Exercise 5 Post

This is my screencast posting for how to use twitter. Enjoy!


http://www.screencast.com/t/ZKoPXcydLsb

Week 12 Blog Post

  What do you think about anonymous users in an online community? How about lurkers?


Ultimately, the nature of anonymous users in an online community, operative word there being community, is something of an inherent contradiction. It is not technically possible to have a community, which is based on the sum of interactions between known or semi-known entities, if the users are anonymous. That being said however, it does not change the fact that the internet is a place that has no hard and fast rules, per se; it is a place where users may do what they like and how they like, and the only real rule is that the user must face for the consequences of their actions, for good or for ill. Philosophically, I find that anonymous users in any community are fine as long as they are not disruptive to the normal operations of the community. People interact the way they do on the internet not just because they want to feel safe in their interactions, but also because they choose to function on their own terms, rather than someone else's. If an anonymous user is causing trouble in the community, it is a simple task for the administrator to simply block the user's IP address to prevent them from ever so much as even getting on the website ever again. Not really a problem.

The case of lurkers, like anonymous users, is similar. Lurkers often are there because the overall conversation within the community, particularly its content, is something interesting and compelling for them to take a look at. They generally cause no harm by existing and looking, and should not feel forced to contribute if they don't want to. Ultimately I subscribe to the idea that a lurker will become a contributor on their own time and terms when it is acceptable for them to do so. Often all it takes is the right forum and the right thread topic to compel a lurker to at last say something. In addition, often lurkers are the way they are to learn to get used to the community's culture and rules, so as not to cause any unnecessary trouble.

I also tend to note that a major reason for my views is a result of my general interactions with internet communities over the last 15 years.  There's an interesting misconception on the part of the mainstream population, who feels that the internet is this strange and mysterious community that all belong to a singular organization such as "Anonymous". This is nonsense. The social structure of the internet is an inherent paradox; it is not structured at all; it is anarchy; an environment without government or effective rules. People are allowed to do what they like and accept the consequences for it. This is an uncomfortable concept for many, but it is the truth. There is no organization out to get you; no larger online conspiracy; no "Anonymous" who plots the downfall of western civilization.

Want to know what "Anonymous" really is? It's me, it's you, it's anyone who has ever acted or performed any kind of function or communication online. That's it. There's no sign up sheet for this; no rules, no secret handshake. This is why when the media talks about the idea of an "Anonymous" I find it absolutely ridiculous. They treat it as somekind of organization when really it was a random group of people who decided to do one thing or another in a haphazard form of coordination (most of which is accidental). Last ranting point; there is no such thing as an act of "Anonymous" IRL, or in the real world. Inherently, you can't be anonymous offline, there for it is no longer an action by "Anonymous". So who is anonymous again? You, me, and everyone else on the internet. Who isn't? Everyone when they do something offline. Welcome to the internet, fellow Anonymous.

Week 11 Post

What are the pros and cons of tagging in library catalogs?

The upside of tagging content in library catalogs is that by doing so, one can elaborate on the "aboutness" of an information resource after the fact. Doing so can enable a degree of flexibility in describing materials after they have already been added to a collection. This can enable users to find information more quickly and easily, as the tags can be progressively added to further elaborate on the information resource's contents. Tagging, when coupled with a keyword based search engine, can make it easier and faster to retrieve records in materials. User submitted tags can also prove to be very helpful in getting more perspectives on the contents of a resource. For example, after a user returned a book, having read it to completion, a user can then add tags to elaborate on its contents, and thus creating more representative records of the material. This can prove to help improve services at the library and optimize limited library resources. Naturally, since a team of librarians cannot possibly read all of the materials in a library's collection, user submitted tagging can prove to be a very cost-effective way to create more detailed information records.

The downside of tagging in library catalogs arises from a general lack of procedure and structure pertaining to how exactly tags will be created. If a tag is added to a system, it is important that the tag is not only representative of the content contained herein, but also that it may become problematic if a tag added is similar if not identical to a tag that already exists in the record. For example if someone writes a tag for "cow" and then someone else writes a tag for "bovine", should both tags exist? What if other records with similar content only contain one or the other tag? How will that work? This can lead to very inconsistent retrievals when it comes to library records. The the system also contains a form of thesaurus functionality to consider such entries and add them across the board to all similar records, this might not be an issue, but I am unsure as to whether or not such technology exists. Another major issue is what to do if a user decides to add inappropriate if not offensive terms to a record for fun. Often times user-tagged systems are not well policed, and this can lead to very troubling implications later. It is important for staff to keep close watch over records for such issues; possibly by adding a user submitted flagging function for offensive tags.