Henry Brooks Adams said "Chaos was the law of nature. Order was the dream of man.” It’s natural for there to disorder, but social conventions and norms create order. For us to preserve this order, Wallace argues that it’s necessary to give up certain freedoms to earthly authorities. Be it government or the concept of respect, there are conventions which keep us safe and allow us to interact. Even though there are not many legal regulations for the Internet, I think there are still many unofficial rules that all savvy users abide by. For example, why is Wikipedia, a user-generated encyclopedia, as accurate as a time-tested, expert-composed Encyclopedia Britannica? (see proof here http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438900a.html) Users typically write accurate entries. If not, other users will correct the false entries. This is an external Levianthan in addition to the internal Leviathan of wikiadmins who are moderators.(Thanks, Caryn) It’s understood that you should follow unspoken rules by respecting other users and the reader population by being accurate. On a smaller scale, using ALL CAPS IS TYPICALLY AVOIDED IN CMC (unless you want to be seen as a jerk who is screaming at readers.) We know these norms through experience, but why do we choose to abide by them and self-censor?
I like Wallace’s term “netiquette.” Are we really afraid of raising some eyebrows or being chastised by our peers/moderators? Probably not as much as we have a natural need to have a positive environment in which all members follow accepted customs. This provides a sense of security and safety. We feel comfortable reading Wikipedia only because we know each of our peers is following the rules. That, and not fear, is why we allow ourselves to be corrected or censored by moderators. This also makes sense given what we’ve learned about dishonesty in CMC. People are in need of this framework to provide some sense of trust and regulation if CMC is used in place of FtF. We tend to have more faith in others in FtF than in CMC, so we need a guarantee of security if we are to believe what we read in CMC.
If we all used caps, we would annoy others and decrease the positive environment. People wouldn’t like talking to us, and CMC would become an annoyance. Even if we really like the way caps look, we give it up because we understand how others would feel. No one needs to explicity tell us these rules. We learn through experience and social interaction what's appropriate behavior. Both the Wikipedia and caps examples illustrate the need to keep CMC valuable to all users. This follows MacKinnon’s observation that there is indeed a Leviathan online, and “most people willingly give up freedoms in order to preserve the value and energy of the medium itself.”
As Wallace says, the mere presence of an authority figure can influence users to act appropriately. If we didn’t have authority figures, would we be the CMC version of Lord of the Flies? Well, that might be a little dramatic. The point is, Wallace is right. We have an innate human need to conform and preserve a peaceful environment even if it means sacrificing some freedom. Why is this true? Consider reasons for joining social networks in the first place. Unless we are an anonymous hacker who has a goal of destroying an online community, we are there to interact and share. Thus, we put in an effort to follow the rules and create a civilized environment.
comments:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2774598650119543771&postID=260422847976956895
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2774598650119543771&postID=7505393556445230494
3 comments:
Linda,
The fact that Wikipedia is just as accurate as a regular encyclopedia shocked and delighted me. Indeed people feel the need to write accurately on the site, thus acting as their own Leviathan. However, I think that an additional force also contributes to Wikipedia’s accuracy. In addition the public, Wikipedia is somewhat “moderated” by authority figures that have the power to delete information and approve submitted edits. The combination of an internal Leviathan (the internet society) and an external Leviathan (Wikipedia’s moderators) keeps Wikipedia accurate and in order. Also, I enjoyed your discussion of using ALL CAPITALS. Choosing to do so would alienate the caps user from the general online population. Great post!
Great job covering multiple CMC examples of the Leviathan. Your introduction was particularly well worded and set up your topic in addition to creating interest. That Wikipedia is just as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica has been a recurring theme in some of my Information Science courses, but I hadn’t yet thought about it in terms of what we’ve covered in this course. It is a very good example of self-policing and “netiquette.” With regards to how most people are considerate of CMC discourse and refrain from typing in all caps, it’s interesting how there still are many people that do. It’s like being anonymous on the internet creates a freedom from authority figures for some people, so they might have that sense of Lord of the Flies.
Linda,
It seems that the "willingness to 'compromise'" that you mention in your post infers the reason for the peaceful environment. Without peace online, there would be online anarchy. This post did also make me think that sometimes we ourselves serve as Leviathans in some sort of "checks and balances" system of a government. Based on our experience, we have created (and can amend) this online constitution. Also, sometimes we ourselves are intimated by others so we use the Leviathan to say what we were thinking.
Great post!
~Saidu
Post a Comment