Who Am I? ... Simon Eames 33628961

Simon Eames
33628961

Firstly it must be said that I use Facebook as a portal site to all my other social networking sites. I have windows on Facebook containing the information I wish to share. I appreciate the effect this has on the questions raised here, but will not be exploring the reasons behind this further.

Who Am I…

And How Do I Control It?

The goal of this article is to answer some questions and ideas I’ve experienced through using social computing tools and applications. The focus to be looked at is how representations of ourselves are controlled using social computing applications and which representations of ourselves, virtual or real world, are effected. How our images are controlled is explained through reputation management with examples. The examples contrast my usages of Last.fm and Twitter to explore the effect the information we choose to share on our image. In the same manner, social etiquette is used to examine the effects our actions have on these representations. Experiences in Facebook is used to demonstrate the effect of our actions.

Once the reasoning behind how representations are created is explored, the image we project this representation onto in analyzed. The type of information shared and the actions we perform determines the persona we project the image to. A clear path of information is presented showing the path of how we define out image through to who the image is extend to. This picture summarizes the article;

How do I control my image in the virtual world?

Reputation Management

Reputation management is controlling how people see us. It is the control of a projected image, in this case, to an online community. What we decide to show, share and express decides how others view us. I believe that how we control this information must be considered and our control methods must be justified.

Social computing tools have many methods to allow for controlling what user-defined information people see about us. Facebook can be setup to publish information but the level of interaction by the user will change the user’s control over their reputation. I control my reputation actively using Twitter, whereas I do not perform any actively control for my Last.fm account. My reputation is effected by both Twitter and Last.fm, but my chosen level of control is different for each applications.

My usage of Last.fm is simple. A window on Facebook displays my five recently played tracks. I have Last.fm scrobbling “My Music” folder. No new interaction from me is required. I love the simplicity of the control method. I did go through a detailed decision process to set the control level. This contrasts with my method of control for Twitter. Twitter has a display on my Facebook page showing my last Twitter update. It differs in that, no decision process was undertaken to setup the application. The main difference between the controls is that I can choose to use a complex decision process when updating it or not. I review exactly what I want published on Twitter. The limited characters available in Twitter reinforce this. Once the text is decided upon, it is a simple process to publish.

The justification behind the processes is important to understand how I use these applications for reputation management. My Last.fm control setup is based around having a small number of track which constantly change. This method reduces the chance of people reading into the information displayed and receiving an image of myself that I do not want portrayed. I distance myself from the application and hence reduce the applications control over my image. With Twitter, I actively try to change the image of myself. Messages are either direct, simple and clear, such as “Simon is working tonight in hospitality.” or abstract and difficult to extrapolate personal information, such as “Simon is recovering.”. This way I choose to project an image that can be understood or not.

It is though definition of these controls and deciding what to include, that I managed part of my reputation online. By justifying the choices make, I control how people see me. Controlling this information is similar in the “real world” to personal appearance. We knowingly present an image through what we wear. The other side of the coin is the image we choose to show through our actions.

Social Etiquette

People’s actions effect how people think of them. Our social graces play an important role in how the world sees us and therefore plays an important role in management of an online persona.

Having no previous experience with most social computing applications, I had difficulty understanding the finer points of communication. This is especially true while using Facebook. In the real world, if I walk past someone I have not see for five years and did not consider a friend, I would not pause. If they said hi, I would say hi back, but not want to see pictures of their family.

The same interaction has occurred to me on Facebook. One person has contacted me with a Friend Notification. I denied their friendship. Even after this denial, they repeated sending me befriending notifications. As a result, I remembered the instances when that person was forceful, or the reasons we were not close.

Contrastingly, a person I was equally indifferent to sent me a personal message and not a friend request. The note was simple, “Long time, How’s things?”. This note without the friend request follows what I would consider normal social etiquette. I remembered instances of how polite the person was. After messaging back and forth for a while, they mention a mutual acquaintance. I replied saying I have some photos of the acquaintance and sent a Friend Request. The request was accepted.

In both these interactions, the other persons and I are controlling our images through our actions. In the first example, an image of interaction for the sake of interaction was presented to me and in the latter, an image of interaction for a reason was presented. I do not presume to know what image I presented to the other people.

In respect to the technology, only through Facebook could both these interactions occur easily. The technology allows both good and bad impressions to be made without difficulty. I cannot say it is the technology that shapes how people see us. The technology only shapes the method we choose to present ourselves.

But who am I controlling?

Virtual vs. Personal

Presented here are 2 viewpoints, one about the information we share and other about the actions we choose to perform. Both examples show that we can control the impression we give off. Reputation management in the first example relates to the ability of us to choose the level of control we use. Social etiquette shows the image we present is a result of how people interpret our actions. The next step is to examine the actual image being affected.

On reflection of what information I choose to share using little control, for example my Last.fm details, projects an image about myself personally. I chose to share the information related to Last.fm because to simple and accurate. The information being shared reflects me in the real world. When I look at information shared in this format it is commonly reflecting events in people’s lives in the real world. Therefore, the image, which people project to, is the real life personality, not the virtual personality.

Applications where my chosen level of control is high, like Twitter, the persona to which the image is projected depends on the actual information being shared. For abstract information, the virtual image is the recipient. If the information shared is abstract there is not point of personal reference to me personally, to which the representation can be attached. This results in my virtual self being described by the information. Conversely, if the information is specific, the information shared has enough meaning and description to describe what I am doing in the real world. People reading the information understand that a virtual self could not perform the description. Hence, since the virtual self is unable to be described by the information it is my personal self that receives the projection.

When people’s actions are the basis for the representation to be attached, I believe that the virtual self receives the information. Since all interactions are virtual for this case, it is simple for me to attach the actions to the virtual self. My view of people’s social etiquette is a dynamic image. My view of a person’s social etiquette will be effect by the situation and interaction in which the actions occur. Since the interaction has occurred online, I ascribe the image I have created from their actions to their online persona. Similarly, the image of a person I receive in the real world is attached to the person, in the real world. The implications of this is that the image created is dependent on the environment on which it occurs.

And for review

Control creates an Image, an Image is then projected

To review the ideas presented;

This article talks about how using differing levels of control will effect the image we project. Using little control, in my experience, allows for a restricted image to be created. With high control, the created image can be more control and tailored to an image if want. The article also looked at the effects our action have on creating an image. Particularly, I feel the difference between what I consider normal social etiquette and peoples etiquette online. The version of myself, either virtual or real life, to which the created image is projected and the reasoning behind the assignment explained.

In summary, the what we share and the way we do it effect how people think of both our virtual and real world selves.

Simon Eames
33628961

Note's From sre: The interaction described here is based in a social setting. In relation to work/uni related contact I believe anything goes. Let's flame ppl :)