Saturday, June 30, 2012

9. Blogs: the beginning


Web logs, or blogs, started as personal websites where a person would gather together links of other websites that they were interested in, and comment on each link.  Though simply a collection of links, early blogs were still a way to learn about people without the need for them to write a profile about themselves—simply by viewing the sites they found interesting and reading their commentary you could form an idea of that person’s tastes.  In the days of the internet before comprehensive search engines like Google and Yahoo!, blogs served as a way to filter the increasingly large plethora of website chaos.  Once you found a blogger whose tastes were palatable to you, they could serve as an important portal to the bedlam of the internet.  (Blood, 2000:7-16)

Blogs have since become more than just lists of links, often serving as a personal diary for their author and as part of a larger blog community.  They are now a way for everyone to plug himself or herself into the world of interconnected hypertext.  At first, those who were blogging needed extensive technological knowledge, but with the launch of websites like Blogger.com in 1999 and Typepad, blogging became easy and accessible, and most importantly—free.  Millions of people now have their own blog, and the numbers are only growing.  There is something very compelling to the blog phenomenon.  The personalization of cyberspace is growing: we have created a huge network of close-knit groups of people, many of whom will never meet each other.  (Stone, 2004:13-31)

Biz Stone calls blogs ‘digital entities sprinkled throughout the vastness of cyberspace’ (Stone, 2004:192).  A blog is more than just a series of essays, chronologically organized.  They are a reaching out of one personality for others; we do not post only dull essays online: with the flexibility of hypertext and the power to share multimedia files online they have become a sort of guided stroll through people’s consciousness, a way to learn indirectly about them in much the same way you would meeting them in person.  When we meet someone, we do not simply state the bare facts about ourselves.  We give opinions, visual cues to our likes and dislikes; we make small talk and tell jokes.  Blogs can be considered a digital extension of a person, even more so than on a webboard or in a MUD, or, as Andreas Kitzmann puts it, ‘a way to make one's life significant through the feedback and support of readers.’  (2003:56) A comment left on your blog or even just a hit to your stat counter is a very clear indication that others are acknowledging your existence.

Blogs are yet another way to recreate yourself online.  Your audience knows only what you want them to know, and you are protected from further scrutiny by the vast anonymity of the internet.  It is up to you how much you erase the line between remaining anonymous and intimacy with whoever encounters your online presence.  It is possible to write highly intimate details about your life without ever revealing who you are, but the more details you tell, the more gripping your blog will be to others: ‘The best weblogs are those that convey the strongest personality.’  (Blood, 2002:xi-xii)

Blogs are places where one can expect an answer to rhetorical questions, support when you have a bad day at work, and congratulations when you do well.  They are also a place where you can share pictures of your life.  Pictures ground a blog in reality.  In the textual world of the internet, the ability for anyone to share pictures with the world is what makes the immediacy of blog-writing more apparent.  ‘Visual imagery is the best way to capture moments.’  (CNN.com interview with Mena Trott, 10.8.2005)  Some people even bypass writing about their lives and instead show pictures.

There is a couple in Canada, Kenn and Michelle, who do just that.  To date they have posted over 10,000 pictures with simple captions on their website (http://kenn-michelle.ca:8080/pictures.php) while still never writing much about themselves.  It is incredible to watch their well-documented lives, and yet they are not extraordinary people.  They are simply living, taking pictures of their growing family, and putting the pictures online for friends and family to see.  As John Suler wrote:
Let's face it, what made computers and cyberspace take to public use like wild fire was the fact that we weren't just reading text, but rather interacting with windows, icons, and pictures - and experiencing the sense of space and place that images create. (26.6.2005)

It is seductive to a person writing online to get responses from others on the internet.  Typing online then becomes more than pouring your feelings into a void.  Eventually, you may build up an audience of avid readers, ones who will expect regular updates from you.  Knowing that people are depending on you to come up with something amusing or interesting for them to read regularly brings a new awareness to life.  There is a certain pressure of obligation that popular bloggers feel to post, and if they do not update their blog regularly there is a need to justify the time spent away from their audience.  Blogging takes time, especially blogging every day, and it is a big commitment to decide to write regularly in a space that you may have once regarded as a place to vent your feelings, not really expecting anyone else to find it.  Being aware that there is an audience to your life can make you self-conscious: there is no way to get away from the knowledge that everything you do is a potential blog post and that there is an audience out there, waiting to be fed: ‘The danger of technology is that is demands to be fed.’  (Turkle, 1995:107)  There is no escape from that knowledge.

Popular blogger Stephanie Pearl-McFee, otherwise known as the ‘Yarn Harlot’ (www.yarnharlot.ca) often finds herself deliberately capturing moments of her life to share with her blog’s audience.  It has even spread to her family.  Stephanie arrived back from a short trip only to find her house, unusually, sparkling clean:
As I sat quietly pondering this…Joe approached me with a cold beer extended.
How did I do?’ he asked, beaming with pride.
‘Joe...good job dude.  Seriously good job.  I'm impressed.’  […]  Joe puffed out his chest and surveyed his mighty domain before he sat down beside me.
‘Steph?’
‘Yeah Joe?’
‘You're going to tell the blog about this right?  That I did ok?’
Who knew?  Reporting to you is a behavioural tool.  Who knew?
(11.4.2005)

Stephanie’s blog has recently taken an interesting turn.  As a very popular knitting blogger, she landed a book deal and is currently touring both the U.S. and Canada on a book tour.  She gets to meet, in person, hundreds of her regular blog readers, but also many people whose blogs she reads herself.  These meetings are a perfect example of what happens when virtual friends meet.  It is very interesting to ‘witness’ these meetings, by reading both perspectives when Stephanie meets someone and blogs about it, and so does the person she met.  Recently, Stephanie met Ryan Morrissey of Mossy Cottage Knits at the Seattle stop on her book tour.  Stephanie said of meeting Ryan:
It was like meeting superheroes.  It was like one of your favourite imagined people just materialized in front of you and was everything you dreamed and more.  Ryan cried a few knitterly tears…  (5.8.2005)

Ryan’s feelings were nearly the same.  They were both in awe of meeting one another, as if they had not been quite sure that the other person was real, and the confirmation that they were made the previous relationship they enjoyed even more meaningful.  Ryan also had strong feelings about their meeting:

I am rarely, if ever, celebrity- or star-struck.  Perhaps it was because Stephanie is the first out-of-state knit-blog e-friend I’ve met, and represented all the other knitting e-friends that have brightened my life so intensely and wonderfully over the last couple of years.  Maybe it was a one-degree of separation thing because just the day before she had been with Rachael, an e-friend whom I also have not met, so I was very aware that Stephanie had ‘Rachael dust’ on her.  Maybe it was just the excitement of meeting ‘the real thing’ after years of the one-dimensionality of photos.  (5.8.2005)

Stephanie’s posts have become slightly surreal while on her book tour, as she tends to blog every major life event, and speaking to a crowd is a big deal in any ordinary person’s life.  While Stephanie is speaking to a room, she also takes pictures while people in the audience are taking pictures of her; while she is talking about blogging to an in- person audience of people who read her blog, she is also preparing another blog entry, and they are preparing to blog about her blogging about them.  The whole tour is a strange and exciting experience to her.  Stephanie never imagined that her little blog about knitting would take on a life of its own, and that people would buy a book she wrote.

Writing again about her Seattle stop, she said the following:

I was almost hysterical.  I know that this might not occur to you, when you see these pictures, but I am taking them.  All those people are looking at me.  On a stage.  With a microphone.  Here I am, some sort of…weird Canadian knitter trucking a sock around the US on some bizarre trip that I can't figure out how I got on, and all of those people are looking at me.  (5.8.2005)



Sometimes meetings of online friends do not go so well as Stephanie and Ryan’s did.  The relationship stays more in the head than in reality, and the people in the relationship serve only to embody the others’ fantasy-person.  Real life can be too real for that fantasy, and shatter the online closeness of the people.  Sherry Turkle writes about this situation, giving the case of a man and woman who met online and formed an intense relationship.  They talked online for hours, and decided after a time to meet in person.  This was quite a large commitment, as they lived across the country from each other.  The man flew across the U.S. to meet his online love, and there the bubble burst.  She was nice, but not his dream-woman.  He returned home disappointed, and reread their conversations: online, everything can be easily archived and often is.  Upon rereading his whole relationship with this woman, he saw nothing beyond a friendship.  The passionate love affair he had been having turned out to be mostly in his head, and being able to review the whole relationship’s transcripts proved that to him: ‘When everything is in the log and nothing is in the log, people are confronted with the degree to which they construct relationships in their own minds.’  (Turkle, 1995:207)

The physical world still remains an important one, then, for virtual friends.  The internet can provide us with constant intellectual contact; we can read people’s personal diaries and comment on them, becoming part of a group.  We can be as close as two minds can be, constantly, but we still cannot quite replace the impact of looking someone else in the eye, shaking their hand, or even exchanging a tear-filled hug with someone we have known for years but never met in person.

Friday, June 29, 2012

10. The impact of blogs on Real Life


All the reciprocity of an online life, making new friends and keeping in contact with old ones, stemming from online communities is an important intellectual and emotional factor in many people’s everyday lives.  The opportunity to comment on one’s own life and get responses from online companions through blogging is also an important part of many people’s daily lives.  However, apart from the emotional support blogs give to people in their online lives, do blogs also have an impact on ‘Real Life’ (otherwise known as RL), i.e., the place bloggers go to eat?

Of course, some blogs have a very positive effect upon RL, not only affecting their authors, but also making a real difference.  Two recent very successful charity projects sprang from the minds of popular knitting bloggers: Ryan of Mossy Cottage Knits (http://www.nwkniterati.com/MovableType/MossyCottage/) and Stephanie Pearl-McPhee of Yarn Harlot (http://www.yarnharlot.ca/blog/).

Tricoteuses Sans Frontières (Knitters Without Borders)


TSF is a fundraising movement started by Stephanie Pearl-McPhee in response to the devastating December 26, 2004 Asian tsunami.  In her January 3, 2005 post, ‘Needs and Wants’ <http://www.yarnharlot.ca/blog/archives/2005/01/03/needs_and_wants.html>, Stephanie wrote about how she felt obscenely wealthy compared to the tsunami victims, and she issued a challenge to all of her readers: to distinguish for one week between a need they had (food, water, shelter) and a want (lattes and yarn) and to then send some or all of the money they saved that week not spending on wants to Medecins Sans Frontières/Doctors Without Borders.  She then volunteered to keep a running tally of how much people donated in the sidebar of her blog, updated constantly.  Stephanie chose Medecins Sans Frontières because they are nonreligious and remain impartial to external pressures, going in to places only to help the people of that area without political concerns.  Of course, the fact that her brother-in-law is the Director of Human Resources for MSF Canada also tends to make her views a bit biased, but nepotism is not always a bad thing, and in this case personalized a charity at a time when many people were comparing charities and trying to decide where to donate money and time to help the victims of the tsunami.  Watching Stephanie tally up the donations was also gratifying to those who could not afford to make a substantial donation on their own—it let them know that their community as a whole could make a big difference.

By 6:45 PM on January 4, 2005, Stephanie reported that TSF members had donated $10,870 (Canadian).  (Pearl-McPhee, 4.1.2005)  Many knitters also donated prizes to be distributed randomly throughout the contributors as both a thank-you and an incentive to donate.  In her July 6, 2005 post, ‘Inspired, or profoundly stupid?’  <http://www.yarnharlot.ca/blog/archives/2005/07/06/inspired_or_profoundly_stupid.html>, Stephanie proudly announced, that at $78,747 TSF ‘has now officially raised more money than Willie Nelson.  [I am] contemplating dancing in the street.  You guys are changing the world.  Next stop…$100 000.00’



Blogger Ryan of Mossy Cottage Knits also started a small, nepotistic, project asking her readers for charitable donations.  Her ‘Cuzzin Tom’ is a Buddhist monk who decided to move to Mongolia to pursue his religious life.  While doing research about the country, he discovered that recent economical factors in Mongolia meant that about a third of the population was living in poverty.  Many children in the capital city, Ulan Bataar, took to living in the heating ducts under the city to get through its very cold winters.  He decided that he wanted to ‘find a way to create some dynamic, positive energy’ with his move to Mongolia.  (Cuzzin Tom, 27.6.2005 <http://danzanravjaa.typepad.com/my_weblog/2005/06/dulaan_to_other.html>)  Cuzzin Tom teamed up with Ryan and F.I.R.E. (Flagstaff International Relief Effort) to start a movement to send warm, high-quality hand knits to the children of Mongolia.  (F.I.R.E. regularly sends shipments of warm clothing and medical supplies to the people of Mongolia.)  He did not have a regular blog at that time, though he was a part of the Mossy Cottage community as a regular commenter.  Cuzzin Tom started a blog soon after he moved: Dreaming of Danzan Ravjaa (<http://danzanravjaa.typepad.com/my_weblog/>).

Ryan announced the Dulaan project on her blog on January 31, 2005.  By 7 February 2005, there were over 50 people on the ‘brigade,’ as Ryan called them.  (Morrissey, 7.2.2005 <http://www.nwkniterati.com/movabletype/archives/MossyCottage/001181.html>)  The original goal of the Dulaan Project was to make and donate to F.I.R.E. 500 knitted items and polarfleece blankets before July 1, 2005.  Dave Edwards, one of the community-founders of F.I.R.E. doubted that they would not receive even that amount, and Ryan made sure that her readers knew it, making 500 items a challenge for her Dulaan Brigade.  (11.2.2005 <http://www.nwkniterati.com/movabletype/archives/MossyCottage/001184.html>)  Various knitters in the online community made designs specifically for this project.  There were several knitting parties to complete items, and by March 16, 2005, Ryan was able to post a picture of Dave Edwards in defeat <http://www.nwkniterati.com/movabletype/archives/MossyCottage/001227.html>, when the item count was at 250, with a reported 90 more on the way.  By the July 1, 2005 deadline, F.I.R.E. officially received 4,517 warm items to take to Mongolia, from all over the United States and from as far afield as Croatia, Germany and Tasmania.  (http://www.nwkniterati.com/movabletype/archives/MossyCottage/2005_07.html)

In light of the success of the Dulaan project, Ryan has recently declared the counting for Dulaan 2006 to be open.  Their goal is 4,518 (one more than items donated for the 2005 drive) garments to be donated by July 2006.  The response was very enthusiastic, with commenter Susanna Hansson stating:
What brought me to this project was: YOU.  What made me stay interested and finally knit some Mon-frickin-goleean hats was: YOU. 
It's not that I'm a callous person who doesn't care about the plight of Mongolian children; it's that this project is offering me a sense of community that is often absent in other charitable efforts (the one exception that comes to my mind is Stephanie's Tricoteuses Sans Frontières project).
(Comment to Morrissey, 22.8.2005 <http://www.nwkniterati.com/movabletype/archives/MossyCottage/001482.html>)           

The TSF movement and Dulaan Project serve to illustrate just how powerful internet communities can be.  These charitable projects both raised much more interest and many more donations then their inceptors ever dreamed they would.  Ryan and Stephanie were both able to personalize a charity project in a way that made its purpose resonate with their readers.  As can happen with any blog, once you read it and get to know that blog-person, you come to trust them, to feel you know them.  TSF and the Dulaan project were the result of trust and empathy.  Stephanie’s readers trusted her, and donated to MSF.  For all anyone—including Stephanie—knows, not one of her readers donated.  They could have made up the numbers they told her they were donating, and she could have made up the total.  She trusted her readers to report truthfully to her, and they trusted her to tell them the true total.

Ryan’s project was a little different, in that while she did not see the majority of the donated items in person and had to trust her readers, just like Stephanie, she received the item totals directly from F.I.R.E., who were cataloguing the items as they arrived.  These two charity projects, though both very successful, were not terribly personal.  They are great examples of the networking power of high-profile bloggers and the generosity of knitters.  However, what happens when a blog affects an individual’s life for the worse?

Individually, blogs can have beneficial and detrimental effects on people’s lives.  The whole idea that you can rant and rave, complain about your days to an unseen audience is very tempting.  However, the internet is not a void populated by ghost commenters.  In some ways, the internet can be likened more to a Panopticon, a prison designed so that every prisoner can be seen at every moment.  Prisoners must then always act appropriately because a guard might be watching them.  Writing on the internet is like being in a large crowd scene onstage: though it may appear that your part is inconsequential, someone, somewhere in the audience will watch you and notice what you are doing.  (Rheingold, 2000:xxx)



Such was the case for a now well-know blogger, Heather Armstrong.  She started her blog at www.dooce.com in June of 2001 (then as Heather Hemingway), while working for a company in Los Angeles.  Though Heather wrote about her job online, she never stated the name of the company she worked for, the names of her coworkers, and was unspecific about may other vital details as well.  However, she did not stint about other things on her blog, publishing some opinions about the company, her coworkers or her boss, in an exaggerated, humorous way, painting caricatures of them.  In this manner, she felt free to describe how much her Prada-buying boss intimidated her, and gave several tutorials on how to avoid doing work properly while at work, along with discussions on the best way to take a nap in your car in the middle of the day.  Her very first blog post is even called, ‘Reasons I should not be Allowed to Work From Home’ (27.6.2001 <http://www.dooce.com/archives/daily/06_27_2001.html>).

These posts are amusing and meant to be taken lightly, but there is an undercurrent of discontent in many.  Heather obviously disliked aspects of her job and many of her co-workers, and some posts give hints of the fact that this may have made her a bit difficult to work with.  In February of 2002, one of her co-workers anonymously emailed many people in Heather’s company, notifying them of Heather’s website and the writing she was doing, ostensibly about them.  She explains very rationally in a post titled ‘Tell it to Their Face for Christ’s Sake’ (27.2.2002 <http://www.dooce.com/archives/daily/02_27_2002.html>) that she discussed her writing with her boss and a human resources representative, telling them that she ‘had no ill will toward anyone at my company…  [And] most of what I had written was grossly exaggerated for comedic effect’ and that an ‘Asian Database administrator’ that she made fun of a few times on her blog ‘was a willing participant.  He thought it was funny.  That was all that mattered to me.’  Her boss ‘assured me that there were no hard feelings’, but Heather was fired two weeks later:
My boss and the human resources representative pulled me into a conference room and handed me my last paycheck.  They explained that the company had a zero-tolerance policy about negativity (?), that my website was influencing the younger, more impressionable members of the company, and that the CEO demanded that I be terminated at once.

Heather’s termination raised some interesting questions, several of which she asked, herself, in her 26 February, 2002 post, the day she was fired, ‘Collecting Unemployment’ <http://www.dooce.com/archives/daily/02_26_2002.html>:
At what point does my personal website, regardless of what I’ve published on the site, affect my professional life?  If I am not responsible for the two colliding (meaning, an anonymous person tips off my employer that I run a personal weblog), is it right that my employer should condemn me for expressing personal dissatisfaction?

As Biz Stone terms it, ‘Heather’s perception of her blog is fundamentally flawed.’  (Stone, 2004:90)  Yes, she kept her discretion in part, as she did not use anyone else’s name, or tell the name if her company.  However, she did use her own name, and anyone who knew her and searched for her online could find her blog, and learn negative things about her company.  It was an embarrassment to the CEO of that company to discover one of his employees was publicly posting how she deliberately arrived late at work, left early, and took naps in her car in the middle of the day—even as a joke.  Though Heather says she was exaggerating, this writing could have given her supervisors reason to scrutinize her work more closely.

It is interesting to note how the person who alerted everyone else about Heather’s website chose to remain anonymous.  It was a way for that person to stir things up at work without any personal risk, and it ended up greatly affecting someone else’s life.  I do wonder if Heather’s superiors tried to find out who tipped them off; Heather does not mention if she ever knew who it was.  The option of anonymity on the internet protected this person, but since Heather chose to give up the privilege of anonymity, she was the one who paid for her actions.

Heather’s co-workers and her bosses were not the only ones to be upset by her blog.  Her family also came across it unexpectedly, and learned some of her opinions of them and how she poked fun at them for their spiritual beliefs.  Heather came from a deeply religious Mormon background, and even attended Bringham Young University.  Soon afterwards, she left the Mormon Church, and the disillusionment she had with her former lifestyle contributed to her defiant outlook: ‘I refuse to live in fear.  I refuse to be censored.  I’ve lived my life far too long in fear of disrupting expectations.’  (Hemingway, 27.2.2002 <http://www.dooce.com/archives/daily/02_27_2002.html>)

Nevertheless, Heather later reflected on how her posts had hurt her family.  She states in the same post, ‘This is Going to Be A Long One, So Don’t Say I Didn’t Warn You’ <http://www.dooce.com/archives/daily/05_19_2003.html>, that she both wished that she could ‘take back EVERYTHING I had written that had hurt them,’ and that ‘despite the pain I have put my family through, I do feel good about what I do here.  I’ve used [it] to try and become a better writer.’  Heather is stuck in between wanting to say whatever she wants to write, and the pain of the responsibility she then incurs for writing things in public that she believes to be true—but that deeply wounded both her professional career and her loved ones.  She views the fact that ‘I am...now THAT GIRL who lost her job because of her website’ as a responsibility, and tells her tale as a instructive example that ‘There is no such thing as unadulterated freedom of speech with a blog, not if you’re brave enough to tack on your real name to what you write.’  (From Armstrong, 19.5.2003 <http://www.dooce.com/archives/daily/05_19_2003.html>)

The notoriety of Heather’s tale has moved the word ‘dooced’ into modern parlance.  A www.google.com search of the word on August 7, 2005 found nearly 27,000 results, from all over the world.  It truly boggles the mind to think that all of these entries can be traced back to a 25-year-old in Los Angeles who liked bean burritos and had to ‘resist [the] urge to tell nieces and nephews that the reason they go to church is so that mommy and daddy can prepare to eat them one day in the Mormon Temple.’  (Hemingway, 30.8.2001 <http://www.dooce.com/archives/daily/08_30_2001.html>)  Heather still writes her very popular blog, now as a stay-at-home mother, and has been interviewed many times about her blogging experiences.  These days, her entries consist more of how to deal with a constantly screaming toddler than about the wonders of bean burritos, but her voice remains strong and sure.




A much more positive way that blogs are affecting individuals’ lives is the fact that a blogger who develops their writing skills through blogging may end up the author of several hard-copy books, as happened to Stephanie Pearl-McPhee.  Going from a blog to a book may be a smooth transition, simply lifting entries from the blog, or may use the refined writing skills of the experienced blogger to write something completely new.  Blogs do not readily lend themselves to book form, being more suited to hypertext: they are written in short, non-linear sections, and generally have no plot.  Blog posts are extensions of the main goal of webboard posts—wit rules in blogland just as it does in online communities.  If your blog persona is witty, it does not matter what your qualifications are or who you are in RL: ‘This version of me has gotten two book deals and a dream job at one of the world’s most innovative companies.  In the real world, I am a state college dropout.  How did I do this?’  (Stone, 2004:191)  Unlike books, which are often cherished and regarded as vessels full of human history, blogs are meant really to capture moments, to be experienced by the reader, who will then move on; ‘digital textuality stands to be erased from its very beginnings.’  (Raley, 2001)

However, though writing a book is better paying than writing a blog (which one does free, unless the blog draws enough traffic to make it worthwhile to place ads on it), it cannot be more satisfying than the instant feedback and communication through a community that a blog offers.  A book, though a wonderful piece of technology is simply a thing, disconnected from the online network of bloggers and commenters.  Book authors often remark upon one another’s thoughts and opinions, much as bloggers do, but at a much slower pace.  In the time it takes for one book to be written and published in reaction to another book, many thousands of blog entries and comments will have come and gone about many different subjects.

A book has the advantage over a blog in that you need only access to the book itself and the knowledge to read it in order to benefit from the information it presents.  Once a book is made, it is an entity unto itself; when you know how to decode it, you can use it anywhere.  Blogs, on the other hand, require access to the internet, and complex pieces of machinery to get to the information they offer.  Once a blog is made, it does not simply exist—it evolves as it links and is linked to, as people read it and comment on it both on the blog and on their own site.  A well-read blog becomes a far-reaching entity, firmly woven into the web of readers and writers of blogs.

Thursday, June 28, 2012

11. Conclusion


Blogs are then much more temporary than books, very much of an individualized performance.  Like anything on the internet, the way people see and read blogs are their own preference.  They are a strange medium: blogs share the transience of live performance with the permanency of the internet.  Every entry made in a blog is saved in an archive, making everything you write online in your blog both immediate to the moment you write and post it, but still available to anyone who comes across it later (unless you make a conscious decision to delete that post).  The great thing for the reader about blog archives is that when you come across a new blog you can begin to know that person straight away, without having to wait for them to post more entries.  You can go back and start from any point in their blogging history, zip randomly about through their entries, or start at the beginning and watch the evolution of their blogging abilities.  It is beguiling, and you can very shortly feel close to someone who is not aware that you even exist, other than as a statistic, a hit on his or her stat counter, until you leave them a comment.

Unlike a book, a blog invites commentary—questions from the audience; discussions and disagreements with the author; interaction with other commenters, all in public.  Many blog authors allow comments on their posts, where anyone can say anything they like.  The comment section serves as a mini-webboard on every blog entry.  Commenters can become just as well known on certain blogs as the author, and by linking their comment to their own blog, they give the other readers an opportunity to view their entries and create dialogue over there as well.  Authors in blog communities, consisting of two to many blogs linked together, tend to read each other’s posts and react to them in an entry on their own blog.  They are free to write their musings without interrupting their flow of thought, by simply mentioning that they read this idea on someone else’s blog, and linking to the entry they are writing about.  This allows them to make only a simple explanation of where they got the idea, and allows the reader to compare both entries side-by-side on their computer screen.  This means that the reader is able to read each blogger’s entries without relying on someone else’s interpretation of the ideas in the blog posts.

Blogs are useful in this way because they serve as first-person reporting in a world where we are not always sure if large-media news is free to tell us everything they know.  A blog written in another part of the world gives us the kind of perspective that most journalists only dream of being allowed to report.  Blogs do not have to be ‘politically correct’, nice, or even particularly true, and their authors are able to be curmudgeons without the Disney-fied heart of gold.  That makes them all the more amusing and real.

In learning how to be digital people, how to interact in a new kind of community, and how to stay safe in unsure virtual and physical worlds, have we really gained more than we have lost?  Social commenters writing about online communities seem to think that the easy, safe interaction of small-town society is lost to the physical world and can be found only in the digital communities available to most people.  The truth is that both RL and digital life can be thrilling, companionable and dangerous.  While in the early days of online interaction it was impossible to hurt anyone online except emotionally, now the rash of ‘identity theft’ made easy by gathering financial information about others online can prove devastating to the victims’ lives, leaving them with damaged credit and a bad financial reputation.

Both the World Wide Web and RL are large places, teeming with strangers who may be content to listen and watch you, or who may decide that your opinions are anathema to them.  The quick evolution of technology have taken us in only a few decades from letter-writing as a primary means of communication, through a time where even long-distance telephone calls were rare, to instantaneous worldwide communication.  We are able to easily keep in touch with old friends, and speak free around the world: all we need is access.  Instantaneous communication both cheapens and deepens interaction with other people.  Casual friendships are easily made, but should a disagreement happen, internet friends are easily replaced.  However, being able to stay in touch with already-known friends or family helps to foster a relationship though life may get in the way and separate them.  These relationships, started at first in RL, do not need to be fanciful ones, using the other person merely to embody a fantasy-relationship; they already know each other, and there need not be a sad parting when one or both must go away.

Online arenas are a place where people are free to express themselves.  There are opportunities not always available to relax stringent societal boundaries of physical perception and gender roles, without having to avail oneself of the products available at such transgender websites like <http://www.transformation.co.uk/shopping/>, in order to transform oneself physically.  Since so much of life is already lived in the head, what difference does it make if your physicality does not match your personality?  Online, you can be whoever or whatever you want to be and construct fabulous castles in the sky.

Building a digital extension of yourself into the internet by constructing a blog can be highly cathartic without endangering your RL.  It is an exciting way to feel connected with the world, if your imagination is good enough.  In order to feel fully satisfied with a life lived online, one must be able to realize that there is another person out there, responding to you.  Though video conferencing, video emailing and video and audio blogging are starting to become more common, and technology may soon provide us with easily accessible virtual touch, they are still not complete substitutes for being in the physical presence of another: ‘the video does not transmit…the ‘prana,’ the life force, literally the breath of the other people.’  (Rheingold, 2000:177)

The internet gives us wonderful opportunities to recreate ourselves constantly, to live as several or many beings at the same time.  It is a way to connect with others when you are lonely.  You can learn about their lives, see pictures of their children, and tell them your own opinions as well.  It is a selfish place, where you can always find at least one person to listen to you and sympathize, no matter what your problems are—and if they want you to then listen to their problems, you can leave them behind and find a new victim, if you are so inclined.  Though you cannot control what others write, you can always find a place to express your own opinion.  That is one of the rare luxuries of life to those introverts who feel most comfortable in virtual society.

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

12. Bibliography


Adams, T., 2000: ‘Whose Reality is it Anyway?: A Psychoanalytic Perspective’, in: Cutting Edge, The Women’s Research Group (Eds.), Digital Desires: Language, Identity and New Technologies (New York: St. Martin’s Press).

Adamse, M. and Motta, S., 1996: Affairs of the Net: The Cybershrinks’ Guide to Online Relationships (Deerfield Beach, FL: Health Communications, Ltd.)

Anonymous, ‘Transformation—Shopping at Transformation’ <http://www.transformation.co.uk/shopping/> 2005 (Accessed 4.4.2005).

Anonymous, ‘The Dulaan Project’ <http://www.fireprojects.org/dulaan.htm> (Accessed 5.6.2005).

Anonymous, ‘Dictionary.com/persona’ <http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=persona> (Accessed 29.7.2005).‘Yahoo!

Anonymous, Groups: Kaycee Nicole messages: 816-846 of 846’ <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/kaycee-nicole/messages> (Accessed 1.8.2005).

Anonymous, Salon.com, ‘The WELL—Learn About The WELL’ <http://www.thewell.com/aboutwell.html> (Accessed 1.8.2005).
Anonymous, ‘Kaycee Nicole Messages’ <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/kaycee-nicole/message/1>-<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/kaycee-nicole/message/176> (Accessed 1.8.2005).
Anonymous, ‘FareWELL’ <http://www.well.com/www/cynsa/tom/tom13.html> (Accessed 3.8.2005).

Anonymous, ‘From Tom’s folders (TIME online)’ <http://www.well.com/www/cynsa/tom/tom12.html> (Accessed 3.8.2005).

Anonymous, ‘The Farm Community home page’ <http://www.thefarmcommunity.com/> (Accessed 4.8.2005).

Anonymous, ‘Blogger: about us’ <http://www.blogger.com/about> (Accessed 12.8.2005).

Antunes, S., ‘Leaping into Cross-Gender Role-Play’ <http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/ifan195.htm> 21.1.99 (Accessed 4.8.2005).

Armstrong, H. ‘Happy Dooce Got Fired Day’ <http://www.dooce.com/archives/daily/02_25_2003.html> 25.2.2003 (Accessed 8.8.2005).

Armstrong, H., ‘This is Going to Be A Long One, So Don’t Say I Didn’t Warn You’ <http://www.dooce.com/archives/daily/05_19_2003.html> 19.5.2003 (Accessed 8.8.2005).

Armstrong, H., ‘Happy Second Annual Dooce Got Fired Day’ <http://www.dooce.com/archives/daily/03_07_2004.html> 7.3.2004 (Accessed 8.8.2005).

Bainbridge, W.S., 2004: ‘The Future of the Internet: Cultural and Individual EConceptions’, in: Howard, P.N. and Jones, S. (eds.), Society Online: The Internet in Context (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.).

Barrett, C., 26.1.99: ‘Anatomy of a Weblog’, in: Rodzvilla, J. (Ed.), We’ve got Blog: How Weblogs are Changing our Culture (Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing).

Barrett, C., 11.5.99: ‘More About Weblogs’, in: Rodzvilla, J. (Ed.), We’ve got Blog: How Weblogs are Changing our Culture (Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing).

Beans, C., ‘Mandelbio’ <http://www.well.com/www/cynsa/tom/mandelbio.html> (Accessed 3.8.2005).

Blood, R., 2000: ‘Weblogs: A History and Perspective’, in: Rodzvilla, J. (Ed.), We’ve got Blog: How Weblogs are Changing our Culture (Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing).

Blood, R., 2002: ‘Introduction’, in: Rodzvilla, J. (Ed.), We’ve got Blog: How Weblogs are Changing our Culture (Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing).

Breslow, H., 1997: ‘Civil Society, Political Economy, and the Internet’ in: Jones, S. (Ed.), Virtual Culture: Identity & Communication in Cybersociety (Thousand Oaks CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.)

Boese, A., ‘Kaycee Nicole Swenson’  <http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/kaycee.html> 2002 (Accessed 1.8.2005).

Boys, J., 2000: ‘Windows on the World: Architechture, identities and new technologies’, in: Cutting Edge, The Women’s Research Group (Eds.), Digital Desires: Language, Identity and New Technologies (New York: St. Martin’s Press).
Brills, M., ‘Mark Bakalor’ <http://www.hijinks.com/~mark/brills.html> 2001 (Accessed 2.8.2005).
Butler, K., Surfin’: Life, death, and lies on the Internet’ <http://www.rwcactivist.com/main.cfm?include=detail&storyid=77891> 29.5.2001 (Accessed 2.8.2005).

Carl1236, ‘The Great Pretenders’ <http://blog.lib.umn.edu/archives/carl1236/dailyspirit/003661.html> 29.7.2004 (Accessed 1.8.2005). 

Clark, J., 2002: ‘Deconstructing “You’ve Got Blog”’, in: Rodzvilla, J. (Ed.), We’ve got Blog: How Weblogs are Changing our Culture (Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing).
CNN.com, ‘Pundits and Knitters find common ground in Web logs: Interview with Mena Trott’ <http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/internet/08/10/mena.trott/>10.8.2005 (Accessed 11.8.2005).
Cuzzin Tom ‘Dulaan to Others’ <http://danzanravjaa.typepad.com/my_weblog/2005/06/dulaan_to_other.html> 27.6.2005 (Accessed 12.8.2005).

Ernoehazy, W., ‘Munchausen Syndrome’ <http://www.emedicine.com/emerg/topic322.htm> 7.12.2004 (Accessed 2.8.2005).

Fernback, J., 1997: ‘The Individual within the Collective: Virtual Ideology and the Realization of Collective Principles’, in: Jones, S. (Ed.), Virtual Culture: Identity & Communication in Cybersociety (Thousand Oaks CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.)

Finnis, J., ‘RE: That story in MSNBC’ <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/kaycee-nicole/message/176> 22.5.2001 (Accessed 1.8.2005).

Fleishman, G., 2001: ‘Been “Blogging”? Web Discourse Hits Higher Level’, in: Rodzvilla, J. (Ed.), We’ve got Blog: How Weblogs are Changing our Culture (Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing).

Foner, L., ‘A sociological look at MUDs, Julia, and those who interact with her’ <http://foner.www.media.mit.edu/people/foner/Julia/section3_3.html> (Accessed 4.8.2005).

Geitgey, A., 2001: ‘The Kaycee Nicole (Swenson) FAQ’, in: Rodzvilla, J. (Ed.), We’ve got Blog: How Weblogs are Changing our Culture (Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing).

Geitgey, A. ‘The Kaycee Nicole (Swenson) FAQ (updated)’ <http://rootnode.org/article.php?sid=26> 2001 (Accessed 2.8.2005).

Graham, B., 1999: ‘Why I Weblog: A Rumination on Where the Hell I’m Going with this Website’, in: Rodzvilla, J. (Ed.), We’ve got Blog: How Weblogs are Changing our Culture (Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing).

Griswald, W. and Wright, N., 2004: ‘Wired and Well Read’, in: Howard, P.N. and Jones, S. (eds.), Society Online: The Internet in Context (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.).

Hafner, K., 2001: The Well: A Story of Love, Death and Real Life in the Seminal Online Community  (New York:Carroll & Graf Publishers, Inc.).

Halycon, J., ‘Cockybastard.com’s wrds’ <http://cockywrds.diaryland.com/010517_62.html> (Accessed 1.8.2005).
Hattersly, R., ‘Life and death online: Internet sleuths trace teen's tragic tale to Peabody’ <http://www.peabodykansas.com/21nichole.html> (Accessed 1.8.2005)
Hartmann, M., 2000: ‘The Cyberflaneuse: Metaphors and Reality in Virtual Space’, in: Cutting Edge, The Women’s Research Group (Eds.), Digital Desires: Language, Identity and New Technologies (New York: St. Martin’s Press).

Haycot, E. and Wesp, E., 2004: ‘Reading Game/Text: EverQuest, Alienation, and Digital Communities’, PMC 14.2 (Pages not given. Accessed on project MUSE April 28, 2005)

Hemingway, H., ‘Reasons I Should Not be Allowed to Work From Home’ <http://www.dooce.com/archives/daily/06_27_2001.html> 27.6.2001 (Accessed 7.8.2005).

Hemingway, H., ‘Carpooling with Community-workers’ <http://www.dooce.com/archives/daily/08_29_2001.html> 29.8.2001 (Accessed 7.8.2005).

Hemingway, H., ‘Pack the Flask’ <http://www.dooce.com/archives/daily/08_30_2001.html> 30.8.2001 (Accessed 8.8.2005).

Hemingway, H., ‘Strategic Power Lunch’ <http://www.dooce.com/archives/daily/09_19_2001.html> 29.9.2001 (Accessed 7.8.2005).

Hemingway, H., ‘PowerPoint Me to the Nearest Sledgehammer’ <http://www.dooce.com/archives/daily/11_07_2001.html> 7.10.2001 (Accessed 7.8.2005).

Hemingyway, H., ‘Rant Rant Rant Rant Rant Rant, Part 1’ <http://www.dooce.com/archives/daily/11_09_2001.html> 9.10.2001 (Accessed 7.8.2005).

Hemingway, H., ‘Comments Heard In, Around, and Consequent to the Company Christmas Party Last Evening’ <http://www.dooce.com/archives/daily/12_13_2001.html> 13.12.2001 (Accessed 7.8.2005).

Hemingway, H., ‘Recipe for Jack and Coke at the Beloved Blurbodoocery’ <http://www.dooce.com/archives/daily/01_15_2002.html> 15.1.2002 (Accessed 7.8.2005).

Hemingway, H., ‘The Proper Way to Hate a Job’ <http://www.dooce.com/archives/daily/01_17_2002.html> 17.1.2002 (Accessed 7.8.2005).

Hemingway, H., ‘Reasons the Asian Database Administrator is So Fucking Annoying’ <http://www.dooce.com/archives/daily/02_04_2002.html> 4.2.2002 (Accessed 7.8.2005).

Hemingway, H., ‘Intimidation’ <http://www.dooce.com/archives/daily/02_06_2002.html> 6.2.2002 (Accessed 7.8.2005).

Hemingway, H., ‘I Have Something to Say’ <http://www.dooce.com/archives/daily/02_12_2002.html> 12.2.2002 (Accessed 7.8.2005).

Hemingway, H., ‘Rant Rant Rant Rant Rant Rant, Part 2’ <http://www.dooce.com/archives/daily/02_14_2002.html> 14.2.2002 (Accessed 7.8.2005).

Hemingway, H., ‘Collecting Unemployment’ <http://www.dooce.com/archives/daily/02_26_2002.html> 26.2.2002 (Accessed 8.8.2005).

Hemingway, H., ‘Things I Don’t Necessarily Need to Know’ <http://www.dooce.com/archives/daily/02_25_2002.html> 26.2.2002 (Accessed 8.8.2005).

Hemingway, H., ‘Tell it to Their Face for Christ’s Sake’ <http://www.dooce.com/archives/daily/02_27_2002.html> 27.2.2002 (Accessed 8.8.2005).

Hemingway, H., ‘Termination Letter’ <http://www.dooce.com/archives/daily/03_06_2002.html 6.3.2002 (Accessed 8.8.2005).
Icarus1987, ‘Gender bending online experiences’ 8.17.2004 <http://www.ubersite.com/m/42017 > (Accessed 4.8.2005).
Irshad, M., Wendyknits! ‘Interview with Wendy. D. Johnson’, 21.2.2005 at <www.knitcast.com>

Jones, S., 1997: ‘The Internet and its Social Landscape’, in: Jones, S. (Ed.), Virtual Culture: Identity & Communication in Cybersociety (Thousand Oaks CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.)

Joyce, A., ‘Blogs can get you fired’ <http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05044/456385.stm> 13.2.2005 (Accessed 10.8.2005).

Katz, J., 2001: ‘Here Come the Weblogs’, in: Rodzvilla, J. (Ed.), We’ve got Blog: How Weblogs are Changing our Culture (Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing).

Kenn, ‘Kenn-Michelle’ <http://kenn-michelle.ca:8080/pictures.php> (Accessed 5.5.2005)

Kitzmann, A., 2003: ‘That Different Place:
Documenting the Self Within Online Environments’ Biography 26.1 48-65

Landow, G., 1997: Hypertext 2.0: The Convergence of Comtemporary Critical Theory and Technology (Revised Edition) (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press).

Lasica, J. D., 2002: ‘Blogging as a Form of Journalism: Weblogs Offer a Vital, Creative Outlet for Alternative Voices’, in: Rodzvilla, J. (Ed.), We’ve got Blog: How Weblogs are Changing our Culture (Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing).

Leonard, A., ‘All too real’ >http://www.well.com/www/cynsa/tom/tom14.html> (Accessed 3.8.2005).

MacKinnon, R., 1997: ‘Punishing the Persona: Correctional Strategies for the Virtual Offender’, in: Jones, S. (Ed.), Virtual Culture: Identity & Communication in Cybersociety (Thousand Oaks CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.)

Matlow, E., 2000: ‘Women, Computers and a Sense of Self’, in: Cutting Edge, The Women’s Research Group (Eds.), Digital Desires: Language, Identity and New Technologies (New York: St. Martin’s Press).

Mason, J.D., ‘Munchausen Syndrome by proxy’ <http://www.emedicine.com/EMERG/topic830.htm> 7.12.2004 (Accessed 2.8.2005).

McLaughlin, M, Osborne, K. and Ellison, N., 1997: ‘Virtual Community in a Telepresence Environment’, in: Jones, S. (Ed.), Virtual Culture: Identity & Communication in Cybersociety (Thousand Oaks CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.)

Morrissey, R., ‘Announcing the Dulaan Project!’ <http://www.nwkniterati.com/movabletype/archives/MossyCottage/001173.html> 31.1.2005 (Accessed 31.1.2005).

Morrissey, R., ‘Musical Notes’ <http://www.nwkniterati.com/movabletype/archives/MossyCottage/001184.html> 11.2.2005 (Accessed 11.2.2005).

Morrissey, R., ‘Neener, Neener!’ <http://www.nwkniterati.com/movabletype/archives/MossyCottage/001227.html> 16.3.2005 (Accessed 16.3.2005).

Morrissey, R., ‘Is It Possible to Have a Knitting Hangover?’ <http://www.nwkniterati.com/movabletype/archives/MossyCottage/2005_07.html> 29.7.2005 (Accessed 29.7.2005).

Morrissey, R., ‘Is there a plumber in the house?’ <http://www.nwkniterati.com/MovableType/MossyCottage/> 5.8.2005 (Accessed 5.8.2005).
Morrissey, R.,  ‘Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water…’ <http://www.nwkniterati.com/movabletype/archives/MossyCottage/001482.html> 22.8.2005 (Accessed 22.8.2005).
Norris, P.,2004: ‘The Bridging and Bonding Roles of Online Communities’, in: Howard, P.N. and Jones, S. (eds.), Society Online: The Internet in Context (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.).

Paul, C., 2003: Digital Art (London: Thames and Hudson ltd).

Pearl-McPhee, S., ‘Needs and Wants’ <http://www.yarnharlot.ca/blog/archives/2005/01/03/needs_and_wants.html> 2.1.2005 (Accessed 2.1.2005).

Pearl-McPhee, S., ‘Incredible’ <http://www.yarnharlot.ca/blog/archives/2005/01/04/incredible.html> 4.1.2005 (Accessed 4.1.2005).

Pearl-McFee, S., ‘My one and only’ <http://www.yarnharlot.ca/blog/archives/2005/04/11/my_one_and_only.html> 11.4.2005 (Accessed 11.4.2005).

Pearl-McPhee, S., ‘Inspired, or profoundly stupid?’ <http://www.yarnharlot.ca/blog/archives/2005/07/06/inspired_or_profoundly_stupid.html> 6.7.2005 (Accessed 6.7.2005).

Pearl McPhee, S., ‘Seattle’ <http://www.yarnharlot.ca/blog/archives/2005/08/05/seattle.html> 5.8.2005 (Accessed 5.8.2005)

Pearl-McPhee, S., ‘Knitters Without Borders’ <http://www.yarnharlot.ca/blog/tsffaq.html> (Accessed 7.8.2005).

Powazek, D.M., 2000: ‘What the Hell is a Weblog and Why Won’t They Leave Me Alone?’ in: Rodzvilla, J. (Ed.), We’ve got Blog: How Weblogs are Changing our Culture (Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing).

Rcade (ed.), ‘Comments on 7856’ <http://www.metafilter.com/comments.mefi/7856#85741> 21.5.2001 (Accessed 2.8.2005).
Rheingold, H., 2000: The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier Revised Edition (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).

Rushkoff, D., 2000: ‘The Internet is not Killing off Conversation but Actively Encouraging it’, in: Rodzvilla, J. (Ed.), We’ve got Blog: How Weblogs are Changing our Culture (Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing).

Shaw, D., 1997: ‘Gay Men and Computer Communication: A Discourse of Sex and Identity in Cyberspace’, in: Jones, S. (Ed.), Virtual Culture: Identity & Communication in Cybersociety (Thousand Oaks CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.)

Stone, B., 2004: Who Let the Blogs Out? (New York: St. Martin’s Press).

Suler, J., ‘Images and the edges of cyberspace’ <http://psycyber.blogspot.com/> 26.6.2005 (Accessed 3.8.2005).

Suler, J. The Psychology of Cyberspace (Accessed at: http://www.rider.edu/%7Esuler/psycyber/download.html 8.4.2005)

Talbot, N., 2000: ‘Put the Keyboard Down and Back Away from the Weblog’, in: Rodzvilla, J. (Ed.), We’ve got Blog: How Weblogs are Changing our Culture (Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing).

Talbot, N., 2001: ‘Weblogs (Good God Y’all) What Are They Good For (Absolutely Nothing—Say It Again)’, in: Rodzvilla, J. (Ed.), We’ve got Blog: How Weblogs are Changing our Culture (Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing).

Turkle, S., 1995: Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet (New York: Touchstone).

Turnbull, G., 26.2.2001: ‘The State of the Blog Part 1: Blogger Past’, in: Rodzvilla, J. (Ed.), We’ve got Blog: How Weblogs are Changing our Culture (Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing).

Turnbull, G., 28.2.2002: ‘The State of the Blog Part 2: Blogger Present’, in: Rodzvilla, J. (Ed.), We’ve got Blog: How Weblogs are Changing our Culture (Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing).

Turnbull, G., 3.2.2002: ‘The state of the Blog Part 3: Blogger Future’, in: Rodzvilla, J. (Ed.), We’ve got Blog: How Weblogs are Changing our Culture (Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing).

Wallace, P., 1999: The Psychology of the Internet (New York: Cambridge University Press).

Van Der Woning, R., ‘The end of the whole mess: the truth about the Kaycee hoax’ <http://www.bigwhiteguy.com/mess.pdf> May 25, 2001 (Accessed 1.8.2005).

Watson, N., 1997: ‘Why We Argue About Virtual Community: A Case Study of the Phish.net Fan Community’, in: Jones, S. (Ed.), Virtual Culture: Identity & Communication in Cybersociety (Thousand Oaks CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.)
Yee, N., ‘The Daedalus project: The Demographics of Gender-Bending’ <http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/archives/000551.php> 3.9.2003 (Accessed 4.8.2005).
Zickmund, S., 1997: ‘Approaching the Radical Other: The Discursive Culture of Cyberhate’, in: Jones, S. (Ed.), Virtual Culture: Identity & Communication in Cybersociety (Thousand Oaks CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.)