# Wikis

## Agnotology and Epistemological Fragmentation

### A Summary

In an age where communication is constantly shifting towards the non-physical through platforms such as YouTube, Google, facebook, and Instagram, it seems obvious to state that information provided through said mediums must be accurate, detailed, and not misleading. Yet, unfortunately, in this time of bipartisan policitics and "Black-Or-White" mindsets, information can be presented in a convincing vice, only to spread falsities to further an agenda.

Danah Boyd reflects on said circumstances, explaining the term Agnotology as a method of statistically spreading ignorance. In her article, the Microsoft researcher goes on to explain how seemingly harmless websites can carry these devices for the perpetration of Agnotology. Mentioned in the article is the Christchurch shooter, who utilised several censored properties to incite curiosity in viewers, whom would later explore said curiosity via the internet leading to many more racist ideas and designs. What must be mainly stated is that if you can create a "Data Void", the curiosity can be used to create an audience of faithfuls to your cause

The Christchurch Mosque was attacked earlier this year where many were killed.

### My Reflection

Rhetoric is one of the most valuable tools to a communicator. A good communicator can use it to communicate well and convince others to their point of view without explicit statement and lack of respect for the opposing opinion. Now with the use of technology, all communication can be rhetoric depending on the lens it is sent through. Everyone now has access to that power in this age and while these technologies have their advantages, one must be concerned of the implications it has on what we see in day to day life. Prager, as mentioned in the article, has released several videos denouncing social justice and justifying free speech, attracting the attention of the muted people who share (or may come to share) their opinions. Not to demonize the right, yet many exuberant groups from that side have fallen in line with tactics used by PragerU and other conservative rhetoric tanks.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/DMZzivv8wPA" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

You can see above the prioritisation of free speech and Constitutional Rights, claiming oppression of the right has undermine their abilities and leading to a natural distrust of mainstream media, some of which may occur to be biased, yet contain important information nonetheless.

Even now as I searched for the prior video I got taken down a tunnel of videos entitled "Jordan Peterson Destroys Feminists" and "Ben Shapiro OWNS Liberal". There's no chance for a contrasting opinion because technology is too smart to present you with a one. Therefore, you believe what you see, and end up forming an opinion based on only half the story, using the only information you could find on a search done out of your own curiosity.

## Web Search and Evaluation

### Refining Our Search

Google offers an amazing tool that allows us to find out anything on the web in seconds. Unfortunately, not all of these results are exactly what we need to see. Thankfully, we can tailor our search experience to our needs using [Google's Advanced Search Page](https://www.google.com/advanced_search).

The Advanced Search page can be used to filter out your searches to become much more thorough. For example, in order to find a site with an exact word or phrase incorporated into it, you can use quotes to identify the word or phrase you wish to find.


As seen above, this is the exact search you would do if you wished to find all available Wikipedia sites with the phrase "Northeastern University" in it. Despite filtering out a massive portion of results, we still have 315,000 results that have the phrase "Northeastern University" in it.

But what if we want to exclude certain results from our search? This can be done through a minus sign being added before any words you would like to exclude from your search.


As seen above, this is the proper format for executing a search for skate fish, but excluding any results for anything mentioning an "ice rink".

Another way of excluding irrelevant search results is by setting a time frame from which you would like to receive results. This can be done by conducting a simple search, then using the tools menu dropdown to set the times.


As seen above, we are searching for results for "Northeastern Huskies" from between the dates of January 1st, 2001 to December 31st, 2002 by utilizing the time function on the toolbar.

The Advanced Search Function also works for images, with a couple other functions tailored with it.


Here are some examples of the level of customization you can take with your searches. The most notable function being the usage rights, as you can choose to only see pictures that are fair use and therefore available to you for even commercial needs. By using this feature and searching for a pair of penguins we get the image below, which is fair use to anyone due to the search restrictions.


These search abilities help us find what we're looking for, while surmounting all the "crap" and fake news in the way.

### Credibility

In her article, Joyce Valenza elaborates on the construction of fake news and its exact purpose to grab attention from its viewers, and so taking it upon myself to investigate my own [source](https://heraldpublicist.com/monster-man-raped-10-year-old-but-her-mother-didnt-reports-this-to-police-what-she-did-will-shock-you/) of fake news and test it in collaboration with the assigned readings.


The first thing I notice in this article is the intense emotion it seems to be trying to emphasize. Besides from the out of place capitalization, the title is incredibly provocative and hooking. It manipulates human emotion and curiosity for the purpose of attracting attention to the ads on the site by acting as clickbait.

The title is almost a word for word representation of a line from Valenza's article about Suspecting the Sensational. She states: "Exaggerated and provocative headlines with excessive use of capital letters or emotional language are serious red flags", a prime example of what we find here in this article whose already crumbling credibility can be further questioned with the poor grammar continuously used. The Lydia M. Olson library advises a seven word checklist for checking credibility, and it fails most: No credible writer (Authority), no credible sources (Accuracy), and the site is a mess (Appearance).

## Wikipedia Evaluation

Verifiability refers to the feature of Wikipedia in which anything added must be verified and from a reliable source. There is no room for speculation and only facts will make it on the page. For example, on Joseph Reagle's page, it claims he worked at the [World Wide Web Consortium](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Web_Consortium), and that his book, ["Good Faith Collaboration"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Faith_Collaboration) was bestselling. When this information was added, it had to have been verified and from a reliable source to have made it at all, so its presence on the site indicates to a degree that it is authentic.

The page is fairly complete, but the picture used of Joseph is from 2008, nearly 12 years ago. Because of this dated image, the site loses a little credibility and you begin to question how recent the information is. Finally, you can check a Wikipedia's edit history using the "view history" button, and as such we can see the article has changed a lot over the years to remain credible as a site, with its first rendition appearing in August of 2011.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/NPMqYFNKy7I" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

## Filter and Label Your Email

### Creating a Filter

As students, we tend to receive around fifty emails per week. As time goes by, this stacks up and swamps your otherwise pristine inbox with inconsequential filler that makes it harder and harder to stay organized. However, by utilizing a filter, we are able to organize our emails into several categories, avoiding most of this clutter.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/j0T4NnFixys" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The video above showcases how one can filter out their email. I will briefly summarize these steps:


By selecting the type of email you want to filter, you can then click the more button to view ways to filter. Automatically, Gmail knows to include the list mentioned in the email, but for more specification you can insert "[neu-cda]" in the subject line for a more precise filter.


Next, you can choose what to do with all emails that fall within this filter. In my case, I applied the label "Communication in a Digital Age" just so I could recognize the filter.


If done correctly, you should have a filter applied with the aforementioned label accessible from your inbox easily on Gmail.

### Filter Bubbles

In the same vein of filtering, filter bubbles are an example of how algorithms and computers respond to previous cookies and information to provide you with results. As defined by [Farnam Street](https://fs.blog/2017/07/filter-bubbles/), a filter bubble "refers to the results of the algorithms that dictate what we encounter online." Also according to Eli Pariser, they offer “a unique universe of information for each of us … which fundamentally alters the way we encounter ideas and information.” When you Google something, you can actually receive a completely different webpage than someone else because the computer knows only to send you sources that will catch your attention and fit your worldview. It creates a vacuum of data that we begin to forget about the other side of the argument. Our computers and algorithms are too smart to send us a contrasting opinion.


In another article written by the aforementioned [Pariser](https://medium.com/backchannel/facebook-published-a-big-new-study-on-the-filter-bubble-here-s-what-it-says-ef31a292da95), He reflects on a Facebook report that may dispute his original filter bubble thesis. The graph above is very intricate and mainly predicts what percentage of people who identified as either conservative or liberal saw content from the other side of the spectrum. As the graph winds down to the percentage of people who actively selected the content, you can see where the problems begin. We already see few contrasting opinions as is, but when you take the number of people who are actually making an effort to educate themselves, we see the filter bubble in its entirety. Reflecting on the final article/broadcast, ["The Echo Chamber Revisited"](https://www.wnyc.org/story/143347-echo-chamber-revisited/), all of this comes to a climax with multiple viewpoints on the matter. Extremism and demonization of disagreements, the need for technological literacy, and the yielding of different results based on one's prior interactions: Filter bubbling is accentuated by a learning internet that refuses to provide something we might not be immediately attracted to.


But what does this have to do with simply filtering your email? Well, a lot, actually. For starters, if you prioritize this filter, you're blocking out possible information that could be received through a more standard inbox, similar to how our computers and the algorithms within display different results based on our behavior. It is our job, to utilize these filters well, but not gift them the role of a brick wall: obscuring every possible thing we may see and only displaying a percentage of the picture. It is our job to utilize the web; but to also be conscious of its shortcomings.

## Adblocking

### Installing an Adblocker

An ad blocker does exactly what its namesake suggests: It blocks ads. For this assignment, I have chosen a common website that is known to use a lot of ads. This [Daily Mail](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7623331/Country-singer-Ned-LeDouxs-two-year-old-daughter-chokes-death-family-home-Kansas.html) article was initially flooded with ads:


Upon viewing this page, I would say roughly 50% of this snapshot is ads only, masking the content of the article. To fix this issue, I installed uBlock to block out some of the unnecessary banners and content I don't need to see, and the results speak for themselves:


As you can see, the amount of ads has shrunk astronomically, with less clutter blotting out the edges of the screen. Yes, there are still ads like the various Daily Mail accounts on the right side of the screen, but overall, the site is much easier on the eyes. I will be sure to continue using this in the future.

### Online Advertising

Online advertising can be a great way for a company/organization to begin to market themselves. However, with the invention and adoption of adblockers on most computers, it is getting harder and harder for sites to actively generate revenue and stay operational. Who pays to keep the websites of the web running when no one's ads are making money? Despite using an adblocker myself, I feel that it harms the web's ability to function and operate. I believe that ads should not be so easy to block, as it may harm the web's ability to function in the long run.


On the other side of the fence, according to the [Guardian](http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/16/major-sites-new-york-times-bbc-ransomware-malvertising), some sites have had their ads hijacked so that these ads are now malicious in nature. For example, according to the source, a hospital in LA had their hard drives frozen by one such ad, and ended up having to pay **$17,000** to gain control back. This is one of the primary arguments for the utilization of adblockers as it prevents the unfortunate consequences of accidentally being exposed to this kind of malware.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Vkjekr6jacg" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

But it still begs the question, how do sites make money if adblockers are still commonly used? Well, one [adblocker](https://www.theverge.com/2016/9/13/12890050/adblock-plus-now-sells-ads) is experimenting with this. According to Jacob Kastrenakes (the author of the piece), Adblock Plus now tailors the experience by charging their customers money to replace all the bad ads with good ads, replacing the clutter with a more finely tuned experience. This is not without its issues however. According to Kastrenakes, "Acceptable ads are likely to be less valuable than the ads a publisher could otherwise display, limiting what a website can earn."


But do people enjoy having adverts targeted to them? You would think the answer to be yes, but actually most individuals say no. According to a discussion on *ZGP*, "66% of adult Americans said they do not want marketers to tailor advertisements to their interests, and when the researchers explained how ad targeting works, the percentage went up." This just shows that despite all of our attempted efforts to make an ad-experience that isn't painful for the users of the internet, people don't want ads. Whether they were targeted or spam, they want to go about their business ad-free. And because of said issue, how are sites going to make money? Well, in summary, if people continuously use adblockers, sites are going to turn to the Guardian who asks for donations to maintain its function. Or like Wikipedia, who ask for donations in place of ads. But the reality is that a small fraction of people donate, and if adblockers are readily abused, who will pay, except us for viewing the intended ads? This is why I believe people should not be allowed to block ads: To preserve the functions of the web.

## Privacy Footprints

### My Footprint

In the Golden Age of the Internet, anyone can see anything about anyone. Especially yourself! So much of what we say or do can be found on the internet. Take me for example!


Luckily, my presence online isn't too seen. Looking up my name in the news or [images](https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS807US807&biw=1536&bih=705&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=1OjEXfCIJ4SyggeUm4b4CA&q=jacob+barrett&oq=jacob+barrett&gs_l=img.3..0l2j0i24l8.22813.22938..23171...0.0..0.61.121.2......0....1..gws-wiz-img.......0i30.9PHhIXNkkOA&ved=0ahUKEwjwwtrN3dnlAhUEmeAKHZSNAY8Q4dUDCAc&uact=5) returns few if any results of my person. Even more so, I could not find myself after some hefty searching on Intellius. The only video I could find of myself is the following after some hefty digging:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/fVywPw7NveA" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

But what does my BROWSER know about me? Well, almost everything. According to [webkay](https://webkay.robinlinus.com/), my computer knows a multitude of things, like that I am logged into Facebook, my OS, my plugins, and that I have a Flickr account, which is concerning considering I didn't even know that.

Following that, Google Chrome, my primary browser, documents so much of what I do. From my [Search Activity](https://myactivity.google.com/myactivity?hl=en&utm_source=google-account&utm_medium=web) to my [Ad Settings](https://adssettings.google.com/authenticated?hl=en), Google has a lot of info about me. The cookies they've collected about me gives way to a variety of ads they can tailor to me, as well as knowing exactly what I've looked up. However, they don't have as much as my social media accounts. While nothing there is poor in taste or content, there is some less professional content. For example, my profile picture on Facebook is me eating a slice of pizza in a funny way. Imagine if a Co-op employer saw that! Which is why I try to limit my online presence to avoid awkward interactions.


### Privacy

In modern society, data is king. It is a very strong method of forming capital, where companies such as Facebook sell consumer data like phone numbers. Yet, most of the time, these are disclosed behind the small print and terms and conditions agreements. We don't know what we are giving up until it's gone. In Cara McGoogan's article "How did Facebook get my number? And why is it giving my name out to strangers?", McGoogan noticed how Facebook was able to gain access to people's numbers despite not being supplied directly by the person. McGoogan laters finds out: "Based on what the company told me, it's almost impossible to stop it knowing your phone number. If you haven't given it to Facebook directly, the service can retrieve it from a variety of places, including the number stored in the phone or tablet that you're using, your mobile operator, or if you provided it at some point in the past."


There are also other ways such as tapping into your friends' address books and finding you. It just goes to show how subconsciously our devices are finding our info and considering what information could be available (credit cards, etc), this could be very dangerous.

However, there are ways to strengthen our online protection. Brian Kernighan from DIsForDigital.net proposes several ways on how to protect your privacy. One such way is to be more conscious of our cookies and our presence online. Cookies put simply are packets of data saved by our computers to estimate our preferences online. These can come in the form of targeted ads to certain individuals so that the possibility of interaction is maximized. One such way to avoid this, suggested by Kernighan, is to clear your cookies or be more wary of them. Another way of doing this is by simply using incognito mode, meaning cookies can't be saved, so your browser will not remember any details about you.

Additionally mentioned by Kernighan, some information we have is plainly public, and there is nothing to be done about that. But when it comes to the web, when we have the ability to control the footprint we leave, we may as well exercise as much caution as we can.