Below is my NET11 Concepts and Reflections Project.
Coversheet
Concept 1: Asynchronicity
Concept 17: The impact of text-based real-time chat
Concept 27: The persistence of history
Concept 28: The paradox of the World Wide Web
Concept 1: Asynchronicity
1. Asynchronicity
Asynchronous communication means that the sender and receiver deal with the communication between them at different times. We are familiar with asynchronous communication, for we use it regularly with letters, faxes and similar media. However, email often appears to be more similar to the conventions of real-time (or synchronous) communication and thus the particular nature of asynchronicity is different. People often expect a response to email in faster time than a letter (perhaps because they themselves respond rapidly to email). People expect to be able, through email, to conduct a conversation, with much back and forth, similar to an oral conversation.
In other words, asynchronous communication does not render time and schedules unimportant (as is sometimes claimed). Rather it requires us to think up new rules to assist us in managing communications that, from one perspective are ‘instant’ and, from another, are ‘lagged’ and that, standing back, are about the differences in temporal location of the people communicating.
Asynchronous electronic communication is not the opposite of real-time, synchronous communication: rather it describes forms of communication that appear differently ‘located in time’ depending on the perspective of the sender and receiver.
This concept applies equally, of course, to the other forms of asynchronous communication that are very similar to email, or use email (newsgroups and lists). What is perhaps less obvious is that FTP and the World Wide Web can also enable asynchronicity: indeed they depend on it, by allowing individuals to access material in many different personal ‘time zones’. For example, teaching online is predominantly effective where students cannot gather together in class to hear lectures but need to access them individually, at their own time. (Allen, n.d.)
The Internet fundamentally assumes asynchronous communication. This means, firstly, that the computers transferring data don’t need to be synchronised with clock signals; it also means that the communicating humans don’t need to be synchronised; communication does not need to be continuous.
If “asynchronous communication” is taken to mean communication able to occur across different time periods, whatever those time periods may be, we have a starting point for this discussion. We are able to see that Internet communications have varying degrees of asynchronicity, and although communication is not technically time-bound, social sensibility often provides a framework for what is considered an acceptable communication delay.
A good example of this social sensibility in action is with email in various contexts. Although answering an email is not like answering a telephone call, there are instances when the sender of an email might expect a very rapid response. It’s a general rule with online businesses that email correspondence by answered within 12 hours: any longer and people tend to think you aren’t serious. Other contexts for email correspondence have similar unwritten rules: consider that you’ve sent an email to a real estate agent, enquiring about a property in their portfolio. You’d generally expect to receive a reply within 1 - 2 business days, after all, you are approaching their business. There are plenty of other examples, too. So, while email correspondence is not technically time-bound, it is certainly socially time-bound.
A popular form of online communication that approaches synchronicity is instant messaging. In a similar way to sending SMS messages, instant messaging can be almost synchronous or quite asynchronous, and this is one of the more appealing elements of this communication method. Research has found that this duality offers individuals greater control over an interaction: time can be taken to formulate a response (if one even chooses to respond), or the quick, conversational style can be maintained.
Interestingly, IM offers another feature of synchronous conversation: the ability to see whether or not it is likely you’ll receive a response if you were to attempt communication. IM clients offer status notifications, displaying whether a user is available for messaging, whether they are busy, or away from their desk. Many offer users the ability to customise the way the status is displayed, for example, with something like “I’m at lunch, back at 1430″. This allows buddies to determine whether now is a good time to send a message, or whether to choose a more opportune moment, which is actually a good deal more information than one would receive in making a phone call.
Websites, particularly blogs, fairly regularly incorporate communication tools for visitors. Formerly considered to be means for broadcasting information, the advent of Web 2.0 has seen more and more websites become platforms for dialogue and collaboration. If, for instance, you are commenting on a blog article, you would reasonably expect to a) receive a response to your comment, and b) receive that comment in a timely fashion, especially when the article you are commenting on is fresh.
The Internet provides numerous communication channels, and although they are technically asynchronous, near synchonicity can be achieved. The choice of response timing is up to individuals, although social conventions certainly still apply to online communications.
Resources:
-
EmailReplies.com, (2006), accessed online on 08/08/2008 at http://www.emailreplies.com.
This site provides an assortment of email etiquette advice. The authors advocate replying to emails swiftly, at least within 24 hours, and they make the additional suggestion that if the email query is complicated, a brief “I’ll get back to you in full ASAP” email will put the enquirer’s mind at ease.
EmailReplies.com addresses several more issues relating to the asynchronicity of email communication, including delivery and read receipts, the use of email priority options and message recall requests.
- Patil, S & Kobsa, A, (n.d) Instant Messaging and Privacy accessed online on 08/08/2008 at http://www.ics.uci.edu/~kobsa/papers/2004-HCI-kobsa.pdf.
The researchers of this paper found that IM users have concerns over privacy regarding their availability. Participants in the study behaved differently when working as opposed to when they were not working. For instance, some set custom “away” status messages, even when leaving their desk briefly, and one respondent disabled the auto-idle feature in order to remain responsive. Various other behaviours were noted that displayed a willingness to manipulate the asynchronous-yet-approaching synchronicity nature of IM communications.
Bibliography:
- Allen, M (n.d.) Concepts Document accessed online on 23/06/08 at http://webct.curtin.edu.au/SCRIPT/305033_b/scripts/student/button_bar/305033_b/concepts.html.
- EmailReplies.com, (2006), accessed online on 08/08/2008 at http://www.emailreplies.com.
- Patil, S & Kobsa, A, Instant Messaging and Privacy accessed online on 08/08/2008 at http://www.ics.uci.edu/~kobsa/papers/2004-HCI-kobsa.pdf.
-
Internet and Web Essentials Glossary, accessed online on 08/08/2008 at http://www.webliminal.com/essentials/glossary.htm.
- Envato, Freelance Advice and Freelance Jobs - Freelance Switch (2008), accessed online on 08/08/2008 at http://freelanceswitch.com.
- Kallos, J, Business Email Etiquette Discussions, Tips and Proper Practices (2008), accessed online on 08/08/2008 at http://www.businessemailetiquette.com/.
- Dominic E. Madell, Steven J. Muncer. CyberPsychology & Behavior. February 1, 2007, 10(1): 137-140. doi:10.1089/cpb.2006.9980. Accessed online on 08/08/2008 at http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/cpb.2006.9980
Top
Concept 17: The impact of text-based real-time chat
You might think that, with the widespread availability of telephones, an internet-based system of real-time communication involving the typing of text messages would be hardly used, or at least, of little relevance. You would be wrong. Real-time internet-based text chat is a significant part of contemporary internet use. The question then to be asked is: what is the difference here that makes this mode of communication popular; and then what impact does it have of the kinds of communication and social interaction that take place?
Setting aside cost the main differences are
1.that you can imagine yourself with others in a public space
2.that your use of text provides a different form of communication, more ‘fictive’, more controlled, and still very expressive, but also one that enables you to monitor and reflect on the forms and meanings of communication, including your own
3.you can have multiple conversations without apparently being rude (including both public and private ones)
Communicating in real-time with text enables a form of ‘authoring of the self’ that is similar to the processes of face-to-face speech but which is much more amenable to authorial control, experimentation and reflection. Further, text-based communication carries with it the possibility for multiple, differing conversations occurring simultaneously, relying on the ability of the human brain to deal with text much better than speech.
Whether this effect of real-time communication will survive the rush towards AV conferencing is a moot point. However, a skilled Internet user will appreciate that text is, in some circumstances, a highly effective mechanism for communication. In particular, because text can be captured so much more easily than speech, it provides a mechanism for preserving and reflecting on conversations. (Allen, M, n.d.)
Text-based, real-time chat, or instant messaging (IM), is a flourishing phenomenon of current-day Internet usage. The technology is relevant to very many different user groups, from teenagers, to business users, to friends in far-off places. For its use to be so widespread, it must possess elements that make fundamental sense to human communication sensibilities.
Assumptions are generally made that instant messaging is primarily good for quick discussions or for making arrangements to meet elsewhere. In fact, research has shown that, particularly in the work context, people use instant messaging for complex and prolonged discussions. My own experience confirms this: I’ve regularly held long IM and group chat discussions to discuss project requirements and to solve work-related problems, and I’ve also participated in extended personal conversations.
The Concept above states that whether IM will survive the rush towards AV conferencing or not is a moot point. I disagree with this: instant messaging *has* survived the advent of free and easy VoIP and AV conferencing - see the integration of IM and chat into Skype’s client as evidence – and there must be a reason why this is the case. Certainly, many of my own discussions mentioned above could have taken place using the free VoIP client Skype, but didn’t. This hints that IM has a value for human communications in its own right.
I propose the following reasons for the success of IM:
- The computing context: users are accustomed to using computers for a variety of purposes in the same time period. It’s not unusual for people to have upwards of ten applications open at once. At the moment, for instance, I am running seven different programs, and within each, I have a number of different things I am looking at. Instant messaging fits very comfortably into the multi-tasking atmosphere of the current day computer user, allowing them to hold conversations while doing other things without seeming rude. Importantly, these “other things” may actually pertain to the conversation: looking up reference documents, conducting Google searches, linking to pertinent Web resources or checking emails.
- Provision for adaptive communication: humans naturally adapt their communication style to the context they find themselves in.
Instant messaging supports such adaptations of style: informal shorthand and emoticon-enriched messages proliferate among friends, particularly teenagers, and this has been commented on extensively, but this form is by no means forced upon all conversations. Formal style can be quite appropriate when meeting a business colleague or client online, and conventions are fairly quickly established for communication between individuals, even when the relationship exists purely in the online space.
Research has shown that the use of instant messaging is an effective method of building relationships and a sense of community. Of course, it has been noted that online personas are more easily contrived, and there is a certain lack of verification that comes from visual communication cues in other contexts, but generally speaking, the communication style that has evolved, including the use of emoticons as parallels to nonverbal cues, can provide a sufficiently rich communication mechanism.
- Perceived synchronicity and communication context: the provision for almost synchronous communication satisfies an intrinsic desire for feedback in the communication context. Additionally, many IM clients provide additional context by way of user-defined buddy grouping, user status updates and display, and offline messaging.
The success of IM points to the fact that this method of communication is a practical and effective tool for human interaction.
Resources:
-
Wikipedia: Instant messaging and messengers (2008), accessed online on 08/08/2008 at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_messaging.
This resource describes instant messaging and features of various instant messaging protocols and clients. The article provides a good description of the communication-facilitating features of instant messaging, a history, a discussion of proprietary protocols and an introduction to the language used by instant messaging users, along with other instant messaging usage information. Read this article for a comprehensive look at instant messaging.
- EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative (2005),
7 Things You Should Know About Instant Messaging | EDUCAUSE CONNECT, accessed online on 08/08/2008 at http://connect.educause.edu/Library/ELI/7ThingsYouShouldKnowAbout/39385.
Although focussed on the learning context, this resource provides an excellent background to instant messaging, covering what it is; who’s doing it; how does it work?; why is it significant?; what are the downsides?; and where is it going?. Of particular interest is the note about the technology facilitating the creation of “communication back-channels”: secondary conversations operating around a more formal context, like note-passing in class. This is a very good introduction to instant messaging, providing practical examples to illustrate points. Although it is written for the education context, many general principles are elucidated and the document actually has a wide application.
Bibliography
- Allen, M (n.d.) Concepts Document accessed online on 23/06/08 at http://webct.curtin.edu.au/SCRIPT/305033_b/scripts/student/button_bar/305033_b/concepts.html.
- Wikipedia: Instant messaging and messengers (2008), accessed online on 08/08/2008 at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_messaging.
- Isaacs, E, Walandowski, A, Whitaker, S, Schiano, D, Kamm, C (2002),
The character, functions, and styles of instant messaging in the workplace, accessed online on 08/08/2008 at http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/587078.587081.
- EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative (2005),
7 Things You Should Know About Instant Messaging | EDUCAUSE CONNECT, accessed online on 08/08/2008 at http://connect.educause.edu/Library/ELI/7ThingsYouShouldKnowAbout/39385.
- Nicholson, S (2002),
Socialization in the “virtual hallway” Instant messaging in the asynchronous Web-based distance education classroom, accesssed online on 08/08/2008 at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4X-46V4TGM-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=2282e4dd07dae05912e708b84b41cf6d
- Krohn, F (2004), A GENERATIONAL APPROACH TO USING EMOTICONS AS NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION, accessed online on 08/08/2008 at http://baywood.metapress.com/openurl.asp?genre=article&eissn=1541-3780&volume=34&issue=4&spage=321
- Schirber, M (2005) Study: Instant Messaging is Surprisingly Formal, accessed online on 08/08/2008 at http://www.livescience.com/technology/050301_internet_language.html
Top
Concept 27: The persistence of history
27. The persistence of history
When we consider certain applications, such as telnet, ftp and some of the more arcane ‘management’ tools such as the ability to finger, lookup and so on (so-called net tools), it may appear that, in the age of the World Wide Web, internet telephony, AV conferencing online and so on, these are old-fashioned irrelevancies. However, they are not. These early applications continue to have value, directly, and moreover, advanced Internet users understand them because they provide a sense of history and context which can assist in developing new capabilities for Internet use. Furthermore, the ideas that underlie these technologies are critical and continue to govern the fundamentals of Internet use.
Advanced Internet users inquire into and analyse the kinds of applications available over the Internet, even if they do not regularly use them, so as to learn lessons about past developments and to anticipate potential new developments, based on the meaning of those applications.
Moreover, while new systems ‘appear’ different, they often use or include much older, traditional applications. For example, various identifier commands (ping, traceroute etc) can be used within IRC; telnet and ftp are tightly interlinked with http for web browsing. (Allen, M, n.d.)
The study of history is an important cultural activity in any context. Humans have consistently shown a desire to review and understand past events, not only to learn from mistakes, but to gain an understanding of who we are.
By understanding a little of the course of history, we are given a perspective on our place and purpose, along with hints at the direction of the future. This is true of all human endeavours, and is certainly true of our creation and use of the Internet. Where history is ignored, a vast body of culturally significant knowledge, value and impetus is lost.
Although the Internet is not yet 50 years old, there has been a fantastic growth in the number of uses and the purposes for which the Internet is used. In this brief space, I want to look at a simple concept, present at the Internet’s conception; clothed, but still present today; and bound to be a driver for the iterative developments we will see with the Internet and the World Wide Web in coming days. I want to look at the concept of information sharing between people.
The Internet was not developed for the sake of machines or simply as a technological achievement. The Internet developed for the visionary purpose of facilitating the sharing of information amongst scientific and military researchers. ARPANET was devised to create open channels of communication between people with similar goals and purposes.
The World Wide Web was similarly conceived. Tim Berners-Lee formulated a system to run on the Internet, based on hyperlinks, to aid high-energy physicists worldwide to share data, news and documentation. He created the first Web browser/WYSIWYG editor, Web server and Web pages.
In April of 1993, CERN decided that Internet code and protocols could be accessed, royalty free. This contrasted with the University of Minnesota’s decision to charge for implementations of it’s Gopher protocol, and paved the way for widespread use and growth of the World Wide Web. Thus, the World Wide Web continued the Internet’s existence as a free and open information-sharing platform.
As the Web became commercialised, more and more people had reasons to use it. Applications were created that improved not only information sharing, but general interactions, and specifically commercial interactions. The Internet became more and more a microcosm of human activity. New applications developed - especially after Google made advertising, and thus online business, viable - to promote sharing of media online. People increasingly took advantage of Internet infrastructure to develop communication and media-sharing tools and even protocols for specific purposes.
Peer-to-peer file sharing flourished with Napster and Bittorrent - harking back to the early days of peer-to-peer Internet interactions, but with a twist provided by the rather larger pool of participants and increased bandwidth. Likewise, communication protocols such as IRC, ICQ and other chat applications blossomed. Further reductions in hardware prices and growing understandings of how to do business online made it possible for companies to provide World Wide Web users with facilities to create their own content with blogs, relatively cheap hosting, and social spaces.
It can be seen, then, that the history of the Internet is driven by the development of technologies to serve particular, rather than general, information sharing and communication needs and markets. It is true that technologies are often found to have a wider application than what was originally conceived, and this is paralleled by a similar phenomenon with inventions in the “real world”.
Many tout the Semantic Web as the next iteration of the World Wide Web. It is Tim Berners-Lee’s vision of a new form of web content, meaningful to computers, and enabling vast possibilities. Such a Semantic Web would see people sharing information on a boundless scale.
Resources
- Berners-Lee, T, Hendler, J, Lassila, (2001),
The Semantic Web, accessed online on 08/08/2008 at http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-semantic-web.
“The Semantic Web will bring structure to the meaningful content of Web pages, creating an environment where software agents roaming from page to page can readily carry out sophisticated tasks for users.”
This resource describes Tim Berners-Lee’s vision for the future of the World Wide Web: a very specific development of technology to facilitate the boundless sharing of information. This is indeed an evolution of process as well, permitted in the context of the Internet because of our growing understanding of current use and the potential for future use.
This is a fascinating document from the creator of the World Wide Web. It identifies technical issues and provides a context for understanding the difficulties of reconciling human and computer communications.
- Crabtree, D (1993) The Importance of History, accessed online on 07/08/2008 at http://www.mckenziestudycenter.org/society/articles/history.html.
While this is not an Internet-related resource, I’ve chosen to include it as it formed the basis of my conceptions about Internet history as a specific case. The author, David Crabtree, states that history is important because it gives form to the way we view the present and to our formulation of solutions to current problems. This prompted me to think of the essence of the Internet as a tool for sharing and dispersing information right from its inception. The current buzz about the Web “democritizing” news, content and knowledge seems to me simply an extension of this process, rather than something surprising.
Bibliography
- Allen, M (n.d.) Concepts Document accessed online on 23/06/08 at http://webct.curtin.edu.au/SCRIPT/305033_b/scripts/student/button_bar/305033_b/concepts.html.
- Berners-Lee, T, Hendler, J, Lassila, (2001),
The Semantic Web, accessed online on 08/08/2008 at http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-semantic-web
-
Crabtree, D (1993) The Importance of History, accessed online on 07/08/2008 at http://www.mckenziestudycenter.org/society/articles/history.html.
- Aaron, L (2005) The Internet, A Microcosm of Society?, accessed online on 07/08/2008 at /http://lesaaron.blogspot.com/2005/11/internet-microcosm-of-society.html
- CERN (2008)Welcome to info.cern.ch, accessed online on 07/08/2008 at http://info.cern.ch
- World Wide Web, accessed online on 07/08/2008 at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Web
- History of the Internet, accessed online on 07/08/2008 at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet.
- Hinchcliffe, D (2006) Democratization of Content with Web 2.0: The Emergent vs. Deliberate Debate, accessed online on 08/08/2008 at http://web2.wsj2.com/democratization_of_content_with_web_20_the_emergent_vs_delib.htm.
Top
Concept 28: The paradox of the World Wide Web
28. The paradox of the World Wide Web
“The Web embodies a fundamental paradox:
it is designed to be user-friendly information environment, fun to use and unthreatening;
BUT
it is the exemplification of a community/industry/technology which by its very nature is innovative, constantly changing and growing in complexity.
It therefore tends to be easy to use on the surface but is, at a deeper level, difficult to understand and use” (M.Exon, 1998).
Moreover, simply understanding and coming to terms with this complexity is not sufficient. We must see through it to the conceptual basis of the web: a system that encourages decentralised participation, exploratory and entrepreneurial behaviour in a manner that bypasses traditional government and corporate systems. What makes the Internet ‘work’ is this level of decentralisation, which drives innovation and empowers the individual; what makes the Internet ‘fail to work’ is the extraordinary demands it places on users to cope with many complex facets and more decisions than normal. Furthermore, complexity can disempower those who lack the skills, time and opportunity to learn.
Advanced Internet users recognise the character of the Web, seek to utilise its advantages, ameliorate its deficiencies and understand that not all users have the same abilities as themselves in reconciling the paradox of the WWW.
The World Wide Web is also beginning to encompass more and more of what we do on the Internet, at some cost. People tend to assume that the Internet is the WWW: it’s not; on the other hand, we can see the cultural forces at work to make the WWW do all the things we want to on the Internet – it’s more effective for large companies to profit from, and creates a sense that using the Internet is ‘easy’ (useful to convince reluctant customers). (Allen, M, n.d.)
The point is made with this concept that the World Wide Web has two faces: a fun and easy presentation interface, and a complex and evolving technical underpinning. While this may be a paradox, it isn’t surprising.
In his book In the Beginning was the Command Line, Neal Stephenson [http://www.nealstephenson.com/] proposes that contempory culture is a two-tiered system, similar to that found in H.G. Wells’s The Time Machine. He creates a parallel between Wells’s Eloi and Morlocks and the two elements of our society thus:
“In The Time Machine the Eloi were an effete upper class, supported by lots of subterranean Morlocks who kept the technological wheels turning. But in our world it’s the other way round. The Morlocks are in the minority, and they are running the show, because they understand how everything works. The much more numerous Eloi learn everything they know from being steeped from birth in electronic media directed and controlled by book-reading Morlocks.” [ITBWTCL, The Interface Culture].
In Stephenson’s thesis, society hankers for mediated experiences across the spectrum of existence: from reproduced - and sanitary - cultural artifacts, to Facebook politics, to Disney recreations of classic tales, to graphical computer interfaces. Stephenson describes the creators of all these “interfaces” as energetic, intelligent and industrious Morlocks: the Eloi are happy to pay for these interfaces because they “like to be dazzled”.
This may seem a harsh assessment of reality, but I think there is some general truth to the conception. Constituents of modern society are swamped with information and things to do: we must rely on others to make much of the current technologically-accelerated life digestible, while we work away at our own area of expertise.
In fact, this is true of all human knowledge: it is very rare that a human actually deduces facts entirely by himself, he must rely on the researches of many other humans when coming to knowledge. As such, epistemologists have generally defined knowledge not as “true belief” but as “justified, true belief” (although - and exceedingly interestingly - the Gettier cases prove that justified true belief is not sufficient for knowledge because the existence of interfaces intermingled with real objects may mean that a justified true belief is in some instances actually pure luck: see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/#JTB for a good explanation). But I digress.
Stephenson makes the distinction between the Eloi and Morlocks of this world to understand the popularity of the computer Graphical User Interface (GUI) in general, and our fascination with Microsoft products in particular. GUIs are not as powerful as the commandline, but they offer convenient “metaphors”, an easy environment to help the user make choices. Now, it is apparent that the World Wide Web is becoming more and more like a desktop – with layers of abstraction built over the underlying technologies to make life easy and fun for users. Some strong examples are:
- Cpanel and other web hosting control panels: these allow web hosts to operate their server from a convenient web-based interface, without ever needing to touch the commandline. This is telling development, because it allows the “Eloi” to propagate the Web;
- Webmail and intra-web portal messaging, ala Facebook[http://facebook.com]: these technologies blur over email protocols and smudge the distinction between real email (using SMTP and the access protocols of IMAP and POP3) and HTTP (Web) based messaging;
- Rich Internet Applications: these use technologies such as AJAX to create a desktop “look and feel” on a web page, particularly through asynchronous communication with the server, meaning the page doesn’t need to be reloaded to achieve a displayed response to user actions. The user is generally none the wiser as to how this occurs.
The evolution of the Web into a richer and more responsive environment for users does gloss over all manner of technical implementation details, and it certainly blurs the distinction between the Internet and the WWW for most users, who increasingly inhabit the Interweb. But we should be generous, we sometimes like to live there, too!
Resources
- Allen, M (n.d.) Concepts Document accessed online on 23/06/08 at http://webct.curtin.edu.au/SCRIPT/305033_b/scripts/student/button_bar/305033_b/concepts.html.
- Stephenson, N (1999) In the Beginning was the Command Line, accessed online on 03/07/2008 at http://artlung.com/smorgasborg/C_R_Y_P_T_O_N_O_M_I_C_O_N.shtml.
This is an essay investigating the rise and rise of the Graphical User Interface (GUI), and in particular, the Windows variants of the GUI. Stephenson’s thesis is that society’s fascination with Microsoft products cannot be explained in purely economic terms (since there are better operating system products available – for free – and this information is widely available). Instead, he looks to a cultural explanation, and I have drawn on this in my discussion of the paradox of the World Wide Web.
- Wikipedia: The Interweb (2008), accessed online on 08/08/2008 at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interweb.
This resource explains the ironic term “Interweb” as a joke about inexperienced users of the Internet and the World Wide Web. The term mingles the names in imitation of the way these inexperienced users access content from both without understanding the distinction between them.
Bibliography
- Stephenson, N (1999) In the Beginning was the Command Line, accessed online on 03/07/2008 at http://artlung.com/smorgasborg/C_R_Y_P_T_O_N_O_M_I_C_O_N.shtml
- Wikipedia: The Interweb (2008), accessed online on 08/08/2008 at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interweb
- Steup, M (2005)Epistemology: Knowledge As Justified True Belief, accessed online on 08/08/2008 at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/#JTB.
Top
