Group items tagged

Interesting reading in this Module, esp the article about having an additional anonymous online persona. It's interesting in that reddit not only allows users to register using obviously fake names, but also declines to require any authentication, but still offers it as an option. I participated in the reddit community for about a year, and in that time connected with numerous individuals, most of which I never learned 'who' they were. Personally, I was never harassed, bullied or otherwise hassled, save for one or two PMs from various mods when I had run afoul of their guidelines.

You beat me to it, i was planning on posting about reddit! Yeah, it's anonymous, and it's against its rules to post personal information, but it gets leaked and some people managed to get someone's information by reading old posts and connecting dots. The information you post, as a whole, its your footprint and can be tracked.

You beat me to it too! Reddit is a fascinating experiment. I actually mod a couple subreddits over there, and it's always interesting to read articles about it. In my two or so years on Reddit, I have: --Made friends (and lost touch with) with people from all over the world. --Been cyber-bullied and therefore witnessed exactly how good the moderators of certain subreddits can be. It was taken care of quickly and cleanly. I still love the community. --Seen people get "doxxed" (where their anonymity is broken, and often angry users track down the victim in a rather frightening way). --Seen the outrage the general community expresses at "doxxing", which was heartening. --Seen it used as an amazingly effective social networking and marketing tool. Posts and posters that come across and genuine, informed, and amicable are usually welcomed with open arms, even if they deal with a subject or product Redditors dislike. --Seen it completely backfire as a social networking and marketing tool, which happens when someone uses marketing "tricks" or comes across as anything less than genuine. --Gotten death threats for posting a picture of a squashed coin that made the front page. Reddit can be very weird. --Gotten beautiful, kind, completely random private messages for no reason at all on days where I really need them. Reddit can be very sweet. --Read articles in the Washington Post comparing Reddit to a democratic fiefdom. Sounds about right. --Been exposed to points of view I never would have seen before in my life, simply because of where I live and who I know. It's mind-blowing. The whole website just never ceases to amaze me. Honestly, it sort of reminds me of a MOOC: it's an ever-continuing event where people learn and argue and network.

Why it "works" Network Effect Wikipedia benefits tremendously from the network effect. The network effect is when a user of a product benefits more from a product if other people also use the product. Telephones are a textbook example. If only a few dozen consumers have telephones, then the telephones aren't very useful. But if millions of consumers have telephones, they become more useful since each telephone owner can contact many people. The large number of Wikipedia users benefits Wikipedia. First, the more editors there are, the the higher the accuracy and quality of the articles. Secondly, it gives an incentive to users to edit. Since editors know the each article will be read by thousands of users, the sheer influence of each article is a strong enough incentive to edit, even though Wikipedia is free. Openness Wikipedia is free and open for any user to edit, even anonymously. This means there is a very large number of editors. This helps Wikipedia ensure accuracy since each mistake and inaccuracy will have to get by hundreds of editors. With so many writers, the scope of Wikipedia articles is very large, minimizing the amount of missing information. Although the openness of Wikipedia provides a powerful self-correcting method, it also makes Wikipedia vulnerable to vandalism. In addition, editors are anonymous and may have a conflict of interest, or might have inadequate knowledge of the article's subject. Yet, because Wikipedia is open to any edits, it is also likely to be corrected. It operates by a system of checks and balances from many editors. However, it has some guidelines to protect it against misinformation and bias: 1. Verifiability principle. To prevent bias and to protect the encyclopedic quality of its articles, all edits on Wikipedia must in theory be a verifiable fact. Moreover, it must have a reliable source to verify each fact. 2. No Original Research. As an encyclopedia, it is mean to be a secondary source of infor

This article provides a brief historical contextualization of different forms of peer review. It does well to highlight not only pros and cons of the various processes, but it also discusses the positions from which these pros and cons come form. For example, gender is discussed, revealing that women frequently advocate for anonymous peer review due to the sexism they encounter leading to their work not being published. Another aspect that the authors engage with is how the technologies available shape the forms that peer review takes.

Sad and interesting situation here, scientist publishes his research, and in the comments, his work is called into question and it costs him a job. Brings into question the integrity of pre-publication peer review, and casts a shadow on the future of comments. Frequently, the comments are made by anonymous users, which itself should be a problem, even if the comment brings to light errors in the research. Now it seems, entire websites have sprung up with the sole purpose of debunking the hard work of others, sometimes needlessly. It's a good read.

Thank you for sharing. The situation with PubPeer actually encounters problems which are common on internet. As long as one comments anonymously, there are many off-topic and offensive comments. As soon as only registered comments are welcome, there are very few of them or not at all. Besides, one can presume that some scientific communities, even world-wide, are quite small and because of different reasons people do not want to comment under their real names... Another interesting resource to explore.

This article relates to Module 1 and the lack of online privacy that we have with the increase of social media. This also affects intellectual property, and nothing is ever concealed or anonymous.

Emotional expression and linguistic style in online collaboration differ substantially depending on the contributors' gender and status, and on the communication network. This should be taken into account when analyzing collaborative success, and may prove insightful to communities facing gender gap and stagnation in contributor acquisition and participation levels.

lubajong and taylor_cole thank you for your comments. From my part I will add a critical evaluation of this resource as well. The talk pages of Wikipedia provide a rich source for researchers to study communication patterns. On Wikipedia talk pages they have found signals for status differences between groups of participants, notably between admins and ordinary contributors. Those findings support in general the theories of the researchers about status differences and communication style differences between managers and employees in firms. They have also found differences in communication style bases on gender, which also support their general theories about gender (which is a social construct). What I - as a Wikipedian insider - finds missing in the article is the selection bias. Wikipedia admins aren't appointed by Jimmy Wales or some other body. Admins are community selected. The exact process differs per language version. On the English Wikipedia admin selection is by a community consensus process. Future admins are selected who show the preferred communication style of admins by other contributors including existing admins. For me, the patterns in communication style do not explain the gender gap on Wikipedia. There is a gender gap in many language versions of Wikipedia, but not in all. The Armenian language version of Wikipedia is a notable exception, showing a gender balance in the conbtributor base. An explanation of that exemption requires further research. What taylor_cole notes about neutrality and bias is a valid point. People volunteer to write for Wikipedia, and volunteer in topic choice. My guess is that in general people will opt to write about something they like, care about, know about. A lack of diversity in contributors will naturally reflect in lack of diversity of topics. For example nerdy males will write about things male nerds like. In general females tend to be interested in other topics than nerdy males. A lack of topics covered in Wikipe

Levels of participation influences emotional expression and phrasing? has the function of sex and status of the taxpayer. 4 strands to study and find a result! Interesting!

This article discusses the start of open access publications and the arguments against open access journals.

Excellent and concise article, thank you for posting. I think this type of anonymous testing of open journals must continue to be applied to ensure standards are raised, and then consistently maintained. It also serves to call out frequent offending publications that may repeatedly demonstrate a lack of stringent review.

Publicado el 7/5/2012 This is a brief overview of several Open Peer Review Models, including ETAI, Nature, ACP, PLoS One and EJCBS. It is recorded based on a Prezi Presentation first developed for Open Access Week 2011 at UBC.

I found this presentation, in particular the visual representations, to be very useful in understanding just how diverse open peer review models can be. Several things stuck out to me throughout the presentation. First, I was surprised that many of the open peer review models either maintained anonymity of the reviewers or self-identification was optional. For example, PLOSone and the Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics journals did not require self-identification. This raises a tension for me in that it does enable more people to participate in the publishing/review process, but it still inherently indicates context does not matter, which is something I disagree with. That is, if, for example, a paper is on student-faculty partnerships or feminism, it seems to me that crucial insights pertain to the particularities of the people reviewing an article. The other aspect that stuck out to me was how crucial it is for a journal to be intentional about implementing, integrating, and valuing an open peer review process. The Nature experiment is a good example of this. While I am sure they spent a great deal of time figuring out how to construct and enable an open peer review process, it was not necessarily emphasized as important by the journal nor well integrated into people's current practice. In contrast, the ETAI did this by permanently archiving the peer comments rather than deleting them unannounced, and editors also sent notifications to people that articles were ready rather than assuming people would seek out articles themselves.

This is a blog post from Pubpeer.com, a website that allows for crowd-sourced peer reviewing. This post details the website's insight about fake scientific evidence and sloppy science, and how open data can help mitigate these issues. It also mentions that after they allowed "anonymous" people to post, they received more "calling out" of bad science and poor methodology.

At the January 31st lunchtime lecture, Alan Patrick, co-founder of Broadsight, examined what lessons can be learnt from past technologies such as search, and the most likely safeguards required over the next few years. How do prevent abuse of open data by those with ill-intent, or is this a pipe dream? Open data is expounded as a force for good but is there a risk of glossing over its potential for harm? Main points: There is no such thing as anonymized data and data does not create clarity. He suggest the following consequences: 1. Accept there is a dark side. 2. Stopp hackers. 3. Understand whose data it is. 4. Start the governance early rather than late.

Our WhoIs lookup is designed to help you perform a variety of whois lookup functions. WhoIs lets you perform a domain whois search, whois IP lookup and search the whois database for relevant information on domain registration and availability. This can help provide insight into a domain's history and additional information.

whois.com is interesting because it allows individuals who otherwise would be afforded privacy to be reachable. This has a connected learning aspect to it, because now you can find the creators of websites and reach out to them - this is something I have done in the past. However, websites such as GoDaddy allow for one to purchase privacy, which blocks the whois lookup service. I believe this is ethical however because websites are not inherently social media, and anonymity should be a choice.

An article by an anonymous author on the Knowledge Commons Brasil. The article attempts to show how the Global North dominates the internet. Internet users as well as content (exemplified by geo-located entities) tend to cluster in the rich industrial countries of the so called "developed" wordl. This critique resembles the lament of the so called Media Imperialism spearheaded by the McBriede Report to Unesco (http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0004/000400/040066eb.pdf) "Many Voices, One World)". It should be noted that here more detailed studies suggested that news agencies reflect the interests of their audiences. So it would be interesting what the distribution of geo-tagged entities in the Igbo version of Wikipedia is like. Does it mirror a bias towards West Africa (Igbo being one of the principal languages of Nigeria)?

Adobe has just given us a graphic demonstration of how not to handle security and privacy issues. A hacker acquaintance of mine has tipped me to a huge security and privacy violation on the part of Adobe. That anonymous acquaintance was examining Adobe's DRm for educational purposes when they noticed that Digital Editions 4, the newest version of ...

The Internet is challenging its users privacy, and privacy carries a different meaning in the Digital Age.

It seems internet users might just have to become "comfortable" with software companies now having access to large amounts of information about them…the new normal

What happens when you troll Tor developers hard? You get unmasked. Towards the end of last week, a troll who had sent various aggressive tweets to a host of security experts and privacy advocates associated with the Tor project and browser, which enables online anonymity, had his identity exposed.

It is important to stand up against all kinds of bullying, in this case it is cyberbullying. But what is the difference when it comes to someone bullies you, and you bully that person back? It is still bullying. Although I think some actions should be taken to tackle the people trolling, it is difficult because of the massive amount of people who are leaving angry or horrible responses. To monitor every netizens activity is impossible and inefficient, it also violates privacy rights (even when we know we are monitored at some point). What do you think about creating filters? I think that will restrict the freedom of speech people have. So is having freedom and open access such a brilliant thing? Would it not cause moral conflicts? Education and moral standards would not always relate, because emotions is one of the measures too.

Thanks for your sharing. A lot of people have been the victim of cyberbullying, the reason of cyberbullying has become increasingly common might has some relationship with the advanced technology and also due to people can say whatever they want to say by hiding behind their digital identities, so they do not care about moral standard any more. And it's true that it's really hard to take action to everyone who involved in cyberbullying because the amount is huge.

This provides blog post provides an interesting comparison of the post-publication review process of F1000 Research to the traditional peer review model. What I really found interesting is the author's hypothesis that the anonymity of traditional peer review might benefit science.