Conceptual Research & Reflection Project

Concept 7. Netiquette: “But what is important about Netiquette is the concept that there are these 'agreed' rules of what is good and bad.”

As Internetrix points out there are no ‘official’ rules that govern email or other electronic web based communication (Internetrix, 2006) and it is this lack of formality that lends itself to interpretation as to what is considered to be concept of an agreed set of rules governing internet communication.

A simple Google search on the word ‘netiquette’ yields over 6.5 million results relating to the subject of manners in electronic communication, and as The Australian Concise Oxford Dictionary (2004, p 942) defines netiquette as “the unwritten code governing the customary behavior of users of the internet”, we must question that if the rules are unwritten are they really agreed upon.

Fundamentally the answer to this question lies in knowing that the internet as a form that supports such communication formats as email, blogging, chatting and news groups, is a continually evolving entity and therefore the code of conduct to partake must therefore also be continually evolving. Is it ever possible for a set of rules that is continually changing to ever be agreed upon? Fundamentally the rules will only be agreed upon only for any short period of time, if ever.

While so many of the 6.5 million sites referencing netiquette do agree on some of the rules and list them in common such as not typing in upper case and not forwarding chain email, spam or junk email, the fact remain that no two sites list the same exact set of rules. Therefore the internet as a contribution based form of communication is not agreed as to what is considered acceptable.

Many internet groups or communities do promote their own netiquette guidelines, which vary from the very vague to the highly detailed, but a universally agreed upon netiquette for the entire internet community does not exist.

In an attempted to document netiquette some publishers only provide examples or guidelines and not a full list of rules. For example the Australian Government NetAlter site provides only 5 examples which are broad and general in content and would not apply to many situations. (What is Netiquette? n.d.)

This could be contrasted with the Curtain University netiquette guide for students. While taking a little effort to find, it is available and provides detailed rules to observe. The flaw with the Curtain University Netiquette Guide is that it would take some time to read the entire document and it is not automatically sent to new students. Therefore the only students who would take the time to read this guide are those that have an awareness of netiquette and not new students who are the demographic that would benefit most. (RFC 1855 Netiquette guidelines, n.d.)

In short, the netiquette guides that can be found on the internet are only expressions of opinion by the publisher, and the concept that there are agreed rules of what is good and bad is only supported by some website listing a similar set of rules. If the rules were agreed upon then all sites quoting these rules would have a certain level of uniformity to them but this is not the case. The overriding theory to good and bad email communication is directly related to the English language conventions, manners and consideration to the recipient.

Further reading:

Site 1: Curtain University of technology, Online learning, netiquette guide (n.d) http://startup.curtin.edu.au/online/netiquette.cfm

A Curtain University opinion on netiquette the provides a general introduction as well as links to more detailed formal rules and guidelines.
A strength of this site is that it provides detailed rules for all types of internet communication; the weakness is that it potentially is too detailed and becomes cumbersome to read all the content. Overall the site is given credibility by nature of the fact it is published by a university but the guides can be difficult to find without the exact link.

Site2: Internetrix http://www.internetrix.net/

A well constructed commercial site that details software solutions available to a variety of clients, this site also offers an articles page that are current, well documented and informative on many technology and internet related topics.

The Netiquette article from the 2006 Newsletter archive provides clear and easy to read rules to observe when communicating via email. (Internetrix, 2006) As a Technology Partner to Google, Internetmirix gain instant credibility, but this can also been seen in the substance of the articles archive. There is no charge to access this database or journal and articles.

References:

Internetrix (2006). Say What: Netiquette, April 2006 Newsletter. Retrieved during january 2009 from
http://www.internetrix.net/page/articles/newsletters/2006/april/say-what--netiquette/

Moore, B. (Ed.) (2004). The Australian Concise oxford Dictionary. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

What is Netiquetter? (n.d) Retrieved on January 11, 2009 from http://www.netalert.gov.au/advice/behaviour/netiquette_emoticons/What_is_netiquette.html

RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines, Startup (2008) Retrieved February 1, 2009 from http://startup.curtin.edu.au/online/netiquette.cfm

Curtain University of technology, Online learning, netiquette guide (n.d) retrieved from http://startup.curtin.edu.au/online/netiquette.cfm

Internetrix (n.d.) retrieved from http://www.internetrix.net/


Concept 10. Automation “Automation is critical to processes such as filtering and requires that humans try to anticipate the future and then give precise instructions to their email programs to deal with those future contingencies.”

Filtering in respect to email communication is a general term that tends to assume the filter is to weed out unwanted junk or spam email from being received into the mailbox. However, automated filtering can also be used to categorize or sort any email message for efficient reference at a later date. When filtering is considered in this broader sense the concept that automation is critical to the email process, whereby users attempt to set logic in place to anticipate new messages is a concept that is fundamentally flawed by its reliance on predicting the future.

As Cunningham. P., Nowlan. N., Delany S., and Haahr. M. (n.d.) explain the case based approach to spam filtering relies on the analysis of empirical data of email content or headers to identify the desirable from the undesirable email message. For example certain words for phrases appearing may determine that the email message is a junk message. They also rightly highlight that spam email is a continually evolving and changing and therefore the filters must also be continually updated to keep pace beyond spammers. New techniques employed by spammers only become know when they are circulated on the internet and can only be acted upon when received by an email user who classifies that email as spam. As a result at the home user level of computing the automated filter is only triggered after a spam email is known to be junk and therefore only effective when subsequent messages with the same or similar content are received.

In an effort to preempt spam mail and automate further the filter process users have attempted to anticipate future messages and this raises the most significant concern for email users; the issue of ‘false positives’. (Cunningham. P., et al. n.d.) This is the situation of a genuine email being classified as junk and highlights the fundamental flaw in any filtering system; predicting the future is not an exact science.

Automation is critical to reduce the need for human intervention in any process, manual or computerized, however automation can potentially increase the need for human intervention when
future trends of mail are incorrectly predicted.

The issues of continual evolution and false positives apply equally to filing and sorting email messages as they do for spam mail. When applying logic to categorize a message for example it is the empirical data that will initially trigger a need to apply a search category, and incorrect anticipation of the future could result in the incorrect category application and deem the message ‘lost’.

In summary, predicting the content of an email message will never be accurate and the concept that automation is critical to processes such as email filtering is flawed. Ultimately in the context of a home computers user, the level of automation that is acceptable for that users should be based on the level of false positives they are willing to accept.

Further reading:

Site 1: Spam filtering techniques, Six approaches to eliminating unwanted e-mail.
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-spamf.html

An informative site that covers spam filtering techniques and addresses each in a methodical approach. This article is given credibility by being published in the IBM site and offers computer users a solid foundation to understanding spam filters.

Indexed and easy to read the article it detailed numerous issues in relation of spam filtering that despite the age of the article (2002) are still relevant. (Mertz, D. 2002)

Site 2: About the Junk E-mail Filter http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook/default.aspx

Possibly the most used e-mail program today, Microsoft Outlook has many features and this site explain them all. Full details for all version, downloads and training are included. A great place for new users to emailing to start and learn all the features.

The down side is that there are many links and it’s easy to get ‘lost’ in subjects that are unrelated to what you really want and the majority of the content is not suitable to print for those who like a hard copy.

References:

Pádraig Cunningham1, Niamh Nowlan1, Sarah Jane Delany2, Mads Haahr1 (n.d.) A Case-Based Approach to Spam Filtering that CanTrack Concept Drift. 1Department of Computer Science, Trinity College Dublin.
http://www.searchforum.org.cn/dataflowgroup/dsms_home_en/Reading/2004Paper/SpamPaper/ContentandStatistical/A%20Case-Based%20Approach%20to%20Spam%20Filtering%20that%20Can%20Track%20Concept%20Drift.pdf

Mertz, D., 2002, Spam Filtering Techniques, Retrieved January 27, 2009 from http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-spamf.html#author

About the Junk E-mail Filter (n.d.) retrieved http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook/default.aspx

Spam filtering techniques, Six approaches to eliminating unwanted e-mail. (n.d.) retrieved from
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-spamf.html



33. Information and attention
Concept: “The attention-capturing quality of Internet information is governed by a dialogue between the needs and desires of the reader and the readiness with which those needs and desires appear to be met in the first few seconds of evaluation.”

The concept that the needs of a reader of internet material must be met within seconds to prevent them clicking away from a web site, Jakob Nielson (2003) believes is the direct result of ‘Information Pollution’.

If The Australian Concise Oxford Dictionary (2004) defines pollution as “contaminating”, then the internet has become much polluted from its original beginnings of a public networking system to share knowledge. While the internet hosts many forms of communication such email, blogging, chatting and the most recognizable form of published websites.

The internet as we know it today is an unregulated entity of unlimited sites that required little or no expertise to partake in and post opinions and thoughts. It is this lack of regulation that has led to unrestricted web site publishing. The pollution occurs when too many sites use too many word to state their message and as users we have over time conditioned ourselves to limit our attention to guard against our time and energy being wasted.

To capture out attention beyond the first few seconds when visiting a web site, the user must have a clear definition in their mind of what information they seek, and the web sites visited must be concise in the information it is providing.
Thus it becomes essential that published web sites not only demonstrate credible expertise in the given subject but also convey this with brief and compact terminology, which will allow the user to determine quickly if their needs in part are being met. My experience make me pose the question of how many times have you been to a web site not even been able to determine what the site’s primary purpose is?

In an attempt to get users to stay on the site beyond the first few seconds, many web site publishers resort to sales gimmicks to capture attention. Catchy (but unrelated) headlines, pictures, videos and music have all been incorporated into sites with the sole purpose of attention grabbing. But ironically it is these gimmicks that contribute to polluting the internet. Then the cycle begins again – as pollution increases, our attention decreases and web publishers attempt to create new ways to keep our attention and more pollution is created.

As an unregulated entity the internet will always be faced with this issue and it is destined to become a vicious cycle unless a code of conduct or more stringent regulation is introduced to prevent the spread of pollution on the internet.


Further reading:

Site 1: Information Pollution. http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20030811.html
Jakob Nielson (2003) supports his argument of Information Pollution in detail will many day to day examples where excessive words are used in signs and announcements. He also uses examples of how this can cause danger and the impact on our lives as a result of too much ‘superfluous’ wording. Nielson provides a credible argument with his use of examples we can relate to and with links to many other supporting sites.

Site 2: The Attention Economy and the Net
http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/519/440
(Goldhaber, M. The Attention Ecoconmy and the Net, First Monday, Volume 2, Number 4, April 7, 1997)
This site is the online journal article of Michael Goldhaber who arguably is the first to publish the concept of the ‘attention economy’. Goldhaber sells the concept that an internet users attention is a valuable economic item with a potentially significant value attached to it.
A lengthy document that reports the speech given at a seminar and covers the history of economics and the direction Goldhaber feels is being taken with the progress of technology and more specifically the internet. Goldhaber discusses the implications of the ‘attention economy’ to great length and this article is definitely for the dedicated followers of this topic.

References:

Nielson, J. (2003) Information Pollution, Alterbox, August 11, 2003 http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20030811.html
Moore, B. (Ed.) (2004). The Australian Concise oxford Dictionary. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Goldhaber, M. The Attention Economy and the Net, First Monday, Volume 2, Number 4, April 7, 1997 retrieved from http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20030811.html




22. Public space and regulation “What we can learn from this history is that public spaces often operate best when there is some form of regulation: who can speak, what sorts of things can be said etc.”

Because the internet is not governed by one overseeing organization, the Australian Government’s ACMA (Australian Communications and Media Authority) has to date provided internet regulation in Australia and in doing so supports the concept that public spaces operate best when there is some form of regulation. However for any regulation to benefit the public space it governs it must be effective and enforceable, and the Spam Act 2003 is an example of regulation that has provided clear guidelines for business and individuals to abide by but like most laws, The Spam Act also has its own set of inherent flaws.

The origins of the internet can be traced back as far as 1989 in Australia (Australian government, Culture & Recreation Portal n.d.) indicating the internet has been in popular use for 20 years now. The Spam Act (2003) as the name suggests has only come into effect around 15 years after the popularization of the internet to combat the most widespread internet disease encountered to date – spam.

Interestingly, The Spam Act does not provide a definition of spam, and Wikipedia defines spam as “the abuse of electronic messaging systems to indiscriminately send unsolicited bulk messages” and any law or regulation to stem the spread of the spam disease can be regarded as good thing. Yet it must be question how practical or enforceable this regulation is when it has come into effect so long after the explosive growth of the internet. The Spam Act is an example of how the lawmakers sadly lag behind the requirements of the time.

On the positive side The Spam Act has become a clear benchmark for commercial organizations that clearly states that “unsolicited commercial electronic messages must not be sent”. The Act also provides definitions for key terminology in its statements. More importantly the Act set out the requirements for authorized commercial messages to be sent.

Perhaps a grey area of The Spam Act is the ‘Australian Link’ criteria. In short this means that the spam message to be in breach of this act must have an Australian Link, meaning it originated in Australia or the sender was in Australia at the time of sending or the computer or server used to access the message is in Australia. This criteria appears easy to meet, however the practicalities of investigating the origins and locations of a message would prove different. As a community of internet users we must also question the monetary value of the resources being used to investigate spam messages and ultimately the cost versus benefit ratio. Is the really worth huge amounts of public funding to have a few less junk messages in your in-box? If any of these spam message contained a virus that damaged a large system would you think differently?

In any community some regulation is necessary to ensure smooth and continuing operations. From the law enforced by the police in the broader community to local schools, church and sporting groups, all a dependant on some form of regulation. The internet has rapidly become the biggest community in existence because it crossed geographical, cultural and social boundaries yet fundamentally is no different to the smaller local communities the rely on regulation to ensure their growth going forward.

Further reading:

Site 1: Australian Communications and Media Authority http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/HOMEPAGE/pc=HOME
The Australian Government ACMA (Australian Communication and Media Authority) site contains many useful links to legislation and current issue articles relevant to its work as our media watch dog. Some of the information on this site is very broad and general and therefore becomes irrelevant. Overall a good starting point for official information regarding the current internet and media laws in Australia.

Site 2: Federal Trade Commission, The CAN-SPAM act http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/business/ecommerce/bus61.shtm
As the American counterpart to the Australian Communication and Media Authority, the Federal Trade Authority site details the American CAN-Spam Act 2003. Interesting to note the differences and striking similarities to the Australian legislation of the same nature. The extensive site provides much detail for consumers to report spam mail and protect against it. However like most government site this site tends to contain many links and it can become easy to get lost in all the information provided.

References

The Spam Act 2003 (Commonwealth) retrieved on January 28, 2009 from (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/comlaw/Legislation/ActCompilation1.nsf/0/DED153276FD7C6F9CA2570260013908A/$file/SpamAct03WD02.pdf)

Wikipedia (n.d.) retrieved on January 27, 2009 from (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spam_(electronic)

Australian Government, Australian Communication and Media Authority (n.d.) retrieved on January 27, 2009 from http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/HOMEPAGE/pc=HOME

Federal Trade Commission, Consumer Protection (n.d.) retrieved on February 5, 2009 from http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/index.shtml

Australian Government, Culture & Recreation Portal (n.d.) retrieved on January 27, 2009 from http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/resources/guides/g2/s2.html