<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta>
      <journal-title-group>
        <journal-title>Till Schümmer and Allan Kelly</journal-title>
      </journal-title-group>
      <issn pub-type="ppub">1613-0073</issn>
    </journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Junkies Like Us</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Andreas Rüping</string-name>
          <email>andreas.rueping@rueping.info</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>Sodenkamp 21 A</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>22337 Hamburg</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="DE">Germany</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <pub-date>
        <year>2009</year>
      </pub-date>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>-</title>
      <p>www.rueping.info</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>Introduction</title>
      <p>With Web 2.0 becoming increasingly popular, people tend to make more and
more personal information available on the Internet: in social networks, blogs,
chats and wikis. The younger generation especially seems to enjoy social
networks and gives information about their lifestyle away freely. Have we, or will
we, become Web junkies who deliberately put more or less their entire lives
online?
Looking at the material that people put online, it’s easy to be torn between two
positions:</p>
      <p>On the one hand, there’s the concept of online communities, the idea of a
democratic Web, the perspective of a more open society, and the fun that
comes from actively participating in today’s most popular medium.
On the other hand, there’s the unpleasant prospect of endless personalised
advertising, the possible danger that virtually anyone can track you down
and collect arbitrary information about you, and the possibility that all our
concerns for privacy might vanish one day.</p>
      <p>So is the Social Web a good thing or a bad?
This focus group set out to discuss this question. We first analysed the benefits
and risks involved in the Social Web and then moved on to explore possible
strategies and personal practices for handling the challenges. The following
photograph shows the session output that was produced.
Benefits</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>Evaluation</title>
      <p>There was consensus among the focus group participants that there is value in
the Social Web and that it makes options available that weren’t available before.
The following table summarises the benefits of the Social Web that were
identified during the session.</p>
      <sec id="sec-3-1">
        <title>Area</title>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-3-2">
        <title>Benefit</title>
        <sec id="sec-3-2-1">
          <title>Access to information • and services gain access to information (event announcements, etc.) through web sites, blogs, etc.</title>
        </sec>
        <sec id="sec-3-2-2">
          <title>Publishing general information Publishing personal information</title>
          <p>•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
gain access to services (shopping, banking,
printing services)
share / publish opinions and recommendations
(for books, music, movies, restaurants)
share / publish photos
tag information with keywords
rate published material
build an information repository (bookmarks,
etc.)
share / publish personal status / location
share / publish personal photos</p>
        </sec>
        <sec id="sec-3-2-3">
          <title>Community building</title>
          <p>stay in touch
Culture
build a community of practice
build a niche community
satisfy your curiosity
build collective intelligence
add diversity to the web
improve free speech in totalitarian countries /
repressive societies
•</p>
          <p>In addition, the focus groups participants identified a few characteristics of the
Social Web that they were reluctant to classify as benefits, although these
characteristics aren’t necessarily negative either. They were tentatively named
‘borderline properties’. The following table summarises these ‘borderline
properties’ — things that can be regarded as positive or negative, depending on
perspective.</p>
          <p>Just as there was no doubt about the Social Web offering benefits, there was no
doubt about the existence of risks either. Participants’ opinions varied regarding
how severe the specific risks are, but it was clear from the discussion that
awareness of these risks is a precondition for using the Social Web safely and
successfully. The following table summarises the risks that were identified.</p>
        </sec>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-3-3">
        <title>Area</title>
        <sec id="sec-3-3-1">
          <title>Information transparency</title>
        </sec>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-3-4">
        <title>Benefit</title>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-3-5">
        <title>Area</title>
        <sec id="sec-3-5-1">
          <title>Information overload</title>
        </sec>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-3-6">
        <title>Risk</title>
        <p>Lack of reliability
employer checking out a job candidate’s personal
data
candidate putting material online to improve job
chances
easier investigation into crime, etc.
a flood of useless information (requires effective
filters)
relative importance of search engines and
information portals (“if you can’t find it, it doesn’t
exist”)
amateurisation (everybody acts as a journalist)
subjective information is confused with facts
intentional / unintentional misinformation</p>
        <sec id="sec-3-6-1">
          <title>Lack of authority</title>
        </sec>
        <sec id="sec-3-6-2">
          <title>Data misuse</title>
          <p>Lack of awareness
information is less protected than users think
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
unclear copyrights
plagiarism
derivative work (users who copy from different
sources and publish under their own name)
illusion of anonymity
user monitoring (without the user knowing)
cross-linking (information about a user being
collected from different sources)
personal data (etc. addresses, profile, personal
preferences) being sold to third parties (etc. for
personalised advertising)
vandalism / personal threats (especially when
anonymous)
published material is volatile
no information revocation (once published,
information cannot be deleted)
communication stress (pressure to be always
online)
exhibitionism
growing disregard of privacy (pressure to put
private information online)</p>
        </sec>
        <sec id="sec-3-6-3">
          <title>User misbehaviour open doors for slander without legal redress</title>
        </sec>
        <sec id="sec-3-6-4">
          <title>Time</title>
        </sec>
        <sec id="sec-3-6-5">
          <title>Culture</title>
        </sec>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>Strategies and Practices</title>
      <p>The second half of the focus group was devoted to a discussion of possible
strategies for handling the challenges imposed on us by the Social Web. The
discussion was somewhat controversial, but anyway we were able to come up
with a list of strategies, or personal practices, that were widely regarded as useful.
Some of the strategies may seem slightly contradictory at first (especially the first
two in the following table), but in fact they aren’t. They aim to resolve the tension
built up by the Social Web, its benefits and risks, and their combination should
constitute a sensible approach to using the Social Web.</p>
      <p>The following table lists these strategies formulated as prototypical patterns.
In a way, others expect you to put information online and if you don't, then that
will give a poor impression of you, therefore:</p>
      <p>Tell the world what you want the world to know.</p>
      <p>Put material online if you're sure it represents you well.</p>
      <p>Once you've published something, everyone can (in principle) read it and you
can't delete it either, therefore:</p>
      <sec id="sec-4-1">
        <title>Apply selective foresight.</title>
        <p>Publish material only if it's ok with you if the world finds out about it.
Sharing (with a community) and publishing (for everyone to see) may not be
the same thing, but information can leak, therefore:</p>
        <p>Share information only if it's generally ok should the information get
published.</p>
        <p>Web 2.0 is full of unreliable sources, therefore:</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-4-2">
        <title>Question your sources.</title>
        <p>Watch out for opinions dressed as facts.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-4-3">
        <title>Look up multiple references. Some parts of Web 2.0 are more reliable than others, some are perhaps dangerous. Smaller (more specific) communities are often more trustworthy, therefore:</title>
        <p>Build a mental map of the Web and identify areas of trust.</p>
        <p>Find out about the people behind the scenery (owners of a social site etc.).
Some sites respect your privacy more than others. Some are quite ok with
respect to privacy, while others have made selling your personal data a part of
their business model, therefore:</p>
        <p>Favour sites with an opt-in policy (where by default, personal information
may not be passed to third parties) over sites with an opt-out policy (where
users must actively deselect the dissemination of their data).</p>
        <p>More and more stuff is put online and it's easy to lose track, therefore:
Reflect regularly about your sharing habits.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-4-4">
        <title>Google yourself regularly.</title>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-5">
      <title>Conclusion</title>
      <p>Web 2.0 is a pretty cool place. All focus groups participants said they used it to
some extent, although there are clear limits to what we would put online and to
what online platforms we’d use for sharing information with others.
But it’s not just us that matters. Almost all participants agreed that, if they were
15 years younger, they’d probably use the Social Web more. Perhaps much more.
It’s safe to assume that there are (younger) people out there who use the Social
Web quite extensively, largely oblivious to the existing risks. We therefore felt it
was important to name these risks and to think of ways to avoid them.
The idea is not to avoid the Social Web. The idea should to embrace it, and at the
same time to be aware of its technological background, its dangers and its
cultural implications. Hopefully the strategies developed in this focus group can
contribute to this goal.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-6">
      <title>Acknowledgements</title>
      <p>Thanks to all participants for their contributions and for turning this focus group
into three hours of fruitful discussion. Special thanks to Ademar Aguiar for
taking the photograph and for providing the reference to [Doctorow 2007].</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-7">
      <title>Suggested Reading</title>
      <p>A book that explains how the Internet has helped niche markets to come to fruition. Not
primarily about the Social Web, but significant anyway.</p>
      <sec id="sec-7-1">
        <title>An interview with the founder of the Web who argues against net tracking.</title>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-7-2">
        <title>A newspaper artcile that details reservations about a popular Social Web site.</title>
      </sec>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          <source>[Anderson</source>
          <year>2006</year>
          ]
          <article-title>Chris Anderson. The Long Tail - Why The Future of Business Is Selling Less Of More</article-title>
          . Hyperion,
          <year>2006</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>[</surname>
            Berners-Lee 2008]
            <given-names>Tim</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Berners-Lee</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <source>Questions &amp; Answers. BBC News</source>
          , 2008-Mar-
          <volume>17</volume>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          [Doctorow 2007]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Cory</given-names>
            <surname>Doctorow</surname>
          </string-name>
          . Little Brother. “www.craphound.com/littlebrother/”,
          <year>2007</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          <source>[Hodgkinson</source>
          <year>2008</year>
          ]
          <article-title>Tom Hodgkinson. With Friends Like These</article-title>
          ...
          <source>The Guardian</source>
          ,
          <fpage>2008</fpage>
          -Jan-
          <volume>18</volume>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          [Shirky 2008]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Clay</given-names>
            <surname>Shirky</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <source>Here Comes Everybody - The Power of Organizing Organizations. Penguin</source>
          ,
          <year>2008</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>