Reputation/Trust

1. David and Pinch discuss the "6 degrees of reputation" using Amazon.com's review system as a model. Within their article they discussthe usefulness of the review system, problems they've uncovered, some users' experiences, and even drill-down to talk about why people post reviews in the first place. I found the various perspectives of the article intriguing, and it also made me reflect why I typically don't write reviews on Amazon but am perfectly willing to on other sites.

Here's my view: Amazon is to huge and unweildy to form real community. Sure there are message boards and reviews, but it covers so many products and so many people respond that I've never seen any use in it. I've found that I prefer to post other places with a much more defined (and much smaller, though still large) audience such as DVDTalk.com or CruiseCritic.com.

Given the affordances mentioned by the authors to opining online, the real question is, what signals to you that reviews/opinions have merit? The tiered system is in place, but even that must be assimilated by the user into action. For me, it comes down to patterns action. If many people say that a certain dvd player is slow to load or breaks down after a few months, I may weigh that more heavily than single complaints. Store suggestions and professional reviews are also considered because they have more to lose with a misleading reviews.

2. I think that the conclusion about Yhprum’s Law in the Resnick, Zeckhauser, Swanson, and Lockwood manuscript about eBay is fairly spot on ... eBay ratings systems can fairly simply be rigged or used maliciously, but the system tends to work decently well. Does this demonstrate that at little assurance is enough for most people to "get over" the idea of shopping/bidding online? Is a listing fee and a little bit of oversight enough to scare away most scams? I think it would be interesting to compare eBay with a free service like Craigslist which, at least according to reputation, is a haven for scam-artists and items not available on eBay such as illegal substances, prostitution, etc.

Participation/community network

1. In the McDonald article, they make the case that lurking is, depending on the context, a legitimate participatory activity within an online community if practice. I'm not sure I agree with this fully, though I guess it depends upon what we deem a lurker. Sure, they can learn plenty of stuff, I won't argue that, and from the Lee article I also won't argue that lurkers can still "participate" in the learning. McDonald seems to want to classify lurkers as people who don't participate in a particular discussion but perhaps do in others or who participate in back channel communication. I can buy that ... I obviously don't participate in every online discussion I read. However, if someone NEVER participates online, how can they be a part of an online community of practice? Is it different in real life? Does "showing up" count as participation in a physical CoP? The line I draw between the two is that participation can be singular, but for me, a CoP requires give-and-take beyond a single person.

2. I found the "day without facebook" reading amusing. The railing against feeds is an interesting argument, but obviously a failure as well as feeds are obviously still around. Do these kind of 'net boycots or petitions ever actually work? Does the presence of feeds really hurt privacy when we are talking about the fact that they share information consciously given by the user to people consciously accepted as friends? If employers, police, or anyone else wants to use that information to pass judgement, are the information users at fault or those who post the information in the first place? I see facebook like any online community ... whatever you say, post, or share will somehow always be available so it is best to be a little forward thinking AND/OR make your information as private as possible.

Friendships and relationships

1. Many of the readings (specifically Tyler) seemed to spend a lot of pages with faint praise and fault, ending with a general conclusion that the Internet is neither good or bad or that online communication can be both a positive or negative influence. I see it as the Internet has moved from a novel tool to a very ingrained part of a lot of people's everyday life. Do you think it is inherently biased to ask people to compare online with face-to-face communication (or phone to phone)? Even though the Internet is such an everyday thing to me, I still think there is a stigma associated to online things ... online shopping ... online dating ... online friends. Is the desriptor "online" a neutral word?

2. I found the Sigman Press reading interesting, especially the the information linking mortality to living alone. I'm not sure that any of the other readings truly supports that people who spend time online are more lonely or have fewer interactions ... instead, I don't think it is a balanced scale ... just because I spend time online doesn't mean that I don't spend time interacting. Do you agree with the authors that online networking may not be "social" from a biological perspective? If you thought that your online habits were leading to a potentially shorter life, would that cause you to give it up, go outside, and socialize? ;)

Notes from 2/23 Session on Blogs and Wikis

Here are my recorder's notes for the 2/23 class session. I hope you find them interesting/helpful. :)


Chris's Recording Notes from 2/23 class