I am not contributing to an already existing wiki entry and I was jointly working on the concept of Wikiwashing with Sarita. Sarita covered the follwing parts:
1. Definition 2. History 2.1 Meaning of the term 3. The new economy behind Wikiwashing
Techniques edit
The following section presents the most common Wikiwashing-techniques:
Non-profit technological tools edit
Ad-supported corporations like Google or social networking sites such as Facebook are dependent on user-generated content. These businesses developed various specific methods to secure their users trust and found ways to sustainably preserve it. To benefit from their users' collaborative interactions corporations try to present themselves as simple and very useful instruments. They reduce their public image to being a handy tool that is simply providing the users with the needed technical functions to create a social platform. The intention to make profit is often being concealed and corporations adorn themselves with the democratic values ok wiki-related organisations in terms of decision-making procedures, for example. [1]
Neutral concept of technology edit
Their actual business strategies are often consciously hidden to give the users the feeling they are part of a neutral environment that does not require any professional administration. By issuing plain direct calls for action and clear user guidance social media corporations want to attract and win over as many new members as possible. Increasing the actual content that the network is equipped with is less important with regard to their business model than maximizing the amount of users. [2]
Aesthetics of the playground edit
Dependent on users’ interactions corporations transform their networks into a gaming experience that encourages its members to share personal information and to participate in discourses without having second thoughts. Through creating the illusion that the members of the community are shielded from real-life consequences the users are supposedly not questioning the platform’s conditions concerning legal terms or privacy issues too critically. [3]
Being community-friendly edit
Through applying a uniting language next to other caring characteristics the social network is being turned into a community that is minding its users’ concerns and is looking out for their physical and psychological well being. A positive and optimistic attitude of the users toward the community is what the corporations are trying to achieve with their efforts to please every user’s individual needs. [4]
Examples edit
Facebook edit
Facebook is one of the most prominent examples for incarnating various Wikiwashing-techniques in its daily business. In the following some of these techniques are listed in an exemplary way:
The social media provider itself claims in its privacy settings that sharing is the centerpiece that keeps the network alive. It also states that the user is in charge to make the decision about the amount of his data that is being shared and used for further purposes. At this point though the corporation is not being upfront with its users in terms of not informing them about targeted advertising and the sale of user-generated content to governments for example. [5] Users do not even have the option in the privacy menu to decide if their data is shown to advertisers or not. Due to these circumstances they can only dissociate themselves from other users but not from other third parties that are commercially and financially involved in the corporation. According to Fuchs “ […] Facebook is an advertising and economic surveillance machine that wants to store, assess and sell as much user data as possible in order to maximize its profits”. [6]
Positioning Facebook as a liberal and hierarchy-free community while actually providing different corporate, profit-orientated business mechanisms in terms of decision-making, independence and liberty values of wiki-related platforms are being abused. [7] In 2012 for instance, Facebook still adapted its new policy even though 87% of the network's users did not favor this new policy and showed their disagreement through participating in the election that was offered and organized by Facebook itself. The corporation kept the votes sealed and did not inform the general public and more important the community members themselves about the procedures of actually casting a vote. Now that Facebook is a publicly traded company only shareholders have the option to vote for policies and practices. [8]
In addition to the illusionary lack of risks the overall capacity of Facebook’s terms and conditions is over 30.000 characters long and is written in a rather ambiguous language. [9] Especially for users in the teenage age, which is one of Facebook’s largest target audiences, these legal guidelines and their effects in daily life are difficult to comprehend. [10]
Facebook’s “Like button” exemplifies that users are only able to communicate their positive and not their negative feelings. If the social network would introduce a dislike button than the corporation’s finance plan would be at risk because users could also start to show their negative affection towards advertising clients that are extremely important for Facebook. [11]
Amazon edit
Amazon is another corporation that uses user-generated content to increase its profit without being upfront about this practice. The provider's algorithms are generating individualized advertisements that are clearly tailored to the customers' specific desires and preferences. The information to empower the software to do so is drawn from past search queries that are being self-servicely tracked and stored. Through gaining the ability to suggest further literature to the user the corporation additionally gains power over the production of academic knowledge, for example. At this point Google Scholar can be named as another example of pre-directed and purpose-guided research processes. [12]
Google edit
Google relies on similar techniques sind the year of 2009. The user is shown the search results that he or she is most willing to click on first. This way people are not very likely to step out of their intellectual comfort zone and already existing knowledge is simply consolidated. Political debates or religious believes can be intervened and guided this way and processes based on structural modifications and major developments like governmental changes or democratic processes are not being facilitated. [13]
Literature edit
- Barkai, M. (2012). Revolution: Share! The Role of Social Media in Pro-Democratic Movement. Maastricht: European Journalism Centre. ISBN 978-90-819305-0-5. pp. 7-143
- Beer, D. (2009). "Power through the algorithm? Participatory web cultures and the technological unconscious". Nature. 11 (6). Nature Publishing Group: 985-1002. doi:10.1177/1461444809336551.
- Fuchs, Ch. (2014). Social Media. A Critical Introduction. Chapter 7: Facebook: A Surveillance Threat to Privacy?. London: Sage. ISBN 978-1-4462-5731-9. pp. 153-174
- Fuster Morell, M. (2011). "The Unethics of Sharing: Wikiwashing". International Review of Information Ethics. 15. Nature Publishing Group: 9-16. ISSN 1614-1687.
- Lovink, G. and M. Rash (eds.); Gehl, R.W. (2011). Unlike Us Reader, Media Monopolies and their Alternatives; Why I Left Facebook’: Stubbornly refusing to not exist even after opting out of Mark Zuckerberg’s social graph.’. Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures. ISBN 978-90-818575-2-9.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) pp. 221-238
References edit
- ^ Fuster Morell, 2011, pp.13
- ^ Fuster Morell, 2011, p.13
- ^ Fuster Morell, 2011, p.14
- ^ Fuster Morell, 2011, p.14
- ^ Fuchs, 2014, p.166
- ^ Fuchs, 2014, p.167
- ^ Fuster Morell, 2011, p.12
- ^ Gehl, 2011, p.223
- ^ Fuchs, 2014, p.166
- ^ Fuchs, 2014, p.162
- ^ Fuchs, 2014, p.160
- ^ Beer, 2009, p.997
- ^ Barkai, 2012, p.32