This seems as good a time as any to de-lurk on this list; hello everyone. I wanted to take up Alexander's first question with an observation from the perspective of literary studies. In regards to facebook, I increasingly see parallels with the social world depicted by Jane Austen in a conversation like the one that has unfolded on the list; being the friend of a reputable / desirable person (such as Henry Jenkins) confers respectability on another, the 'critical mass' of social connections makes a subject like Cornwell the topic of conversation (dare I say gossip?) within a particular world. (I do take Alexander's point that the blurring of the professional and the social in the discussion of Cornwell raises interesting ethical questions. Austen shows, however, that the temptation of such discussion is great, because the power such connections and associations wield is significant (or appear to wield?). This is not to dismiss the ethical questions raised by Alexander and others, but merely to suggest how the discussion of a person's character can be read as symptomatic of the seriousness and meaning that gets attached to the issue.) Austen's comic talents come to the fore in extrapolating the problems and dilemmas that can arise from being led by the social network and its methods of constructing and conferring respectability, and identity. And so I want to answer Alexander's question by suggesting that not much has changed. Drawing a parallel with Austen is useful as she can offer some finely-grained ways of thinking about the function of social networking and its impact on how we develop identities in tightly networked environments (and yes, I guess I am suggesting that the version of the internet many of us experience has things in common with an English village and the middle class social world). Social and professional mores suggest I should avoid a gratuitous plug for the book I'm co-editing on online identity, but a case study on trolling would be a welcome addition. Anna Dr Anna Poletti Lecturer in English School of Humanities & Social Sciences Charles Sturt University Locked Bag 678 Wagga Wagga NSW 2678 e: apoletti@csu.edu.au ph: + 61 2 6933 2478 fax: +61 2 6933 2792 --------- Message: 9 Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 14:37:48 -0500 From: Alexander Halavais <halavais@gmail.com> To: air-l@aoir.org Subject: [Air-L] Reputation and friending (was Reid Cornwell) Message-ID: <e0fe0c741001041137k35373dbfqfc69e86af1f7f417@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 This may seem at odds with a URL posted earlier, but with the greatest respect (and sympathy) for those who have already entered into this thread, I humbly suggest that discussing any person's character on AIR-L is: 1. Inappropriate. AIR-L is intended to further research and while it frequently becomes a more friendly community, none of us would want our personal character adjudicated in such a public setting. So, to second Peter's comment, I think we should quit it. 2. Ineffective. Really, the question of whether to befriend someone or "friend" someone is more effectively handled by talking to people you trust and, for people who write in public, reading what they have said. Why would you trust 2,000 relative strangers' opinions on another stranger? If we want to talk about something a person has written, an argument they have made, or even a project they have undertaken, that's another kettle of fish, and this would be a great topic. 3. Boring. I don't really care, particularly, about the reputation of a single person. I know some do--that's why TMZ rakes in the bucks. I encourage someone to start a Reid Cornwell fan page on Facebook, or an "anti-fan" page if they prefer. I just don't think it is why people come to AIR-L. So, since the above is very much "do as I say, not as I do," I recommend the following tangents, which actually take those issues on without ever having to talk about any single person: 1. Has the nature of reputation changed? Do we now make friends in a different way? Most of the people I consider friends IRL I met either because I was introduced to them by people I trusted, or because we were forced to work together on something (school, work, sporting team, chain gang, same diff.). But now, I feel Helen's pain: If you are a friend of Henry's shouldn't you also be my friend? 2. Is whuffie a reasonable construct? Do we all, like public officials, now have "approval ratings"? Did we always, and now it is more explicit? 3. How, when anyone online can be a dog, do we determine if someone is a "mensch"? I know that many of you on this list have "alts," and nom de plumes (d'ordinateurs?). If you are like me, you are concerned that they keep their "good name," even if they happen to be fake. How do we determine if a person or an organization is "legitimate"? If it "matters"? When does the social construct of a public persona or organization become "real"? Where is the border between astroturf and grass roots--or is there any? (Obviously, this is a question Wikipedia struggles with.) Discuss. </threadjack> -- -- // // This email is // [x] assumed public and may be blogged / forwarded. // [ ] assumed to be private, please ask before redistributing. // // Alexander C. Halavais, ciberfl?neur // http://alex.halavais.net //