Wednesday, April 11, 2007

If Net Neutrality wins, I won't be able to afford my blog page

The Internet is the latest breakthrough in technology and is the fastest growing media outlet since the radio, its about time it created some controversy. Since Tim Burners Lee came up with the idea of the Internet in the 1980s, the idea has changed the world. The Internet and the world wide web was growing at such a fast pace that there was little time to really sit down and discuss it. But maybe in first world - super power countries like the United States of America, the initial growth of the Internet, people hooking up their computer's to the net, has settled. This settling of the Internet allows for discussion, but what is there really to discuss(Tim Burners Lee, wikipedia)?

Until doing some reading on Network Neutrality, I really did not think there was much of a conflict dealing with the Internet, but it appears I was wrong. This whole Net Neutrality debate has really brought up some interesting issues that I had not thought about before. The first thing I find interesting about the topic is that there is not one clear definition of Net Neutrality, and this is because there are so many people concerned with this, and everybody has differing opinions that one clear-cut definition is impossible. Everybody who knows something about this topic has a different opinion on it, including mine (so excuse me if this comes off as a little opinionated, but I mean common... its a blog) (Jones, K.C.).

So what is Net Neutrality you may ask? Well I would have to say that the definition you are looking for is probably not going to be found in a dictionary or on wikipedia because this will give you a big complex definition, and probably a headache without really telling you what you want to know. My first suggestion would be to look at some websites, maybe search the topic on youtube. Following my own advice, I looked in youtube, and got a lot of great results about it. I found that most of the videos on the cite were "Pro" Net Neutrality. So check out some of these great videos...

There are also a lot more I wish I could post up here, but I don't want to just fill up my blog with youtube videos, so you should also check you cites like

OK OK, I promised myself I would not get side tracked with this one, but I did, sorry. Back to me talking about Net Neutrality... Well let me start of with my explanation / definition of Net Neutrality. Similar to how cable TV providers charge their customers for access channels, Internet providers (often the same companies) want to charge their customers for access to websites. So their would be an increasing level of the amount of access and capability you could get on the web, depending on how much you are willing to spend. So for only $5 more a month, you can have unlimited access to facebook! That sounds like a great deal to me, NOT! An other good analogy to this is like a tollbooth or gatekeeper.

It is almost hard to really grasp this concept, because most people in America have cable TV, and pay for certain plans with certain access to certain channels. All of these plans are very restrictive, and now in America this comes as our first nature. So I don't really blame cable providers for trying to impose Net Neutrality, because it has worked pretty well for TV.

So do you get the debate now? Internet providers want more money, and plan on getting this money by charging more, more money for more access. So this probably means that under Net Neutrality, what you are paying now for Internet will not get you as much, and that doesn't really sound fair. I mean, how can somebody just change the rules on us (the debate for pro-net neutrality)! I mean, its not like it happened with radio, satellite radio, and cable TV, right?

So what kind of stereotypical people would be on what side of this debate. Well, the most obvious is that the providers would support this. Increasingly, members of the congress have supported this as well as other politicians like John Edwards (John Edwards: ‘We Need Net Neutrality’). On the other side are the little guys, like small bands that want to get their music out there on the Internet. The website really supports pro net neutrality, and like many other cites offers petitions to stop it.

The Big guys, the Internet providing companies like Verizon and AT&T, and politicians are really in it for the money, but they'll probably tell you that "its more fair or something." And the little guys, they just want their Internet and want a chance to make it.

I don't think it is fair for me to tell you who to support, but I will gladly tell you my opinion (if you couldn't tell already). There are two sides to my opinion. I understand why big corporations and media companies want Net-Neutrality ($$) and I understand why they think it is attainable (TV and radio). But at the same time, I think it is obviously unfair, and will only increase the information gap between the haves and have-nots. I personally do not want to have to wait in line at my rich friends house to check my email, because I can't afford to get the Internet service with that website. Also, I can't wait to see what is going to happen to libraries and state universities and other places like those if this kind of thing passes. I vote against this, and think you should too, so here are some petitions to check out...

The list goes on and on, so feel free to only do one.

1. Tim Berners-Lee. (2007, April 5). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 15:03, April 11, 2007, from

2. Jones, K.C. Net Neutrality Debate Remains Contentious, Information Week. March 16, 2007.

3. Net Neutrality : Animated Music Video, roschler.

4. Rocketboom explain net neutrality, pablosci.

5. Tkarr, John Edwards: ‘We Need Net Neutrality’. April 11th, 2007,

Monday, April 9, 2007

The biggest multilingual free-content encyclopedia on the Internet

Approximately 7 days ago my life changed, in a good way. For the first time in my life I contributed to the internet. How did I do this you may ask? Well, I added an article to wikipedia, which is one of the hottest things on the internet. WIkipedia is an online encyclopedia, that allows for anybody to enter or edit articles in the website.

So I got the assignment that I had to write an article about something in wikipedia, but I did not know what to write about. Wikipedia has articles about pretty much anything you can think of, and these articles are pretty thorough. I thought I was stumped, until I looked around my dorm room and saw my acoustic guitar. Luckily, wikipedia was short of information about washburn guitars (the type of guitar I own). I did not want to just write about how great my guitar was or try to promote my guitar or washburn guitars. Instead, I wrote about the history of washburn guitars and the washburn guitar company, as well as the types of guitars they make currently.

Overall, I found this project to be harder then I expected. This is because I did not recognize the vastness that is Wikipedia. The online encyclopedia has literally hundreds of thousands of articles, and this makes it hard to write insightful information. Also, it is very hard to write original and creative information on something when there is already a lot of information on the topic or product on wikipedia, as well as on other places on the internet. Information that is irrelevant or useless gets deleted within minutes to be added.

This was a problem I encountered when writing, writing original content. The problem was address by Derek (my teacher), and I immediately recognized the problem also, and changed the content to something I found more appropriate, accurate, and original. So my article on washburn guitars has been on wikipedia for a week, and has not been changed, which comes as a surprise to me. I know that millions of people use wikipedia for means of acquiring information. I am sure that people have read my article, and I am also sure that there are people who might not understand or agree with my content. So if you have read or will read my article, and want to change it, please go ahead and change what I have written, as this is how the website operates. I understand how wikipedia works, and I actually support it.

I believe that the way wikipedia was designed makes it so that the best information stays on and information that is bogus or non informant will be deleted. It is different from the form of a blog, in that information that is offensive for instance will not be ignored, but rather removed. So as I said before, please take a look at my entry on washburn guitars, and do with it as you please. The link to it can be found here.

Thursday, April 5, 2007

Thorn Kappler for President!

As I sit in my chair in my dorm room, I am completely oblivious to the world around me. And why should I be paying attention to real life when I am engulfed in Second Life (or SL as the pros call it). Now I have played a fair share of video games in my day, and I would not call this one. Maybe it was what the game The Sims was trying to accomplish, but Second Life is a world in itself. Second Life is a complex virtual world that cannot be fully understood until it is tried out. Second Life is a revolutionizing game that has potential to have a major impact on the history of the world. The last statement may seem extreme, but I argue that as extreme as it sounds it is true.

So it only takes about five minutes to get onto Orientation Island, and you are in the game. You figure out the basics and change your appearance, and all the good stuff. At this point I was not really sure what this game was all about, what the big deal was. So I got through all the tutorials and was ready to move onto the good stuff, still now knowing what this stuff was.

So I got placed into some island where people were just hanging out, doesn't seem like a big deal. I started asking around what the games all about and other questions to get me orientated better. People immediately started accusing me of being a reporter (I guess I kind of am, being a blogger). The members of Second Life do not like to have Second Life be overexposed in the news because this will attract new members who are not truly interested in the game.

So here I am, Thorn Kappler. I have a birthday, an appearance, friends, etc. This sounds like many other games that I've played before, and those were not that special. The first BIG deal about this world that I found was that the money in SL is real money. When I want something, I have to pay for it in US dollars, coming out of my pocket (or credit card). I want to buy a shirt, I have to buy it with my money. If I were to win the lottery in the game (hypothetically) I would have a check sent to my dorm room at UB. So then what is the incentive to essentially waste money in SL. Well, like other things, if you are really into this game then the money is worth it. First off, the game is free to download and register for, so that makes people more willing to buy things in the game. A new outfit or a guitar will better express who I am to my friends in the game, and will help me make new friends. You can even buy a house in the game, because if you think about it... Thorn Kappler needs a place to sleep too. And there are thousands of shops, all easy to find, selling pretty much everything and anything you can think of.

So I'm exploring the game, I understand the way the money works down ($1 US = $186 Linden). Then I met somebody who really introduced me to why the game is different from other games. The woman's name was Inny Colo, and she had white hair spiked up, with a white outfit with pink wings, not somebody I would normally associate with in the real world. But Inny Colo told me a lot about the game. At this point I didn't really see all the hype, and I'm sure you still don't.

So besides the fact that you make friends from all around the world, people you normally would not meet, and you can exchange your ideas with them, thats all great. You can express yourself easier then in a chat room or instant message because you can change your visual representation and expression. And you can buy and sell goods and services using real world money. But imagine this...

In January 2007 there was a riot in SL. The roit took place between the National Front, a French political extremist party, and its opponents. This may seem like something you would see in a parody of these types of games in Family Guy, but this really happened. French political parties and their candidates campaigned within SL. Between the four political groups that campaigned on SL, about 50,000 people checked out the campaigns a day. All the contenders had headquarters, and one of the candidates Jean-Marie Le Pen was destroyed (you cannot technically die in SL), and ironically he did not win the election. It is also possible that Second Life can also be used for campaigning in the next US election.

Something more was created when politics entered SL. Never before has there been campaigning in video games (that I am aware of) that is so popular. This is not only effective, but futuristic. This opens a whole new type of society. Politicians in the future may be able to win an election without even leaving their desk! Besides the fact that there are people getting rich and some even becoming millionaires without leaving their chair. Because SL is so popular it opens doors for any possibility.

Nobody expected political campaigns in virtual realities, and nobody expected a riot to start because of it. Also, nobody expected there to be a game where real money can be earned and spent. The game Second Life can be used as an educational, social, economic, or political medium, and who knowns what can happen in the future!

1. Second Life attracts French politicians. PARIS, 30 March 2007.

2. Second Life. (2007, April 4). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 20:31, April 5, 2007, from


Wednesday, March 28, 2007

News flash: US troops are in Iraq!

A pressing, but not very new news topic is the American War in Iraq. This is a topic that has been covered in the news for the past four years, in both newspapers, journals, books, and online news and journal sites. Yesterday, the Senate voted on a deadline for pulling out of Iraq. The vote was 50-48 in favor of pulling out of Iraq in September 2008. "This vote puts both the House and Senate on record opposing the president's war policy," says Kathy Kiely of USA Today. Kiely wrote an article in the USA Today, that is easy to read, besides the content but layout wise also. The article is not very long, taking up maybe a quarter of the page, and including a picture of Senators Ben Nelson and Chuck Hagel right in the middle of the article. The article is brief which makes it more appealing to read when skimming through the paper. Also covering this topic is The New York Times. The article, though named differently, covers the same topic in a similar view point. Unlike the layout of USA Today, the Times put this article on the first page (where I think it should be), instead of the fifth for USA Today. The article starts on the cover, which catches your attention and drags onto an other page. This article also has a picture of Ben Nelson, but at the bottom. Ben Nelson is a Senator from Nebraska, who along with Chuck Hagel had a swaying vote, and were both outspoken about the topic, Hagel said, "There will not be a military solution to Iraq, Iraq belongs to the 25 Million Iraqis who live there. It doesn't belong to the United States. Iraq is not a prize to be won or lost" (Zeleny, A1). Both the newspapers cover the article from the perspective of the Senate, who voted on this decision.

Unlike the Newspapers, the online news journal JSOnline of Milwaukee covers the issue of the Senate's decision to pass a bill for the pulling out of Iraq from President Bush's perspective. This article covers his reaction, and by doing this explains the topic well. It covers less of the Senate's vote, but at the same time, the Newspapers covered a little less of Bush's reaction. Bush did not agree with the vote on Tuesday, and responded negatively, "Bush said Wednesday that the Democratic strategy move will not force him to negotiate. He said again that he would veto any funding legislation that includes a withdrawal timeline" (Flaherty). The Online news source had a different layout. With links and advertisements across the top, sides, and bottom of the web page, the eye starts to get distracted. Often these get in the way, and bump into the article. This article is significantly longer, and in my opinion does not fit on the screen very well.

I preferred reading the articles from the Newspapers. The is layout better, and provide no distractions in the form of advertisements. I also preferred to read the articles in the perspective of the Senate, and not President Bush. I find that because the topic at hand is something that the Senate did, it should be covered from that view. I understand that the online source is covering Bush's reaction, but that being the case, the writer Flaherty should have introduced the article with what the Senate did, and not how Bush reacted.

Online news sources are more abundant then Newspapers and magazines, and can be produced much easier and quicker. But I prefer to read an article from news print, rather then on the Internet while talking to my friends on instant messenger, because it is very distracting. An other thing that I do not like, as well as the academic world, is the lack of credibility of online news sources. Who knows who is writing the article and how credible it is. I surely do not trust Joe Shmo who is pushing his agenda by making an online news paper or web page. As Dan Gillmor says from his book We the Media,
"Technology has given us a world in which almost anyone can publish a credible-looking web page. Anyone with a computer or a cell phone can post in online forums. Anyone with a moderate amount of skill with Photoshop or other image-manipulation software can distort reality. Special effects make even videos untrustworthy. We have a problem here" (Gillmor, 174).
And Gillmor is right, we do have a problem here. What my teachers have told me, is only trust websites with .edu. Or just make sure the site is not B.S. An other great alternative is using books from a library or magazines and Newspapers. So my vote, not only is to pull out of Iraq, but also is to use credible sources, and to make sure you are doing so by reading printed Newspapers over online news sources.

1. Kiely, Kathy. (2007, March 28). Senate keeps timetable in Iraq spending bill. USA Today, p. 5A.
2. Zeleny, Jeff and Hulse, Carl. (2007, March 28). Senate Supports A Pullout Date In Iraq War Bill. The New York Times, pgs. A1 and A19.
3. Flaherty, Anne. (2007, March 28). Bush renews vow to veto Iraq timeline. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Online.
4. Gillmor, Dan. (2004). We the Media. United States of America. O'Reilly Media, Inc.

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

Support Democracy, America, and Bloggers

The blog that I found online, discussing politics is called "Public Affairs: Thoughts, links, inside information and program previews from the host of Chicagoland's premier local-access political talk show." Here is its link The blogger's name is Jeff, and he is a citizen blogger. Jeff has been a blogger since 2/2004, but this blog was started in March 7, 2007. The blog's rank on technorati is 154,427.

In Jeff's most recent blog entry is entitled " Barack Obama’s appeal as the Democratic Presidential Nominee," in which he focuses on why Senator Obama would be a good candidate for the democratic party. Jeff says that he is very appealing because he is "rooted in the African American community, but he is not limited by it." He is a presidential candidate who just happens to be black. He is very charismatic, and has very distinct opinions on issues like the war is Iraq. Since 2002 when the war started, he has had the same opinion, which may be wrong and may be right, but at least he has a firm opinion and holds his ground. He said, "“I don’t oppose war in all circumstances… What I do oppose is a dumb War.” Just the way he talks is very laid-back and nonrestrictive. To his blog, nobody has responded and there does not appear to be a place for one to write back to him, even though he does leave his email address.

The essay "Does the Internet Create Democracy" discusses the role and importance of blogs in democracy. To me, it seems pretty obvious that blogs could help democracy because of its convenience. People call post their opinions about a politician or an argument very easily on a blog page, and use a pseudonym if s/he feels uncomfortable having their name attached. In the introduction to the essay, Rheingold says, “if properly understood and defended by enough citizens, does have democratising potential in the way that alphabets and printing presses had democratising potential” (Thorton, pg. 3). This is in reference to blogging in politics, and says that if understood and used correctly, it has the potential to change the face of democracy. Blogs can also be used by the politicians to more easily outline their agendas and thoughts and campaigns. It is possible that the blog will have a great effect on politics and democracy. This is hypothesized because democracy is very weak and lagging in America today. The places where democracy used to exist, the workplace or everyday discussion and conversation, have died. Some blame this on the new forms of media, like television, because they isolate people:
Many of the old centres of the public sphere still exist, but are no longer places for political criticism or rational debate. Many theorists have commented that television and other electronic communications isolate people from one another and “substitute themselves for older spaces of politics.” (Thorton, 12)

So I believe that blogging and the internet will help out our political system by making it operate more smoothly. People have even spoken about voting online... now how easy would that be? If it could be monitored safely. But regardless, just like how the internet and modern technology has made many things more convenient and easier, the same is the case with democracy and policy.

In fact, politicians in the United States even support the use of the internet for politics. Top officials, such as President Bush support the use of the internet, believing that it will help countries like China become more democratic. Colin Powell said that, "the rise of democracy and the power of the information revolution combine to leverage each other," in support of the internet(Kalathil, 1). Also, members of the Clinton administration believe that the internet playing a substantial force in democracy is inevitable.

1. Thornton, Alinta. Does Internet Create Democracy. October 2002
2.Kalathil, Shanthi and Boas, Taylor C. The Internet and State Control in Authoritarian Regimes: China, Cuba, and the Counterrevolution. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2001.

Photo Credits:

Monday, March 12, 2007

I actually know the friends in my group, thanks to yahoo

In Jan Fernback's article "Virtual Communities," Jan describes communities as something that all humans want to belong to. The one problem with communities is organization or the difficulty to organize. But groups or communities can get help with the internet(Fernback, Virtual Communities). The "backbone" of a group is its organization and communication, and the development of the internet has relieved this problem substantially. Some critics say that the internet will lead people away from in-person contact, and this will take away from the experience. An other theory is that people will get so involved with their online communities that they will get distracted from real life. Internet mediated communities will deteriorate society by taking away use for personal contact. (Wellman, Net Surfers Don't Ride Alone)

But I am part of a group, that I feel disproves this argument. I feel as if the group I am in helps communication but does not take away from personal communication, it actually helps it. This online group that I am talking about is a Yahoo Group.I am in a yahoo group from the fraternity that I am in at school. The Yahoo Group's primary job is creating a emailing list, from which one can contact the whole group at once by emailing the whole group. From this group I get emails multiple times a week, informing me of the latest changes in schedule and other information. Admittance to this internet group requires a screen name and password, as well as approval from the group. The group provides an open blog, where group members can converse. Group members can share files from their computer or pictures. There is a calender which allows members to know what is coming up in the near future. There is also a way to see information about all the members of the group.

In my opinion, this group is very helpful. This group allows for more communication between its members at times like a break from school, when communication is harder. But at the same time, when interpersonal communication is available, it is the preferred form of communication. The yahoo group definitely does not limit communication, but expands it greatly. I speak to the members of the group in person, but when it is necessary, the group is available to use for communication. In order to send out emails, an administrative status is required, but people who do not have this power can speak to the group through the blog or forums. This gives all members of the group an equal opportunity to communicate to its other members.

A yahoo group maybe different from other internet mediated groups. Because this specific group, for the fraternity I am in, the type of communication is different. There are plenty of internet groups, where the members do not communicate outside of the internet group, and do not even know each other outside of the group. But in the case of the group I am in, the yahoo group only helps in communicating between its members. Besides using email and the group page for communication, group members also use AIM to communicate. AOL Instant Messenger allows members to communicate from their personal computer to others on their computer. But again, even though email, AIM, and the yahoo group are options as forms of communication, interpersonal communication is still preferred. As a member of the fraternity and yahoo group, I can say that it extends communication and definitely does not limit it.

It may be possible for internet groups to make people experience less interpersonal communication, but I do not think that it will make people more distant from the real world. As a member of the yahoo group on the internet, my experiences have resulted in more communication, and just as much, if not more, interpersonal communication.

1. Fernback, Jan and Thompson, Brad. "Virtual Communities: Abort, Retry, Failure?" Computer-Mediated Communication and the American Collectivity: The Dimensions of Community Within Cyberspace. Albuquerque, New Mexico, May 1995.
2. Wellman, Barry and Gulia, Milena. NET SURFERS DON'T RIDE ALONE:
VIRTUAL COMMUNITIES AS COMMUNITIES. University at Toronto. April 1996.

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Myspace becomes yourspace becomes everybody's space

If you want a good laugh, try this: Ask a teenager what the world was like before the internet, ask them how people socialized before the internet. The point I am trying to reach is that they probably do not know. So what was it like? Hassan Masum says that instead of "chatrooms", people socialized in Taverns, town squares, bazaars, and synagogues (Manifesto for the Reputation Society by Hassan Masum). And the online groups behave similar to groups of a town. All groups have norms that differ from group to group. But what Derek Lackaff says, is that an identity is the most important (Lackaff, Norm Maintenance in Online Communities). And he suggests that it is harder to maintain an identity then to create one. If you think about it, this is a valid point. For most online communities, one just needs an email to create an identity, but it is much harder to maintain that identity and create a good reputation. I will be looking more in dept at the myspace community in this blog, and I will show examples of identity within myspace. Judith Donath describes identity:
Identity plays a key role in virtual communities. In communication, which is the primary activity, knowing the identity of those with whom you communicate is essential for understanding and evaluating an interaction. Yet in the disembodied world of the virtual community, identity is also ambiguous. Many of the basic cues about personality and social role we are accustomed to in the physical world are absent (Donath, Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community).

As I will explain later, in the case of myspace, identity on the web and in online communities can be deceptive, and one must be careful when partaking in a community online.

Now lets talk about myspace. A wise man once said, "So you want to get to know me? Why don't you start off my checking out my myspace." This is because myspace is a great place to share information about yourself to anybody interested, and I mean anybody. Here I am, you can tell its me because theres a picture of me.

You can also tell its me, because it says my name and where I am from. But thats pretty much all the information I want to give out. If I wanted to, I could chose to tell you my life story and my social security number, but I frankly don't feel safe doing that. The reason being, because anybody who has an email address can sign up for myspace and can then see the information I put up. And who knows why they want to see my information or what they are going to do with it. I am not willing to take that chance. So my friends signed me up to myspace, before the era of facebook. Through myspace I was able to keep contact with friends I did not see very often, people who lived far away from me. Like my friend Melissa, I could now keep in contact with her pretty easy, check out her picture and interests.
So I was enjoying my time on myspace, talking to my friends and such.
But then I had a realization that myspace is a community. People have friends... myspace friends. Not friends they go to school with or hangout with, people that they met on myspace and have never met in person. And I started thinking, are these people really who they saw they are? I mean how valid is a myspace profile, and how do you prove its validity? You can't. You have to trust that people are who they say they are. It is like meeting a person for the first time. You don't really know them, but you trust that they are not lying to you and they are who they say they are. But there are some people on myspace that probably are lying about their identity. For example, these guys

So myspace is a place where you can create an identity, a new identity. Its a chance to redefine yourself. And you can gain a reputation simply. Step one: make your profile picture make you seen cool and rebellions.

Next, make a profile that makes you sounds adventurous and wild.

And then finally start finding friends.

So you've successfully created a false identity, even though you may not realize it. Unless you are truthful in everything you say, the identity you made on myspace is not real. Maybe its the person you want to be, or the person you want others to think you are. And you gain a reputation by having the most friends or writing on other people's wall. You could customize your profile to your liking. You can edit your interests like favorite music or movies. People might know you as the person with the cool pictures or you can get yourself out there and write blog or journal entries. You can really do whatever you want and you will probably get recognition for it, sometimes good and sometimes bad recognition. This recognition turns into a reputation.
But there are also cases of identity theft on myspace. Who says I can't take a picture, off of your myspace for example, and make a profile out of that. And when I make a profile, I essentially make an identity. Or what about a celebrity, why can't I be a professional athlete. A name and a picture is all I need, and I can make up the rest. With a name and a picture, I can be anybody I want to be. From there, who knows what you can do. I can post a picture of a teenager, and really be a 50 year old sexual offender. I can create a profile of your girlfriend and tell you I want to brake up with you. I can take your name, picture, address, and sell that information to credit card or phone companies to solicit information to you. I can read your interests and sell your information to companies that sell products that you are interested in. There is a vast amount of identity theft and fraud that can be done via myspace. But I am not saying myspace is bad, and I am definitely saying it is good. But what I am saying is that it could be bad if you are not smart about it. If you put out personal information, assume that it will be taken. If you don't want people to see certain things or know things about you, do not put it out there for people to see.

And just so you all know, I asked and got confirmation that it was okay to use these people's myspaces and pictures in this blog. So thanks to Melissa, Skankin Richard, White Trash Wayne, Elliot, Jenn, and Ednalyn. And one last note, identity thieves, please do not steal information off my myspace page please!

1. Masum, Hassan and Zhang, Yi-Cheng. (2004, July).Manifesto for the Reputation Society. volume 9, number 7. retrieved 21 February 2007.
2. Lackaff, D. (2003). Norm maintenance in online communities: A review of moderation regimes Unpublished master's (preliminary) thesis, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia.
3. Donath, Judith S. Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community. (12 November 1996). retrieved 21 February 2007.