Turkle

LINK IT: HERE

Sheryl Turkle introduced us to the concept of Virtual Sex in MUDs in the reading we had due for class on Monday. This whole concept is very interesting and intriguing in my mind. We have spent the past few classes discussing MUDs and the concept in general and some of the pros and cons of using them. We have just recently gotten into some very interesting questions regarding what actually goes on in these MUDs and in particular the concept of Virtual Sex. Turkle elaborates on this concept and defines it as, “consists of two or more players typing descriptions of physical actions, verbal statements, and emotional reactions for their characters.” What we discussed in class to a certain extent is how people that are playing as different genders engage in these activities with genders that in real life would be considered homosexual relationships. I mean you have women playing men, men playing women, people playing animals, and people playing as transsexuals.

All of these people are having sex with one another and most of the time is basing their entire online experiences around these sexual relationships. Turkle gives us an example of Tim and Janet, where Tim was having online sex with a virtual partner without his wife, Janet, knowing about it. Once Janet found out about this, Tim swore he would stop, but Janet is still wondering if his activities have ceased. This leads to the question that we have posted on the forums, discussed in class, and find here in the readings, “Are these sexual experiences in these virtual communities hurting marriages and real life relationships.”

Another example that Turkle gives is with Rudy and his girlfriend. While dating he found out that she was regularly having sex on the internet and it was usually with women. He broke off the relationship after this information was uncovered. A great quote that I think sums up this whole topic we are discussing is from Rudy, “We are not ready for the psychological confusion this technology can bring.” I believe this sums up the idea of virtual sex has done for relationships, marriages, etc. It seems to bring about a sense of confusion to all parties involved

The article that I have chosen to back up this point is from the website WebMD. The article is, Virtual Sex: Threat to Real Intimacy? The article discusses how the Internet is here to stay and how online sex is something that we will have to deal with. The first part of the article discusses where cheating on the internet is the same as cheating in real life. A quote from the article sums this up well, "It's hard to give a blanket definition of cheating, because it's based on the morals and beliefs of the marriage. But what matters is: does your spouse consider it cheating?" Many people have different ways at viewing this, but many believe that if you engage in virtual sex, it is just as unforgivable as the real thing. The go on to state the virtual sex is only going to continue to evolve and be something that is here to stay. The line to draw between virtual and real world is something that should be kept very separate. If this is the case then we will continue to evolve in terms of opportunities for virtual sex, but at the same time keep some of the moral backgrounds we have based many of our relationships and marriages on.

MUDs

Link it up: MUDs as an educational tool.

Howard Rheingold has once again introduced us to a new concept, MUDs. MUDs are known as multi-user domains or multi-user dungeons. These MUDs can either be text based, as the MUD we experimented with in class or can be three dimensional, such as our look at Second Life. Second Life can also be looked at as a MOO since it is object-oriented. Basically what MUDs are is a place where people can use simple commands to build these virtual worlds, solve puzzles, entertain one another, gain wisdom, seek revenge, and in some strange cases, even have sex. Many of these MUDs were created as “living laboratories” used for studying how virtual communities affect our everyday lives and psyches. This blog post really is more about what MUDs are and how they are used, both for good and bad. My example that I will present in the following gives us a look into how MUDs are used as an educational tool.

MUDs allow you to create what is an avatar, which is basically your identity, and then use this avatar to explore, build, emote, and interact with other avatars in the MUD. As mentioned, MUDs can be used as a laboratory for exploring the first-level impacts of virtual communities. MUDs are also not the only type of virtual community on the internet. Obviously we have communities such as Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, etc. It just goes to show how the Internet can facilitate all of these communities and teach us so much about the use of virtual worlds and communities. In these MUDs people can basically do whatever they want to and let the story play out the way in which they want. As shown in class, the professor has her avatar in Second Life and actually carries out virtual meetings in her home that she created in Second Life. While to some it might be just a game, to others, it can be used as an important too to help educate ourselves on these worlds. A MUD can also be considered a learning community where everyone teaches everyone else. This is because once you enter a new MUD everyone greets you and helps you on your journey to learn about MUDs and become part of this new virtual community. As mentioned multiple times already, these MUDs can be used as an educational tool as shown in the example I have shown below (links can be found at the beginning of the post and in the example itself).

The article is all about how a group of writing professors that were using MediaMOO came together to start using these virtual communities for their composition classes. These professors saw how these MUDs could help bring together the classroom and allow the professors and students to interact in a different way. They knew these MUDs could help students get into contact with people from all sorts of cultures outside their own. As the article states, “they would get immediate responses to their ideas and to the text objects they created, experiencing dynamically the effects their words have on others.” The article states that one of the most important features of using MUDs is that it takes away the hierarchy that can be found in most classrooms. Without this hierarchy students are able expresses themselves more freely and have a feeling their ideas and comments really matter. The article then goes on to discuss how these MUDs are sometimes being built exactly how a campus would be built. All of the buildings and area between, not allowing certain access to certain building and lectures, etc. Professors are being able to lock out students and silent everyone while they give a lecture, etc, all things which these professors (the ones with the composition classes) see is not facilitating the use of MUDs as an affective educational tool. The way these composition classes are using MUDs as an educational tool is exactly what Rheingold discusses in his article. Everyone is teaching everyone else.

Rheingold

Howard Rheingold introduces the concept of computer-mediated communications (CMC) in Virtual Communities: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. CRM is basically all of the computers and the switched telecommunication networks that carry the information back and forth between people. The Net as we know and Rheingold tells us, is an informal term for the loosely interconnected computer networks that use CMC technology to link people around the world into public discussions. It is these discussions that are shaping the way in which our World functions on all levels. These discussions are carried on through the Net through a number of people and after enough time begin these people, using human feelings, form personal relationships in cyberspace.

Rheingold then goes in to discussion how important it is for these communities and discussion to continue into the future. He states that because of the potential influence on so many people’s beliefs and perceptions, the future of the Net is connected to the future of community, democracy, education, science, and intellectual life. This means that in order for the people’s voice to be heard we need to continue to foster these relationships and discussions online. The future of the Internet has become way too important for us to let specialists and special interest groups to influence how it is used in our daily lives. Rheingold then discusses that as the Internet becomes more and more popular and influential, the people need to be having a say in how funds are being applied to the further development of the Internet. With this in mind the people can change their communities, democracy, education, sciences and intellectual life all with the power of the Net. The voice of the people needs to be heard though. Rheingold then goes into stating that if we do not develop a vision and let our voice be heard, the future will be shaped for us by large commercial and political power holders.

I don’t think one specific example can make the point that Rheingold was trying to make. The peoples voices are all around us in different situations that we have all heard of in the past. I mean we are using YouTube to help influence political campaigns and debates. We are using blogs to discuss political activities that the major news networks pick up on. These blogs are also discussing issues that have to do with the internet. We have formed communities to foster our beliefs through Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn and a variety of other sources. We find one another through these websites, form friendships, marriages, and form together to have a common voice on certain issues. We as ordinary citizens are shaping the way in which we use the internet and letting ourselves be heard as to how we want to continue to have the internet be used to let our voices be heard. If we were not to have had all of these different websites to facilitate this, the internet could very well be shaped by these large commercial companies into the future.

Keen

Link to Wired article

In class on Monday we were presented with the reading by Andrew Keen from his book, The Cult of the Amateur. One concept in particular that was talked about in class and in this book was that of a noble amateur and a concept of something known as the Web 2.0. Keen believes that these noble amateurs and the use of the Web 2.0 “threaten to turn our intellectual traditions and institutions upside down.”

He defines and amateur as a hobbyists, knowledgeable or otherwise, someone who does not make a living from his or her field of interest, a layperson, lacking credentials, a dabbler. He states that these amateurs on the internet are being praised for being amateurs and not because of their expertise. The Web 2.0 is also a concept that was discussed heavily in class. The Web 2.0 is web based meaning that it runs completely on the web. Such as Outlook mail, facebook, java applets or Half Life. IT is also built completely on social networking and collaborative content creation. Overall it can be said that the Web 2.0 is one of the biggest marketing gimmicks out there. Keen argues that this is what is ruining America are these amateurs out there that are acting like professionals and taking away from what the true essence of a professional is. This can be seen in the example with Wikipedia and the user “Essjay.” He claimed to be a tenured professor of theology with four academic degrees, but in reality was a 24 year old high school graduate with no academic background. There has been a lot of skepticism by the public and Keen makes this known that posts on Wikipedia cannot be relied upon because of these amateurs that are able to post anything they want.

An example of this can be seen with the news article I have selected where someone out there pulled a similar stunt compared to Essjay and Wikipedia. While Essjay was posting frequently on Wikipedia a similar incident happened in 2005. A man made a fake post linking John Seigenthaler, a journalist, to the assassination of JFK. The post was made by Brian Chase as joke with a fellow co-worker. After Seigenthaler caught word of this outlandish post of the internet he went looking for the man who did it. Brian eventually confessed to the incident and actually resigned from his job that he was currently at. Brian claimed that he did not realize that Wikipedia was used as a serious resource and for Seigenthaler a close friend of the Kennedy family, this was something all too serious. Thus, pulling into question the same points that Keen was making regards to these amateurs being able to post anything on the website. Seigenthaler actually blasted Wikipedia and its credibility in an article in the USA Today. He does not plan on taking criminal actions against Brian, and is not supporting more regulations on the internet, but he said, “Wikipedia is inviting it by its allowing irresponsible vandals to write anything they want about anybody." This is exactly the kind of situations that Keen is talking about and this example goes right along with the act of amateurs being able to edit Wikipedia at their own will.