Don’t Get Face-booked

A freshman engineering student at Ryerson University in Toronto, Ontario is facing expulsion after creating an online study group via a little social networking site called Facebook. Chris Avenir landed in trouble after his professor stumbled across the Facebook group (called Dungeons/Mastering Chemistry Solutions). Avenir is now facing 147 academic charges, one for every member of the group! For more details on the story, read this article from the Toronto Star.

Let’s put aside the fact that a virtual study group on Facebook is no more conducive to cheating than one that takes place in real-time in some library or residence. Let’s also put aside the fact that this student should probably be applauded instead of punished for his resourcefulness, ingenuity, and enthusiasm in deciding to administer to the group. What stories like this one ultimately teach (and there are so many of them), is that social networking sites like Facebook AREN’T PRIVATE. What makes these sites so valuable is also what makes them potentially dangerous: they are PUBILC spaces.

By now almost everyone has an anecdote or two in their pocket about the perils of facebooking. I know I do. When I was doing my undergrad at McMaster University, several students lost their coveted RA (resident advisor) positions after posting pictures on Facebook of themselves drinking alcohol in their rooms. Big mistake. RA’s are not allowed to drink while they’re on duty (which is basically around the clock). One of the powers-that-be came across the photos and shortly after the RA’s were fired.

The moral of the story (and it’s something of a downer) is that you have to be extremely careful about what information your putting on sites like Facebook. This is especially true in the context of institutional settings like schools, where this kind of technology proliferates so quickly that surrounding rules and regulations seem to be established on a whim. Of course, self-censorship can be tricky, as it’s not always clear what might come back to haunt you (I’m fairly sure Chris Avenir did not think he was doing anything that needed to be kept hidden).

For some more information about social networking and your privacy, watch the following video from Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada:

FEEDBACK:

• How private do you think Facebook is? Do you censor what you post?
• Do you think Avenir’s punishment is fair? Do you think he (and the 146 other members of the study group) were cheating?
• POST YOUR COMMENTS!

Can we trust the reviews?

I’ve come across another interesting Slate magazine article. This time it’s by Garth Risk Hallberg and titled “Who is Grady Harp?: Amazon’s top reviewers and the fate of the literary amateur.”

The basic premise of the article is as follows:

“Amazon had been hailed as a harbinger of “Web 2.0″—an ideal realm where user-generated consensus trumps the bankrupt pieties of experts. As I explored the murky understory of Amazon’s reviewer rankings, however, I came to see the real Web 2.0 as a tangle of hidden agendas—one in which the disinterested amateur may be an endangered species.”

What Hallberg uncovers is that Amazon’s Top 10 Reviewers (one of whom is Grady Harp) are being granted some major perks: free books, DVDs, even electronics. Hallberg also insinuates that some of these reviewers may be in the back pocket of the publishers, leading to some very biased reviews (like the one of his own book).

For those of us who read and trust customer reviews on sites like Amazon, this information is somewhat disturbing, though perhaps not very surprising. In an era when more and more people are getting their information from the web, it shouldn’t be a shock that companies try very hard to control their online-image, especially if it will mean financial gain. The question is whether this is simple savvy marketing, or a more insidious practice of deceiving the consumer.

One of those 20/20-type news shows (in fact, I think it was 20/20) recently rain a piece about reviews on travel websites such as TripAdvisor and Travelocity. According to this report, hotel reviews were often being written by various members of hotel staff. For example, a hotel manager would give her resort a glowing review. Conversely, she might give a negative review to a rival resort.

Not cool.

So how can we trust web-reviews? User-generated content is great; I’d always rather hear what the average person has to say about something than some hoity-toity expert. Still, I want to know that person has my best interest in mind and not simply their own.

What this all boils down to is that the world of Web2.0 is simply nowhere near as democratic as it supposes itself to be. So keep that in mind next time you buy a novel on Amazon based on a stellar review, or book that trip to Mexico because of all that positive response online.

FEEDBACK:
• Do you trust web-reviews? Do you write them yourself sometimes?
• How do you think web-reviews can be made less biased?

Wiki for the few?

I recently came across an interesting article by Chris Wilson on Slate.com titled “The Wisdom of the Chaperones: Digg, Wikipedia, and the Myth of Web 2.0 Democracy”—an intriguing headline to be sure.

The article basically details how supposedly democratic social-media sites like Wikipedia and Digg are actually run by a select number of uber-participators or “chaperones”. In other words, there are a handful of super-geeks (along with some secret algorithms) controlling the content of these notoriously egalitarian sites.

If I remember my grade 10 civics class well enough (which I most certainly do not) I think that makes these sites more of an oligarchy than a democracy, power being in the hands of the few instead of the many. For example, Wilson references the stat that “1 percent of Wikipedia users are responsible for about half of the site’s edits.”

This might be unsettling for some. Personally I’m just left wondering who exactly are these chaperones spending so much time and energy editing Wikipedia? Do they have jobs? Families? Friends? What compels them to dump so much effort into compiling and editing entries about pizza bagels, Tickle-Me-Elmo, and roller derby? Why dedicate yourself so wholly to the Wiki? Go outside and get some bloody fresh air!

But who am I to judge? Wikipedia is actually a very helpful site, which “holds its own against Encyclopedia Britannica in accuracy…and has many time more entries,” according to Wilson. Perhaps kudos is in order for those geeky few that keep Wikipedia in tip-top shape?

I’m personally not very interested in contributing to Wikipedia (call me apathetic when it comes to participatory media), though I do frequent the site; it is my go-to source when I want a quick answer to the question of “who or what is that?” I’m always thankful that someone (whoever they happen to be) has bothered to write something useful about, say, the adorable James Marsden (just to through an example out there).

Wilson concludes his article with the argument that “Digg and Wikipedia would do well to stop pretending they’re operated by the many and start thinking of ways to rein in the power of the few.” I take his point. These sites should fess up to their oligarchy status. As for reining in the power of the few, I’m not so sure. If the super-geeks are keeping these sites running smoothly and accurately, must they really be dethroned?

FEEDBACK:

• What do you think? Do you agree with Wilson that the democratic aspect of social-media needs to be better exploited?
• Or do you agree that it’s O.K. to let the few rein, so long as they are doing a good job? POST YOUR COMMENTS!

All A Twitter

Heard of Twitter? No? Don’t worry; I hadn’t either until a few weeks ago. For those of you who like to be up on the latest and greatest social networking tools the web has to offer, allow me to give you a brief introduction to Twitter.

Starting with the Wikipedia definition:
Twitter is a free social networking and micro-blogging service that allows users to send “updates” (or “tweets”; text-based posts, up to 140 characters long) to the Twitter website, via short message service, instant messaging, or a third-party application such as Twitterrific.
Updates are displayed on the user’s profile page and instantly delivered to other users who have signed up to receive them. The sender can restrict delivery to those in his or her circle of friends (delivery to everyone is the default).
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter

Still confused? Let’s break things down:

1) What is social networking?
We can think of social networks as “virtual communities.” Web-based networks of people who are communicating with each other in some way. Notable examples include Facebook, Flickr, MySpace, and of course Twitter.
This video from YouTube gives a quick overview of what is social network is and why it’s important:

2) What is micro-blogging?
Micro-blogging is basically blogging abbreviated. Posts are generally limited to 200 characters or less (in the case of Twitter to 140 characters or less). A micro-blog can serve as a kind of “update” or newsflash.

Now that you’ve got the basics, let’s have a closer look at Twitter itself. Twitter’s url http://twitter.com. The homepage gives a “what, why, and how” explanation of Twitter. This is also where you can sign up for your very own Twitter account. Yay!

3) Why does Twitter matter?
Jeff Jarvis (of the BuzzMachine blog) does a better job explaining this that I could. Have a read.

Finally, take a look at the following video, which gives you a view of what Twitter actually looks like and gives a brief explanation of how to use it. You can tell this stuff is cutting edge because the guy in the video sounds like he’s about 14!

Hope this information is useful to anyone thinking of getting a Twitter account, or who are simply wondering about its relevance.

FEEDBACK:

• Got more Twitter related questions? Post them!
• Love Twitter? Hate Twitter? What’s your opinion?