Information InFiltration. The Anti-Blender Consortium.

front page???E.A.Dobbsreview-a-rama

secret room upstairsFilterItYourselfwhatever
Communal histories - fact or friction? | 4 comments
[new] To clarify a bit... (Avg. Score: none / Raters: 0) (#1)
by amy on Sun Oct 19th, 2003 at 09:59:21 AM EURODISCORDIA TIME
(User Info)

After reviewing the above-mentioned nettime thread this evening, I thought it might be worth clarifying my interest here: I don't mean to focus on whether people might post to open forums with inflammatory intent or delete one another's contributions. I'm more interested in considering who posts to "open" forums in the first place. I really don't think it's "everybody"... Will "dominant" net personalities ultimately write the communal online histories we see developing now? (I don't mean trolls, but rather, those folks who, for various reasons, tend to dominate online discussions.) If so, will that bias be evident to past/future readers of these histories?

I'm not suggesting that "open" histories and forums should be discarded or dismissed so that we can go back to having only closed ones. Rather, I'm suggesting that with histories that clearly have closed authorship, bias is obvious, and that with open histories clearly written in a slanted, ill-informed, or inflammatory way, bias is obvious. But how obvious are more subtle biases - for example, who feels comfortable posting, who knows about the forum, etc - in seemingly "open" histories?

# begin amy's sig
-- Discordia is nice.
# end amy's sig

Communal histories - fact or friction? | 4 comments


[- how to post and vote
[- faq (discordia q&a)
[- faq en español
[- search
[- send feedback

[- sick of english?
[- multi-lingual babelfilter

[- Username
[- Password

Make new account >>

Stories, articles, images and comments are owned by the Author. The Rest © 2003 The Discordants under the Gnu Public License

submit story | create account | faq | search