Facebook, when contrasted to the plethora of social media sites out there, has an incredibly vast output of and a potential for the creation of memes. Facebook today is a massive influx of information and opinions regarding social lives and ideas, and it is only natural that some of these ideas are found amusing or funny etc, and subsequently are imitated by others, and variations are made of it. The funny thing about Facebook is as wide ranging and encompassing as it is, it still is quite limiting when it comes to the structure of its memes. Far and away the most common is the status update. Status updates on Facebook assist people in identifying, learning, and comprehending their friends and the people around them. It is a brief window into the individual; it lets us in on what they are thinking, what they are doing, and how they are feeling. Another staggering part to status updates is their rampant popularity: Every day, hundreds of thousands of people across the world write new updates, using millions upon millions of words to describe one thing or another. The memes that take place here can offer an interesting take on all of the things thoughts and feelings that connect people.

Take a trend that began earlier this month on Facebook that consisted of a flooding of updates that spelled out where women “like it”. (Although some people claim the “it” refers to purses, and where they like to put them, I don’t think I have to spell out for you what was implied by these posts.) Evidently, all these posts were supposed to go hand in hand with National Breast Cancer Awareness month (this October!) to promote awareness, to encourage efforts for the search for a cure, and to egg women on to get breast exams.

Some criticism and disapproval has been levied against the posts, and on one level, it’s very difficult to fight against breast cancer awareness. How does one voice their opinion against these posts without sounding far too prim and proper? Is it even possible to voice opinion against these posts without sounding against breast cancer awareness? But on the other hand I don’t necessarily like the feeling of using breast cancer awareness as a front to make funny, sometimes mocking jokes on Facebook. It doesn’t feel right, it doesn’t carry the right message, and it really isn’t even related to breast cancer awareness.

The incredible thing at hand here is the polarization, and immediate judgment making and opinion forming that takes place all because of a silly little meme on Facebook. People and advertisers have been putting out their opinions and products into the open for a very long time, with everyone competing for attention. The creation of memes – that is, ideas that replicate themselves in the common social collective – has been harnessed by people everywhere to spread their ideas.  The question is, are memes like the ones we can find in Facebook valuable? Are they taken seriously enough to force you to think about X, Y, or Z? Do they last long enough to even have an impact in our lives? I suppose only time can tell.

Anyone familiar with internet culture has heard of the infamous 4chan.org.  Many are probably equally familiar with the sort of content that comes out of 4chan.  As a member of other online communities (namely gaming forums), I have encountered numerous memes and image macros, many of which have originated at 4chan, including the list from Meme Factory in the New York Times article we read for class: Boxxy, David After Dentist, Star Wars Kid, “Downfall,” Advice Dog, “Imma chargin mah lazer!” Crasher Squirrel, “This is Sparta!”  I even went to see moot at the Calhoun Master’s Tea last year as well as Meme Factory’s presentation in Davies Auditorium.  Yet I have never actually visited 4chan.org.  That having been said, I’ve seen screenshots of a typical thread.  But I decided that, for the sake of my blog post, I would boldly go where most internet goers dare not go.

Once I had typed the URL into Chrome’s browser bar, I was greeted with a tame-looking page.  With a friendly-looking four-leaf clover logo on top, a list of the image boards, and a sample of recent images and posts, everything looked pretty normal.  The recent images posted included an animated pig with a sock, a Gundam-looking mech, and a Canadian flag (probably the most offensive thing on the page).  The recent post and popular thread list didn’t include any posts or threads from the hentai or random (/b/) boards.

I clicked open the rules in a new tab before I proceeded into any image board.  There were 14 global rules that applied to all image boards as well as board specific rules.  The rules looked to be well-ordered and similar to rules you would find at any reputable site with one notable exception, Global Rule #3.  “Do not post the following outside of /b/: Trolls, flames, racism, off-topic replies, uncalled for catchphrases, macro image replies, indecipherable text (example: “lol u tk him 2da bar|?”), anthropomorphic (“furry”), grotesque (“guro”), or loli/shota pornography.”  Hmmm, I thought, this is more of what comes to mind when I think of 4chan, and especially when I think of /b/.  I should also mention that some of the board-specific rules were quite funny, including: “ZOMG NONE!!!1” for /b/, “There is to be no discussion of Ayn Rand” for the literature board, and “GOTTA CATCH ‘EM ALL.  This will be severely punished and strictly enforced” for the Pokémon board.  I then moved on to the FAQ’s for the website, which were also written in a helpful, light-hearted tone.  I couldn’t help noticing the Culture section of the FAQ’s, especially the humours entry for “Who is ‘Anonymous’?”.  You can read it for yourself here.

Having read the required documentation, I continued into the weapons board /k/. I decided I would work my way up to /b/ and I figured /k/ wouldn’t have anything I didn’t want to see.  .  Upon entering the page, I found a relatively humorous thread with the following picture and the comment “post your shoops.”

Being the savvy internet community user I am, I expected some funny Photoshopped (shooped) pictures.  I wasn’t disappointed when I found pictures of the guy holding a large tuna fish, a golden gun, the broom from the picture, and (the least safe for work image on the page) an oversized black dildo.  My assessment of the image board is that the posters posted in good taste, using language comprehensible to most people.  The images posted were in good taste and not anything worse than I’ve seen posted on other forums.  While I noticed the occasional foul and bigoted remark on the board, I reminded myself that this is the internet.  I’m just as likely to find that in the Fox News comments section.

Next I proceeded to /v/, the video games section.  While the blue color scheme suggested it would be SFW (safe for work), I was greeted with what appeared to be a transvestite about halfway down the page.  Other than that one picture, the rest of the image threads seemed on topic, including a NES-themed bedspread (link) complete with NES controllers for pillows, a nostalgic (for me at least) picture from a Spyro game, and a thread about your favorite video games past and present.  After viewing the threads posted in this image board, my opinion of the 4channers of /v/ increased quite dramatically (except for the one who posted that NSFW pic).  Also of note was that almost all people in /v/ posted as Anonymous as opposed to people in /k/, many of whom posted using a name with a “tripcode,” or pseudo-authentication mechanism.

Before I take the final leap into /b/, I thought I would just point out that there is an indecently exposed anime-styled female on the top of the /v/ page with a miniaturized 4chan logo and name.  I didn’t know 4chan outright sponsored that, especially in /v/ but whatever floats their boat, I guess.

And then there was /b/:  Allow me to say that the name random was pretty appropriate for the content I saw on the site.  Pictures included everything from image macros, troll faces, boobs, mazes, x-ray goggles, and disfigured bodies to boobs, naked women, more image macros, math problems, and boobs.  As for the text of the comments: well, I didn’t read most of it.  I can say it was pretty similar to what I’d seen on other boards, although possibly more hostile.  Apart from the porn, there were also some images that made me say “Oh God,” shudder, and move on.  I didn’t end up spending much time on /b/.  Because of its random nature, it wasn’t incredibly entertaining.  Still, I feel like I saw what was there to see.

The following are a list of my conclusions after visiting 4chan:

• It’s not as bad as I imagined.  I guess most of my image of 4chan was based on the bad reputation of /b/.  The other boards I glanced over looked reasonable and were often somewhat funny.
• It’s not something I plan to take part in any time in the future, although it sure looks like a way to kill a couple of hours.
• Through my exposed to online culture, I was able to understand most of the goings on of 4chan
• The community of 4chan isn’t as hostile to each other as one might be lead to believe, and most of them have a good sense of humor.

I survived the browsing of 4chan with my sanity mostly intact.  For anyone that hasn’t looked at the site yet, I suggest you at least take a look at the rules and FAQs to get a better understanding of how the site works.

I’m not sure how many times a day I refer to Wikipedia.  Maybe 10-15 times on an average day.  A glance through my Internet history in the past week reveals Wikipedia searches as varied as Scientology, Cauchy’s Theorem, Twyla Tharp, and Queen (band).

Everyone seems to be using Wikipedia these days. It is the automatic go-to source of information whenever people are faced with a question or a cultural with which they are unfamiliar. Famously, even Rush Limbaugh (not that Rush Limbaugh should be taken as any kind of indicator of national trends) who has often told his listeners not to believe what they read on Wikipedia was caught referencing information obtained from Wikipedia.  The information, which was about a federal judge, later turned out to be false, having been posted by some Wikipedia prankster.  The misinformation was corrected shortly after it was posted. Limbaugh simply had the misfortune of checking the site while the false information was still posted (I never thought I would see the day when I would feel sympathy for Rush Limbaugh).

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/16/us/16judge.html?scp=1&sq=wikipedia%20rush&st=cse

In talking to people over the last few days about their experiences with and attitudes towards Wikipedia, I have found that people’s feelings about Wikipedia are pretty uniform.  The first reaction I got from everyone was how useful Wikipedia is.  They all told me how they use Wikipedia for random factual searches as well as for writing papers. People talked about how often they use it for classes: whether for math classes, science classes, English classes, or sociology classes.  It seems to be the number one resource used for questions like: “Now what is exactly is the formula for integration by parts?” as well as for questions like: “Now how many years has it been since Patrick Swayze died and what kind of cancer exactly did he have?”

However, with all of the people that I talked to, they immediately followed their praise of Wikipedia’s usefulness by adding that Wikipedia cannot be trusted.  They all went on at length about the problems of letting anyone edit a page. Many people talked about how companies and individuals could edit their own Wikipedia pages to portray themselves in a positive light.  Some people even showed me examples of pages that were clearly taken from company promotional materials or pages that were simply poorly written and lacking in impartiality.  (For an example, check out the Pierson College Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierson_College.)  Everyone seemed to have some kind of anecdote about the untrustworthiness of Wikipedia.  Many of them admitted to having purposely changed Wikipedia articles to make them contain false information. However, when pressed, they conceded that the pages they had edited had quickly been restored to their former form.

I find this contrast incredibly fascinating.  People do not trust the accuracy of their main source of information and yet they continue to use it because nothing else can compare to Wikipedia in terms of breadth of information and easy accessibility. General wisdom says that this contrast is a bad thing.  Everyone I talked to went on at length about how bad it is that Wikipedia has found such a strong foothold in our society when one cannot trust the veracity of all of the statements it makes. However, I beg to differ on this point.

Before the days of Wikipedia, when people had a question about something they turned to news media or encyclopedias. However, in actuality, these sources really aren’t any more trustworthy than Wikipedia is. A recent study (albeit a controversial one) found that articles on Wikipedia on average had the same number errors as equivalent articles in the Encyclopedia Britannica. Similarly, news media gets things wrong all of the time and is incredibly biased in its presentation of things. Whenever I have seen a news story about something I actually know about, I have been horrified at the inaccuracies of the story.  I can only assume that the stories I don’t know anything about are just as inaccurate.

In my mind, this not only demonstrates that people are learning to navigate the world of Wikipedia, thus better detecting areas of false information and so helping to make Wikipedia a more reliable source, but that Wikipedia in being the main source of information for a lot people, is helping to produce a generation of critical thinkers.  It is creating a generation of people who don’t just blindly accept information, but who remember that all of the information with which they are presented whether on Wikipedia or in the news is presented by people, people who may not always be the most trustworthy sources.

Thus, I think Wikipedia has done an enormous service to society in more ways than one. Yes, creating a vast database of easily accessible up-to-date information is important and incredible and worthy of all kinds of praise. But I think that another one of the really important legacies of Wikipedia is one that people don’t think about much. That is, that Wikipedia has created a generation of critical thinkers.  It has created a generation that questions where information comes from and is fluent at fleshing out areas of bias and inaccuracies.

I think Wikipedia teaches people incredibly important skills, namely the ability to ask: Who is writing this, what are their motivations, what might they not be saying, is this really true, what evidence is there to support this statement? These are skills that people then apply to other areas of their lives.  I think this generation, when watching a news story, or reading blog, or even reading a textbook—all resources whose accuracy people normally might not have questioned—now asks these same questions.  Wikipedia has thus created a generation that does not just blindly accept, but analyzes and criticizes and thinks.  And I think that is the true legacy of Wikipedia.

May 2010:

Dear Wikipedia,

As a senior in high school, about to close the book on this remarkable journey, I feel the pressing need to profess my deepest adoration and gratitude for you. Frankly, you have been an indispensable asset, nay, a lifesaver throughout these past four years. I would be remiss if in thinking about the end and all who helped me get here I didn’t acknowledge you.

Seeing as I have no background in technological law, I care not about the legal questions that your services beg. Instead, I concern myself only with what you provide for me – a seemingly endless bounty of information, free of charge, and full of knowledge. You are an ostensibly omniscient being, providing information on almost any topic, be it acalculia, a calculator, or calculus. From the extensive to the esoteric, no topic seems too big or too small for your cavernous amphora of genius. Time and time again, topics, theories, and historical figures have bemused me. After flipping through the book, scouring the Internet, and nearly giving up, you are so often the one who helps me find what I’ve been searching for.

You’re also a time saver. Take that assignment in US history for example; remember all the way back to junior year? We had to identify less well-known civil war generals whose names were scattered throughout hundreds of pages of text. Rather than sift through the book, I consulted your services, and found all of the information that I needed for every last one of the generals – brigade commanded, side for which they fought, battles in which they participated. I even threw in some extra information that the teacher regarded as going “above and beyond” what was asked for in the assignment. Yes, Wikipedia, you are a bastion of efficiency.

Additionally, you satisfy my intense thirst for knowledge. If ever I find myself in a situation in which I desire to know more about a specific subject, you are the source to which I turn. When I wanted to learn what the WHIP statistic measured in baseball, I read your page. When my comparative government teacher discussed Ad Nauseam about Weber’s Modernization Theory, your page helped make sense of what exactly it was she was talking about. And, just a few days ago, when I found out what residential college I had been placed into at Yale, your page convinced me that Trumbull is indeed the best college at the school. Thank you Wikipedia for providing me, and countless others, with a free and rapidly evolving database of both useful and inane trivia.

Teachers may question the veracity of everything that you say. They are incredulous that a website monitored and maintained by the public can consistently result in fair, unbiased, and useful information. I understand their concerns, but throughout our four-year relationship, you have yet to let me down. I just want to say, in closing, that I love you Wikipedia, and I’m so happy that we get to go to college together.

Sincerely,
Me

October 5, 2010

Dear Wikipedia:

It’s been a little while since we have last spoken. I did not mean to neglect you; it’s just that, well college work is different than high school assignments. Also, I’m taking this intro to law and technology class that is reshaping the way that I view the Internet. It’s not that my feelings about you are any different; I still love you. It’s just that, well, the reasons for my loving you have changed.

No longer do I consider you the ‘be-all-end-all’ source of knowledge. The constant refrain of my high school teachers was in fact true: you are a good starting off point. For high school assignments where a rudimentary understanding of basic concepts was normally sufficient, you were all that was needed. That’s all changed now though, as classes go deeper in depth on more specific topics. It turns out you’re not as powerful as I used to think you were.

Though, in a technological sense, you are a paradigm-shifting database. A true embodiment of the auspices of the free software movement, your survival relies on the work of countless volunteers. As a manifestation of peer production, your work is a true testament to the power of collaboration, and signals a substantial cadre of people hoping to use the Internet as a communal tool, rather than simply a source from which you can readily access desired information. Upon reflection and further research, you were created to act as a discussion board among scholars and students alike, working together to create fair and balanced articles on all subjects that merited recognition. Your administrators, editors, and viewers to a lesser extent have adopted an esprit de corps that is founded on trust, curiosity, and an investment of trust in Internet users. If nothing else, you serve as an interesting social experiment as to what benefits and detriments arise out of increasing the role of the average Internet user in shaping widely read material. In terms of pure technology, your function is basic but noble. You recognize the human desire for immediate updates, and the near instantaneous dissatisfaction that comes with obsolete facts. In essence, you create a program that enables technologically inept users (such as myself) to make a difference in a domain in which they know very little.

Legally speaking, you also are an interesting case study. It makes sense that one of the few instances in which you censor material is when users post material that is an infringement of copyright. You create a culture in which the public decides the reputation of individuals by eschewing any tampering of one’s own page. Though, many reputation wary individuals (politicians come instantly to mind) ignore this cultural law and tamper with pages to enhance their accomplishments and downplay their pitfalls. Many subsidiary companies have started up, contrary to the non-for-profit nature of your endeavors, and consistently attempt to buffer the effects of bad press by editing their client’s pages. This creates an interesting quandary for you, and I wish I could tell you of some panacea to make it go away. I will say though, that through it all, I admire your commitment to assuming that all who use your services do so in the best interest of the general public.

Additionally, as Zittrain points out, your editors hold true to a certain ethos when working on your site (http://futureoftheinternet.org/static/ZittrainTheFutureoftheInternet.pdf, p. 142). Your dedication to neutrality signifies that readers most often find articles devoid of any noticeable bias. While that is a near impossibility, the technical style in which your articles are written come close to representing a fair account of the subject. Also, your stance on verifiability ensures readers that, while they should still be cautious, the majority of information found in your most frequently read articles is cited. And lastly, as an organization that conducts no original research, you uphold the purpose of an encyclopedia, and aggregate the work of many into one convenient, central location

In closing, I want to thank you again for all of your help, both as a source of information, and a beacon of hope for the future of the internet. Hopefully one day soon, people will put truth above stature, and care more about the accuracy and fairness of information on your site rather than what way to best enhance their own image on your pages.

Until next time,
Me