Concept 1: The Invisibility of Difference“There are many differences between computers and computer users, but we tend to forget them when, positioned in front of our own computers, we are able to communicate rapidly and – apparently – effectively across time and distance” (Allen, n.d.)
I think there is certainly a lot of difference between online users with a major difference being access to technology. This is backed up by looking at Hargittai and Shafer (2006), who state Internet use has not spread evenly so there is a potential divide that could serve to increase existing gaps between advantageous and disadvantaged positions creating a digital divide. The ‘digital divide’ is where unequal access to the Internet and other technologies is compounding disadvantages for some (McLaren and Zappalà, 2002). How big is this divide though?
In Australian “there has been significant growth in…access to/use of the Internet between 2001 and 2006. In 2001, 35% of Australian dwellings had access to the Internet in the week prior to the Census date. In 2006, 63% of dwellings had access to the Internet” (ABS, 2007). I see this as confirmation that a digital divide exists in Australia.
The digital divide exists for various income, race, gender, age and geography groups (Mossberger, Tolbert & Stansbury, 2003). This divide creates issues in the areas of job seeking, employment opportunities, education, access to services, banking, political participation and social inclusion (McLaren & Zappalà, 2002). This divide can occur both within countries and between countries (Norris, 2001). I agree with this, particularly for education. As a secondary ICT teacher I often witness vast differences in confidence, ability and progress between students with home Internet versus those without.
I know the digital divide is not just an Australian issue. The digital divide is now considered an international issue with high income
OCED countries having over three quarters of the world’s Internet users (Sevron, 2002). A bigger issue is some countries don’t even have access to telephone lines (Norris, 2001), and the types of technology available impact on the sort of communication that can take place (Farmer, 2004). Unequal infrastructure investment means that individuals are disadvantaged by lower bandwidth or no possible connection (Sevron, 2002). I see this as a major barrier to creating much needed equality in Internet access.
I consider cultural differences as a major factor in effective online communication. Harasim (1993) confirms the biggest difficulty in communicating online can be the cultural differences. These are differences that are not always apparent when on the Internet.
Another issue is that a lack of literacy acts as a barrier to Internet access as much of the content on the Internet is text based (Gibbs & Krause, 2006; Best, n.d.). From observing my students, I know those with lower literacy levels definitely have greater difficulty accessing technology.
Another area of potential divide is between the genders (Hargittai & Shafer, 2006). Men have been shown to be initially more connected, though this gap has disappeared in more recent years (Herring, 2001; Hargittai & Shafer, 2006). Additionally the way the genders utilise the Internet is different with women focusing more on communication (Hargittai & Shafer, 2006). I disagree with this as I find from teaching people how to use various forms of technology, males on the whole do not show any greater technical competence.
In conclusion there are numerous differences between people online in a range of areas. While individuals can’t see the differences they do exist and still need to be taken into account for effective online communication.
Site 1:
The 'Digital Divide' Among Financially Disadvantaged Families in AustraliaThis site provides evidence for a ‘digital divide’ within one country, demonstrating that there are differences in both abilities and technology available between different internet users. While this is not the sole focus of the above discussion, the discussion on the digital divide sets the scene that there are differences with the network and computer access of various Internet users. This article also considers the difference in user abilities within different socio-economic, gender, age, education level and cultural groupings. The article is placed in a peer reviewed journal and appears to be well researched with most of the research also coming from credible places.
Site 2:
Global Networks: Computers and International CommunicationThis is an e-book dedicated to looking at the various social and cultural aspects of gloablisation on online communication. The book demonstrates how cultural factors are really one of the biggest factors in online communication. The book covers all aspects of online communication, not just those covered in this paper, making it a useful starting place for those wishing to consider this topic more widely. It looks at everything from the technology behind networks through to societal and cultural issues. The book is written by a collective of 21 collaborators, with each writing one or two chapters that come together cohesively and while credible, it is not current.
Concept 2: Active Communication Generates Identity Awareness“ The common term for people who belong to lists (or other internet communities of discussion) and who do not actively participate is ‘lurkers’. Lurkers, obviously, are real people who exist in many ways. Yet, within the context of a particular list, if they are not posting, then they appear invisible and, indeed, can lack identity completely.
One can only generate awareness of one’s membership of an email list by posting messages; others’ awareness of your identity will enable them to include you in their discussion and enable you to play part in the community that is the list.” (Allen, n.d.) From my personal experiences I agree that active participation is needed before others are aware of individual identities. I am a member on several forums, yet it was not until I had a go at managing a forum that I realised the actual number of members that were actively logging on, far more than I had ever noticed previously.
So what is identity? Calvert & Huffaker (2005) define it as interpersonal characteristics, such as self-definition, personality traits, roles and relationships taken on in various interactions, and personal values or moral beliefs. All things that I agree can’t be known about a person without having interacted with them.
Given that people utilize forums without posting I became curious as to the types on users. Kock (2007) categorises them as leaders, participants and lurkers. “Online group leaders shape the group context, including psychological safety, which encourages or discourages participation (Johnson, 2008, p1).
A participant contributes to the discussion where they help add value (Arinze et al, 2006, p7). People participate to gain something e.g. sharing a marginalized aspect of ones own identity in appropriate settings can help an individual feel as if that aspect of their identity is more socially acceptable (Levine & Moreland, 2006).
“Lurkers are defined as members who visit and use the community but who do not post messages” (Arinze et al, 2006, p4). For someone to be a lurker they need to visit frequently (Arinze et al 2006 & Johnson, 2008), though lurkers will spend less time within the virtual community (Arinze, 2006).
Lurkers can often form a strong proportion of the users within a community (Arinze, Gefen & Ridings 2006, p4). It is speculated that lurkers “make up to over 90% of online groups” (Nonnecke & Preece, 2000; Nonnecke et al., 2004 in Arinze et al 2006, p5). I would agree from my own experience administering a forum that lurkers are a large proportion of the users, though probably not as high as 90%. This would obviously also be effected by the purpose of the forum. But why do people lurk?
According to Arinze et al (2006) lurkers have less trust in the abilities and integrity of others than participants. Lurkers “are uncomfortable with the tone and hostility of some public forums, and believe that…they are alone in their opinions” (Katz, 1998 in Andrews, Nonnecke, Preece & Voutour, 2004). Other reasons for lurking include a desire to remain anonymous, work constraints, messages quantity, poor quality messages, shyness and limited time (Andrews et al, 2004). I know when I have been on forums where I have ‘lurked’, it has usually been due to either time limits or feeling alone in my opinion, so I definitely agree with these reasons.
I also agree with Agarwal & Ma, (2007) who state one reason for a reluctance to participate online is that “individuals experience tension and psychological discomfort when their self-view, even if it is a negative self-view, disagrees with others’ appraisals”. Inversely people will increase there online participation when they receive acknowledgement from other group members and when they believe that others understand and will confirm their self view.
Site 1:
Psychological Barriers: Lurker and Poster Motivation and Behavior in Online CommunitiesThis article examines all of the types of online users, not just the lurker that is predominately considered in this paper. This more comprehensive overview gives a better insight into how lurkers fit into the scheme of things in online environments. This article evaluates the reasons behind why people choose to post, or perhaps more relevant to this current paper, to be a lurker in online environments. The article is written by three university professors that work within the Information Systems field and is published in reputable journal, ensuring it is a well researched and credible article.
Site 2:
Impact of Leadership on Continued Participation in Online GroupsAs the title implies this site delves into how leadership in online communities affects the continued participation of members to that group. Effective leadership of a site encourages active participation of site users rather than just lurking. This article looks at the strategies both emergent leaders and official administrators can use to encourage contribution. The site is excellent for anyone in a leadership or administration roles online wishing for more active participation on there site. The paper is a current (2008) dissertation so while it lacks some of the credibility that passing a peer review process can bring; it still holds a lot of high quality research.
Concept 3: Etiquette
“Netiquette describes ‘good’ and ‘bad’ conduct in online communication (amongst other forms of Internet use). But what is important about Netiquette is the concept that there are ‘agreed’ rules of what is good and bad.
Understanding why and how netiquette operates is more than just learning those rules (for, indeed, there are numerous differences and disagreements about the ‘rules’). Rather, one must gain form a reading of ‘netiquette’ a sense that users must themselves contribute to the proper functioning of the Internet as a communication system: that no-one is in ‘charge’ of the net and we all must exercise an ethic of maintenance, taking responsibility for doing it ‘right’, moreover, what defines ‘right’ most of all is: ‘how would I feel is this action I am about to take was done to me, instead of by me? And, as a test of whether you are implementing ‘right’ properly, ask yourself “if I assume the recipient of my messages is less experienced than me will they learn something ‘good’ of ‘bad’ from what I am doing?’(Allen, n.d.).I had heard the term netiquette before, without a strong understanding of its meaning. Looking it up I found that “Netiquette is a specific type of etiquette. Etiquette is the framework of formal rules and customs governing how people behave” (Strawbridge, 2006, p1), the social morals that govern our interactions with others (Muir, 2006).
The need for netiquette used to be nonexistent in the early days of the internet as users were already a homogonous group. Rather the growing popularity of the Internet has created the need for Netiquette (Kamppuri, Kommers & Tedr, 2006 This seems reasonable as the early net users, by thinking in similar ways, would have communicated well by default, though the wide varieties of users now on the Internet certainly don’t think alike!
The development of netiquette rules mirrors the physical world (Jeffrey, Pankoke-Babatz, & Klöckner, 1999; Scheuermann, Taylor, 1997 in Muir, 2006). As these rules develop they need to strike a “balance between rights of individuals and the common good” (Etzioni, 1996 in Pregowski, 2006, p365). I agree that the needs of individuals and societies need to be balances, as too often I see people that focused in on there own needs that forget about the needs of others.
A discrepancy exists between newbies and experienced users in what is considered acceptable (Strawbridge, 2006). “Almost no newbie knows in advance how to do well online” (Pregowski, 2009, p366), though “a visitor to a virtual place soon becomes aware that there are both positive and negative norms of behaviour” (Robins, 2002). Rules of netiquette can protect newbies so that they are able to learn the rules without being put down by others. I have found this to be true on most online communities I have visited, though I have came across places that bag out the newbies.
I believe that even though newbies realise rules exist, determining and understanding these rules can be difficult. Part of this is due to ‘tone of voice’ and body language not existing in online discussion, so getting messages across clearly becomes more difficult (Strawbridge, 2006; Muir, 2006). A way around this is the use of emoticons which make joking possible in textual environments (Robins, 2002), and I agree they help a lot in making messages clear.
Several authors state that the rules of etiquette are not the important part, but rather the debate that they start on codes of conduct, social order and morals (Jeffery, 1999; Pregowski, 2009). I think both are of importance, the debate helps shape the rules and the rules help shape the debate.
Finally from a cultural perspective, when in “an unfamiliar society or culture, people are often told, ‘When in Rome, do as the Romans do’, but what should one do when Rome is scattered all around the world” (Shea, 2004 in Kamppuri et al, 2006, p367)? Many of the rules of netiquette were formed by western societies and do not adequately consider cultures of other societies so we need a ‘global ettiquette’ (Kamppuri et al, 2006) dispite the degree to which rules of etiquette apply being environmentally specific (Jeffery (1999). I believe truly global rules of netiquette would be beneficial though difficult to achieve. Much debate and refining would be needed before this could happen, due to the huge global diversity of cultures.
Site 1:
An Approach to Global Netiquette ResearchThis site is a conference paper that summarises some research that has been conducted to date on netiquette. Combining the research of several existing studies the authors have provided a concise overview on the topic of netiquette and the issues surrounding this topic, including cultural concerns. The usefulness of the site for this current paper was reduced by the fact it focuses a lot on the research around etiquette and problems with researching this topic, though as such it would be a particularly useful starting point for someone considering undertaking research into netiquette. The conference paper is credible due to the inherent credibility of its authors though lacks more rigorous validity checks.
Site 2:
Netiquette: Internet Etiquette in the Age of the BlogThis book gives an excellent overview of the ins and outs of netiquette. It surmises netiquette as the rule ‘do unto others as you would have others do unto you’, and then goes on to give specifics for various forms of online communication. It covers everything from the more traditional email, through to blogs and other recent communication trends, making it very relevant to this current paper. Everything is put in a simplistic and easy to follow manner that would be useful to both inexperienced and experienced users alike. The book is very current and the information within is well researched from reputable sources, making it also credible.
Concept 4: Information and Attention“One of the newest and most significant ways of thinking about the Internet is termed the ‘attention economy’ (Goldhaber). In this kind of economy, the most valuable commodity is peoples attention (which can be, for example, bought and sold in the advertising industry): successful websites and other Internet publications / communications (says Goldhaber) ate those which capture and hold the increasingly distracted attention of Internet users amidst a swirling mass of informational options.” (Allen, n.d.)
Before I could develop my own opinions on this I needed to understand attention and the term attention economy. “Attention is focused mental engagement on a particular item of information” (Beck, 2001, p20). Each person has limited attention they can give out and increasing amounts of information vying for attention (Reilly (n.d.)) with this creating the ‘attention economy’ (Goldhaber, 1997a).
It is not surprising really that we are considered to be in an attention economy as “whenever we open our eyes, we are confronted with an overwhelming amount of visual information” (Carrasco & McElree, 2000). This information is always increasing and is now at saturation point. Quantities of communication are that vast that overload occurs, as we don’t have enough attention for the information received (Gorman, Morley, Reeves, & Roy, 2008). I agree that we are suffering information overload, though is this really a result of not enough attention to give out? I would think it is more due to excess unnecessary and rubbish information bombarding us!
I do however agree with Goldhaber (1997a) that attention “is an intrinsically scarce resource”. Beck (2001) states the attention economy is indeed a type of economy as we are all producers and consumers of information, with only a limited amount of attention to pay out to the information available.
“Studies in the mid-1990’s showed that families with Internet – capable computers were watching an average of nine hours less television per week” (Rushkoff, 2009, p6). We have a large amount of media and limited attention, so various forms of media compete for this attention. (Rushkoff, 2009; Aigrain, 1997). Individuals take a microsecond to decide where to spend that attention (Kaplan, Lanham & Meroski, 2008) and make more daily decisions on where to spend attention, than on where to spend money (Goldhaber 1997a). Of course if we have many forms of media vying for our attention we have to pick where to place it, though I believe we also shut out a lot of the attempts to grab our attention to stop ourselves becoming overwhelmed.
Aigrain (1997) attempts to introduce a way that we can measure online attention given by measuring time spent on each site. Aigrain (1997) highlights flaws with this, as time spent acquiring information is not always a reliable indicator of attention given. From my own observations of high school students accessing the Internet, they rarely focus on one site, instead several sites are open at once and flicked between, or their attention will be focused away from the computer completely. It can not be said then that time on a site is an indicator of the amount of attention that site receives.
I found the ongoing debate between Ghosh (1997) and Goldhaber (1997a; 1997b & 2006) quite entertaining to read. Ghosh (1997) argues against the notion of an attention economy stating that attention can not be an economy as attention can not be traded. Goldbaher (1997b) states that attention is indeed not something that can be traded. Rather Goldhaber (1997a) discusses how having lots of attention creates the power to be able to get what you want. I agree with the premise that attention can not be traded, as stated by both sides. I do believe in an attention economy, though I can’t see it ever becoming a major economy unless it develops a measureable value.
Site 1:
The Attention Economy and the NetThe article that started it all! This is where Goldhaber first coined the term ‘attention economy’ and started debate on the existence of the attention economy. This article was written as a conference proceeding and reads much like a speech. Goldhaber overviews the reasons why we are headed into an ‘attention economy’, something he perceives as inevitable. A must read for anyone wishing to weigh in on this debate as it provides much of the underlying background information for many of the counter arguments that have also emerged. The paper is researched although thinly, however this otherwise dubious credibility is bolstered by the fact it has been peer reviewed.
Site 2:
The attention economyThis e-book looks at the attention economy from a business perspective. It details the effects of an attention economy on business, the potentially negative ones as well as ways businesses can benefit from shifting to an attention economy. It considers the problems of not having enough attention for everything, the management of attention given out and strategies for optimizing attention directed towards meeting goals. As this book considers the effect of excess information on attention it is very relevant to the current paper as well as being a useful read for anyone struggling to mange there own attention resource. Overall this is a well written, understandable book from a credible source.
References
ABS. (2007), 8146.0.55.001 - Patterns of internet access in Australia, 2006, ABS, Retrieved May 20, 2009 from
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/8146.0.55.001Main+Features12006?OpenDocumentAgarwal, R. & Ma, M. (2007, March). Through a Glass Darkly: Information Technology Design, Identity Verification, and Knowledge Contribution in Online Communities. Information Systems Research, 18(1), 42–67. Retrieved May 14, 2009, from
http://katzis.org/wiki/images/2/21/Ma_2007.pdfAigrain, P. (1997, September 1). Attention, Media, Value and Economics. First Monday, 2(9). Retrieved May 17, 2009, from
http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/549/470Allan, M. (n.d.). Internet Communications Concepts Document. Retrieved March 8, 2009, from
http://lms.curtin.edu.au/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_id=_2_1&url=%2fwebapps%2fblackboard%2fexecute%2flauncher%3ftype%3dCourse%26id%3d_14736_1%26url%3dAndrews, D. Nonnecke, B. Preece, J. & Voutour, R. (2004, August). Online Lurkers Tell Why. Paper presented at 2004 Americas Conference on Information Systems, New York, NY. Retrieved May 14, 2009, from
http://www.hsw-basel.ch/iwi/publications.nsf/6f29dfc9097efd0bc12572180036eb54/e6d8b646c8a2deb2c125722e002923c0/$FILE/SIGEBZ05-1198.pdfArinze, B. Gefen, D. & Ridings, C. (2006). Psychological Barriers: Lurker and Poster
Motivation and Behavior in Online Communities. Communications of the Association
for Information Systems, 18(16). Retrieved May 14, 2009, from
http://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3087&context=caisBeck, J.C. & Davenport, T.H. (2001). The attention economy: understanding the new currency of business. Harvard Business Press. Retrieved May 17, 2009, from
http://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=FuuKd3on9psC&oi=fnd&pg=PA35&dq=%22attention+economy%22&ots=RI-KGu5_3B&sig=DA4LS8j1p1nOqGSQkBP996xMAHABest, C. (n.d.). Appropriate Use of Online Communication Methods in Education. Journal of Instruction Delivery Systems, 20(4). Retrieved May 19, 2009, from
http://etalk.sgu.edu/contribute/sgubulletin/documents/AppropriateUseofOnlineCommunicationMethods.pdfCalvert, S.L. & Huffaker, D.A. (2005). Gender, Identity, and Language Use in Teenage Blogs. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(2). Retrieved May 14, 2009, from
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue2/huffaker.htmlCarrasco, M. & McElree, B. (2001). Covert Attention Accelerated the Rate of Visual Information Processing. PNAS 98(9). Retrieved May 17, 2009, from
http://www.pnas.org/content/98/9/5363.fullFarmer, J. (2004). Communication dynamics: Discussion boards, weblogs and the development of communities of inquiry in online learning environments. Paper presented at the 2004 ASCILITE conference. Retrieved May 19, 2009, from
http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/perth04/procs/farmer.htmlGhosh, R.A. (1997, May 5). Economics is dead. Long live economics! A Commentary on Michael Goldhaber's "The Attention Economy. First Monday, 2(5). Retrieved May 17, 2009, from
http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/529/450Gibbs, D. & Krause, K. (2006) Cyberlines 2.0: Languages and Cultures of the Internet. James Nicholas Publishers, Albert Park, Vic. Retrieved May 19, 2009, from
http://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=1-nWCOzZBJUC&oi=fnd&pg=PA163&dq=%22Effective+Online+Communication%22&ots=dYqaKm603Q&sig=dQ8JsmEnaFo6aSGgeBse390Dx2AGoldhaber, M.H. (1997a, April 7). The Attention Economy and the Net. First Monday, 2(4). Retrieved May 17, 2009, from
http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/519/440Goldhaber, M.H. (1997b, July 7). What's the Right Economics for Cyberspace? First Monday, 2(7). Retrieved May 17, 2009, from
http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/537/458Goldhaber, M.H. (2006, June). The value of openness in an attention economy. First Monday, 11(6). Retrieved May 17, 2009, from
http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_6/goldhaber/index.htmlGorman, B. Morley, T. Reeves, B. & Roy, S. (2008, May). A marketplace for attention: Responses to a synthetic currency used to signal importance in e–mail. First Monday, 13(5). Retrieved May 17, 2009, from
http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/2100/1963Harasim, L.M. (Ed.). (1993). Global Networks: Computers and International Communication. MIT Press. Retrieved May 19, 2009, from
http://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=9RAnJzaiqvMC&oi=fnd&pg=PA153&dq=%22Effective+Online+Communication%22&ots=uZNmLwqLFC&sig=zj1s_FUfxfm28WMfKWBwZx2jXH0Hargittai, E. & Shafer, S. (2006). Differences in Actual and Perceived Online Skills: The Role of Gneder*. Retrieved May 3, 2009, from
http://www.eszter.com/research/pubs/hargittai-shafer-genderskills.pdfHerring, S. (2001). Gender and Power in Online Communication. CSI Working Paper No. WP-01-05. Retrieved May 3, 2009, from
https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/2022/1024/WP01-05B.html;jsessionid=273E39BE30A1FCDE55FCE8A5F25AAF64Johnson, S. L. (2008). Impact of Leadership on Continued Participation in Online Groups. PhD Thesis. University of Maryland. Retrieved May 14, 2009, from
http://www.lib.umd.edu/drum/bitstream/1903/8830/1/umi-umd-5858.pdfKamppuri, M. Kommers, P. & Tedre, M. (2006). An approach to global netiquette research. IADIS International Conference on Web Based Communities 2006. Retrieved May 10, 2009, from
http://www.iadis.net/dl/final_uploads/200602C027.pdfKock, N.F. (2007). Encyclopedia of E-Collaboration. Idea Group Inc (IGI). Retrieved May 14, 2009, from
http://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=8OMCy-M7CxsC&oi=fnd&pg=PA126&dq=Lurkers&ots=vRKgnwn7za&sig=l6RQ_bp08J1vJW-vtOSQ_tKTpyMKort, B. & Reilly, R. (n.d.). Analytical Models of Emotion, Learning and Relationships: Towards and Affect-sensitive Cognitive Machine. M.I.T Media laboratory. . Retrieved May 17, 2009, from
http://affect.media.mit.edu/projectpages/lc/vworlds.pdfLanham, R. & Merkoski, D. (2008). The Economics of Attention. Retrieved May 17, 2009, from
http://www.learcenter.org/pdf/EconofAttention.pdfLevine, J.M. & Moreland, R.L. (2006). Small Groups: Key Readings. Psychology Press. Retrieved May 14, 2009, from
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=2GAgaV_htWQC&pg=PA450&lpg=PT451&ots=ezB-Ghu6rN&dq=Lurkers&lr=
McLaren, J. & Zappalà, G. (2002, November). The 'Digital Divide' Among Financially Disadvantaged Families in Australia. First Monday, 7(11). Retrieved May 3, 2009, from
http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1003/924Mossberger, K. Tolbert, C. J. Stansbury, M. (2003). Virtual inequality: beyond the digital divide. Published by Georgetown University Press. Retrieved May 3, 2009, from
http://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=lEzJlG0ByJgC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=+%22Digital+Divide%22&ots=W2jnyJ-EAv&sig=lhMW26OpHA1ZsHM1PGWK_kdWT3kMuir, S.P. (2006, April 27). Ethics and the Internet. MLA forum, V(1). Retrieved May 10, 2009, from
http://mlaforum.org/volumeV/issue1/article4.htmlNorris, P. (2001). Digital divide: civic engagement, information poverty, and the Internet worldwide. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved May 3, 2009, from
http://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=D0CSHNEfRlAC&oi=fnd&pg=PP11&dq=+%22Digital+Divide%22&ots=QvqiE9D9Id&sig=BHc6A4v5gvFtiaNXF8ZTFG_w6hUOberauer, K. (n.d.). Access to Information in Working Memory: Exploring the Focus of Attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2002, 28(3), 411–421. Retrieved May 10, 2009 from
http://eis.bris.ac.uk/~psxko/Oberauer.2002.JEPLMC.pdfPankoke-Babatz, U., Klöckner, K., & Jeffrey, P. (1999, August 22-27) Norms and Conventions in Collaborative Systems. In Bullinger, H. Ziegler, J. Paper presented at HCI International. Munich, Germany. 2, 313-317. Retrieved May 10, 2009 from
http://www.ece.ubc.ca/~phillipj/papers/NormsConventions.pdfPregowski, M.P. (2009). Rediscovering the netiquette: the role of propagated values and personal patterns in defining self-identity of the Internet user. Observatorio (OBS*) 8, 353-367. Retrieved May 10, 2009 from
http://www.obs.obercom.pt/index.php/obs/article/view/241/248Robins, J. (2002, April). Affording a place: the role of persistent structures in social navigation. Information Research, 7(3). Retrieved May 10, 2009 from
http://informationr.net/ir/7-3/paper131.htmlRushkoff, D. (2009). The Gamers Perspective. Renaissance Now! Retrieved May 17, 2009 from
http://old.nyls.edu/pdfs/rushkoff.pdfServon, L.J. (2002). Bridging the digital divide: technology, community, and public policy. Wiley-Blackwell. Retrieved May 3, 2009 from
http://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=rbzPCijaW9kC&oi=fnd&pg=PR8&dq=+%22Digital+Divide%22&ots=-rFt2bVvJ9&sig=xaYjGZ0o96xdhKZk6KctqrIC54sStrawbridge, M. (2006). Netiquette: Internet Etiquette in the Age of the Blog. Software Reference. Retrieved May 10, 2009 from
http://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ru-lWSTuiqQC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=netiquette&ots=Y6TObzncho&sig=vFogTqPQMUS16IFyH3jiKSFGXKM#PPA1,M1
Posts
