DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> The Mystery of the Online Community
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 25, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 08/09/2006 12:06:00 PM · #1
In light of a number of recent events here, I found this article and the forum discussions following it somewhat interesting.

The Mystery of the Online Community: Is there any way to weed out the fakes and the vandals? (PC Magazine)
 08/09/2006 12:12:33 PM · #2
Interesting, but reads like pompous psycho-babble to me.

The author's first assumption that users fictionalize themselves to me seems a bit over-generalized and negated by the fact that people often fictionalize themselves offline.
 08/09/2006 12:17:16 PM · #3
But you can't deny the ease of fictionalization on the internet. Sometimes it even occurs unintentionally, I think.

I also think that some of the things said in the forums ring true here. I'm mostly interested in this because it's been interesting to watch DPC "come of age" and see what's happening to it as it becomes more and more popular (and increasingly more general).

08/09/2006 12:27:18 PM · #4
I was never one of those people that lied on the internet....If I didn't want to give out information I just didn't as opposed to lying about it. Now my husband's ex-wife was one of those that fictionalized "everything"....outlandish stuff...even when her kids and Troy confronted her with it she would just blow it off. I just thought it was strange behaviour....and for the most part....people that do fictionalize...well....aren't usually very attractive and have low self esteem.
 08/09/2006 12:29:21 PM · #5
Ya think DPC will ever become truly "general"? By that, I mean will people come hang out here that have almost no interest in photography?

I've been here on and off for some time now and definitely have seen some changes, but I really don't see many difference between real-life clubs or groups.
 08/09/2006 12:30:28 PM · #6
busted post...

Message edited by author 2006-08-09 14:56:19.
 08/09/2006 12:31:54 PM · #7
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Ya think DPC will ever become truly "general"? By that, I mean will people come hang out here that have almost no interest in photography?


Absolutely.
 08/09/2006 12:32:37 PM · #8
the only difference i see is that the drama has multiplied, BIG TIME!
 08/09/2006 12:34:50 PM · #9
Originally posted by Chinabun:
the only difference i see is that the drama has multiplied, BIG TIME!

...and Queens can end up with multiple personalities. ;^) Well, maybe not personalities, just a new name. He-he.
 08/09/2006 12:40:23 PM · #10
Originally posted by Chinabun:
the only difference i see is that the drama has multiplied, BIG TIME!


Typical when competition is involved... ever worked in a college bar? It's funny to watch the cocks fight over limitted hens :-)
 08/09/2006 01:21:09 PM · #11
nope and thats why i wouldnt work in one :)LOL

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by Chinabun:
the only difference i see is that the drama has multiplied, BIG TIME!


Typical when competition is involved... ever worked in a college bar? It's funny to watch the cocks fight over limitted hens :-)

08/09/2006 01:24:18 PM · #12
There are losers, liars and low-life in every "real" community, too, it's not as if the internet was the only place sporting those types.

Someone slightly bending the truth about themselves (like taking off a few years or a few pounds) is hardly going to affect us in a major way, especially in a situation like DPC.

Keeping up lies that MATTER is much harder, surely being totally consistent in lying is a rare exception.
I'd like to think I'd catch someone at their game if I spend enough time with them - online or for "real".

08/09/2006 01:30:29 PM · #13
Originally posted by mk:
But you can't deny the ease of fictionalization on the internet.


This is so true. I was voted Lesbian Of The Year on at least three different sites, in 2005.
 08/09/2006 01:31:59 PM · #14
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by mk:
But you can't deny the ease of fictionalization on the internet.


This is so true. I was voted Lesbian Of The Year on at least three different sites, in 2005.


Fiction means not true.
 08/09/2006 01:32:41 PM · #15
hehe
 08/09/2006 02:05:02 PM · #16
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by mk:
But you can't deny the ease of fictionalization on the internet.


This is so true. I was voted Lesbian Of The Year on at least three different sites, in 2005.


Fiction means not true.


So does that mean, I really am a lesbian???

...my parents will be so proud.
 08/09/2006 02:08:39 PM · #17
Not just a lesbian...lesbian of the year x5!!
 08/09/2006 02:12:31 PM · #18
Originally posted by pawdrix:

So does that mean, I really am a lesbian???

...my parents will be so proud.


I'm proud of ya man :-) You should put that on your resume:

Major Accomplishments:
Voted Lesbian of the Year five times
 08/09/2006 02:13:45 PM · #19
Well, y'all need to consider the source... after all, this *is* John Dvorak. I always did consider him a bit of a blowhard, even back when I used to read PC Magazine in hard copy. You know, back in the stone age ;-)
 08/09/2006 02:29:12 PM · #20
Well, now I've gone and actually read it... that was drivel. It's obvious that John spent about as much time researching that as writing it.
First, he sets the criterium that any site to be "analyzed" should not have physical meetings... but any online cummunity that truly is a community will inevitably spawn physical meetings, as DPC has done. He entirely dismisses strategies for mitigating the effects of the LOLâ„¢(1) (Lying On Line) crowd and does not discuss at all how various individual strategies can be combined successfully.
Most critically, he fails to see that a succesful online community needs a focal point, most often a common interest. In this respect, a completely general online community is nearly doomed to failure unless it starts as a special interest group and branches out. I don't know if this is even possible; the resulting site would be a maze of complexity, and almost impossible to monitor and maintain.

(1) Credit where credit is due; muckpond came up with this one! I think we can all guess his inspiration.
 08/09/2006 02:36:44 PM · #21
anyone familiar with the Kaycee Nicole saga?

on wikipedia

snopes, lots of info

really shook up the early blog world...i'll never forget the day she "died." had been reading her blog for a long time. Left work early and went for a walk, even cried a bit. Everyone i knew online reacted the same...and then the truth came out.

Message edited by author 2006-08-09 14:40:39.
 08/09/2006 02:42:10 PM · #22
Originally posted by kirbic:
Well, now I've gone and actually read it... that was drivel. It's obvious that John spent about as much time researching that as writing it.


That's my take on it too. I've written a number of pieces in my day, and edited many more, and i can tell when something was done on the fly. It's not that there's no relevance to anything he's saying, but as you point out so well it all adds up to bullshit cuz of the way he has structured it.

Robt.
 08/09/2006 02:59:44 PM · #23
What a poorly written piece. He talks about desconstructing the different sites but mentions each very briefly. He talks about sites with 50%+ fakes. That's about all he gives for "objective evidence". The rest of the article is opinion that he tries to mask as fact.

Fakes exist, but he didn't prove anything with the article.

Message edited by author 2006-08-09 14:59:53.
 08/09/2006 03:01:22 PM · #24
Originally posted by th3ph17:
anyone familiar with the Kaycee Nicole saga?

on wikipedia

snopes, lots of info

really shook up the early blog world...i'll never forget the day she "died." had been reading her blog for a long time. Left work early and went for a walk, even cried a bit. Everyone i knew online reacted the same...and then the truth came out.


Ah yes, I remember that. I was an occasional reader but never really a believer so I wasn't especially surprised by the whole thing. There was also the dude who headed up the Open Pages ring who wrote for years as a girl and was really a guy (Ryan Ozawa maybe?). I think that whole mess is interesting also but in a different way than frauds in forum-based community. I do think it's interesting though, especially for me as a rather long-time DPCer, to consider the ways the forums here have evolved. I know that it's not for most people and that most of the currently active participants are happy to just roll with it the way it is but, poorly written or not, there are some interesting points buried somwhere in the topic.
 08/09/2006 03:17:20 PM · #25
People masked their identity long before the internet. Folks have donned uniforms to gain access to homes and businesses, writers have scribbled under pseudonyms of the opposite sex, both men and women have physically masqueraded as the opposite sex for social and business reasons, people have faked illness/disability to commit fraud. Do we *really* know anyone? Even spouses often don't know *everything.*
Bottom line, whether on-line or off-line, we are defined by our actions. Sooner or later, true personalities tend to come out. An on-line community is defined the same as a physical community, and sooner or later, they become indistinguishable as on-line "neighbors" inevitably meet physically.
I see little or nothing new in Dvorak's treatise. I think he comes close to some topics that would be intensely interesting, but he fails to explore them.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/23/2025 06:37:59 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/23/2025 06:37:59 PM EDT.