I just read the assigned chapters, and Wallace gave me some pretty important advice. See if you can pick it out: FWIW, I'm a 20-year-old male from Portland, Oregon. My friends call me Ken :-) (Bonus points if you noticed I didn't cross-post this to Rush Limbaugh's website.) I almost can't believe we're reading a book about the Internet that was published circa the tail end of of the dot-com bubble--ancient Internet history in many ways--but a good deal of Wallace rang true anyway.
One of the reasons I joined this class is that the Internet is a fundamental part of my decision-making process. If I need more information on a general subject, I will immediately Google or Wikipedia it. If I'm trying to make a purchase, I'll look up and compare prices. If I need to communicate with someone, I'll probably send an e-mail, or, if you're part of my generation, I'll send you a facebook message. And if you send me a $1600 travel voucher in the mail, I will look you up while I call your toll-free number.
That happened today--I called Ramada Plaza Resorts back while Googling their name. Voila--while "Paulie, confirmation number pl4507" explained how much fun I would have on my virtually-free South Florida vacation, http://www.ripoffreport.com/ was screaming horror stories about how Paulie would soon ask for an extra $798 that he would never refund (he did ask, about ten minutes in), while sending "ya married? got a girlfriend?" and I to a grimy motel in the seedy underbelly of Ft Lauderdale. Thanks to RipoffReport, and in a way the Internet at large, I got to spend the rest of the phone call coming down with a hacking cough and testing out my Kermit the Frog impression ("can you speak to my uncle?" "does your vacation cruise harm the manatee?" "I promise I'll sign up if you listen to my song about rainbows!").
The point is that I didn't pay a penny to read that report. And while RipoffReport clearly sells advertisements, the brunt of its argument was actually its Comments section, which was written by angry consumers who had fallen for RPR's trap. In much the same way that anyone can edit Wikipedia without any sort of financial incentive, a bunch of strangers had dispensed with a little of their time and energy to save me from a Kermit-free phone call, with no cash involved.
Obviously they have their incentives--for Wikipedians, a little respect, a feeling of making the world a better place, and for RipoffReporters, some revenge, along with the same feeling--but they don't make any money, which is more important than it sounds. I find it fascinating that so many of my decisions and so much of my day-to-day life is managed by strangers who I trust for the very reason that I read their opinions for free.
And BTW: most of what I'm discussing falls into the category of asynchronous discussion forums (free-information-from-strangers). Wikipedia is a little more than that, but for my purposes I think the shoe fits.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Your post resonated with me because I could see myself reacting to that advertisement in the exact same way. For example, I have been “charged” a total around $5,000 by phishing Pay Pal-ers. Every time a new phishing email comes, I don’t just delete it. I get to the bottom of it.
While I use the Internet for information gathering (and, in turn, decision-making) much like you do, I have never exactly thought about it in the same way you have. Support sites with user-generated content like RipoffReport.com and BleepingComputer.com provide valuable information. What makes these sites more trustworthy than the similarly-designed Wikipedia?
I can imagine trolling is a problem in almost any online space (of which the aforementioned websites are no exception). Why are contributors to anti-malware forums trusted more than the creator of the malware? Are there more people, as you said, looking to make the world a better place and looking for a little respect? I hope so.
Ken,
I agree with your sentiments about the dated nature of the Wallace book. When Professor Hancock stated that the book was published prior to the Facebook era, I didn't understand the full scope of his warning until I read about "newsgroups" and "MUDs". Granted, the examples shown in class about the Sims helped me to better understand how "MUDs" functioned. Bust,I still felt like I was reading an archaic text.I guess that goes to show how quickly technology is advancing. Wallace's book, which seemed revolutionary at the time, is now falling behind the times. Just think in a few years people will be talking about Facebook like the way we talk about dial-up internet access. The times are constantly changing!
Now, with respect to your discussion on the altruism that is rampant on the internet with sites such as Wikipedia and RipOffReport, I too would like to believe that the information that is presented is pretty factual and reliable. Most of the time I use Wikipedia to get quick information. However, considering that in the realm of academia sites such as Wikipedia are not valued as scholarly citations, red flags go up. I feel as though the appeal of Wikipedia is that it is a knowledge pool replenished by online altruists. However, judging from the constant editing and revision of the information, in lieu of errors, I kind of take the information for what it's worth. I think that my issue is that when something is free there is always some sort of catch. It could simply be that these online altruists are simply individuals who get a rise out of having people believe something they said (true or not), or middle school kids with time to kill. Who knows.
Post a Comment