ourselves from public slander and libel. When you walk into a store and examine the magazine rack, you will quickly notice that magazines with adult content are wrapped with obscured plastic and kept on shelves with high wooden slats such that the content is not available to those who choose not to purchase it. What is wrong with that? Where is my plastic wrapper hiding the offensive material that exists on the net?

And as intermediaries of content on the internet - from which they piggy back their revenue generating advertisements - shouldn't they also have responsibility in the content they serve to the public? Shouldn't the intermediaries be just as responsible for the content they serve to the public as those that created it?

--[[User:Lunatixcoder|Lunatixcoder]] 13:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The example you cited of Apple pulling their apps with adult content is a tricky area and highlights the eroding division between the Internet and phones. I was personally happy that Apple decided to pull those apps. However, I can't really figure out to defend my support for the move. Perhaps because I considered my phone as distinct from the Internet, I did not want obscene content diffusing into the App Store. But smart phones are essentially computers now, so it is hard to justify regulating their content differently than the Internet. I am inclined to think that phones are much more public since users carry them around all the time. If someone wants to look at obscene content, traditionally he would be confined to the privacy of his home, but now with smart phones he could be browsing this content while sitting next to me on the train or in a coffee shop. Even this distinction is weak, because people use computers in public as well. I am curious how others defend or support Apple's move. ([[User:Kaurigem|Kaurigem]] 02:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC))

== Links from Class ==

Talk:Regulating Speech Online

2010-03-06T23:53:40Z

Kaurigem:

Regulating freedom of speech on the Internet is no doubt a difficult task. While I certainly believe in the constitutional right to freedom of expression, I think it is clear, based on the case of the Yale law students, that this right should be limited in certain circumstances. Thierer notes that the sites might take a hands-off approach to regulating content and may, “encourage a vibrant exchange of views and expression”. He further notes that altering CDA 230 might have a chilling effect on a great deal of “legitimate online speech.” I think Palfrey is right when he notes there is a trade-off involved; we might have to sacrifice some freedom of expression to ensure greater safety. I am no legislator, but it seems that productive, innovative, and “legitimate” online speech could be distinguished from destructive, vulgar, and libelous content in a way that would not negatively hinder freedom of expression. Furthermore, I think the individual users should be held responsible, rather than the service providers. ([[User:Kaurigem|Kaurigem]] 23:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC))

=Regulating Speech Online Continued Discussion=

Talk:Regulating Speech Online

2010-03-06T23:51:07Z

Kaurigem:

=Regulating Speech Online Continued Discussion=

Regulating freedom of speech on the Internet is no doubt a difficult task. While I certainly believe in the constitutional right to freedom of expression, I think it is clear, based on the case of the Yale law students, that this right should be limited in certain circumstances. Thierer notes that the sites might take a hands-off approach to regulating content and may, “encourage a vibrant exchange of views and expression”. He further notes that altering CDA 230 might have a chilling effect on a great deal of “legitimate online speech.” I think Palfrey is right when he notes there is a trade-off involved; we might have to sacrifice some freedom of expression to ensure greater safety. I am no legislator, but it seems that productive, innovative, and “legitimate” online speech could be distinguished from destructive, vulgar, and libelous content in a way that would not negatively hinder freedom of expression. ([[User:Kaurigem|Kaurigem]] 23:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC))

New and Old Media, Participation, and Information

2010-03-02T14:52:50Z

Kaurigem: /* Class Discussion */

The profusion of low-cost media production and distribution has led to the rise of an alternative citizen-led media sector. Is this a passing fad of enthusiastic amateurs or the beginning of a fundamental restructuring of the way media and news are produced and consumed? Will the current trends lead to more information, better information, and better informed people or to an infinite stream of unreliable chatter? Will it lead to a more politically engaged populace or to an increasingly polarized society that picks its sources of information to match its biases and ignorance?

ASSIGNMENT: Please read the executive summary of the Media Re:public Overview and one additional Media Re:public paper, and the executive summary, conclusions and recommendations of the Knight report. Use those as a jumping off point to explore either of those sets of resources in greater depth. You should delve more deeply into at least a few of the major challenges and possible solutions related to business models, the participation gap, and the changing media ecosystem (which are all broad topics, and can be considered from many perspectives).

==Readings==
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Overview_MR.pdf Media Re:public Overview] - Read at least the executive summary
* [https://secure.nmmstream.net/anon.newmediamill/aspen/kcfinalenglishbookweb.pdf Knight Commission Report on Information Needs of Communities in a Democracy] - Read at least the executive summary, recommendations and conclusions
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/pubrelease/mediarepublic/downloads.html Media Re:Public website]
* [http://report.knightcomm.org/communal-and-personal-needs-intersect Knight Commission report website]

== Additional Resources==

* [http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mediaberkman/2006/11/14/jay-rosen-on-open-source-journalism-2/ Jay Rosen, Open Source Journalism (video)]
* [http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/wemedia/book/index.csp We The Media, Dan Gillmor] (the [http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/wemedia/book/ch00.pdf Introduction] is a good start, so to speak)
* [http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2005/01/21/berk_essy.html Jay Rosen, Bloggers vs. Journalists Is Over]
* [http://www.buzzmachine.com/ Jeff Jarvis]
* [http://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_how_cellphones_twitter_facebook_can_make_history.html Shirky on Social Media]

== Class Discussion ==

To read about "Disruptive Innovation", check out one of the best explanations (not in the video, but on the page) about it: http://www.claytonchristensen.com/disruptive_innovation.html

Comments on reading by D. Jodoin:

I have to say that this week has been some interesting reading. However, many of the conclusions and recommendations are built on a foundation of sand. In the Media RE: Public "Overview 2008" paper, the telling component for me was the statement made that...

"Rather than seeking to recreate some mythical point in the
past at which news media functioned perfectly, we instead
aim to identify areas where core journalism functions in a
democracy are at stake and where there is potential for the
networked digital media environment to offer something richer
and more representative than anything previously available."

This statement - eloquently stated and true to its very essence - buries the fundamental value of what New Media truly represents in shaping our democracy; imperfect views of imperfect humans interacting in a social contract where the voices of the many outweigh the voices of the few. Winston Churchill once said, "History is written by the victors ... There are a terrible lot of lies going about the world, and the worst of it is that half of them are true.” Is this the "mythical point in the past" where news media functioned in perfection as the quote above states? In our readings for this week there were significant comments made regarding how equal access to the internet combined with educating the masses on how to understand and use it would create an environment where there would be no second class citizens in a new democracy. In reading that, I felt that it smacked of the sophic voice of Plato - describing a Utopian society where every voice is heard with equal weight. The internet - and new media - is not a classless society, it is not meant to be perfect; the ideas being shared enforced to some theoretical mandate of high quality and rigorous standards. The ideas expressed by the individual should be as reflective of their individual values as possible with it's influence on others being dependent on the strength through presence or weakness through absence of supporting voices by the audience at large.

I also had a thought in regards to solving the issue of accessibility. We sometimes think that proliferation of technology is restricted by the economic costs of building out that infrastructure. Yet many nontraditional means of doing so exist that the private sector is already looking at - providing the FCC and our government clear the path to allow it to occur. I will try to explain with a real example.

First watch this video of Walmart's time series of store locations... [http://projects.flowingdata.com/walmart/ Watching the Growth of Walmart Across America]

Interesting isn't it... However, you may ask... so what? What does this have to do with the internet and build-out of infrastructure?

Read this next...

http://www.androidguys.com/2010/01/12/rumor-sprint-working-with-walmart-on-wimax-build-out/

Interesting isn't it? Perhaps with some government support and funding, a joint collaboration between the FCC, Sprint/Nextel and Walmart, three very diverse groups could easily solve the issue of accessibility by the masses. Sprint with the technology of WiMAX, the FCC with the keys to the spectrum, and Walmart with the existing proliferation and ability to sell cheaply to the masses. Non-traditional partnerships are the key to our future.

--[[User:Lunatixcoder|Lunatixcoder]] 13:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to respond to the following excerpt of the above comment:

Winston Churchill once said, "History is written by the victors ... There are a terrible lot of lies going about the world, and the worst of it is that half of them are true.” Is this the "mythical point in the past" where news media functioned in perfection as the quote above states?

I don't think the authors were suggesting that there was a point in the past where the news media functioned in perfection. The description of this point as "mythical" indicates that this idea is, in fact, a myth.

Furthermore, I think that the authors' quote you cited does not bury "the fundamental value of what New Media truly represents". The idea that new media may include more voices than previously is clearly evidenced when they write, "there is potential for the networked digital media environment to offer something richer and '''more representative''' than anything previously available." [emphasis added]

([[User:Kaurigem|Kaurigem]] 14:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC))

== Links from Class ==
[[User:Amarquis|Amarquis]] 16:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC) I found this an interesting meta editorial on the topic of New and Old Media, Participation, and Information. In this case it's how media obsession with new technology alone is making customers more powerful. [http://techcrunch.com/2010/02/28/cherchez-la-fame "NSFW: Cherchez la fame – or why the media’s obsession with Twitter campaigns will make customer service smell French"]. As the title indicates, it has a touch of salty language so it may be [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_safe_for_work NSFW] -- Not Safe For Work.

Talk:Main Page

2010-02-25T01:54:46Z

Kaurigem: Removing all content from page

Talk:Main Page

2010-02-24T19:13:38Z

Kaurigem:

[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8533695.stm Google bosses convicted in Italy]

This article is very relevant to the themes we've discussed in the course: Internet governance, criminal liability, and responsibility. Any thoughts?

([[User:Kaurigem|Kaurigem]] 19:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC))

Talk:Main Page

2010-02-24T19:12:07Z

Kaurigem:

[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8533695.stm Google bosses convicted in Italy]

This article is very relevant to the themes we've discussed in the course: Internet governance, criminal liability, and responsibility. I thought it might be interesting to discuss on this forum!

([[User:Kaurigem|Kaurigem]] 19:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC))

Talk:Main Page

2010-02-24T19:11:01Z

Kaurigem:

Google bosses convicted in Italy:

[//news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8533695.stm]

This article is very relevant to the themes we've discussed in the course: Internet governance, criminal liability, and responsibility. I thought it might be interesting to discuss on this forum!

([[User:Kaurigem|Kaurigem]] 19:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC))

Talk:Main Page

2010-02-24T19:10:30Z

Kaurigem:

Google bosses convicted in Italy:

[://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8533695.stm]

This article is very relevant to the themes we've discussed in the course: Internet governance, criminal liability, and responsibility. I thought it might be interesting to discuss on this forum!

([[User:Kaurigem|Kaurigem]] 19:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC))

Assignment 2 Submissions

2010-02-23T15:57:55Z

Kaurigem:

Indira Lindsay Roberts Prospectus Title: "eBay.com: International Internet Shopping Wars"

Paul Amante Prospectus Title: "eBay.com: A Self Policing Community and Conflict Resolution"

Liz Davis Prospectus Title: "Examining Classroom 2.0: an Online Social Network for Educators"

Rohit Chopra|Prospectus Title|Social Hospital: The Possibility of Expanding Live Web-Based Video Streaming into Hosptial Setting.

Heather Hagni Prospectus Title: "Case Study: Pepsi’s Unique Internet-Based Marketing Approach"

Scott McCutcheon Prospectus Title: "Transforming individual knowing into an institutional knowledge base of shared experiences: leveraging the affordances of a closed Facebook group to develop a community of collaborative learning and decision-making."

Mike Barker Prospectus Title: "Social Engagement: The Santa Cruz City Budget"

Erin Golden Prospectus Title: "LiveJournal.com Communities: Promotion and Suppression of Open Literary Discussion"

Kate Aurigemma, Prospectus Title: "The Online Communities of Militant Islamists and Anti-Jihad Resistance: Polarizing Forces or Ideological Cocoons?"

Assignment 1 Submissions

2010-02-09T18:49:31Z

Kaurigem:

* Name: Paul Amant

The Wikipedia article I chose to use for this assignment is One Laptop Per Child
(OLPC) . (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLPC) My wikipedia username is Paul in NH. In
keeping with you preference for brevity, I have only included relevant detail in my
submission.

When reviewing and contributing to the OLPC article the rule I chose to keep in mind
was a “Neutral Point of View”. The topic I chose to review is called One Laptop Per
Child (OLPC). The focus of OLPC is developing nations where education leaves a
great deal to be desired. I found the information already posted to be helpful, well
written and unbiased. The links were very useful. One of the links led me to a You
Tube page where Nicholas Negroponte was filmed giving a speech. This video
changed my ideas about OLPC. This exercise is my first exposure to Wikipedia as
both a contributor and a consumer.

My contribution to this article is based on the premise that OLPC should not be
limited to developing nations but should include all nations. Not only should the
United States be part of the OLPC, but it should be made a priority. The idea the
charity should begin at home is noble but does not necessarily represent a NPOV
nor does the idea that the US should be a priority and were therefore not part of my
contribution. It was much more difficult than I anticipated to stay neutral.

As I researched more about the OLPC initiative I came across two articles that point
out OLPC will now support the US. Some believe the economic downturn forced this
change but Negroponte, cited other factors. Basically he suggested that it was
patriotic, would help further his mission in developing countries by creating a critical
mass, and it would allow all over the world to share ideas and communicate. He also
talked about how US sales would help underwrite costs in developing countries. I
added a section with this information to the article and I also added a cite to the
reference web page.

A Neutral Point of View (NPOV) is essential to the success of Wikipedia. If you allow
bias’s to be posted, cited, and commented on in Wikipedia, it would no longer be an
on line encyclopedia. It would simply become a huge chat room. Traditional printed
encyclopedias have a NPOV. Personally, I believe the OLPC’s actions were
financially and politically motivated, but would not be a Neutral Point of View and
couldn’t be part of the wiki.

To date, no one has commented or added to the section I created. I reviewed
several disputes centering around NPOV. One in particular caught my attention. It
is related to Anti-Communism. The basic objection seems to be there were not
enough citations or sources. It is clear from the Talk Page that contributors have
strong feelings about this subject. Most comments were negative but this should
help the author create a better, more balanced article.

Yes, a NPOV helps Wikipedia grow and is an important tenant of Wikipedia. I don’t
believe it does any harm. It helps keep the community focus on verifiable facts and
reality and not opinion, rumor, or supposition. The rules and guidelines of behavior
are critical success factors as they relate to Wikipedia. Each has its own importance
and together represent a sound foundation for collaborative research and reporting.

----
I may have ventured into Pandora’s Box, but I chose to edit the living person biography of Rayful Edmond http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayful_Edmond observing the No Original Research policy. Trying to edit or even create a biography of a living person is under very intense collaboration with the Wikipedia community. These articles must adhere to United States laws that apply and must be neutral in point of view, verifiable, and cannot be the opinion of the Wikipedian. This protocol is obviously in place in an effort not to upset the continuity of the living person’s life and protect the integrity of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation.

To avoid a citation/violation from an Administrator, one must substantiate the materials with valid documented sources/references. I have found you can cite most any source/reference with the exception of a blog. Source referencing is broken down into three categories: Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary. The sources I cited on the Edmond article were all secondary – information from second-hand accounts derived from primary sources. Rayful Edmond’s article was somewhat under developed in my opinion. I have followed Edmond on and off for years and after review, I came to this conclusion about his Wikipedia article. However, the information I know about Edmond fell beyond the confines of the parameters of No Original Research policy because I could not find sources of validity.

In an effort to fully understand my chosen policy, I have taken my assignment one step further by creating an article on a living person not presently on Wikipedia. I created an article on The Honorable L. Todd Burke http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Todd_Burke. The citations/violations I received from Wikipedia for creating this article are as follows: This article may not meet the notability guideline for biographies. Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted. (February 2010); This biography of a living person does not cite any references or sources. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately. (February 2010). Although I did receive these citations, the article, fortunately, did not get deleted. In addition, I followed the methodology for sourcing by obtaining primary sources directly from Judge Burke and secondary sources from Internet publications.

I am very new to the Wikipedia family and although I did not receive any citations/violations on my editing process of the Rayful Edmond article but did receive them from the article I created from ground zero, I gained priceless insight into the governance aspect of Wikipedia as it relates to the No Original Research Policy.

In addition and in my opinion, I have found Wikipedia’s structural hierarchy relates directly to Yochai Benkler’s model of the Internet but perhaps with an ever so slight variance. The variance seems to be in the governance of Wikipedia because it ties directly back to the users, the select group of Administrators in charge preserving and maintaining continuity.

Finally. The No Original Research Policy poses no eminent harm to the community. However it could get a little "dicey" because the debates still remains over the accuracy of information. This is a loophole in which someone could really become litigious and challenge the information. Accurate or not, Wikipedia still remains one of the most used cites on the Internet today.

--Indira1966 19:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

-------------------------------------------------------------

* Name: David Jodoin
My Wikipedia work was focused on contribution to the wiki page on VoIP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_over_Internet_Protocol. I selected this wiki as I have done a significant amount of work related to next generation voice networks and have designed and developed solutions in this industry. My edits were primarily NPOV edits to the Fax handling section of the wiki and the discussion of T.38 faxing over UDP vs. IP vs. analog. I selected this section as I found the section needed citations for some of the statements made by prior authors. I specifically added a couple of references and re-edited some of the language to be less opinionated and more factual from an objective point of view.

Specifically I found some of the language to be somewhat whimsical as the author attempted to act as an authority on the topic, yet I found some of the statements made were either anecdotal in nature and not backed by any rigorous research. In addition, statements were made which belied the authors biases toward the topic and sounded immature; making me wonder how old the person was who wrote it.

I experimented with my entries to see if something comes up on my watch-list for this topic by in some cases deleting entire sentences of prior writers statements in favor of my own. I also used an online shopping mart as one reference to see if the reference itself would be disallowed due to it being commercial in nature. I am anxious to see the result of these two edits. Of course when providing citations in other areas that needed it, I relied on actual RFCs or academic based definitions for factual representation.

The neutral point of view (NPOV) stance within Wikipedia is a critical component of creating trusted information. There will always be opinions that will be expressed or reflected by various authors, however, with peer review combined with NPOV the information that at first may seem opinionated can indeed be of value in helping guide the NPOV results of follow on editors. Without the threat of having your submission removed due to non NPOV content, I would think Wikipedia would revert into an endless see of contradictions, rants and rave with authors in chaotic conflict never progressing toward a useful result.

For instance, I could easily state that T.38 faxing is by no means a true replacement for traditional fax over copper lines, and my opinion is universally shared by those who use it or implement it. However, in doing so, I am not exposing the underlying problem in that T.38 faxing is a means to accommodate legacy fax machines using a transmission standard that is long out of date. In fact I could go on to say that an entirely new era of technology needs to be developed that answers the call to solve the same problem that faxing does, but in a different way. But due to the enormous amounts of these machines which exist in the marketplace, that is an evolutionary transformation that will only be slowed by our continued attempts of keeping a dying technology alive. If we continue to support faxing in general, we might as well revive the 8track tape or the laser disc.

I wonder what kind of discussions would ensue if I posted that on the wiki. Maybe I will if I don't get comments on what edits I did post.

--[[User:Lunatixcoder|Lunatixcoder]] 15:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

------------------------------------------------------------
*Liz Davis - Response to Assignment 1

I chose to focus on the Wikipedia rule of "Neutral Point of View." I edited the article on Creative Commons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_commons. This article included a banner requesting that the lead section be expanded. According to Wikipedia the lead of an article should both introduce and summarize the content of the article. I expanded on one of the paragraphs and added an additional paragraph introducing and summarizing the article below.

In the process of expanding the lead, I focused on ensuring that all of my information was referenced with verifiable sources. I used the book "The Public Domain" by James Boyle as one of my sources and the Creative Commons website as the other source. I tried to keep my own opinions and experiences, except where I could back those up with external sources, out of the article. However, I did push the limits a bit with these two sentences, "An easy to understand one-page explanation of rights, with associated visual symbols, explains the specifics of each Creative Commons License. This simplicity distinguishes Creative Commons from an all rights reserved copyright." I was curious to see if another editor might find these statements too opinionated and thus not from a "Neutral Point of View."

At the time of writing this, there have been no significant changes to my revisions. Someone did go in and hack the page briefly by adding the line "hossein esmaili is a good." One minute later this line was removed. There have been some very minor changes to my page since my edit, fixes to my spacing, but no content has been changed or edited. I'm not sure if I should assume from this that my edits were acceptable or that no one has taken the time to look it over and make any substantial changes. Also, the banner requesting revision to the lead is still there. I'm not sure who takes that down, or how that will be affected by the changes that I made to the introduction.

I think the rule of "Neutral Point of View" is essential to the effectiveness of Wikipedia as a source. Editors should strive to be objective when adding content to Wikipedia. There are other venues for subjectivity. Consumers of information on Wikipedia are looking for unbiased, referenced general information about a variety of topics. The NPV helps ensure a fair and balanced representation of information.

For the most part the Neutral Point of View can only help maintain Wikipedia as a reliable source of information. Any encyclopedia reader would hope to find un-opinionated resources on wikipedia. However, neutral can be difficult to pin down. Even encyclopedias can appear biased when you look back on an entry. For example an article on the Women's movement written in 1950, might seem biased to someone reading it today. This rule could harm the community if it is viewed as too restrictive and thus prevents people from adding information. These rules definitely slowed me down in making changes. However, that is not necessarily a bad thing.

--[[User:Lizbdavis|Lizbdavis]] 20:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

------------------------------------------------------------

'''Mike Barker:''' [[Mike's Response To Assignment 1]].

-------------------------------------------------------------

'''Rohit Chopra''' | Assignment 1
[[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Wiki_ass1_final_RC.pdf]]

----

*Erin Golden: Assignment 1

I decided to begin with Wikipedia's "No Original Research" policy, which quickly led into Verifiability: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability, as a response to my longstanding perception of Wikipedia as unreliable and the particular challenge I found in becoming a Wikipedia editor. My past experience has largely involved my own analyses of literary texts, so it was both refreshing and daunting that the site officially did not want my, or anyone else's, un-self-published opinion. Wikipedia treats articles on living persons even more stringently under No Original Research to avoid libel or otherwise giving offense, so I selected http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Flewelling (as user Edolen), regarding a living author whose work I enjoy and with whom I have had considerable contact through the years.

I first discovered a very brief entry with two banners at the top proclaiming the need for additional citations. When I looked at the "discussion" section of the page the only things present were the same two banners. The article included only two citations: one link to another author's review of Ms. Flewelling's work, and another to a blog post by Ms. Flewelling projecting the date of her next book release, with no references for any biographical information. The biography section included one broken internal link (to Ms. Flewelling's husband, who does not have his own Wiki article), and some information I either didn't recognize or thought was not specific enough (e.g. Ms. Flewelling is not officially listed as faculty on the University of Redlands website, although she does conduct lectures and workshops at the school). I changed the section to be more in accord with Ms. Flewelling's official website and cited it. Trying not to run afoul of the Wiki ownership and edit warring guidelines I left structure and phrasing alone where I could, to edit instead of completely re-write. I also added numerous citations to the Writings section, including convention appearances, praise from other authors, and a film update, and expanded the note on queer themes to reflect heightened reader and scholarly interest.

I was not as thorough in reworking and adding to the article as I would have liked in order to comply with No Original Research. For instance, I know Ms. Flewelling was a guest of honour at every ConBust (a science fiction convention) since its inception in 2003 because I personally arranged her original appearance and have met with her there every following year; however, the official Smith College-hosted website for the convention only mentioned 2009-10 when I visited it, so I was unable to present the full history. Neither did I include a fuller picture of Ms. Flewelling's family and religious life, her feelings about her books and readers' responses to them, her thoughts on queer issues in and outside her work, or her stances on academic treatment of "genre fiction" or e-book piracy, all of which would add greatly to a biographical piece and can be found (and cited) throughout her contributions to her Yahoo! group and her blog because of the Wiki restriction on "using the subject as a self-published source." I was already uncomfortable with the number of outside reviews I could only find as pages on her official website, including an author-given exerpt from a yet-to-be-released scholastic anthology and a short piece from a relatively obscure magazine I could not locate in print. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources, Wikipedia limits using the subject's self-publications but bans all such other sources: "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, forums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject . . . Posts left by readers are never acceptable as sources"; therefore I did not use reviews from various fan sites or Amazon reader reviews. I found small exerpts from reccomendations by non-self-published authors on the Random House page for purchasing one of the books (cited in article) and on the printed novels themselves, but I was unable to locate the full reviews.

So far no other user has edited my work, but the banners remain at the top of the main page. The discussion link now opens to a declaration that the article is a "stub": short and unfinished. I received a welcome note from a Wiki administrator after opening my account and editing the article, but no direct commentary on what I wrote. For an example of a more complete biographical article on a living person I visited the page for George R. R. Martin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_R._R._Martin), one of the writers I referenced in the Flewelling article. It was much longer and rounded-out, and the discussion page classified it as B-Class. Therefore I was surprised to check the page's references and see many of the citations were to Martin's self-published website, or to self-published fan sites. It made me question how seriously Wikipedia editors and administrators take the site's official policies, and whether my article would have received a higher rating had I been more liberal in my attributes. Ultimately, in my perspective, this places the reliability of Wikipedia articles, whether about living persons or other subjects, back in the dubious place from which I'd hoped this project would at least partially rescue it. I will continue to use the site, as a reader and sometime-editor, but I am disappointed it does not live up to its own credibility standards, which I believe will continue to hurt it in the public eye.

--[[User:Erin Golden|Erin Golden]] 09:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

*Nathaniel Gill - Assignment 1

In doing this assignment I focused on the Wikipedia policy of [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research No Original Research]] because like most people all you hear is that Wikipedia is an unreliable miasma of user edited information, gossip, and opinion. While this may be true, there are in fact citations that one should check as with any research. As is oft quoted "Caveat Emptor", which any intelligent person applies to more than just consumer goods. With that in mind I was fascinated by the number of articles that did not have citations attached, after clicking the link for a random article which was labeled as such I started doing some preliminary research online just to see if I could amalgamate some sources for one of these sad little articles. I was rather amused to find that the whole process was much more difficult than I thought. Firstly it's become infinitely harder to research anything on the web as there is a junk link, advertisement, and misdirection all over the place. This is a small stumbling block, but when one has a very set routine to approach the web as merely a user/consumer of information, it's odd to find yourself looking for more concrete information than simply locations/hours/services via [http://www.google.com/ Google]. Also, having been out of practice with web editing, particularly using actual programming language. I have become complacent in push button web publishing so it was nice to have a refresher course on actually using my brain.

That being said I came across an entry on [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tazir Tazir, or Ta'zir]] which is a concept in Islamic law. I read it, it was classified as a stub, and that it was. It's abbreviated entry was confusingly written and without sources. I did some low level googling and came up with a few sources to use to help flesh it out. I expanded and clarified the definition, inserting links to other related concepts and their source pages. There have been no follow up edits nor talk responses to my re-write and source submissions which is positive feedback in and of itself I suppose. Though it could also be that according to the log I'm the only one to stumble across the entry since 2006. I would have spent more time on the research and added more sources and such if I didn't keep losing myself in ADD-fueled internet tangents on a variety of related topics. That being said I feel like the Encyclopedia Britannica, Islamic Studies department at Oxford, and Comparative Law Studies pages are fairly decent level sources to cite. It all goes back to the principle of Wikipedia relying on verifiability for entries, not proof.

This reinforced my opinion that Wikipedia is a great tool for researchers looking for a starting point. As someone who has always been taught to not believe everything you read wiki is great for beginning a research project, wasting time, going on informational daydreams, etc. It's never going to be source material which it fairly states upfront. The problems as usual with systems, lie in operator error. Information is information, it exists, if you can verify it, grand, Wiki keeps the entry. As they say though, it's not for original research so you will never find unequivocal proof here, rather, you will find reporting of information that has been found and the citations to follow up with it as you see fit according to your needs and wants. As such I think this makes Wikipedia both incredibly benign, and horrifically dangerous. It's benign because of course the information exists out on the web for anyone to find if they just know where to look. Dangerous because one should never underestimate the ability of ignorant individuals to willfully misinterpret, or fear information. Stupidity is catching and easily transferred to soundbites and with the misdirection and constant stream of information from "news" sources harm can always be done with information. As always, Caveat Emptor.
--[[User:Nattyg|nattyg]] 15:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

------------------------------------------------------------

'''Ken Brady''' | Assignment 1
[[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Ken_Brady_Assignment_1.doc]]

------------------------------------------------------------
'''Kate Aurigemma''' Assignment 1:
[[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Wiki3.doc]] ([[User:Kaurigem|Kaurigem]] 18:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC))

Assignment 1 Submissions

2010-02-09T18:33:50Z

Kaurigem:

Assignment 1 Submissions

2010-02-09T18:32:52Z

Kaurigem:

* Name: Paul Amant

The Wikipedia article I chose to use for this assignment is One Laptop Per Child
(OLPC) . (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLPC) My wikipedia username is Paul in NH. In
keeping with you preference for brevity, I have only included relevant detail in my
submission.

When reviewing and contributing to the OLPC article the rule I chose to keep in mind
was a “Neutral Point of View”. The topic I chose to review is called One Laptop Per
Child (OLPC). The focus of OLPC is developing nations where education leaves a
great deal to be desired. I found the information already posted to be helpful, well
written and unbiased. The links were very useful. One of the links led me to a You
Tube page where Nicholas Negroponte was filmed giving a speech. This video
changed my ideas about OLPC. This exercise is my first exposure to Wikipedia as
both a contributor and a consumer.

My contribution to this article is based on the premise that OLPC should not be
limited to developing nations but should include all nations. Not only should the
United States be part of the OLPC, but it should be made a priority. The idea the
charity should begin at home is noble but does not necessarily represent a NPOV
nor does the idea that the US should be a priority and were therefore not part of my
contribution. It was much more difficult than I anticipated to stay neutral.

As I researched more about the OLPC initiative I came across two articles that point
out OLPC will now support the US. Some believe the economic downturn forced this
change but Negroponte, cited other factors. Basically he suggested that it was
patriotic, would help further his mission in developing countries by creating a critical
mass, and it would allow all over the world to share ideas and communicate. He also
talked about how US sales would help underwrite costs in developing countries. I
added a section with this information to the article and I also added a cite to the
reference web page.

A Neutral Point of View (NPOV) is essential to the success of Wikipedia. If you allow
bias’s to be posted, cited, and commented on in Wikipedia, it would no longer be an
on line encyclopedia. It would simply become a huge chat room. Traditional printed
encyclopedias have a NPOV. Personally, I believe the OLPC’s actions were
financially and politically motivated, but would not be a Neutral Point of View and
couldn’t be part of the wiki.

To date, no one has commented or added to the section I created. I reviewed
several disputes centering around NPOV. One in particular caught my attention. It
is related to Anti-Communism. The basic objection seems to be there were not
enough citations or sources. It is clear from the Talk Page that contributors have
strong feelings about this subject. Most comments were negative but this should
help the author create a better, more balanced article.

Yes, a NPOV helps Wikipedia grow and is an important tenant of Wikipedia. I don’t
believe it does any harm. It helps keep the community focus on verifiable facts and
reality and not opinion, rumor, or supposition. The rules and guidelines of behavior
are critical success factors as they relate to Wikipedia. Each has its own importance
and together represent a sound foundation for collaborative research and reporting.

----
I may have ventured into Pandora’s Box, but I chose to edit the living person biography of Rayful Edmond http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayful_Edmond observing the No Original Research policy. Trying to edit or even create a biography of a living person is under very intense collaboration with the Wikipedia community. These articles must adhere to United States laws that apply and must be neutral in point of view, verifiable, and cannot be the opinion of the Wikipedian. This protocol is obviously in place in an effort not to upset the continuity of the living person’s life and protect the integrity of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation.

To avoid a citation/violation from an Administrator, one must substantiate the materials with valid documented sources/references. I have found you can cite most any source/reference with the exception of a blog. Source referencing is broken down into three categories: Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary. The sources I cited on the Edmond article were all secondary – information from second-hand accounts derived from primary sources. Rayful Edmond’s article was somewhat under developed in my opinion. I have followed Edmond on and off for years and after review, I came to this conclusion about his Wikipedia article. However, the information I know about Edmond fell beyond the confines of the parameters of No Original Research policy because I could not find sources of validity.

In an effort to fully understand my chosen policy, I have taken my assignment one step further by creating an article on a living person not presently on Wikipedia. I created an article on The Honorable L. Todd Burke http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Todd_Burke. The citations/violations I received from Wikipedia for creating this article are as follows: This article may not meet the notability guideline for biographies. Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted. (February 2010); This biography of a living person does not cite any references or sources. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately. (February 2010). Although I did receive these citations, the article, fortunately, did not get deleted. In addition, I followed the methodology for sourcing by obtaining primary sources directly from Judge Burke and secondary sources from Internet publications.

I am very new to the Wikipedia family and although I did not receive any citations/violations on my editing process of the Rayful Edmond article but did receive them from the article I created from ground zero, I gained priceless insight into the governance aspect of Wikipedia as it relates to the No Original Research Policy.

In addition and in my opinion, I have found Wikipedia’s structural hierarchy relates directly to Yochai Benkler’s model of the Internet but perhaps with an ever so slight variance. The variance seems to be in the governance of Wikipedia because it ties directly back to the users, the select group of Administrators in charge preserving and maintaining continuity.

Finally. The No Original Research Policy poses no eminent harm to the community. However it could get a little "dicey" because the debates still remains over the accuracy of information. This is a loophole in which someone could really become litigious and challenge the information. Accurate or not, Wikipedia still remains one of the most used cites on the Internet today.

--Indira1966 19:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

-------------------------------------------------------------

* Name: David Jodoin
My Wikipedia work was focused on contribution to the wiki page on VoIP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_over_Internet_Protocol. I selected this wiki as I have done a significant amount of work related to next generation voice networks and have designed and developed solutions in this industry. My edits were primarily NPOV edits to the Fax handling section of the wiki and the discussion of T.38 faxing over UDP vs. IP vs. analog. I selected this section as I found the section needed citations for some of the statements made by prior authors. I specifically added a couple of references and re-edited some of the language to be less opinionated and more factual from an objective point of view.

Specifically I found some of the language to be somewhat whimsical as the author attempted to act as an authority on the topic, yet I found some of the statements made were either anecdotal in nature and not backed by any rigorous research. In addition, statements were made which belied the authors biases toward the topic and sounded immature; making me wonder how old the person was who wrote it.

I experimented with my entries to see if something comes up on my watch-list for this topic by in some cases deleting entire sentences of prior writers statements in favor of my own. I also used an online shopping mart as one reference to see if the reference itself would be disallowed due to it being commercial in nature. I am anxious to see the result of these two edits. Of course when providing citations in other areas that needed it, I relied on actual RFCs or academic based definitions for factual representation.

The neutral point of view (NPOV) stance within Wikipedia is a critical component of creating trusted information. There will always be opinions that will be expressed or reflected by various authors, however, with peer review combined with NPOV the information that at first may seem opinionated can indeed be of value in helping guide the NPOV results of follow on editors. Without the threat of having your submission removed due to non NPOV content, I would think Wikipedia would revert into an endless see of contradictions, rants and rave with authors in chaotic conflict never progressing toward a useful result.

For instance, I could easily state that T.38 faxing is by no means a true replacement for traditional fax over copper lines, and my opinion is universally shared by those who use it or implement it. However, in doing so, I am not exposing the underlying problem in that T.38 faxing is a means to accommodate legacy fax machines using a transmission standard that is long out of date. In fact I could go on to say that an entirely new era of technology needs to be developed that answers the call to solve the same problem that faxing does, but in a different way. But due to the enormous amounts of these machines which exist in the marketplace, that is an evolutionary transformation that will only be slowed by our continued attempts of keeping a dying technology alive. If we continue to support faxing in general, we might as well revive the 8track tape or the laser disc.

I wonder what kind of discussions would ensue if I posted that on the wiki. Maybe I will if I don't get comments on what edits I did post.

--[[User:Lunatixcoder|Lunatixcoder]] 15:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

------------------------------------------------------------
*Liz Davis - Response to Assignment 1

I chose to focus on the Wikipedia rule of "Neutral Point of View." I edited the article on Creative Commons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_commons. This article included a banner requesting that the lead section be expanded. According to Wikipedia the lead of an article should both introduce and summarize the content of the article. I expanded on one of the paragraphs and added an additional paragraph introducing and summarizing the article below.

In the process of expanding the lead, I focused on ensuring that all of my information was referenced with verifiable sources. I used the book "The Public Domain" by James Boyle as one of my sources and the Creative Commons website as the other source. I tried to keep my own opinions and experiences, except where I could back those up with external sources, out of the article. However, I did push the limits a bit with these two sentences, "An easy to understand one-page explanation of rights, with associated visual symbols, explains the specifics of each Creative Commons License. This simplicity distinguishes Creative Commons from an all rights reserved copyright." I was curious to see if another editor might find these statements too opinionated and thus not from a "Neutral Point of View."

At the time of writing this, there have been no significant changes to my revisions. Someone did go in and hack the page briefly by adding the line "hossein esmaili is a good." One minute later this line was removed. There have been some very minor changes to my page since my edit, fixes to my spacing, but no content has been changed or edited. I'm not sure if I should assume from this that my edits were acceptable or that no one has taken the time to look it over and make any substantial changes. Also, the banner requesting revision to the lead is still there. I'm not sure who takes that down, or how that will be affected by the changes that I made to the introduction.

I think the rule of "Neutral Point of View" is essential to the effectiveness of Wikipedia as a source. Editors should strive to be objective when adding content to Wikipedia. There are other venues for subjectivity. Consumers of information on Wikipedia are looking for unbiased, referenced general information about a variety of topics. The NPV helps ensure a fair and balanced representation of information.

For the most part the Neutral Point of View can only help maintain Wikipedia as a reliable source of information. Any encyclopedia reader would hope to find un-opinionated resources on wikipedia. However, neutral can be difficult to pin down. Even encyclopedias can appear biased when you look back on an entry. For example an article on the Women's movement written in 1950, might seem biased to someone reading it today. This rule could harm the community if it is viewed as too restrictive and thus prevents people from adding information. These rules definitely slowed me down in making changes. However, that is not necessarily a bad thing.

--[[User:Lizbdavis|Lizbdavis]] 20:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

------------------------------------------------------------

'''Mike Barker:''' [[Mike's Response To Assignment 1]].

-------------------------------------------------------------

'''Rohit Chopra''' | Assignment 1
[[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Wiki_ass1_final_RC.pdf]]

----

*Erin Golden: Assignment 1

I decided to begin with Wikipedia's "No Original Research" policy, which quickly led into Verifiability: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability, as a response to my longstanding perception of Wikipedia as unreliable and the particular challenge I found in becoming a Wikipedia editor. My past experience has largely involved my own analyses of literary texts, so it was both refreshing and daunting that the site officially did not want my, or anyone else's, un-self-published opinion. Wikipedia treats articles on living persons even more stringently under No Original Research to avoid libel or otherwise giving offense, so I selected http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Flewelling (as user Edolen), regarding a living author whose work I enjoy and with whom I have had considerable contact through the years.

I first discovered a very brief entry with two banners at the top proclaiming the need for additional citations. When I looked at the "discussion" section of the page the only things present were the same two banners. The article included only two citations: one link to another author's review of Ms. Flewelling's work, and another to a blog post by Ms. Flewelling projecting the date of her next book release, with no references for any biographical information. The biography section included one broken internal link (to Ms. Flewelling's husband, who does not have his own Wiki article), and some information I either didn't recognize or thought was not specific enough (e.g. Ms. Flewelling is not officially listed as faculty on the University of Redlands website, although she does conduct lectures and workshops at the school). I changed the section to be more in accord with Ms. Flewelling's official website and cited it. Trying not to run afoul of the Wiki ownership and edit warring guidelines I left structure and phrasing alone where I could, to edit instead of completely re-write. I also added numerous citations to the Writings section, including convention appearances, praise from other authors, and a film update, and expanded the note on queer themes to reflect heightened reader and scholarly interest.

I was not as thorough in reworking and adding to the article as I would have liked in order to comply with No Original Research. For instance, I know Ms. Flewelling was a guest of honour at every ConBust (a science fiction convention) since its inception in 2003 because I personally arranged her original appearance and have met with her there every following year; however, the official Smith College-hosted website for the convention only mentioned 2009-10 when I visited it, so I was unable to present the full history. Neither did I include a fuller picture of Ms. Flewelling's family and religious life, her feelings about her books and readers' responses to them, her thoughts on queer issues in and outside her work, or her stances on academic treatment of "genre fiction" or e-book piracy, all of which would add greatly to a biographical piece and can be found (and cited) throughout her contributions to her Yahoo! group and her blog because of the Wiki restriction on "using the subject as a self-published source." I was already uncomfortable with the number of outside reviews I could only find as pages on her official website, including an author-given exerpt from a yet-to-be-released scholastic anthology and a short piece from a relatively obscure magazine I could not locate in print. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources, Wikipedia limits using the subject's self-publications but bans all such other sources: "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, forums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject . . . Posts left by readers are never acceptable as sources"; therefore I did not use reviews from various fan sites or Amazon reader reviews. I found small exerpts from reccomendations by non-self-published authors on the Random House page for purchasing one of the books (cited in article) and on the printed novels themselves, but I was unable to locate the full reviews.

So far no other user has edited my work, but the banners remain at the top of the main page. The discussion link now opens to a declaration that the article is a "stub": short and unfinished. I received a welcome note from a Wiki administrator after opening my account and editing the article, but no direct commentary on what I wrote. For an example of a more complete biographical article on a living person I visited the page for George R. R. Martin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_R._R._Martin), one of the writers I referenced in the Flewelling article. It was much longer and rounded-out, and the discussion page classified it as B-Class. Therefore I was surprised to check the page's references and see many of the citations were to Martin's self-published website, or to self-published fan sites. It made me question how seriously Wikipedia editors and administrators take the site's official policies, and whether my article would have received a higher rating had I been more liberal in my attributes. Ultimately, in my perspective, this places the reliability of Wikipedia articles, whether about living persons or other subjects, back in the dubious place from which I'd hoped this project would at least partially rescue it. I will continue to use the site, as a reader and sometime-editor, but I am disappointed it does not live up to its own credibility standards, which I believe will continue to hurt it in the public eye.

--[[User:Erin Golden|Erin Golden]] 09:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

*Nathaniel Gill - Assignment 1

In doing this assignment I focused on the Wikipedia policy of [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research No Original Research]] because like most people all you hear is that Wikipedia is an unreliable miasma of user edited information, gossip, and opinion. While this may be true, there are in fact citations that one should check as with any research. As is oft quoted "Caveat Emptor", which any intelligent person applies to more than just consumer goods. With that in mind I was fascinated by the number of articles that did not have citations attached, after clicking the link for a random article which was labeled as such I started doing some preliminary research online just to see if I could amalgamate some sources for one of these sad little articles. I was rather amused to find that the whole process was much more difficult than I thought. Firstly it's become infinitely harder to research anything on the web as there is a junk link, advertisement, and misdirection all over the place. This is a small stumbling block, but when one has a very set routine to approach the web as merely a user/consumer of information, it's odd to find yourself looking for more concrete information than simply locations/hours/services via [http://www.google.com/ Google]. Also, having been out of practice with web editing, particularly using actual programming language. I have become complacent in push button web publishing so it was nice to have a refresher course on actually using my brain.

That being said I came across an entry on [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tazir Tazir, or Ta'zir]] which is a concept in Islamic law. I read it, it was classified as a stub, and that it was. It's abbreviated entry was confusingly written and without sources. I did some low level googling and came up with a few sources to use to help flesh it out. I expanded and clarified the definition, inserting links to other related concepts and their source pages. There have been no follow up edits nor talk responses to my re-write and source submissions which is positive feedback in and of itself I suppose. Though it could also be that according to the log I'm the only one to stumble across the entry since 2006. I would have spent more time on the research and added more sources and such if I didn't keep losing myself in ADD-fueled internet tangents on a variety of related topics. That being said I feel like the Encyclopedia Britannica, Islamic Studies department at Oxford, and Comparative Law Studies pages are fairly decent level sources to cite. It all goes back to the principle of Wikipedia relying on verifiability for entries, not proof.

This reinforced my opinion that Wikipedia is a great tool for researchers looking for a starting point. As someone who has always been taught to not believe everything you read wiki is great for beginning a research project, wasting time, going on informational daydreams, etc. It's never going to be source material which it fairly states upfront. The problems as usual with systems, lie in operator error. Information is information, it exists, if you can verify it, grand, Wiki keeps the entry. As they say though, it's not for original research so you will never find unequivocal proof here, rather, you will find reporting of information that has been found and the citations to follow up with it as you see fit according to your needs and wants. As such I think this makes Wikipedia both incredibly benign, and horrifically dangerous. It's benign because of course the information exists out on the web for anyone to find if they just know where to look. Dangerous because one should never underestimate the ability of ignorant individuals to willfully misinterpret, or fear information. Stupidity is catching and easily transferred to soundbites and with the misdirection and constant stream of information from "news" sources harm can always be done with information. As always, Caveat Emptor.
--[[User:Nattyg|nattyg]] 15:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

------------------------------------------------------------

'''Ken Brady''' | Assignment 1
[[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Ken_Brady_Assignment_1.doc]]

------------------------------------------------------------
'''Kate Aurigemma''' [[Image:Wiki3.doc]] ([[User:Kaurigem|Kaurigem]] 18:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC))