Talk:Debates in Digital Culture 2019/Online Disinhibition

This page is your Essay Discussion Page. It is where you will document planning, logistics, decision-making, delegation of tasks, reading annotations, and so on for your Collaborative Essay class project. Please think carefully about how you will manage and organise this page. Don't forget to keep logged in when contributing to the discussion, and sign each contrib with the four tildes (~) markup. This will form the basis for a good chunk of available marks for this project, so please do contribute regularly and consistently. GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 13:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Online Disinhibition- Initial/General Discussion

Hi everyone, I think the first step to this page would be organising, so we make a contents list and then add headings for each of those. For instance, one section would be annotated bibliography and this would be where everyone adds their comments about their readings. We can alphabetically order this to make it even more clear. Does anyone know how to make a contents list to start? Jade144 (discuss • contribs) 12:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I am in agreement, I think that the organisation is key to making this project easier in order to make a good essay. I think I have an understanding on how the contents works so will try and do that now. What do you think we should have in the contents page? Tessanotyourseminar (discuss • contribs) 12:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jade144: Hi Jade, I agree we should make a contents list to make organising our work easier. Stuarta11 (discuss • contribs) 12:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I meant to ask in the Lab, does anyone know when the next individual Wikibooks assignment is? Tessanotyourseminar (discuss) 13:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Tessanotyourseminar: I've asked Greg on his user discussion page whether Wiki exercise #2 is this week or next week because the brief for the Wiki exercises and the 'assessments at a glance' file on Canvas both said different dates? So hopefully he'll reply and let us know on there. Seanmcb2 (discuss • contribs) 15:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Seanmcb2: Hi there, thank you very much, shall see in the upcoming days. Tessanotyourseminar (discuss • contribs) 18:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I have tried to make this easy to understand and read through however please do change any of the contents headings etc, thanks. Tessanotyourseminar (discuss) 13:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi! I agree with what you guys have said about making a contents list to try and make this easier. I have done a bit of research into the topic and it seems that there is a lot of different sections we could include which is good! Some of the sections I thought would be useful are: a general overview of the theme, a section on Suler's six factors of Online Disinhibition, a section on benign and a section on toxic disinhibition, the impacts of it, a section on the theories (e.g. Theory of reduced social cues or the Social Identity Model), maybe a section on self-control as this seems to be referenced a lot when speaking about the topic, maybe the importance on social cues (e.g. eye contact) and how lack of it makes online disinhibition more likely. I think it would be good to look at both the positive and negative impacts of online disinhibition. We could maybe even look for examples through sites such as YouTube. I feel this would be good in relation to the idea that many YouTubers have often said they feel more confident speaking about themselves online than they do in person. Obviously these are just ideas and we don't have to use them all or any of them. But when doing research these were the things that seemed to come up the most and so I thought they might be quite useful. I like how you have laid it out so far in terms of bibliography, planning, delegation of tasks, and general questions. I think that would be the easiest way to organise this so it doesn't get too confusing! But yeah, what I've written above is just some ideas about possible sections we could include, what do you guys think? BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 17:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@BeccaWithFreckles: Hi there! wow i'm impressed by your research of the topic already, I agree that Suler's six factors of Online Disinhibition should be looked into as this research seems to be really influential within this topic, so after the general contents I think adding sections on what you said, such as a section for toxic/negative and benign/positive etc. would be a great move forward in organising this page. I also like the idea of integrating current modern examples from mass medias like Youtube or social media platforms as this would allow for exploring examples that could prove and further the academic research - as long as the main focus is still from peer-reviewed work. Jade144 (discuss • contribs) 17:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jade144: Hi! Yeah I completely agree about making sure it is still focused from peer-reviewed work. Because there are six factors, they could possibly be split up amongst members? Depending on how many sections we decide to include in the essay, we could take on a couple of sections each? I also think that it would be a good idea to keep it - at least in the beginning - slightly open. What I mean by that is if we are doing research into a particular section and come across a theory or idea which we have not included but feel would be really valuable, we could maybe suggest it on here and see if people would be happy with adding it in as an extra section? Obviously we don't want to overload ourselves, but because there is so much to cover in this topic, I feel it would be good to make our research as broad as possible! If that make sense... BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 17:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@BeccaWithFreckles: Yeah makes sense. Definitely think keeping it open during at least this week of research would be a good idea and by this time next week narrow it down into what we think is the most important. What does everyone else think? and yes taking a few sections each could help us get through more so i'm for doing that approach too. Jade144 (discuss • contribs) 19:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi everyone! I totally agree with your proposal on how to structure this essay. We should definitely analyze Suler's six factors of Online Disinhibition and provide in depth information on how benign and toxic disinhibition are created seperately. I have done a little research myself as well and I noticed that there is plenty of information on this topic, which will be very beneficial for us. A question I would like to raise is whether each group will have to submit their own essay or are we going to sumbit one, contributed by all members assesed to this topic. Please let me know. AlwaysCarryingBagpack (discuss • contribs) 20:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@AlwaysCarryingBagpack: Hi! I think that everyone will be working together to create one essay rather than each group doing one individually. So I think the best way to go about it would be for everyone to think about which area they are the most interested in and then maybe in the planning section write this section along with your name and we can go from there in terms of assigning members to different sections? What do you guys think? Obviously if you are working on a section and whilst researching find something that ties in really well with another section then this would be a great place to share that! And if that does happen, you could maybe tag the person who is working on that section so that they can have a look at whatever information you've found? Obviously we will work on our own sections, but it would definitely be good to keep the other sections in mind when researching so that we can all help each other out! But yeah, what do you guys think? :) BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 21:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I was just having another look at some sites, and I realised I forgot to mention that for a section, we could maybe look at examining the causes that lead to Online Disinhibition. The site that I am currently looking at is talking about how social influence is important as well as environmental dimensions. We could also look at the role that the absence of social cues play as I feel this would be really beneficial. So for example, lack of eye contact. This could be interesting and again, we could split this up into sub-sections and divide them amongst members of the group? Obviously we don't want to overload ourselves, but it is good to know that there are lots of things we could include so we will never be short of information! BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 21:32, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@BeccaWithFreckles: Yes I totally agree with you we should all collaborate since this is a collaborative essay and not focus 100% on our own section. Of course there are a lot of themes to choose from in this topic which is very convenient. I suggest that each of us upploads whatever is included in their reading list so that other people can benefit as well. I also found a very interesting research on toxic disinhibition and how it is created and one of the factors is exactly what you mentioned, lack of eye contact, as well as anonymity and invisibility. I will provide a link at the 'useful external links' section. AlwaysCarryingBagpack (discuss • contribs) 21:59, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi guys! So I had an idea this morning, however I am not entirely sure if we would actually be allowed to carry it out so I might have to ask Greg about it. Basically, I wondered what you guys thought of using a site such as SurveyMonkey to create a survey that includes questions about online behaviours. So for example, we could have a question about whether people feel more comfortable online, or how often people feel they witness toxic disinhibition and how they respond - if at all - to witnessing this? I thought this would maybe be a good idea because it means we have created our own source of evidence. If we are allowed to do this, we could maybe all share the survey on our own personal social media platforms and also provide a link to the results on the page as well as an analysis section on our findings? Like I said, I am not sure if this will be possible as there may be ethical issues with it. Obviously it would all be anonymous, but I think it would maybe be best to check with Greg first before we do anything with it. However, I just wanted to get an idea as to whether or not it would be something you guys were interested in pursuing? If so, I will email Greg later today and then let you guys know what he says in response. But yeah, what do you guys think? :) BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 11:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@BeccaWithFreckles: Hi, I think it would be nice to do something like that in order to provide some more insights of the themes and show we have engaged more with the essay by doing our own study but I am not pretty sure if Greg is going to allow it since we need to provide academic peer reviewed resources and not our own thinkings. However I think this is a very clever approach and I believe you should ask him whatever his answer is going to be. By the way did anybody figure out if the annotated bibliography assignment is due to the 9th or the 22nd? AlwaysCarryingBagpack (discuss • contribs) 12:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@BeccaWithFreckles: I think that's a really great way of taking initiative of the topic but I think the ethics of doing that and the fact it isn't peer reviewed will maybe lead to it being denied, but yeah ask anyways no harm in that. If it is a yes it would be an interesting addition to our main bulk of peer-reviewed discussion for sure. Jade144 (discuss • contribs) 13:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@AlwaysCarryingBagpack: Hey, on the module handbook and the 'assessments at a glance' document on canvas, they both say 22nd so I was going to follow that, unless anyone has heard anything else? Jade144 (discuss • contribs) 13:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@AlwaysCarryingBagpack: and @Jade144: Yeah that makes sense! Obviously if we are allowed to do this, it would only ever be an addition as you've said. I'm not very positive that we will be allowed to do it, but I will ask anyway and if we are, I don't mind creating the survey. If we do go along with it, we could perhaps maybe also use this space to brainstorm questions we could ask? But yeah, this would only ever be an addition. Just thought it might be quite interesting to look into if we are permitted to! Will let you guys know. BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 13:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jade144: Hi, I have emailed Greg and waiting for his response. It is going to be on the 22nd probably because the Wikibook Project document says Friday 9th of March and 9th of March is on this Saturday. I'll let you guys know as soon as I get a response. AlwaysCarryingBagpack (discuss • contribs) 14:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi guys! So I emailed Greg. He thought it was a good idea, but unfortunately there are ehtical issues with it as I thought which are unlikely to be approved in time. So he said that just focusing on peer-reviewed sources is probably our best bet. However, he did say that this technique could be used for other projects in the future so it might be good to keep in mind. As for the essay, where are we at in terms of delegating tasks? I think that should definitely be our next step so that everyone is clear about what they are doing/focusing on. Does anyone have any preference on what they would like to work on? Also, how should the topic be divided into sections? Are we happy with the ideas we have already put forward in the planning section or can anyone think of anything they'd like to change/add? BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 14:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi everyone! So I'm thinking maybe we could take these specific topics that we could talk about in the essay and possibly begin to think of a thesis statement of sorts? Just so we can all be clear of the specific goals and argument of the essay that we can use so we can make sure to link everything together and make sure it's all relevant to the main argument? I think it can be quite difficult to narrow all this information down into a small essay so it could be useful to do this so we have something to reference if anyone begins to feel like they're veering off topic? Just a suggestion, so would love to hear your guys' input! Seanmcb2 (discuss • contribs) 15:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@Seanmcb2: Hi Sean! I think coming up with a thesis statement is a really good idea and would be really beneficial in terms of making things clearer. Although this topic is great because there is so much to talk about, like you said there is the danger of veering off topic if we are not completely certain as to what we are collectively working towards. Does anyone have an idea of what the thesis statement could be? I feel like maybe it would be good if we could have each section linking back to perhaps something like the causes of online disinhibition and then perhaps tie this in with digital culture as a whole. So we could perhaps link it in with how with the online community continuing to develop at at alarming rate, Online Disinhibition is something we are becoming less and less aware of as time goes on because it is just turning into a normal aspect of the online communicative experience? Sorry if that doesn't make sense, or is completely on the wrong track, but that was an idea that sprang to mind for me. What do you guys think? Look forward to hearing all your ideas! Once we come up with this, we can then look at assigning roles and moving forward. BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 15:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@BeccaWithFreckles: Well, in doing some of the reading on the resource list, there is a lot of reference to older psychoanalytical theory (Freud, psychoanalysis and psychodynamic theory). So maybe a possible idea would be to analyse how discourse of online disinhibition is utilising and adapting older theories of psychology to try and explain how these theories fit into the relatively new online world and include specific examples regarding trolling, catfishing etc? Of course this might rely a little too much on description and maybe a little too focused on the psychology and veering off into psychology project territory? Seanmcb2 (discuss • contribs) 16:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Thinking of a thesis idea is a great way to start, I like your idea @BeccaWithFreckles: of people being less and less aware of their own online disinhibition because I think it is true. I was looking into the resource list for this and next week and kind of got the idea that maybe we could look into how our toxic online disinhibition is actually affecting the ‘real’ world and causing harmful effects on people outside of the virtual reality environment. This would also, in a way, tie into Sean's idea of catfishing and trolling in regards to cyberbullying. There are many academic articles available that discuss cyberbullying effects and causes that would really outline toxic disinhibition in a wider context. This idea would allow us to investigate why people think and feel it is okay to act this way online; when they wouldn’t in ‘real’ life (which would tie in Suler’s 6 factors and a few more articles such as the 2012 article called Effects of anonymity, invisibility, and lack of eye-contact on toxic online disinhibition). We could also explore the consequences of such acts of toxic online disinhibition by relating to current mass media stories, such as, if anyone has faced legal repercussions because of their flaming behaviour to another person online. Furthermore, if we needed to add more balance there is an article that I saw (will read soon) that is called Teens using Twitter to Challenge “Rape Culture” in and Around School written by Jessica Ringrose and Kaitlynn Mendes that discusses teens using twitter not as a site for cyberbullying but to actually confront this type of toxic online disinhibition behaviour: raising awareness to it's harmful effects. Sorry, I may have went into a rant here but I hope I got across how I think this focus on toxic Online disinhibition in regards to production of ‘real’ life suffering/pain would be an engaging aspect of the topic to focus on. Anyways let me know what you think, this again is just a suggestion, so feel free to shoot me down if it isn’t something that interests you guys. Thanks Jade144 (discuss • contribs) 17:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@Seanmcb2: and @Jade144: I think both of your ideas sound great! It would definitely be really useful to try and link the concept of Online Disinhibition into older theories as well as looking and the implications that such behaviour has on our everyday lives when we are not online. I feel there are a lot of examples of real stories in the news which we could utilise for this. Just thinking off the top of my head, I know that many YouTubers have gotten themselves into hot water within the last year or two for the content that they uploaded online. Not necessarily in regards to trolling or cyberbullying, however in relation to the idea that when one acquires a substantial following on a platform such as this one, they become more prone to act on impulse rather than think about the consequences. They also, with this publicity/power seem to think of themselves as untouchable. This could be linked into perhaps the idea that the lack of authority figures online means people almost forget there is such a thing as consequences. Another avenue we could possibly explore is how control over online disinhibition has changed in recent years. I read something the other day which talked about how before, when people came forward saying they had been abused online many authority figures didn't take it seriously because they didn't see the online space as 'real'. However, it seems that although there are still issues here, people are becoming more aware of just how serious cyberbullying and trolling can be. I also read that lots of platforms are trying to make it mandatory that the user puts forward their real name to try and overrule the idea of being anonymous which is thought of as a key influencer for disinhibition - especially toxic disinhibition. It seems then that a lot of these ideas really do link in together and so once we have decided who is doing what, we can come up with a plan to see in which order they flow best. Has anyone had any thought on the area they would like to work on? I feel that is probably the best thing for us to do next. I don't mind looking into any of these areas. I am quite interested in looking at either (or both) the causes and impacts of online disinhibition. I would also be more than happy to take on one of Suler's six factors as I find this really interesting. Or any theories behind it. Basically, I am happy to do whatever! However, I do feel it would be beneficial if this is what we tackle next so that everyone can get a clear idea of what they need to be looking for in order for us to begin making progress. I look forward to hearing what you guys have to say and working with you all! :) BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 18:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey @Jade144:, @Seanmcb2: and @BeccaWithFreckles:. I found all of your ideas very interesting and we should definitely link Online Disinhibition to previous topics on this module as it would be a good way to show our engagement in general. We could possibly connect the notion of always on to some of Suler's factors such as the dissociative imagination or the fact that some people feel more as their real selves when being online (I think Sherry Turkle in her book was discussing about several cases were people felt that way). I think we should of course give an outline and discuss benign and toxic disinhibition. We could maybe emphasize more on the toxic part as from what I have noticed most of the research is arround that area and contradicts computer mediated communication with face to face interaction. I would be very interested to work on the toxic disinhibition part but also on any of Suler's factors, I guess we will work this out. In order to make the delegation of tasks somehow easier I suggest each of us posts three areas in which they are most interested in at the 'delegation of tasks' section. What do you guys think? AlwaysCarryingBagpack (discuss • contribs) 22:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Another thing, I checked the final draft of the groups and I think there should be 12 people on the Online Disinhibition topic but from what we can all see there are only six of us in the contributors' list. Do you guys believe that we should wait for the rest of the people? I personaly suggest that we assign topics by Friday so that each one can begin with their part in order to make any progress and also give a little more time for the rest to catch up. Let me know what you guys think. AlwaysCarryingBagpack (discuss • contribs) 22:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@AlwaysCarryingBagpack: I think posting two or three areas we are interested in on the delegation section will work. after (hopefully) everyone has answered we can all make sure there isn't too many people working on one thing so that we will have as much range as possible and then we can just begin research and bring in what we find to share with everyone. I agree that Friday is a good date too Jade144 (discuss • contribs) 23:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@AlwaysCarryingBagpack: and @Jade144: Yeah I agree! If everyone could put down the areas they would like to work on and then we can take it from there. I also like what you said about linking it into other themes from throughout the module such as the ideas put forward by Sherry Turkle. I will have another look over the possible areas and then post the ones I would like to work on tomorrow morning if that's alright. I'll be in uni for most of the day tomorrow so I can try and get going with some more research and I will share whatever I find that I think might be useful on here. BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 23:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@AlwaysCarryingBagpack:, @Jade144:, @BeccaWithFreckles: and @Stuarta11: I do think we should wait until everyone is signed up to the list of contributors on the discussion page as we really need to know numbers and what everyone feels comfortable discussing specifically for their part of the essay. In looking at the project groups file on Canvas it seems we're missing @Diegoalbertorubiera:, @JMT1998: and @Robotmentality:, as well as someone who doesn't yet have a wiki username... Hopefully they've seen that I've @'d them and they find their way to the discussion page. I feel like if by tomorrow we still can't get a hold of the other four group members we'll have to contact Greg for advice as this means we can't really move forward with a clear plan. Seanmcb2 (discuss • contribs) 17:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi everyone, sorry for not keeping up with the discussions. I agree we should assign topics to work on as soon as possible because the sooner we have an idea what we're writing about, the sooner we can actually make a start on the essay. I would be interested in researching the positive aspects of online disinhibition such as the forums being a platform for people to discuss mental health issues freely. Sorry if I've said anything you've already discussed. Stuarta11 (discuss • contribs) 12:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey @Seanmcb2: I think you are right on waiting for the rest of the people, but if by tomorrow (let's say 12pm) they have not shown up we should probably consult Greg on what to do further. Since this is a 3000 words essay and we are around 12 or 11 people does this mean that we will have to wright around 300 words each? Because that seems very short to me, what do you guys think? AlwaysCarryingBagpack (discuss • contribs) 20:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey @AlwaysCarryingBagpack: I think it is only around 3000 words for all of us, i was a little confused if it was 3000 words per group? Do we know for sure its 3000 words in total for the topic alone? I know it seems very short but I think that because we are all contributing and helping each other on this page that we're all still working a lot towards the essay anyways. Any paragraph posted by one person will be revised and given feedback on from another 2 or 3 people if you know what I mean? So it should work out either way hopefully. The real struggle will be planning to make sure everyone's paragraphs link into everyone else's and that it flows as one essay. We'll tackle that as it comes I suppose, but yeah I definitely see where you're coming from, it does seem like a challenge. Jade144 (discuss • contribs) 23:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey guys! Yeah I agree with what you have all said. I feel our best bet would be to reach out to Greg and see if he can give us any advice. I think we need to try and come up with a good plan as a starting point. By doing this, we can maybe get a better idea as to how different section could possibly connect and flow with each other. I also wondered if maybe, because it is a collaborative piece, if someone writes a paragraph, we could dedicate a space somewhere on this page for them to post it initially before submitting it to the essay section. That way, people can make comments/tweak any areas they think need re-working. That way, everyone is clear on what has already been covered, what still needs to be covered and so there is less likely to be any overlap in ideas. I think it will be amazing if we can get all of the sections to flow into each other as that will obviously make a great essay. However, I feel we should definitely work to ensure that there is no repetition. What do you guys think? Or do you have any other ideas about how we could handle this? I have also spent the last few hours looking into some theories that tie in with Online Disinhibition. Like the one I posted in the Annotated Bibliography section below yesterday, I feel that these would be really useful for the essay and so i was going to suggest that looking into psychological theories and their application to this topic might be of great benefit to the project overall. The book I have been using is Robert Moore's 'Cybercrime: Investigating high-technology computer crime." There is a whole lot of stuff in this book - not just theories - which I think would be of great help to our theme. Therefore, if there are still any copies left in the library I would highly recommend having a look into them. I will add one of the theories I just read into the annotated bibliography section now, as I have just found one that ties in with quite a few of the ideas put forward by Suler. Therefore, I feel it would be really great in terms of helping the essay flow nicely. If it is okay with everyone on here, I am more than happy to do some further digging into these theories, as well as look for other ones that might work? I will also get in touch with Greg to see what advice he can give us about how we should move forward. But yeah, does anyone have any ideas as to how we could structure the essay? If so do you want to maybe put your ideas in the document planning section. They don't have to be finalised or anything, but I think that would be a good start as then others can chip in and say whether they are happy with it or if they think anything should be taken out/added. Or if you have another way you think would be better to try and organise that please say too! Sorry if that was a bit of a tangent, but just a few ideas that I have had! Also, one last thing (sorry), is everyone that has so far commented on the delegation of tasks section happy to start researching these areas? I know not everyone in the group has commented yet, but even if we make a start and see what we can find, we can work out the rest later? I think it wouldn't be such a bad thing to have more than one person looking into a specific section anyway as someone might always come across something you didn't. That is why I think we should have a section on here were we can post proposals to ensure that there is no overlap. It also means that if you have too researched that area, you might feel there is something you could bring forward that would make that section of the essay evens stronger! Hope that makes sense... I'd love to know what you guys think! (sorry for the VERY long post) BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 14:12, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey @BeccaWithFreckles:, I totally agree with your proposal to create sections on the discussion page so we can upload draft pieces of the essay and everyone can give an evaluation and help each other out as well as to link the different pieces of work in order to make sense. For me, since I am not a native speaker, it would be very beneficial to here your comments and get any advice on vocabulary and grammar structure. I think that each one of us should start with what they have mentioned they are interested in. I believe nobody's choices overlap with the others'? We should begin with the essay as soon as possible because it would be great to finish, let's say 5 days before the deadline, so that we have time for any further editing. I was about to email Greg on if we should move forward or not, but since you mentioned it believe that you have made contact. Now on the structure of the essay I should say that I am very satisfied with what you have proposed. The only thing I would possibly change is mentioning toxic and benign disinhibition first and then the six factors. I am saying this because whoever decides to write about any of the factors will definitely mention how they are related to toxic and benign disinhibition, so it would be nice to give the reader information about what forms can online disinhibition take before mentioning these (six factors). Let me know if you agree with this and I hope we soon begin with the process. AlwaysCarryingBagpack (discuss • contribs) 14:45, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

@AlwaysCarryingBagpack: Hi! You make some really good points. I think aiming to finish 5 days before is a great goal as like you said, it means we have plenty of time to go over what we have created and then see what needs to be done - if anything - to make it better. I will get in touch with Greg and will let you guys know what he says as soon as he responds. I also agree with your suggestion about changing the order of the essay sections so that benign and toxic disinhibition are mentioned first. That makes a lot of sense and I feel it would really help make the essay flow better, whilst also making it easier for people to understand! But yeah, let's all just start looking into the sections we are interested in and, if we create anything, we can post it here for peer-evaluation and then decide collaboratively where would be best to slot it in with regards to the essay. Does anyone know how to make an extra section on here that could be used for this purpose? I am not entirely sure how to do it and I worry that if I try I will erase something important! Can't wait to see what everyone comes up with :) BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 14:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

@BeccaWithFreckles: Great, I am glad we agree, I would like to hear what everyone else has to possibly add. I will create a different section and name it "Draft Essay" write under the discussion section. I think it would be best, in order to clearly tell them apart, when someone posts any piece of writing to give a short title written in bold characters. AlwaysCarryingBagpack (discuss • contribs) 15:23, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I think planning to get the essay completed ahead schedule is a great idea. I think Greg said we should draft the essay onto the "book" section where the final essay goes as it prevents this section from becoming overloaded but I may be wrong. I think we are able to go back and edit any section if changes are needed to be made. Stuarta11 (discuss • contribs) 16:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

@BeccaWithFreckles:, @AlwaysCarryingBagpack: and @Stuarta11: Yea, I remember Greg suggesting that we actually do the essay draft in the book section of the page and continually edit and we go rather than put in in the discussion page. So that may be a better option? Sounds like a good plan so far though! Seanmcb2 (discuss • contribs) 16:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

@Stuarta11:, @Seanmcb2: Yea guys you are right, now I remembere he did say this. So do you want me to delete the Draft essay section and proceed with any writings on the book section? AlwaysCarryingBagpack (discuss • contribs) 16:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

@Stuarta11:, @Seanmcb2: and @AlwaysCarryingBagpack: Oh yeah you guys are right! Perfect, we can add it all in there. I don't know if maybe it would still be worth keeping the section you made and we could use it for any concerns we have about structure. So not necessarily posting paragraphs we have written, but maybe we could use it if we are not sure how to word something or what to write? Obviously we don't have to do that and could always just raise such concerns here, but might help in terms of making things clearer so that this section doesn't get too overcrowded. What do you guys think? I haven't heard back from Greg yet, but I will let you know as soon as I do! BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 16:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey guys, i think our drafts of the essay should go on the book section as Greg said but we could still use the essay draft section for the feedback we give to each other on what they post on the book page, so any suggestions, spelling and grammar checking can be added there for the author to be able to see? It keeps it all clear and easy and saves everyone having to search in this discussion section for feedback. I agree that we can start our research on our proposed interests today and anyone who comes in a bit later can then start with their own interests or working on a expanding a section with another person. Jade144 (discuss • contribs) 17:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jade144: Hi! That is a really good idea, I think it would be great to use that section for suggestions as like you said it will keep it clear and make sure that nothing gets to confusing. Look forward to seeing what everyone comes up with! It seems like a really interesting topic with lots to explore so we have been lucky in that respect! BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 18:22, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jade144:, @BeccaWithFreckles: I really like your suggestions on this, it would be nice to have a clear space so that we don't get any confusions. Another thing I wanted to mention is, I remember on the lecture Greg saying that wiki*edia is an open knowledge platform and that we should keep a neutral point of view. Does mean that we just mention the work of scholars without arguing about a certain theme? Are we just summarising their writings? AlwaysCarryingBagpack (discuss • contribs) 18:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

@AlwaysCarryingBagpack: Oh yeah that's a good point...I think so? Yeah I think if we just aim to summarise the main arguments put forward in our findings and keep it as neutral as possible, that would probably be our best bet! Although it might be an idea to double check with Greg as although I think that is what we do, it would be good to make sure we are definitely on the right track. What I can do is, I'll ask him once he replies to my email about how we should move forward with the essay and again I will be sure to let you guys know what advice he suggests! :) BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 19:09, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

@AlwaysCarryingBagpack: @BeccaWithFreckles: Hey, i'm not 100% sure but I think that Greg was talking about Wikipedia being a platform for keeping a neutral point of view. On the other hand, Wikibooks is different because we can have an argument and put forward what we think, basically like we do in any other academic essay we write, in that we form an argument but it must be backed up and thought about from the other perspectives through acknowledgment of other peer-reviewed sources. Again, not completely sure about this but from my understanding I thought we had to make up a thesis/argument around the topic of Online Disinhibition; rather than just present what other's have said about it. If you're emailing Greg about this then i'm sure he'll clear it up though. Sorry if i'm wrong and added a bit of confusion, just thought it was worth saying in case. Jade144 (discuss • contribs) 19:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey @Jade144:, you might be right about this, no confusion added. Probably the best way to find out is to ask him. I'll send him an email asking about this, I think we will get a faster response than waiting for him to answer the first email and then asking again. By the way @BeccaWithFreckles: thanks for making all the contact with Greg up to now, we appreciate it. AlwaysCarryingBagpack (discuss • contribs) 19:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Morning guys! I came across a website last night after seeing an advert about it on the TV. It is a site called 'internet matters' and, although I haven't had the chance to properly look through it yet, I feel like it could be very useful. It has section on issues, which goes into topics such as cyberbullying, online reputation and more. It also has advice for parents/carers in terms of how to tackle these issues. Not only that, but there is a section called 'Explore' which has links to further articles, such as for example the latest Screen Time report, as well as articles on the recent Momo Challenge and the impact it has had. Like I said, i haven't had the chance to properly look through this site yet, but I thought it might be useful to share with you guys so I will leave a link below. It might not be of any help, but worth a look anyway! BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 10:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I was just checking some of the work from the "An Internet of Things?" project. I briefly read the 'Surveillance and Sousveillance' section and their essay is basically stating facts and giving mostly information on the topic. I don't think they have used a main argument or something, it is basically constructed in different sections about their topic. Here is a link to their book page Surveillance and Sousveillance. There were about 25 people working on this so that's why its so long. AlwaysCarryingBagpack (discuss • contribs) 19:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@AlwaysCarryingBagpack: Hi! Oh I'll have a look at that. Maybe we could try and highlight what we think are the strongest aspects of this topic and focus on them and then insert any extras in to strengthen the essay as a whole? I was looking briefly at that 'Internet Matters' website this morning. I haven't had the chance to look at it properly, but will look into it more this evening. It seems like it gives a lot of advice as to how to tackle some of the issues that come with the increase in cyberspace use. So I was thinking we could maybe use this at the end of our essay as a kind of round off to show some of the ways the toxic aspects of Online Disinhibition can be tackled. However, we should also look into having a section which ties in with the benign disinhibition section to show that this is not something that is all bad? I don't know if that makes sense and if you guys don't agree obviously that's completely fine! Like I said, I will have another look at the site tonight and if I find anything useful I will link it below!BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 15:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi guys! I was just wondering, how would you all feel about having a section within the essay dedicated to real life examples of the impacts of online disinhibition? I came across a few examples today of people who have been fired because of the things they have said/done online. I thought they might be beneficial in terms of putting everything into context? We could also contrast this with positive impacts such as online therapy sessions/groups? What do you guys think? Also, I was wondering when you guys wanted to start actually posting on the essay page? At the moment I kind of find it all very overwhelming and so I was just wondering if you guys had any ideas about how to tackle it? BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 19:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey guys! I just posted a link in the external links section. I found this article really interesting and I feel like it would be a really good addition to our essay if we found a way to incorporate it without going too much off topic. But i was wondering what you guys thought. If you don't think it would work please let me know! Look forward to hearing what you guys think :) BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 20:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@BeccaWithFreckles: Hi, I think that adding a section on real life examples of both toxic and benign online disinhibiton would be a really good idea that would be beneficial to our argument and discussion within the essay. Support groups online is definitely a positive aspect that i'd be interested in learning more about. This would probably connect with the idea of online communities and I think i have seen a few articles talking about the positives that these bring to people in certain contexts, such as providing safe spaces for marginalised groups. On the other hand, for a toxic example, I just read an article that mentioned some of the consequences that organisational doxing had on the people involved, which went as far as people committing suicide due to their personal data being published online. I posted an annotated bibliography of the article which goes a little more into the details of the example of the Ashley Madison scandal. I think this, or any of the examples the article uses, would fit quite well into the essay, specifically if we decide that we do want to discuss consequences of toxic online disinhibition behaviour. Doxing itself is one example of toxic online disinhibition that can be connected to other topics that we've looked at like Dataveillance and always-on, so that's another element it could tie into as well. This is the concept I have been looking into for the last few days and have found interesting so that's why i'm suggesting this, but of course any other suggestion is welcome! As for posting on the essay page, I think once we have decided on a thesis statement for the topic and have pin pointed the elements we want to add, that we could start construction of the essay itself? I'm quite overwhelmed too and I think that it's because the topic is so open right now and we don't have much direction yet, but hopefully this week we can condense and order it a bit more. You're not in this alone so don't worry too much right now, we'll get through it. I will read the article you posted asap and let you know what I think. Thanks for sharing. Jade144 (discuss • contribs) 20:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey @BeccaWithFreckles: and @Jade144:, I found all of your ideas very interesting and we should definitely consider them when starting to form the essay. Including real life examples in a section would be a great thing to do so that we could show the impacts of online disinhibition on peoples lives. I found an article about psychotherapy in cyberspace which could probably be related to online therapy/sessions of which you suggested earlier. I will link this below at the appropriate section. I 100% agree with dedicating a section on the aspects of toxic disinhibition since most of the articles I have found up to now seem to be discussing mostly about that. But of course as you said it is not only bad. I was also very interested in the deindividuation effect, self-awareness and how they are connected to online disinhibition. Joinson talks about that in one of the links I have posted (4th at the section). Take a look if you want and let me know what you think. I should admit I feel a little overwhelmed too because we miss a few people yet and I am a bit worried of how we will have to proceed if they don't show up. Hopefully this will be resolved by tomorrow with Greg's response and we will be able to start on the book page. I feel that after this week's lab session we will be able to begin the process. I have also posted a link(9th) of a research regarding the positive aspects of disinhibition for whoever is interested in that topic (one of the few that I have found). Also sorry for posting this late tonight. AlwaysCarryingBagpack (discuss • contribs) 23:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey @BeccaWithFreckles: I will give your link about positive aspects of disinhibition a read as it may be useful for the section I'm interested in writing about. As we are yet to make a start on the essay section of the project, I think it would be good to start making the outline and structure of the essay, such as how each section is going to be divided up and how many sections we plan on having. This will give us a sense of direction and rough idea of how the essay will look as a whole. Stuarta11 (discuss • contribs) 10:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi guys and happy Monday! I was just wondering if anyone had heard anything back from Greg regarding the other members of the group? Also, regarding the task of actually getting started on the draft of the essay, I'm sure we'll be able to get started this week after we work to further narrow down and refine our individual topics of interest so that it can all fit into the word limit and so it can all flow cohesively. So, does anyone have any further ideas of the general structure of the essay(E.g - what order the paragraphs will be in)? I guess one way we could structure it is to introduce the factors of disinhibition in the same order as Suler and approach it that way? As to having a section about the real-life examples of online disinhibition, we could instead briefly discuss the real-life examples in each of the paragraphs and tie a specific example to that factor of online disinhibition. This way we can use a real-life example to give context to that specific factor of the topic? I'm just thinking it may flow a little bit easier and help to give a better understanding of each separate factor individually? I hope that all makes sense. Of course, this is only a suggestion and I'm open to dedicating a separate paragraph to the real life examples. Would love to hear your thoughts. Seanmcb2 (discuss • contribs) 15:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi everyone! I think all of your ideas are really great and show that we are on the right track to creating a great essay together. I agree that after the lab tomorrow things might be a little bit clearer in terms of how to lay things out. I feel like as a general structure though, we should definitely begin by introducing the topic of online disinhibition as a whole. So that could possibly be our first section and we could divide it up accordingly depending on what we want to include in the introduction. So perhaps we could look at examples of the impacts it has had, or we could even use the introduction to show how it links into other topics within digital media (such as the ones you guys have suggested) as a whole. Or, I am not sure if this would be best left until the end... what do you think? I then think we should go into benign and toxic disinhibition and then introduce Suler's six factors? We could then have sections talking about theories that can be applied to Online Disinhibition such as the ones I referenced from the Cybercrime book? I really don't know the best way to go about this, it is all very confusing! I think maybe we should try and work on planning out each section in the document planning section below just to make it easier? As for coming up with a thesis statement, what is everyone's thoughts? Does anyone have any ideas as to what they think it could/should be. I'm really bad at coming up with thesis statements and tend to overcomplicate things. Therefore I'd love to know what you guys think! Also, does anyone know about gathering pictures as that is really confusing me! As for Greg, he responded this morning saying that as long as our groups are working together that is all that matters and that everyone else can just join in and follow on... although I am still confused as to how that works as I don't know if he means the groups we got put into in the labs or if he means just this group as a whole? I will maybe email him again asking for a bit more clarity on this as I am not quite sure what he means. But yeah, I look forward to hearing what you guys think would be a good plan/thesis statement. I think the sooner we figure this out, the sooner we will be able to relax a bit more because we will hopefully have a much clearer idea of what we are doing. BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 14:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The essay could be divided into:

1. Introduction- general background into online disinhibition and mention Suler's 6 factors
2. Causes of online disinhibition
3. Benign disinhibition
4. Toxic disinhibition
5. Dissociative anonymity
6. Invisibility
7. Asynchronicity
8. Solipsistic Introjection
9. Dissociative imagination
10. Minimisation of status and authority
11. Conclusion

With each body section having real life examples and mentioning stories/case studies showing the consequences of online disinhibition. This is just a roughly how I'd imagine it to look but I'm sure everyone else has plenty of ideas. Has anyone got any additional sections that we should include or any other ideas? Stuarta11 (discuss • contribs) 15:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Stuarta11: Hi! I think your layout looks great! I think that would make for a really strong essay and feel it definitely makes things a lot clearer. It would be great, as you've said, to incorporate real life examples into each section where appropriate as again, I feel this would help us strengthen the essay overall. My next question is, how are we going to delegate these sections? I know we have already said the areas we would be interested in working in, but I am wondering if it would be worthwhile to copy your layout into the document planning section below and have people comment their username underneath the areas they feel they would best be able to contribute to? Again, this might just make things clearer in terms of who's doing what and make things flow a bit better? This is obviously only a suggestion though. I'd love to hear what you guys think. But yeah, that plan looks great! :) BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 15:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Stuarta11: Hi, sorry haven't been on this for a few days however have been doing some research too. Having looked up some articles, I think that those categories look excellent for a very strong and structured essay. I think that with those topics we will be sure to have enough and interesting content in order to produce a great essay. I agree with @BeccaWithFreckles: in that putting this into the other section will allow clearer communication and the starting of drafts of paragraphs and then a first draft (because I don't know about you guys but I am finding it- even with the contents- very difficult to navigate around this Wikibooks page!!). Tessanotyourseminar (discuss • contribs) 16:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey everyone, it's great to see that we are slowly finding our way in begining with the essay, very interesting suggestions by all of you. @Stuarta11: I think the structure that you have proposed is perfect for this essay and very clear to comprehend. I think we should definitely follow this. I would like to make a suggestion for an extra section. Joinson in his chapter 'Disinhibition and the Internet'(4th link) has dedicated one paragraph named 'Evidence for Disinhibition' and another one named 'Empirical Evidence for Flaming'. In these sections he provides evidence from plenty of research done on this topic and also some of his own research which can be found here Joinson (2001). I believe it would be very interesting to provide some of this evidence in a different section. What do you guys think? Is this something you would be interested in? Also, I believe that we should have in mind the fact that this essay should be around 3000 words and if we have more than ten sections, each one has to be shorter than 300 words. I had also emailed Greg on Friday and he told me that this is like any other academic essay and critical argument is encouraged. AlwaysCarryingBagpack (discuss • contribs) 16:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey guys, @Stuarta11: I also think the structure you proposed is a really good plan and manages to fit basically everything we identified that we wanted to talk about in the essay, so good work! Although, as @AlwaysCarryingBagpack: said that Greg's email encouraged critical argument, I do think that we will have to make up a thesis to follow this proposal. We can still talk about everything stated but we should probably think of grounding our discussion in a way that has an overall argument and therefore point to writing it up - instead of it just being semi-repeated information. Don't know if this is something you all think is relevant too but I feel it would probably allow us a easier way to talk about the topic if we're all focused on trying to illustrate a certain point. For instance, off the top of my head, I remember seeing arguments within academic writings of the topic that mentioned how anonymity shouldn't be allowed online anymore. Of course, this will probably never be able to be made fully successful, but an argument we could look at is if we agree with this idea that anonymity online should be non-existent. This would bring in all the elements of the plan with real life examples stating why anonymity is either positive or negative (benign/toxic), and once our findings are written up within the essay, our conclusions would take account for what side of the argument we are on, or if we can propose other solutions that could minimise toxic online disinhibition while still allowing benign online disinhibition to take place. Again, this was literally just the first thing I thought of, but just wanted to illustrate why an argument would be useful with some kind of example. I find this idea of trying to get rid of anonymity interesting but it does seem unrealistic so the argument would be based more on the theoretical possibility. Anyways, let me know what you think, and if you agree that there should be an argument in the essay please feel free to add any thesis ideas you have, even if it's just the start of an idea like I just said with mine, anything to get the ball rolling. Jade144 (discuss • contribs) 18:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@AlwaysCarryingBagpack: and @Jade144: Hey guys! I think you both put forward some really interesting points that we should definitely consider moving forward. I think adding that extra section in would be really beneficial to our overall argument. I do agree that we will need to be mindful about the word limit and so I feel it might be a good idea to think about the sections which we feel should be prioritised and furthermore given the largest leeway in terms of word count. As for the thesis statement, I think that it would definitely be a smart move to come up with one as it will not only make for a stronger essay overall, but it will also be extremely helpful for us in terms of not deviating from our overall goal. I think that the one you put forward @Jade144: is a really good idea and would definitely be an interesting topic to look into. Like you said it could only be theoretical, but in a way that is a good thing as there is no clear winner. It means we can easily argue for and against and gives us a chance to kind of play with it a bit and test our own imagination/interpretations of online disinhibition as a whole. I definitely would be happy using that as a thesis statement, I think it is very strong! But if anyone else has any ideas leave them below, and I will try to think about it too. But like I said, I really do think that would be a good one to go with as it would give us a lot of space to be creative with this project. BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 19:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey @Jade144:, I think your proposal for the thesis is a very interesting subject to look into and as @BeccaWithFreckles: said this will give us a lot of space to be creative. One thing that troubles me is whether this question is to specific for our topic since it is mostly about anonymity. Of course anonymity is related to pretty much all of the other factors so we could possibly connect the whole idea of whether anonymity should exist and how this would affect them. Now that I am thinking about it again I believe we won't have any problems with this thesis, it may prove to be very fruitful for our essay. I do agree with your idea though, if everybody else agree with it I would be very happy to stick with it. Unless someone else would like to propose something more general or something different. To be honset I am not very good in finding a thesis so that's why I am not proposing anything. I will try to think of anything else that we could work on but as I said before, I would be very happy to work on what you suggested. AlwaysCarryingBagpack (discuss • contribs) 21:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I have just updated the "book" section to include the different titles of the paragraphs for the essay. Stuarta11 (discuss • contribs) 12:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey, Greg was saying that we should start the book page now so I just added a very brief introduction sentence to the concept of online disinhibition, this will be redrafted to be more concise and include academic definitions of the concept when I have more time. Jade144 (discuss • contribs) 12:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

From reading the discussion I think we have all agreed that that coming up with a solid thesis should be our next task. As this discussion section is becoming quite lengthy and messy, I think it would be good to post thesis ideas in the section of the book that @Jade144: has created. Once we have a list of suggestions we can decide in the Essay Feedback section. Stuarta11 (discuss • contribs) 13:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi guys! I think we have definitely developed a clear outline as to what our essay should look like. I agree that developing a strong thesis statement would be the best way of moving forward. I am not very good at coming up with thesis statements and tend to overcomplicate things. I think the one put forward by @Jade144: would be really interesting. I feel if we did go down the route of looking at anonymity our only issue would be making sure that this is not the only thing we focus on, and instead make sure we are constantly linking it into the other relevant factors/points. I don't know f that makes sense. I have my lab with Greg at 4:30. I am currently doing some research into the topic, and I am reading a chapter by Sherry Turkle on the topic. So far it is making some points that could be really useful/relevant, so I will let you guys know what I think of it overall once I'm finished reading it. I also wanted to ask, how are we planning on writing this essay. Should we just add stuff to the book section when we think it is relevant and we can then post a little message on here to let everyone know and they can then provide feedback? Or what do you guys think would be the best way to go about it? I am still feeling very anxious about the whole thing and I feel I would like to try and get started on something as soon as possible so that I can hopefully put my mind at rest a little bit. However, I don't want to just add to the page if we would rather everyone consulted on what will be written first so I hoped to get your opinion on this. But yeah, I think we have a good plan for a really strong essay and I am excited to see what we all manage to come up with from working together! Let me know :) BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 16:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I just saw the thesis statement that has been posted in the book section. To be honest, I think that would work really well as it is not to specific and gives us space to be quite broad/creative in terms of the essay we produce. We could maybe say something like 'With the constant developments in digital culture, Online Disinhibition is greatly impacting our behaviours and the way in which we present ourselves both on and offline." That is really rough, so please feel free to critique it. Like I said in my last post, I'm not very good at coming up with strong thesis statements. But I think the ideas that have been put forward so far are really strong and should definitely be considered. I also meant to say, if people are okay with me to begin adding to the book section, I would be happy to begin working on the section covering the causes on Online Disinhibition. But again, I will wait and see what you guys think the best way to approach this essay is. Thanks! BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 16:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey everyone! I know i haven't commented on this yet but i have been reading the discussion, i'm really liking the structure and the main points we have decided to undertake as part of this page. although i haven't commented i have been researching, I've been looking a lot at Toxic Disinhibition and basically readings and things around that, was wondering if anyone had "claimed" this part as i don't want to intrude! but have found a lot of interesting things that i would quite like to write about or at least contribute to! thanks! Isabellathebull (discuss • contribs) 16:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

hey guys I am the same, and haven't managed to comment for a few days. I was wondering if I could please look into the 'invisibility' side to online disinhibition. I have seen a few articles on this and think it is quite interesting so would love to look into it if anyone hasn't already chosen to do this one. If someone has done, please let me know and I can look at something else! Also do you think it would be beneficial to include either once a week or daily titles for contents page so that it is easier to navigate the discussion page rather than having to scroll down the whole group discussion? If so, let me know and I can figure out how to do it or someone else can if they wish to do so. Thanks :) Tessanotyourseminar (discuss • contribs) 17:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi guys! Sorry me again, but I was just wondering if I could ask for an opinion on something. During the lab, I was having another look at the book section. I was slightly concerned because when I thought about it, I think that the causes of online disinhibition very much tie in with Suler's factors and so I am worried that having a section on this might lead our essay to become a bit repetitive. Therefore, I was wondering how you guys would feel about instead of using this section for causes of online disnihibtion, we could perhaps broaden it out a bit more and have it as a section which looks at theories that existed before the digital era such as the Social Learning Theory and how they can be applied to online disinhibtion? Let me know what you guys think or if you feel there would be a better way of managing this without changing the current title. In the meantime, as we have to try and contribute to one of these sections during the lab, I was thinking I might look into either lack of authority or benign disinhibtion and contribute in these areas until what should be included in the causes section is more clear. Hope everyone is okay with this! Let me know what you guys think. BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 17:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey everyone, I am happy to see that we already have some progress on the book page. I think the perfect way to move forward would be to first assign topics so that we won't have any conflicts and each of us can concentrate on one specific thing. I believe we can use the Draft section to let other people now if we want to edit the section they have already added on the book and also propose any further information. @BeccaWithFreckles: of course you can begin writing on the book about the topic you are interested in, though I think we should each of us sign our names at the topic we want to write about so that people won't be working simultaneously on the same one. I think it would be nice to add that section about older theories and how they can be applied to online disinhibition but we should also have in mind the length of our essay and not get carried away. I really like the thesis that is right now on the book page but to be honest I have not found any readings yet regarding the effects of online disinhibition on everyday life. Could somebody link any articles on this topic? Another thing I would like to add, if everyone are agreeing with this, is a section devoted on evidence about online disinhibition. I have mentioned this before but if you would like this to be included in our essay I would be very happy to start with it. Let me know what you guys think. AlwaysCarryingBagpack (discuss • contribs) 17:35, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@BeccaWithFreckles: Yeah i think thats a really good idea, even if we can squeeze it in just to break up the essay a bit. @AlwaysCarryingBagpack: I think it will be very helpful in explaining and understanding the topic better i'm not sure about everyone else but i think its a really good idea! A question i have for everyone is how recent of examples are we going with? I'm currently trying to research more into trolling in toxic disinhibition and was wondering if it would be alright to use the MJ controversy, as at the moment there is a lot of evidence and discussion about individuals trolling both the two boys and the Jackson family online? Was wanting to ask just in case! of course it wouldn't be bias and i would use both sides as an example. Thanks! Isabellathebull (discuss • contribs) 17:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@AlwaysCarryingBagpack: and @Isabellathebull: Hi guys! I think your idea @AlwaysCarryingBagpack: is a really good one. I think it would be great to try and work in a section for the evidence of online disinhibition so if you feel comfortable working on that then I think you should go for it! As for the MJ controversy @Isabellathebull: I think that would be a really useful example and because it is still going on right now, there would be a lot of references we could include about it which is great! I also just wanted to say that I have added something to the Benign Disinhibition section. It is very rough and I am not sure about it/whether I am on the right track so if you guys have any feedback it would be greatly appreciated! BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 17:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey, @Isabellathebull: I've been researching toxic online disinhibition for the last few days and have found examples that are from around 2010 onward, which i think is quite recent academically speaking. I have read a few articles on doxing and think this would be a great addition to this section. I've linked some annotated bibliographies and external links of the ones I've finished if you want to see more about that. Both include real life examples like the Ashley Madison dating app scandal, which would be good to talk about in regards to effects of online disinhibition because this actually caused divorces and suicides, which is one of the most extreme consequences of toxic online disinhibition I've come across. I'm hoping to be able to also talk about toxic online disinhibiton, but probably from the idea of doxing. I think it would work if two of us research this anyways though because if we're both familiar with the concepts and writing then our feedback to one another will be more informed. I haven't looked into cyberbullying yet or the MJ controversy so that would definitely be an interesting aspect we could bring to the essay. Jade144 (discuss • contribs) 18:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I added the "evidence for online disinhibition" section on the document planning and I thought that it would be better to provide two sections of that. For instance "Evidence for toxic online disinhibition" under the toxic online disinhibition section and "Evidence for benign online disnhibition" under the benign disnhibition section. Does this sound like a better structure? Let me know what you think so that I can also edit this on the book page. By the way @BeccaWithFreckles: and @Jade144: that's a very good start on the essay, I believe we'll end up with a great result, on time, if we continue this way. AlwaysCarryingBagpack (discuss • contribs) 20:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@AlwaysCarryingBagpack: I think that is a great idea. It means we can maybe look into including recent news articles or reports of both benign and toxic disinhibition. So for example, we could dedicate the evidence of toxic disinhibition to looking at some of the suggestions put forward by @Isabellathebull: and @Jade144: about things like doxing and and the MJ example. I'm sure there will be plenty of examples to include in the benign section as well. And thank you very much for the feedback on what I wrote in the benign section. I wasn't sure if I was on the right track with it or not so if anyone does thing any of it should be changed please do let me know! But that is really great to hear :) I will carry on looking into these areas and see what else I can come up with. BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 20:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I really like @Jade144:'s idea of using the debate of whether anonymity online should be allowed for the basis of the essay's argument! Also, in looking at the document plan, I'm wondering if there will be sections about Suler's factors of perceived privacy or social facilitation or if we will just leave these factors out so we avoid going over the word limit? I feel that we should at least mention these other two factors as they are a part of the Suler chapter but of course a big challenge is trying to pick and choose what are the most important things to include so that we don't write too much. Seanmcb2 (discuss • contribs) 22:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi guys, I don't want to be annoying but I think we should make it clear which section we're all researching. I'd added my name in the list of paragraphs in the document planning for the benign disinhibition section but I see the section has already been done. Just think we should make it extra clear what everyone is researching to prevent this awkward situation happening. Stuarta11 (discuss • contribs) 22:35, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I also think that the debate of whether anonymity online should be allowed is a good topic to base our essay around. I agree with @Seanmcb2: that we should try to mention perceived privacy or social facilitation in our essay depending on the word count. Stuarta11 (discuss • contribs) 22:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Stuarta11: Hi! Sorry I added to that section yesterday during the lab as we were asked to add something to the book page but there was a bit of uncertainty about the causes section at the time. I only intended it as being a starting point, and I want anyone to feel free to change it/add what they think in as like I said, it was only meant to get the ball rolling. Sorry if that was annoying, but just put some ideas down. In no way are they finalised. If anything, I'd be happy for someone to have a look and tweak them where they see necessary as although I have done some research into this area, I feel like there is still a lot more that could be covered and so I worried I had missed something out. So please do change it or add in your points that you have found, I think it would be a good thing in terms of strengthening the essay and allowing us to see which areas within each topic should be prioritised. Moving forward, I do agree with you about making it clear what everyone is doing, I will work on the sections of lack of authority, dissociative imagination as well as trying to look for some theories which can be applied to the topic. Sorry for any upset caused, but yeah it was just to get the ball rolling like I said and because I was uncertain about what to include in the causes section, I asked if it would be okay if I made a start there for the time being as we were being asked to post something during the lab session! :) BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 16:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I also think it might actually be a good thing if we have more than one person working on each section. Because there are a few of us and because this is quite an intricate topic, it means that by having more than one person working on a section we will be able to get a great variety of ideas and we will be able to help each other out in terms of how to word things, what to include, what not to include, etc. This is just a suggestion, and I don't mind if you guys want to work on our own individual sections. However, I do think it might be quite helpful to do it collaboratively and will make the essay easier to compose. Again sorry for any confusion caused, but I just posted something as we had been asked to do so in the lab. Like I said, if anyone wants to change it or get rid of it completely that is totally fine! :) BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 16:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey @BeccaWithFreckles:, I think to have more than a person working on the same topic would be better so that we have more opinions gathered and possibly more information. I would have no problem working on the same section with anyone else, I beleive it would be much helpful but only in a space were we can cooperate and not each one trying to claim territory. In addition, for two people working on the same topic could be easier to evaluate eachother's work, since they will be researching the same area, and will be able to add any further information or correct something wrong. This way the rest of the group could concentrate more on their subject. I also wanted to suggest, when someone is adding a paragraph with references to the book page, to include the bibliography at the reference list so that we won't have to do this when the essay is finished. I think this will save us some time and other group members can benefit from the readings. This is just a suggestion, of course anyone can work as they please. Let me know what you guys think. :) AlwaysCarryingBagpack (discuss • contribs) 17:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@AlwaysCarryingBagpack: H! I agree with everything you have said and think you raise some really good points. Having a few people working together on a section seems like a really good idea and one that will make the project as a whole a lot more manageable. I also agree about adding to the bibliography section as we go as it will definitely make things easier and less confusing as more and more gets added to the essay. I will try and add the reference I used in the section I added yesterday to the bibliography section. Great idea! :) BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 17:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey guy! So I just posted in the Dissociative Imagination section on the book page. Basically, I just laid out some of the ideas that I had when doing research into this area as to what might be beneficial to include in this essay. I thought this might be better to do as a starting point, rather than going straight into writing it as I am not sure if I have covered anything, nor if my findings are completely accurate/relevant. I also plan on doing more research, so again this was just a starting point to try and make things clearer before I made a start on content. However, I would love to know what you guys think of the ideas I have written down. Is there anything you think we should change, add in or take out? Like I said, I am completely open to whatever suggestions you have. I would love to hear them because I feel that by working together in terms of ideas like this, it will definitely help me strengthen my understanding of the topic as a whole. I am also going to leave the links to some of the sites I have come across this evening in relation to this topic in the external links section below. I would love to know what you guys think of them and if you think they are useful. Thanks! :) BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 21:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey guys! I added a new addition to the annotated bibliography section that I feel would be really helpful for the benign disinhibition section of the essay. As I said below, it could also tie in really well with some of Suler's factors. It was just one chapter taken from a book that could have a lot of great information for our essay and therefore I definitely recommend getting your hands on a copy in the library if there are any more available. If any of you do get the chance to look at it, please let me know what you think of it/how we could utilise the content it provides. I also was wondering if anyone had gotten the chance to have a look at the stuff I added to the dissociative imagination section of the essay yesterday? If not no worries as I know we all have a pretty hectic schedule right now. But if you do get the chance I would love to know what you guys think so that I can get a better idea of how I should go about writing something for it. When researching today, I also came across a few sources which tie in with this section and provide real life examples of issues that have come as a result. I have linked these sites in the external links section and again would really appreciate any feedback you guys have on them if you get the chance! Thanks :) BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 20:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey @BeccaWithFreckles:, I just had the chance to take a look at what you posted on the book page, I 've been a little busy with the second exercise that's why I didn't respond earlier. I think that you raise some very interesting issues right there and the whole construction seems appropriate to me. If you are willing to engage with this section I totally agree with you starting it with Suler's definition, since he is the one who proposed this. I believe you can continue this by mentioning what you found most important and also I really like the different quotations that you included. I just urge you to be a little cautious with the word limit since we have included many sections on the book, but of course that doesn't mean we should be very general. However, I think you have done a very good job up to now. I gave a brief look at the links that you uploaded, as well as the annotated bibliography, I'll try to look at them in more depth as soon as I am finished with the second assignment. :) AlwaysCarryingBagpack (discuss • contribs) 22:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey @BeccaWithFreckles: I think it's already a great start, good work on that! I don't know much about the factor in itself but what you say sounds interesting and the quotes seem relevant and like good points to expand into real life examples. The factor also seems relatable to toxic online disinhibiton, which would make for a seamless transition between topics or as @AlwaysCarryingBagpack: says, if we are running out of word count then these are two topics that could become integrated. As for how to approach writing it up, I'd suggest tackling it like any other academic essay, it doesn't have to be perfect because you and all of us can edit it again and again until we're all happy with it. So yeah even if you just use one of your real life examples and expand upon a quote you found in relation to Suler or any other academic, I think that would be more than enough to get into it. If we are still going to focus the argument on the thesis of if anonymity should be allowed, then maybe also try to tie that into your writing as well, but yeah it's completely up to you on how you want to go about it, looking forward to seeing it progress! Jade144 (discuss • contribs) 23:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I have added a small bit for the Minimisation of status and authority section. The section is still a work in progress but I thought it would be best to make a start. I would appreciate any feedback/tips for what to say next. I've also been working on the second wiki exercise so I feel bit lost in this discussion. Have we decided on the thesis/argument of the essay as I feel it would help give our sections some direction? Stuarta11 (discuss • contribs) 01:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@AlwaysCarryingBagpack: and @Jade144: Hi guys! Thank you for getting back to me! I am more than happy to make a start on this section if everyone else is happy with me doing so. I will get to that once I get back from work this afternoon. I completely agree about being cautious of the word limit. However, I spoke to Greg at the end of the lab last week, and he was saying that it is actually maybe better to start off with too much. So I was thinking maybe we shouldn't worry too much about the word count just now and write what we think is important. Then, once the essay is nearly complete we can look over what we have written and see if there are any areas that could be taken out, if there are places where we repeat ourselves or if there are any opportunities to merge a couple of sections together in order to lower our word count and meet the target? What does everyone think? Obviously this is just a suggestion and if we want to go about it another way that is totally fine. However, I think it is always better to have too much than not enough. Not only that, but once we have written everything down it will be much clearer which sections need to be prioritised and which don't. I also feel that this factor ties in with a lot of the other ones mentioned by Suler, and also as you mentioned @Jade144: the idea of toxic disinhibition so there are plenty opportunities for us to link things together if we go over the word limit. @Stuarta11: I will have a look at what you have added once I get back from work today, but it is great that you have made a start! As for the thesis statement, I am happy to go with the one that is already written at the top of the book page (if it is still there) if everyone else is as I feel that it gives us plenty of scope and is not to restrictive. Or, I am also happy to try and tie each section in with the idea of anonymity (I feel dissociative imagination could be heavily linked into this) as after research, I feel like this is the strongest factor which Suler outlines. But yeah, what does everyone else think? Look forward to hearing all of your ideas! :) BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 10:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone know if I am referencing correctly on the essay? Thanks! Stuarta11 (discuss • contribs) 17:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@BeccaWithFreckles: I agree its important to get as much done as possible and then we can worry about editing it down closer to the deadline. I also agree that many factors overlap and are closely linked. Minimisation of status and authority is also linked to dissociative imagination as we ignore the consequences of toxic behaviour when we are online. I think we should not worry about any overlap and sort it out later once we have a near completed essay. Stuarta11 (discuss • contribs) 19:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Stuarta11: Hi! I am glad you agree! I just think that this is the best way go about the project as if we spend too much time worrying about the word limit from the get go, then we run the risk of potentially missing out key pieces of information. Now obviously in saying that, we don't want to go too far over the limit as we don't want to end up giving ourselves mountains of work to do in editing. However, I always think it is better to have too much than not enough. And I don't think we have to worry about not having enough with this topic, that's for sure! I also had a look at the piece you added to the book section! I will write feedback in the feedback area below, but I thought it was really good! :) BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 22:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I have added an annotated bibliography on an article about trust and hyperpersonal relationships which could tie in with sections about asynchronicity and social context cues as it shows how these factors influence how we trust each other online. Stuarta11 (discuss • contribs) 15:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi guys! I have added a link in the external links section which looks at online affairs. I think this could be really useful and could potentially tie into quite a few sections within the essay. I would love it if you guys could have a look at it when you get the chance and see if you think it could be useful for our essay. I was also wanting to check how we were feeling about the essay. I am getting quite concerned about it, I feel maybe we should really start thinking about adding more to the essay section. I know this is a really busy time, and we have lots on, but if we want to stick to our goal of finishing the essay five days before the deadline I think we really need to begin putting all of our ideas on the page. This discussion page proves that we have a lot of great ideas, I just think we really need to start on the essay. Sorry if that seems like I am being awkward, because like I said I know that this is a really busy time. But I feel like the sooner we start, the less anxiety we will all have about this project. I am going to try and make a start on the dissociative imagination section tonight. Thanks guys! :) BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 20:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi guys! I added a section into the dissociative imagination part of the essay. I am not sure if it makes sense, or if it works so I was wondering if you guys had any feedback? I am also aware that I might need to cut it down quite a bit. I also struggled a lot with referencing, so if you guys have any tips on that I would love to hear them as again I am not certain I did that right! Thanks :) BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 22:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I'm going to make a start on the asynchronicity section if that's okay with everybody. Like @BeccaWithFreckles: said, I also think we need to start making more progress with the essay because the discussion section has lots of ideas and we should start transferring them onto the essay page. Stuarta11 (discuss • contribs) 13:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Can anyone help me with examples of how asynchronicity affects our lives offline? Stuarta11 (discuss • contribs) 15:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Stuarta11: Hi! Sorry I have been at work all day. I will have a look into this section and see if I can think of any examples that could be used. If I find any, I will post them on here and tag you. I'll go and have a look just now :) BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 17:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey guys, I posted on the toxic online disinhibition section with kind of a starting point as well as ideas i think would be good to progress it with. I think it'll probably need to be cut down a bit once it's all written, but that's something we'll sort later. Would love any feedback you have about it, and of course feel free to suggest or make any changes you think would benefit it. I'm going to try to read over the sections you all added too, hopefully tonight and tomorrow, and will post any comments on the feedback bit on this discussion page :) Jade144 (discuss • contribs) 18:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Stuarta11: Hi! I just posted a link to an article from Forbes which looks at why young people are finding face-to-face communication so difficult in the digital era. Although it doesn't explicitly talk about asynchronicity as such, it does bring up the example of online dating and I thought maybe that could be an example you could include in the essay section? Just because people will sometimes, for example, decide to break up with their significant other via online communication platforms rather than in person because the thought of seeing their reaction is too painful for them. I am sure that there are probably many examples of this, I will have a look and see if I can find any more sources which back it up! Obviously you don't have to use this idea, but I just thought it could be an example for you if you are still struggling to think of one! :) Hope that helps a bit. BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 21:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi guys! I was just wondering if anyone could help me. As @Stuarta11: pointed out, the external links I have provided do not appear to be working. I checked if they were working in the external links section and it appears that they are not here either. I am really confused because when I click on the link as I have it saved in my google docs it opens fine. Does anyone know what the issue is? If so, how do I fix it? I think I am going to try and arrange to meet with Greg at some point this week to see if he has any guidance on this issue. But if anyone here knows what I have done wrong, I would love to hear it! Thanks! BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 21:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Stuarta11: Hi! I was just looking over my notes and I found a quote that might be of use to you again for the asynchronicity section. It is from Charles Cheung's chapter in the book 'The Cybercultures Reader.' The quote is on page 274 and goes as follows:

• “sociologists suggest that self-presentational failure in everyday life actually involves other factors, such as interactional contexts and our presentation skills.”

I don't know if you will find this useful at all, but I thought it kind of ties in well with this section to might be useful to consider? If not, I am sure we can find another area where we could include it if we wanted to! Again, hope that helps :) BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 09:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Stuarta11: Sorry, I just found another one from this chapter as well that fit in even more with this factor than the one I posted above. It is on page 274 also and goes as follows:

• “In face-to-face interaction, we present ourselves through the use of ‘sign vehicles’ such as clothing, posture, intonation, speech pattern, facial expression and bodily gesture.”

Again, sorry for all the posts, and you obviously don't have to use these quotes at all if you don't feel that they are relevant. However, I thought they might be quite useful. This chapter as a whole would definitely be worth a read. Not just for this section, but for helping the essay as a whole as it makes a lot of good points that really tie in well with many other areas of Online Disinhibition. I have left a reference for it in the Annotated bibliography section below so if anyone is interested in having a read of it, definitely see if you can find a copy in the library! BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 09:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey @BeccaWithFreckles: with your external link problem, the only reason I can think of it not working may have something to do with sharing it from your google docs, it might be a broken link because it's trying to take us to your files? Not sure if this is the reason but I think this is what happened when someone linked to the resource list link canvas gave, because to see that link you had to log into my portal, so it maybe something along those lines. Jade144 (discuss • contribs) 15:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi everyone! Sorry I've been a little bit awol recently! I've read the updates on here and it seems we're making quite good progress so yay! I've done a little more reading and I'm still wondering if people would agree on adding sections to the wikibook to discuss social facilitation and perceived privacy? I feel if we're going to use Suler's factors for a lot of our essay that we should mention all eight? I would be happy to add these headings and I've done some interesting reading on social facilitation in particular, but thought I would check with everyone else to get your stances on this before changing anything? Seanmcb2 (discuss • contribs) 17:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jade144: Hi! Thank you so much for your advice. I will have a look at that and try taking it directly from the site to see if it works. I have arranged to meet with Greg on Thursday anyway I have a few things I want to go over with him so if I still haven't figured it out by then hopefully he will help. I'll also post any advice he gives me that might be helpful for the essay on here too! @Seanmcb2: Hi! No worries at all. I think that would be a good idea and if you are happy to make a start on it I am more than happy for you to do so if everyone else is. Obviously we will just have to be considerate of the word count, but again I think it would be more productive if we just tried to write out all our ideas first, even if it means going over the word count, and then work together to see what should be kept in or what could be merged together. So yeah, I say go for it! And I look forward to seeing what you come up with :) BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 19:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jade144: Great, I'll just add the section the book and of course it can be changed as the essay goes on and depending on what all fits! I was reading some interesting things about how social facilitation and group behaviour/disinhibition is related to dissociative anonymity so could possibly just link it briefly in the section dedicated to dissociative anonymity if need be due to word limit. Seanmcb2 (discuss • contribs) 20:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello everyone! I have been away for a while as I was kept back from the assignment and some preperations that I had to do for a presentation. I have been following the progress on the book page as well as the discussions so that I would not get lost. I see that everyone up to know has done very good work and research and I congratulate you for that. I have engaged with some reading from different research that has been done and I will be soon filling the evidence sections. I believe with this progress by the beginning of next week we will have completed all the section which seems very positive as we'll have some time for further editing. Keep up the good work! :) AlwaysCarryingBagpack (discuss • contribs) 21:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi guys! I have added a little bit more to the benign disinhibition section because after reading the Charles Cheung chapter, I felt like he made some really good points that could really strengthen our argument overall. I would love to know what you guys think. If you feel it doesn't work, isn't necessary or needs altering in any way please let me know or make the changes as you see fit. I did however, has some issues in terms of referencing once again. I tried to cite each time I used a quote from his chapter, but it told me that I had used the same citation too many times. So I, for now until I figure out what I have to do, have included in-text citations next to the quotes. Again, this is something I will speak to Greg about on Thursday. I have also included in brackets points where I think it might be good to include an inner wiki link to another section of our essay that these points link in with. Let me know what you guys think about this idea. Look forward to hearing your feedback! BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 22:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I have just added an image to the dissociative imagination section that I think works in quite well. I am not sure if maybe, though it would be worthwhile adding in a bit about mixed reality within this section of the essay, or do you guys think it works okay as it is? I will also add the image to the 'possible images' section below. If anyone doesn't think this image works, or if it should be replaced by another image please let me know! Thanks :) BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 18:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I'm a little bit confused aaahh. Previously in the general discussion I brought up including sections in the book on 'social facilitation' and 'perceived privacy' as these were sections in the Suler reading? They were the last two factors mentioned in the online chapter that was on the reading list. But in other readings I've done that reference Suler these factors aren't mentioned at all? I don't know if I've been basing my research on a different Suler reading or what haha? Anyway, I just wanted to ask if anyone knows what I'm talking about because this has confused me a little and sorry if I was confusing people earlier when I was bringing up these two other factors that we aren't even writing about! I don't if any of this makes sense but I'll just continue on with mostly researching dissociative anonymity and maybe I can just link to social facilitation a little tiny bit because there are some interesting points about it in the reading I've done! Sorry again if I confused anyone! Seanmcb2 (discuss • contribs) 22:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey @Seanmcb2:, I think I get what you are talking about. It is true in other writings Suler does not mention social facilitation and perceived privacy neither any of the other scholars such as Joinson. I believe that the only factors are the six that all scholars mention in their writings (anonymity, invisibility, asynchronicity, solipsistic introjection, dissociative imagination, minimisation of status and authority). Social facilitation and perceived privacy are probably paragraphs that are discussed only in "The disinhibited self" because if I am not mistaken Suler mentions some of the six factors in those paragraphs, if that makes any sense. Not sure if I am 100% correct though, what everybody else think? AlwaysCarryingBagpack (discuss • contribs) 23:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey! Yeah I noticed that as well. I think @AlwaysCarryingBagpack: you might be right about there only being six factors. But, as you mentioned @Seanmcb2: Suler does mention these two other factors, so maybe it would be an idea to have one section dedicated to both of them if we have enough space as something extra? Just an idea! Also, I have added a few images to the potential images section that I think could be really useful additions to the essay. I didn't want to insert them in the actual book section until I heard what everyone else thought about them in regards to whether or not they fit in with the sections I have suggested. So let me know what you guys think! If you are happy with them I will try and insert them in where appropriate tomorrow! Look forward to hearing your thoughts :) BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 01:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@AlwaysCarryingBagpack: and @BeccaWithFreckles: Thanks guys for helping clear that up regarding social facilitation and perceived privacy; it was confusing me so much haha. Okaydoke I'll keep the factors in mind in the case that we have any extra space to talk about them but due to the word limit it may just be better to leave it out depending on where we're at with word count by the end of the editing process! Thanks again. Seanmcb2 (discuss • contribs) 15:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi guys! I have added a link to the external links section (one that actually works this time!) and I would love to know what you guys think of it. I feel it would be really useful for us all as it gives a whole range of sources as well as outlining key points and arguments that have been made by scholars about this topic over the years. As I said below, I will look over my notes and try and map out which points fit in which which section and, for the time being, bullet point them accordingly in the book section. But let me know if you guys think this is a good source, or any of the interesting things you think we should take from it moving forward. Look forward to hearing your thoughts! :) BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 12:11, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

hey @BeccaWithFreckles: I just had a look at all the pictures you posted and they all seem really great! I think that they would be valuable additions to what we're talking about so awesome finds there. With the ones you suggested for toxic online disinhibtion, I think they work and are totally usable to the essay, but maybe looking for a more recent example of the abusive message on a platform that is more frequently used would be a bit more relevant. That was probably the only one there and if so it still gets the message across loud and clear so is still valuable, but i'm going to try and look for any abusive messages that is with Facebook or twitter. The graph of cyberbullying is basically exactly something we wanted so that's good, but in order to use it I think we have to know who put that information together, as the source may not be reliable? Other than that the pictures are really engaging and should be added to the book page. I love the dog one so i hope we can fit that in somewhere - maybe anonymity or if we discuss the article 'online lives 2.0' that you just linked, because I saw that they talk about that quote there too. I haven't finished the article yet but from what i've read it seems like a useful source that discusses a lot of what we are looking into Jade144 (discuss • contribs) 13:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey @BeccaWithFreckles:, I took a look at the images you posted. I think all of them could fit in different sections, I really liked what you said under the Logan Paul image it would be nice to include this in the dissociative imagination and maybe include a few sentences as a caption, just to describe the situation. The one with the cyberbullying example can work perfect in the toxic section and the one with the dog I believe could be into the anonymity or invisibility section. I suggest the anonymity section as we can also refer to the unidentifiability of anonymity where a user can conceal their gender, occupation, weight or even species in this occasion. Regarding the link you posted I'll try and give it a read when I get the chance later today, but the link does work indeed. Again @Seanmcb2:, if you believe that you can include those two sections it would be nice and I think you should go for it, but we should always have in mind the word limit. Also I was thinking if you would like to have a section with external links on the book page like the one on the discussion page. This way we could provide further information on online disinhibition for anyone who would like to do some further reading. What do you guys think? AlwaysCarryingBagpack (discuss • contribs) 19:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi everyone! So once again I am having issues with referencing. I don't know why because the link I posted for the Danah Boyd chapter works fine in the essay feedback section, but not in the external links section. I will speak to Greg about this tomorrow. But if anyone was wanting to have a look at this source (which I really recommend) the link in the essay feedback section should take you to it! Once I figure out what I am doing wrong, I will change it in the external links section along with all of the other links I posted which aren't working. BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 20:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi everyone! So I have changed the link in the external links section for the Danah Boyd chapter that I posted about last night. It is not set out properly (going to speak to Greg about this at the end of the workshop) but it works now! I have also provided a link to an article from the New York Times which provides real life examples of cases where online disinhibition has had a toxic impact on someone's life - and also the lives of all those around them. The article looks an example of a woman who posted some racist tweets and as a result lost her job and suffered from PTSD and depression. There are also other examples. However, what I found really interesting, was that this article points out that those who shame people for their insensitive tweets are actually just as bad. For, at the end of the day, everyone posts for attention. Let me know what you think, and if you like this source I am more than happy to try and incorporate some of the points into the essay page in the toxic disinhibition section. BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 12:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey guys! Sorry for joining the conversation so late, the past couple of weeks have been very trying for personal reasons and I'm still getting the hang of wikibooks, but I've read all your discussions and am excited to see how everything turns out from all the great and insightful ideas! The research I've come up with so far has been very interesting. Also, regarding the essay, I'm a great editor so I can definitely help with making sure things flow smoothly and relate well back to everything else. Americanlydia (discuss • contribs) 14:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay so I spoke to Greg at the end of the workshop. He said that a few people have reported an issue with this. Apparently, they have found that it has something to do with spacing, but even when I tried that, it doesn't seem to make a difference. However, the way I have laid out those links according to Greg is perfectly fine, as it still looks okay so if anyone else finds issues with links for their sources, just lay it out like that and it should be fine! But if anyone knows what I am doing wrong and how to fix it please let me know!

@Americanlydia: Hi! No worries! If you are confident in editing, that would be a huge help :)

Also, I had an idea but it might be really stupid so feel free to shoot it down if you don't think it would work. I was trying to think about examples we could use to put the topic of online disinhibition into context. I know we have thought about a lot of factual examples, but I thought of a fictional one that might be relevant. I was wondering, do you think we could maybe reference the film Ready Player One? The whole concept of the film revolves around the characters living in the virtual world because they have given up trying to fix the physical one. As a result, they have endless opportunities to adapt and change their identities and furthermore can create a life online that is the polar opposite of their one offline. This is obviously a futuristic/dystopian film, but I thought maybe we could briefly reference it at the end of the essay and say that if online disinhibition continues to grow, we could potentially find ourselves living in a world where virtual is valued above physical. Like I said, this might be a really stupid idea, but I just wanted to know what you think. Even if we don't actually talk about it in the essay, I thought we could maybe include a photo of it as an example and reference it in the text section underneath the photo? It is probably a really stupid idea, but it just came to me when we were in the workshop and so I was interested to see what you guys thought! Thanks :) BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 14:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@BeccaWithFreckles: I don't know about how far we should delve into Ready Player One in the body of the essay, but I agree that it'd be an interesting anecdote to maybe add near the conclusion! I think it's a great idea to mention it seeing as there's so much debate these days about how we're destroying our planet and do so little to help it, so turning our lives into virtual reality isn't too far-fetched! Americanlydia (discuss • contribs) 14:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Americanlydia: Hey! Thanks for your response! :) I think you're right, it probably wouldn't be a good idea to delve too much into it in the main body section of the essay, but would be good as a concluding reference to tie everything together. We could say that fictional movies such as this one are depicting a potential future. We could also reference 'The Circle.' This is a film I watched only recently. It is on Netflix. It explores the idea of how privacy is detrimental to society, and thus in order to help create a better community you must share all of your personal information, and that of others. This is a really interesting film because when watching it, you can see both the positives and negatives that such extreme social media use can have. I will have a look on wiki commons tonight when I get home and see if there are any images I can find which would help illustrate either of these. If I find any, I will share them in the potential images section until we have decided if and where we want to use them. I am currently looking at a BBC article which gives examples of different celebrities who ruined their careers by posting insensitive things on social media. Again, this might be really useful for putting the topic in context, so once I have finished reading through the article I will reference it in the external links section. If there are any examples that stand out I will bullet point them in the book section under the toxic disinhibition section and we can decide if we want to use them and how we want to use them. BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 16:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey @BeccaWithFreckles:, it is really interesting what you proposed about Ready Player One, I haven't watch the film but it sounds very relative to what we study right now. I am not sure how well we could present this into our essay because we would probably need to back it up with some work already done related to this film. I am not sure if our own interpretention would count that much. It would be probably more fit to an essay about textual analysis of the film or whatever else. However I don't think it's a bad idea, we could provide images as you said and add some comments at the caption. I wanted to ask another thing regarding the sections at the book page. I know I proposed for two different sections regarding evidence for benign and toxic, but now after some further research I have also found many studies which provide evidence for disinhibition online but some of them do not categorise self-disclosure in content (toxic/benign). So I thought that it would probably be better to have just one section called "Evidence for online disinhibition" instead of two. I am asking because I have seen that somebody has already posted on the toxic part, so I wouldn't want to cause any trouble. Please let me know what you think. Thanks! AlwaysCarryingBagpack (discuss • contribs) 19:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@AlwaysCarryingBagpack: Hey! Thanks for your feedback. Yeah, I agree with what you have said about how we might need sources about the film in order to fully utilise it in our essay. So maybe we could just include it as images as a point of reference and a little example on the side to illustrate the argument(s) that we are actually making within the essay? As for what you were saying about the two sections for toxic and benign disinhibition, I am not entirely sure. I have been looking into some of the factors which associate with toxic disinhibition, but I also found a study (I referenced it in the external links section) which shows that on the whole, teens feel that social media has more positive impacts than negative ones which therefore gives us some examples for the benign disinhibition section. However, even if we did make it one section, I feel we could still have both of these areas covered. Sorry if that doesn't really answer your question. But I think either or would be fine! Also, as another thought, I was wondering if anyone here had seen the movie 'Cyberbully'? Having been looking into this issue, I remembered it from when I was in school. I will have a look and see if there are any sources for this one, as it would be a great point of reference. It fits in with many of areas within this topic. For those of you who haven't seen it, a young girl is bullied online because of something her brother posted on her page as a 'joke'. Not only that, but she has people who she thought were her friends, turn against her out of jealousy and pose anonymously online as another individual to mess with her head as a way of getting revenge. If any of you have seen it, let me know if you think it would be a good point of reference in the essay. Again, even if we just had an image of it in the anonymity or toxic disinhibition section (I will have a look and see what I can find on Wiki commons just now). If you haven't seen it, I would definitely recommend, especially for this topic! BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 20:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@BeccaWithFreckles: I totally agree with including images related to films, it is a could thought. I haven't seen 'Cyberbully' but I'll check it. Thanks for your response on my question I get what you mean. I just thought it would be a good idea to have it as one section because I have found plenty of information of empirical evidence on online disinhibition where the researchers do not specify whether the disinhibition is toxic or benign. I believe it would be nice to have these in the essay as one of those studies has evidence which support that self-disclosure influence real life disclosure to family members regarding embarasing parts of peoples' identities, which is relevant to our thesis. Also it would help with the word count so that we could keep a shorter section as I see that we have plenty of words written up to now. Of course we'll have to do some editing. AlwaysCarryingBagpack (discuss • contribs) 20:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@AlwaysCarryingBagpack: That makes sense actually. Maybe it would be good then to put it all in one section and then we can always change it back again if we aren't happy with how it looks. Maybe we could begin that section by talking about some general examples which don't specifically relate to either benign or toxic and then end by providing one or two specific examples for each? For toxic disinhibition, I think it would be a really good idea to include current, well known examples of perhaps celebrities in the media who have ruined their careers because of things they have posted online. So, for example, Jack Maynard who was brought up about old tweets and forced to leave "I'm a Celeb." There was another example I found, about a woman named Justine Sacco who had her whole life torn apart because of racist and insensitive tweets. She shamed her family, lost her job, and suffered from PTSD and depression. I think these would be really good examples to highlight, but other areas we could look into are perhaps things like cyberbullying and maybe the number of suicides that have occurred as a result? I also wanted to ask something. I have found quite a few good quotes that I feel could really strengthen different sections of the essay. However, I don't want to just insert them into the essay section until I know if people are happy with them/think that they will work. So I was wondering, how would you guys feel about me posting these quotes in the document planning section under the appropriate headings and then you can let me know whether or not you are happy for us to include them in the essay or if you feel they would be better placed somewhere else? Let me know!:) BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 21:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@BeccaWithFreckles: That sounds like a good structure we can begin like that and see how it goes. I was wandering the same thing about what you said regarding the quotes because in most of the readings I do I find some very interesting stuff that I always think that could work very nice in some sections. I think posting on the document planning section as you said would be ideal so that other people that have already done the work wouldn't feel intruded and we could come to a mutual agreement. AlwaysCarryingBagpack (discuss • contribs) 21:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@AlwaysCarryingBagpack: I'm glad that you agree! Like you said, it would mean that people who have worked on these sections don't feel like we are taking over or, if they already have a plan in mind for how they want that section to go, we don't want to ruin it. So, by putting it in the document planning section, it can act as suggestions and people can use whatever ones they feel would work best for the argument they are trying to make. It would also be a great point of reference if you are struggling to find a quote that helps with your argument, as because everyone has found different sources, it is likely that someone else will have found something that works if you have not. I will look through what I have got so far and start adding them to the sections now. Can't wait to see what everyone comes up with. Getting there! :) BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 21:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi everyone! So I just had an idea, the more and more I was thinking about what you were saying @AlwaysCarryingBagpack: about putting the evidence into one section. I think that would be a good idea and would help in terms of word count. However, I was wondering how people would feel about, following on from general evidence, including two very brief case studies, one for toxic and one for benign disinhibition. So we could look up news stories, and pick a strong example. For toxic we could have, for example, the case of Justine Sacco, we could have a case of 'Catfishing' and show the impacts of online deception (from both ends) or a case of a celebrity ruining their reputation because of stupid comments on social media. Or, we could have a case of a suicide which has came as a result of cyberbullying and look into the reasons why the perpetrators decided to bully their victim. So for example, was it because of anonymity or because they didn't think their words would have any serious consequences? This is just an idea, we don't have to do it, but thought it might be a good addition for the essay! Let me know what you think. BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 23:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@BeccaWithFreckles: I think including two case studies is a great idea! There are plenty of wild catfishing stories out there so I think we could definitely touch on that topic, and unfortunately there are many cases of cyber bullying causing suicide, we just need to find one that fits well into our essay. We could also mention the movie Cyber Bully in this section but I don't think we should focus too much on it, just like we shouldn't focus too much on Ready Player One. They're both great resources for the information pertaining to our essay, but for this particular assignment I think it would be best to only give maybe a short summary of the movie, or as mentioned before, a picture with a fitting caption. Also, I can get started on editing what we have so far if that's okay with everyone! If a sentence feels stiff or I think of a good transition between points, would it be okay with people if I fixed those right away? I feel like it would be tedious to write out every mistake we have here and asking individually if it would be okay to fix them (even though we may have no problems!!) I promise my editing skills are up to par, and I would only make small changes like fixing grammatical errors or the flow of a sentence. I don't want to step on anyone's toes! Americanlydia (discuss • contribs) 11:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi @AmericanLydia: I completely agree about only briefly mentioning the films, if at all. To be honest, I think (where possible) it would probably just be better to have a photo with a small caption underneath. Either that or, I don't know how you guys would feel about maybe providing a link to a trailer for the film if we cannot find any images. I don't know if that is allowed, but it is always an option. As for the editing, I think that would be great! If you are happy to do that, then I would say by all means go for it! Like you said, waiting until the end might be a bit tedious. I am going to look into trying to tackle some of these sections throughout the day today. I feel like if we want to stick to our plan of finishing before the deadline, we really need to try and work on getting content added to these sections ASAP. I will make a plan of what I can add in with my notes that I have collected and begin working from there. Obviously if I had anything that people aren't happy with or feel doesn't work, feel free to change it. I just think we really need to get going with content, as like we've already said, we have a lot of great ideas on here. Just need to make sure we get them down in an effective way! BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 13:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey @AmericanLydia:, it's good to hear that you would like to engage with the editing, it would be much helpful for me to know that somebody could check my writing because english is not my mother language and sometimes I tend to make grammatical errors. You could also fill in the conclusion section, if you believe that you have time to engage with that as well because I think nobody has chosen that area. However we could all work on that area if that would be too much, I don't believe it would take a lot of time to put it down. @BeccaWithFreckles: I agree with you we should fill the sections ASAP, I am currently working on three studies and I will be posting on the evidence section no later than tomorrow, I'll let you guys know when I do so you can give me your opinion. AlwaysCarryingBagpack (discuss • contribs) 19:44, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

@AlwaysCarryingBagpack: Hi! Perfect, I look forward to reading what you have come up with. :) I have just added to the anonymity section. I know it is quite a lot I have added and so it might need to be modified for the word count, but I just wanted to get some more ideas down as I feel like this is one of the main aspects of Online Disinhibition for it is mentioned in almost every source about the topic. If any of you want to have a read and let me know what you think your feedback would be very much appreciated! Thanks BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 19:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

@BeccaWithFreckles: Hey, I just read the anonymity section. I believe you have a very nicely structured argument and you include pretty much everything that needs to be mention about anonymity online although as you said it might be a bit too long. I believe we have definitely gone over the word limit so we'll have to do some fine editing there. AlwaysCarryingBagpack (discuss • contribs) 20:20, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

@AlwaysCarryingBagpack: Hi! Thank you for your feedback. I agree that we will likely have gone over the word limit. However, as we said a while back, I think the best way to go about this project would be to write everything out first and then we will hopefully get a better idea of what areas are more important. There may also be areas which say the same things, so we could see what can be combined together to reduce the word count. But I think if we just power through each section, we can work on this soon enough. I will try and see what other areas I can add to either tonight or tomorrow. But it would be greatly appreciated if people feel like they can add to the areas they feel necessary as soon as possible as I feel like we still have a lot to do and this is quite worrying. BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 20:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi guys, I agree that finding case studies for the sections will make our arguments stronger, I have a few for doxing that I think would be quite interesting as some involves household named celebrities and others are really serious like causing divorces and suicide, which is the worst kind of consequence of this toxic behaviour. Making sure all the sections are filled is a great moving forward point and definitely one that should be tackled asap, tomorrow I’ll be trying to finalise the first draft of the toxic disinhibition sections so that I can work on any feedback anyone wants to add this week coming and i'll go through the other empty sections to see if there's anywhere I can add there too. I think as @BeccaWithFreckles: says that it's good to be a bit over the word count then cut down when the first full draft is done (hopefully Monday or Tuesday at the latest?), instead of perhaps having too little by the end and trying to find stuff to add on. Also, I'll add any feedback on anything anyone adds this week too :) Jade144 (discuss • contribs) 21:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jade144: Hi! I think that would be great if you were able to finalise that section and provide examples for it. I also agree that Tuesday should be the latest we look at finalising everything. I just added a bit to the Causes of Online Disinhibition section. I wasn't entirely sure what should be included in this section therefore I am not entirely sure about what I have written. Thus, I would really appreciate whatever feedback you guys have. I feel this is a section we could potentially take out if needs be. What do you guys think? BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 21:30, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi everyone! Sorry for the lack of activity lately- I'm home for the weekend and just catching up with everything at the moment. I am in the middle of tidying up the sections I have written for asynchronicity and minimisation of status and authority. I feel like its probably a good amount considering the word count although I'd appreciate any feedback as to what I should include and what could be omitted. @BeccaWithFreckles: I am just looking at the Danah Boyd book you recommended in the Draft Essay Discussion section. I think I'll definitely use some of it for my sections so thank you for looking that out for me! I agree it would be great to have completed first draft written as soon as possible so we can have a read back and tidy up anything before the big deadline. Also sorry if I have missed this but have we agreed what is happening with the missing sections and who is doing what? Would it be best for me to wait for everyone to add their own parts to these missing sections and then add what I think would be helpful? Stuarta11 (discuss • contribs) 13:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey @Stuarta11:, I just read your entries for asynchronicity and minimisation of authority. I believe you have done a very good job generally you provide all the needed information and the lenght of the sections should be alright. I particularly liked the part that you mentioned about the implications of minimisation of authority in real life in regards with the guard who lost his job. Very good job. I believe right now we miss only three sections which are solipsistic introjection, the conclusion and invisibility. I think @Tessanotyourseminar: has decided to do the invisibility part, not sure. Let's see what happens until tomorrow and then we move on according to what we need to further include. I also just filled in the evidence for online disinhibition section. It is the part right above the notes. I would appreciate it if you guys could give me any feedback. I merged evidence for toxic and benign into one section so that we will have a shorter one and also I have mentioned some studies which do not mention the type of self-disclosure. I think we have done a pretty good job up to now, I can't wait to see the finished project! :) AlwaysCarryingBagpack (discuss • contribs) 19:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi guys! Just had look over the essay section, and things are looking great so far. It seems that this is all coming together nicely which is great to see. I will read each addition thoroughly and add any feedback in the section below. I am not sure about who is doing the remaining sections. I don't mind looking into solipsistic introjection, and can try and do some of that tonight? I also wondered, would everyone be okay with me adding in a case study of the Justine Sacco incident where she lost her job and the respect of a lot of her loved ones because of insensitive tweets she made a few years ago? We can always take this out after if it is not needed or doesn't add any supplement to the essay. But I just wanted to get an idea of how it looks. Is everyone okay with that? Let me know! BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 21:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi guys! So I am away to add some stuff to the Solipsistic Introjection section in the essay. However, I am not entirely confident that I have grasped a full understanding of this section. Therefore, I would really appreciate it if someone could help me out a bit with it. I will write down what I have found and what I think I understand. However, I know that it may not be completely accurate and is therefore likely to need some adjustments. Thus, if anyone feels they could change it or even just let me know where I have gone wrong and explain what Suler actually means when he talks about this factor, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks :) BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 23:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey everyone, just letting you know that i've been working on the finishing the toxic disinhibition section and will upload it by tomorrow for sure! i've been researching more into the cyberbullying aspect and have a few academic articles that can be mentioned now too. I haven't found a specific case study because there seems to be so many so i was just going to mention it generally, as i've said three case studies for doxing, I think not having a sole one for cyberbullying will work out. Instead of a cyberbullying case study @BeccaWithFreckles: your addition of the women who lost her job and loved ones respect could possibly fit into effects of toxic online disinhibtion as an alternative? I think this example fits in better with the motivation of being disinhibitioned online too as some of the cyberbullying case studies are face-to-face bullying being carried onto online environments, instead of online settings changing people's behaviours. Also about with the section you just added on Solipsistic Introjection I will finish my first draft for my section and then read over it again so that I can try and help you in any way. Will get back to you tomorrow with anything I find useful. Jade144 (discuss • contribs) 23:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jade144: Hi Jade! No worries at all, I will start planning out what I can add in for this case study and get to it either tonight or tomorrow. Also, if you could read over that section when you get the chance that would be great! I think this was definitely the factor I found the most difficult to get my head around and thus, trying to write about it proved a very difficult task indeed. I am not confident that I have written about it correctly, so any feedback would be greatly appreciated. I also look forward to seeing what you have come up with for your sections. It is all looking really promising so far! :) BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 23:46, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I just added an image to the potential images section which could work for the solipsistic introjection section although I am not too sure. If you could have a look and let me know what you think about it, I would really appreciate it! BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 00:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I was just having a look at the essay section, and I noticed that the reference for Suler's 'Online Disinhibition Effect' doesn't seem to be working. I am not the best when it comes to referencing, so I am really not sure what the problem is. However, I was just wondering if anyone knew where the issue is and if so, would they be willing to try and fix it so that it works effectively? Thanks! :) BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 15:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey @BeccaWithFreckles: I tried to fix the broken reference by editing it to the way i've been referencing my work with the < ref > citation < / ref > template (no spaces if actually using it), which worked, but then a link further down had the same problem. I repeated this step and it did the same to another below it as well. I could do it with all the Suler links that show this problem and it would probably work. I think the issue is that we mention Suler too many times and wiki maybe has a limit? The only thing I noticed with me doing it this way is that there isn't any ab ect links along with the references that link to when Suler has been mentioned elsewhere (you'll see what I mean by looking at the references, cause I don't really know how to explain it) but yeah it just depends if that is something we should try to keep? If it is i'll have to go back and change my referencing because mine doesn't link to how many other times it's been said within the essay as a whole (but not sure how vital this is to have in anyways) let me know what you guys thinks we should do. Jade144 (discuss • contribs) 15:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey everyone, just updating you all that i've edited the toxic online disinhibition section to include cyberbullying now. Would love any feedback anyone has one it, and if anyone can see if the referencing is okay? I will add the Ashley Madison case study and its connection with dataveillance/always on tonight too. First i'm going to read your section @BeccaWithFreckles: that you added yesterday and try to give any feedback cause I know you are thinking you might need to change it, so i'll have that up asap for you. Also, I used one of the images you added on the potential images section for the cyberbullying paragraph on the book page, hope that's okay with you. If you had another place you wanted to use it for you can totally edit it out and i'll find another. Thanks! Jade144 (discuss • contribs) 15:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey everyone! I just read the updates on toxic disinhibition and solipsistic introjection I'll try to give some feedback as soon as possible. I just roughly counted the words of the essay and they are close to 7000 which means that we might probably need to reduce some sections which are very long, because some paragraphs may contain way too much information. I believe it would be better start doing this now and each of us suggest which sections need to be shorter. We should also have in mind that there are still two sections which need to be included. Invisibility and the conclusion. Let me know what you think. AlwaysCarryingBagpack (discuss • contribs) 17:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

hey @AlwaysCarryingBagpack: I didn't even realise we were so over already, cutting stuff soon is a good idea. I'll just leave the example of the Ashley Madison hacking or try and integrate it briefly instead of looking into it as a sole case study, as I've already gave a case study for doxing, so that information is probably enough already. We could maybe merge the 6 factors into one section, so that we talk about them and connect them to one another without having to do in depth analysis of each one? As Suler is mentioned in almost all the sections already, we're probably talking about the factors there too so that would make up for it? I'll go over my section too and see if there's anything I can cut out. Jade144 (discuss • contribs) 17:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jade144: You are probably right, it would be better to merge the factors into one large section and have small titles in bold right above the paragraphs. Also it might be better to also merge toxic and benign disinhibition together as I think the benign section might be too long. I know that everyone has put a lot of effort into making this essay and I would really prefer to see the final work with all this information added up to now, but unfortunately we'll have to cut out some stuff. I wouldn't like to go and do that to other people's work so it would probably be better to discuss about this a little before proceeding. What do you guys think? AlwaysCarryingBagpack (discuss • contribs) 18:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@BeccaWithFreckles: @Seanmcb2:, @AlwaysCarryingBagpack:, @Isabellathebull:, @Stuarta11:, @Americanlydia: and @Tessanotyourseminar: Hey, so i was looking over the benign disinhibition effects section and I think i found places where it could be cut, or more like condensed. I'm happy to do this but I don't want to just edit over someone else's section if they would prefer me not to or rather just tell them my suggestions for cuts and then change it themselves. Let me know, thanks Jade144 (discuss • contribs) 17:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I think another way we can cut down word count is to instead of having the section for the case study we could instead employ the external links feature in order to link to article(s) regarding the case study. That way we can still discuss the specific case study but link to a web article so we don't have to include a lot of writing giving lots of context and the summary of the example, if that makes sense? That way we're also using the wiki linking features as much as possible as well and freeing up space for the conclusion? Just something to possibly consider because I don't want to make major changes to a section that I'm sure has had lots of research and effort put into it! Also, I tried to add some links to the book in order to get the whole essay a little more 'blue' but I got an error saying that there were too many links haha so I'm not sure if I'm not doing it properly or maybe we're just doing pretty well with the level of blue! Seanmcb2 (discuss • contribs) 17:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jade144: Hi! If you are happy to make changes and think you know of a good way to do so then by all means go for it! Thank you :) @Seanmcb2: I think that is a great idea. I will have a look into doing that now. It would definitely make a difference with the word count that's for sure. It is a shame we have to cut it, but at least f we do it that way we are still referencing it and showing how much research we have all done together. Once I have done that, I will t In regards to the referencing, I will have a look over what you have done. I am sure it is fine, I am not very good at referencing to be honest so might not be much help but if I spot any issues I will let you know on here. I will go and do that case study and then start working on the conclusion. I will then do another check of where we are at with the word count and let you guys know on here. Also, does anyone know what happened to the final discussion section? I can't find it and I don't know if it has been deleted. Don't worry if it has, but I just got a bit confused haha! BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 18:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I have added some blue links to the sections I have written and I think the referencing is okay but I'm happy for everyone to doublecheck. I am happy for anyone to make any edits that they think are necessary to make the word count- after all it is a collaborative essay. Stuarta11 (discuss • contribs) 19:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jade144:, @AlwaysCarryingBagpack:, @Stuarta11:, @Seanmcb2:, @Tessanotyourseminar:, @Isabellathebull: and @Americanlydia: Okay guys so as it stands, we are sitting at around about 4,299 words. I will break this down below into how much each section has to hopefully make it a bit clearer on what we need to do this evening and moving forward.

• Introduction: 395 words

• Benign Disinhibition: 392 words

• Toxic Disinhibition: 482 words

• Evidence for Online Disinhibition: 895 words

• Anonymity: 546 words

• Invisibility: 307 words

• Asynchronicity: 275 words

• Solipsistic Introjection: 301 words

• Dissociative Imagination: 276 words

• Asynchronicity: 430 words

I think the evidence section and the asynchronicity section definitely need to be cut down. I was thinking, maybe we could combine solipsistic introjection with dissociative imagination? Would people be okay with me doing that? I also think the introduction really needs to be cut down. I will have a look at this now, but if anyone has an area they feel they want to work on please say so. The quicker we get this done, the quicker we can all finally relax! BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 19:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jade144:, @AlwaysCarryingBagpack:, @Stuarta11:, @Seanmcb2:, @Tessanotyourseminar:, @Isabellathebull: and @Americanlydia: Okay so I have added potential edits to the introduction section and the evidence for benign disinhibition section on the essay. As I said in the evidence for benign disinhibition section, I know my edit has cut out two of the studies, but I feel like being we are over the word limit by quite a lot, we can't afford to have multiple studies - even though we want to. This is a real shame. However, I personally can't see any other way about it. It seems like we are just going to have to be brutal with how we edit. However, I don't want to make changes to this section (seeing as they are quite big ones) until I know that at least most of the people on here are happy with me doing so. Therefore, if you could get back to me ASAP that would be very much appreciated! I will carry on making edits and posting them as I have been doing as like I said, I don't want to delete something that someone felt really passionate about keeping. However, I do feel it is important that we try and make these changes as soon as we possibly can as we don't want to have to go through any unnecessary last minute stress. BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 20:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jade144:, @AlwaysCarryingBagpack:, @Stuarta11:, @Seanmcb2:, @Tessanotyourseminar:, @Isabellathebull: and @Americanlydia: Okay, if everyone is happy with the potential edits I have made so far, that will take the essay down to 3,713 words. I am about to see if I can combine the solipsistic introjection and dissociative imagination section together and see where that takes us. Failing that, I think the toxic section could be cut down a bit if anyone wants to try and tackle that? BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 20:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jade144:, @BeccaWithFreckles:, @Stuarta11:, @Seanmcb2:, @Tessanotyourseminar:, @Isabellathebull: and @Americanlydia:. Hey everyone, I just checked got here today I was studying a little for my presentation tomoroow that's why I couldn't get back to you earlier. I see to many potential changes and that seems to be good since the word count will be dramatically reduced. I also noticed the potential change for evidence of benign disinhibition, I believe it's alright to go forward with that change I am the one who wrote the original piece but if that helps for the essay I am definitely okay with it. Did anybody find out what happened with the final discussion section, because I can't find it either. Also Greg responded to my question, if a "Further Reading" section would be counted towards the final grade and it will not. He said that it is a good idea and we can include it at the bottom as an appendix. I wil start writing down as many bibliographies as I can find that haven't been used already. AlwaysCarryingBagpack (discuss • contribs) 21:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• @AlwaysCarryingBagpack: No worries. I will make those changes now if you are sure you are okay with it. I am sorry we had to cut some of your points out as they were really good, but unfortunately it just seems that there is no other option than to be brutal with it. In regards to the final discussion section I am really not sure what happened to it. It is a strange one indeed! Also I am glad to hear that Greg liked your idea! It is a really good one and so I am excited to see how it brings the essay together. If you feel comfortable working on that, it would be very much appreciated. I am going to try and power through the rest of the essay just now and like I said, I will see if I can combine those two sections together. I will also try and keep everyone updated about where we are with the word count. Thanks! BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 21:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• @BeccaWithFreckles: Hey don't worry about, we have to make a few sacrifices for the team. Also thanks for doing so much work. I'll try to include as much information as possible to the "Further Reading" section. We are almost coming to an end, I can't wait to see the final result, it is going to be great! AlwaysCarryingBagpack (discuss • contribs) 21:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jade144:, @AlwaysCarryingBagpack:, @Stuarta11:, @Seanmcb2:, @Tessanotyourseminar:, @Isabellathebull: and @Americanlydia: Right, I have just done another check and we are now at 3529 words so getting there! Does anyone have any ideas on what else we could cut? Bearing in mind we still have the conclusion to write. Also, does anyone know if we do actually get the +/- 10% with this assignment? I don't remember Greg ever mentioning it, but I could have just missed it. If people aren't sure I can ask around or email him and then get back to you guys. But either way, I think the closer we are to 3,000 words the better. But yeah, if anyone has any ideas of what else can be cut please let me know or feel free to do so. I am going to have a look for some more images that can be added to the sections which currently have none. Look forward to hearing your thoughts and I hope you are all okay with the way I have edited the essay so far. BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 22:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jade144:, @AlwaysCarryingBagpack:, @Stuarta11:, @Seanmcb2:, @Tessanotyourseminar:, @Isabellathebull: and @Americanlydia: Okay I cut down the invisibility section as well and now we are at 3393. I am really not sure what else to cut and I feel bad getting rid of peoples work. However, I have a lot on tomorrow so I might only be able to work on it a little bit in the morning and then I won't get to it again until the evening which is why I am trying to get as much done as possible this evening. Sorry if that is annoying for anyone. We really don't have much left to do, but like I said, I am not sure what else to cut so if anyone has any ideas I would love to hear them. Going to take a break for a bit and then if I have time before I go to bed I will have another look and see if I can find anything that can be cut out. I will also try and do a rough draft of the conclusion, but I might need help with that as like I said I am not sure how much time I will have. So if anyone would like to have a go at it please feel free! Thanks guys BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 23:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey, sorry I was out so I didn't get to see this until now. If it hasn't already been cut, I'll make the changes I saw with the benign disinhibition ASAP, really good work getting it down to that much already! Jade144 (discuss • contribs) 23:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey great work! I'll try and read the whole essay to see if I can suggest any sections that need to be edited, I really don't won't to change people's work. I'll mention the recommended sections below. As for the word count I believe it's like any other academic essay so we are probably given that extra 10%, even if we go around 3400 we should be fine but it's always good to be on word count AlwaysCarryingBagpack (discuss • contribs) 23:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey, I see that the section has already been cut and it has taken out what i thought of as well so that's great! Shame about so much great stuff having to be cut but it's necessary. I did a few minor edits and maybe got 50 or so words off, by my last count we are on 3353 and that's without a conclusion, but to everyone who did the cutting tonight, super well done. When I get home tomorrow from class at around 5 i'll be on here for the rest of the night until we are happy with the final product. Jade144 (discuss • contribs) 00:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Also seeing as the final discussion section was lost, i'll add another one in for making the final discussion tomorrow clearer to everyone. Jade144 (discuss • contribs) 00:18, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jade144:, @AlwaysCarryingBagpack:, @Stuarta11:, @Seanmcb2:, @Tessanotyourseminar:, @Isabellathebull: and @Americanlydia: Okay guys sorry last message of the night I promise! I just cut down the authority section and we are now at 3,090 words if my methods are correct. Might be an idea for someone to double check that for me in case I have gotten it wrong. I felt really bad having to cut peoples' work but obviously we had to do it. I will try and think of how to write the conclusion tomorrow, but if anyone else has time and wants to have a go at it please feel free! Like I said before, I don't think the conclusion will take long to write at all. Also @Jade144: if you would be able to make another 'final discussion' section that would be amazing as like you said, it will definitely make things a lot easier tomorrow. Good job guys! BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 00:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@BeccaWithFreckles: Wow! You have done a very good job! I double checked the word count and without the image captions and titles we look around 3082 words. I believe we won't have to reduce any further the only thing missing is the conclusion which hopefully won't take much to write. I'll try to come up with something tomorrow. Also the final day discussion section will be much helpful because we have flooded the initial discussion, it's a little confusing to navigate in there. It's bad seeing so much good work being removed but we had to. Great job everyone! @Jade144:, @Stuarta11:, @Seanmcb2:, @Tessanotyourseminar:, @Isabellathebull:,@Americanlydia: AlwaysCarryingBagpack (discuss • contribs) 01:13, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello everyone! i know it is quite late so i am not expecting anything till tomorrow morning but i just wanted to say that i had a crack at the conclusion, i am not sure what we were going for so i just kinda took stuff from the essay as a whole, i am not sure if its correct or anything so sorry if it is terrible! Conclusions are not my strongest point but i thought i would have a try just so we can have a sort of starting place! feel free to chop and change it completely if i have gone down the completely wrong track, i really will not mind if anyone completely changes it as we still have a day left to sort everything out! hope i have not messed this all up hahahaha! Isabellathebull (discuss • contribs) 02:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

It's so nice to see how far down we've made the word count! And I think the conclusion looks really good so far, and that will be easy to add on to seeing as it's basically just a wrap-up of all the things we've already said before. I'm comfortable with it not being a long conclusion, since we're already above the word count even if only a little. I've always liked something short and sweet to wrap things up but what do you guys think? A meatier conclusion wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. Americanlydia (discuss • contribs) 13:07, 28 March 2019 (UTC)AmericanLydia

Final Day Discussions

@Jade144:, @AlwaysCarryingBagpack:, @BeccaWithFreckles:, @Seanmcb2:, @Tessanotyourseminar:, @Isabellathebull: and @Americanlydia: Morning everyone! Thanks @Jade144: for adding this section back in as it makes everything clearer on the final day working on the essay. I have a very full on day- I'm in classes all day at university and I have work straight after. If there's any changes or if anyone wants to get hold of me I probably won't be able to reply until after 9 tonight. @Isabellathebull: The conclusion looks good so far, I'd personally put more emphasis about how online disinhibition affects is not limited to our online lives but also affects our lives offline. I have counted the essay which includes the recently added conclusion and the titles of each section but not the captions or the footnotes and it appears to be 3,367. I think we will need to cut it down a tiny bit because I imagine the essay is +/- 10% of the word count which would be 3300 if we are trying to keep as much of the essay as possible. I'll give the full essay a read tonight as I realised there were a few typos but I think there will only be some minor issues. I still feel the essay might need some more blue links to other wiki pages. If anyone is unsure how to do that I think my sections on Minimisation of authority and status and asynchronicity are okay to be used as templates for adding blue links to wiki pages. Overall though, the essay looks great and I think we should be happy with ourselves. I think we have worked very well together despite challenges such as the cutting down the essay to fit the word count but I think that is just about sorted out. Thank you and well done to everyone! Stuarta11 (discuss • contribs) 09:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Stuarta11: No worries at all. I have a very busy day ahead of me myself and like you, I might not be able to have a proper look at the essay until this evening.I will get the odd moments throughout the day, however at least we know we are almost there. I will have a look through the essay just now and see if there is anything I can spot that would help get that last little bit off the word count. I will also see what I can do about adding in more blue links. I think that the essay has come together really well and like you said, despite the challenges we have managed to get through it. @Isabellathebull: I will have a look over the conclusion you wrote just now and give you any feedback on here. Thank you so much for doing that! :) Good job guys. BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 09:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Isabellathebull: Hi! Okay so I just read over your conclusion and I think it looks really good. I agree with what @Stuarta11: said about maybe trying to emphasise the point a bit more that it can impact both on and offline lives. I also maybe think we need to bring up how overall. it appears that anonymity is the most important factor out of the six that Suler outlines. If it is okay with you, I will try and edit it and add that in now and people can let me know what they think of it? I will then do another check of word count and see where we are at and what else needs to be done. Hope that is okay with everyone! Thanks again :) BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 09:42, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jade144:, @AlwaysCarryingBagpack:, @Stuarta11:, @Seanmcb2:, @Tessanotyourseminar:, @Isabellathebull: and @Americanlydia: Hi! So I added a potential edit to the conclusion. Let me know what you think. I got it from 219 to 192 words. BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 10:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey @BeccaWithFreckles: I just read through your suggestions for edits to the conclusion and I think it's great, you've concised our main points and related it to the wider idea of identity so I'm very happy to keep this as the final one we use. Thank you Jade144 (discuss • contribs) 11:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• Hi, @BeccaWithFreckles: I'm also happy with conclusion as it covers the main points and makes it clear that anonymity is the most important factor and also that online disinhibition affects our lives offline. Thanks! Stuarta11 (discuss • contribs) 11:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey everyone, yeah ive read the edited version of the conclusion and it is a lot better than mine so i think that is the one we should go for hahaha, i am free after 3 so will help with the last bits of editing and can also do some blue links too and have a scan for little errors and stuff. @BeccaWithFreckles: really good conclusion! great job! :) Isabellathebull (discuss • contribs) 12:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jade144:, @Stuarta11: and @Isabellathebull: Hey guys, thanks a lot for your feedback. I will go and make the changes after the workshop. I will also check with Greg about the +/-10% :) BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 13:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jade144:, @AlwaysCarryingBagpack:, @Stuarta11:, @Seanmcb2:, @Tessanotyourseminar:, @Isabellathebull: and @Americanlydia: Okay guys, good news! I edited the conclusion and checked where we are now at with the word count and we are now at 3297 words. I spoke to Greg at the end of the workshop and he said that we are allowed +/-10% which means we are (if my maths is right) within the word limit! Yay :) I think now (if everyone is happy) it is just a case of reading over what we have and making any final edits that won't impact this word count. So for example as I think @Stuarta11: said earlier, looking over and making sure that there are no spelling errors or any other grammar mistakes. I will get to this later today. Great job guys! If anyone has any concerns though, please feel free to leave them here. BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 13:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Jade144:, @AlwaysCarryingBagpack:, @Stuarta11:, @Seanmcb2:, @Tessanotyourseminar:, @Isabellathebull: and @Americanlydia: Oh also! Does anyone know why at the top of the essay page it says waiting on 43 pending changes? I was worried about what this meant so if anyone has any idea please let me know! BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 13:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey @BeccaWithFreckles: I wouldn't worry about that pending changes cause Greg can still read the lastest version like we can. I think all it is is that the changes we make have to be checked by wikibooks to make sure its not not like inappropriate or anything, there were 99 pending changes at one point earlier and then it got checked and finalised so it was all good. Pretty sure this is something out of our control. Unless anyone knows any different? I will also go through the essay and look for spelling and that sort of thing when I get home from uni, thanks to everyone for all your hard work to the book, it's looking really great! Jade144 (discuss • contribs) 14:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jade144:, @BeccaWithFreckles:, @Stuarta11:, @Seanmcb2:, @Tessanotyourseminar:, @Isabellathebull: and @Americanlydia:. Hey everyone I am so glad to see that we have come to an end, the whole process was a great experience and with some challenges, as always, but mostly pleasant I would say. We had a great team and I hope we get what we deserve! I had some personal issues going on earlier today so I could not get back to you, this is the first time I log in today. I have my presentation at 5pm which means that I will be back after 6. I will also try to add some blue links wherever I can and also fill as many bibliographies as possible in the Further Reading section. Great job everybody!! AlwaysCarryingBagpack (discuss • contribs) 15:39, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jade144:, @BeccaWithFreckles:, @Stuarta11:, @AlwaysCarryingBagpack:, @Tessanotyourseminar:, @Isabellathebull: and @Americanlydia: Hi everyone! We can finally see the light at the end of the tunnel! I had a read through and just added a few wiki links and an external link to an article about the debate about whether anonymity should be allowed. A couple of quesions: do all external links to articles to show examples etc have to also be referenced with the wiki markup? I'm not sure if i have to add them to the reference list or if it's just okay to create a blue link in the text itself? Other than that it seems to be going really well as we put all the finishing touches! I'll keep rereading throughout the rest of the day but think we're pretty well prepared for hand in tomorrow! Seanmcb2 (discuss • contribs) 15:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh also, I'm not really sure how the actual hand-in of the essay and discussion pages works. Do we all have to copy the essay and hand it in separately on Canvas along with copying and pasting the discussion page? Or is it graded by Greg on Wiki like the wiki exercises? Seanmcb2 (discuss • contribs) 15:51, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• {@Seanmcb2: Hey! Greg just sent out an email not that long ago saying that we dont have to hand it in on canvas that its graded though wiki so do not worry its all done on here!

• That's me just seen the email now! Thanks for helping clearing that up for me I was getting confused! Seanmcb2 (discuss • contribs) 16:51, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey guys!! I can't believe we're finally nearing the end! I'm going to give the essay one more look just to makes sure there are no grammatical errors, but we've been really good with keeping that in check! I'm proud of all for getting this done, you guys were a great team to have and I'm sure our grade will be just fine. Besides the Engagement Exercise #4 and the 3,000 character mini-essay on What Are Wikis? is that all that needs to be done for the class? The work is never done haha Americanlydia (discuss • contribs) 17:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)AmericanLydia

@Americanlydia: Yeah i believe so! All thats left to do is in the email that Greg sent out! @Jade144:, @BeccaWithFreckles:, @Stuarta11:, @AlwaysCarryingBagpack:, @Tessanotyourseminar: and @Seanmcb2: Well done everybody! I went through the essay and also added some blue links where i could and managed to clean up some errors but will just go thought it all again and have a listen to it to see if that will pick up any errors that have been missed! Overall i think this is a job well done! Congrats guys were basically done!

@Jade144:, @BeccaWithFreckles:, @Seanmcb2:, @AlwaysCarryingBagpack:, @Tessanotyourseminar:, @Isabellathebull: and @Americanlydia: Hi everyone, I'm just back from work. Just wondering if there was any last minute work that needed to be done. From quickly skimming through the essay looks good to me. Also just wanted to say another well done to everyone and I think we should be happy with our work! Stuarta11 (discuss • contribs) 22:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jade144:, @AlwaysCarryingBagpack:, @Stuarta11:, @Seanmcb2:, @Tessanotyourseminar:, @Isabellathebull: and @Americanlydia: Hi guys! Sorry I haven't been active over the past couple of hours. Was helping out at an event earlier this evening and then just drove back home to Aberdeen. Like @Stuarta11: said, is there any last minute things that need to be done? I will have another quick look over the essay just now. I might also double check the word count. Just because sometimes when errors are changed, the word count goes up and we were pretty close to the limit. I am sure it will be fine, but better safe than sorry. I think we should all really be proud of the essay we have produced. It was a tough road at times, but we got there in the end. Great work, and I hope we all get the results that we are hoping for! If there are any major issues I will post them on here. But if not, I think by the sounds of it we are good to go. BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 22:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jade144:, @AlwaysCarryingBagpack:, @Stuarta11:, @Seanmcb2:, @Tessanotyourseminar:, @Isabellathebull: and @Americanlydia: Okay guys, so I checked the word count again and we are at 3295 so all good! I will have one last read through to see if there are any errors, but I think that we are good to go! We did it! :) BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 23:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@BeccaWithFreckles: that's great! I read it all over and couldn't find anything that needed changing so I think after your check, this is us all done! Thanks to you especially for all your hard work and contributions. Jade144 (discuss • contribs) 23:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey everyone! I read through the essay and also checked the word count, we are indeed under the limit! Thanks to everyone that has contributed to this essay, it was a very nice experience. Congratulations! :) AlwaysCarryingBagpack (discuss • contribs) 00:09, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi guys! Glad to hear we are all sorted. Thanks for all your hard work, excited to see the results :) BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 01:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey everyone! Agreed, I think the essay has come out pretty well! So glad that it's actually done. Thanks everyone and well done on your hard work! Now on to the last engagement and wiki exercises.... Hope everyone gets the grades they're hoping for! Seanmcb2 (discuss • contribs) 11:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Draft Essay Feedback

Here we can upload any feedback and comments about uploaded essay drafts from the book page, by replying to the user who made the edit. If we start our feedback by stating which time edit we are referring to, that may also make the draft section we are commenting on easier to identify.

@Stuarta11: Hi! I read over what you have written in regards to lack of authority and I think you cover a lot of key points. It reads very well and is easy to follow. The only thing I would suggest is maybe looking into expanding on real life examples to back up the points you have made. So, maybe you could look at cases where people have lost their jobs because they have posted something online about their employer that they shouldn't have. Also, once we have added more to the other sections of the essay, we could perhaps revisit this section and see how we can link it in with other areas of the essay? Obviously these are just suggestions and you don't have to take them on board at all! But I think you have done a really good job so far and I look forward to seeing how this section progresses :) BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 22:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@BeccaWithFreckles: Thank you for the feedback. I will have a look into cases about people losing their jobs because of comments made online and add it to the section. Stuarta11 (discuss • contribs) 11:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Stuarta11: No worries at all! I think I may have come across a few examples last week when I was doing research, but I will have to have another look through my notes just to make sure. If I find any that I think might be of use I will post a link to them in the external links section and tag you so you can have a look at them and see if you think they would be of any help! :) BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 16:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@BeccaWithFreckles: I have had a wee read of your section on dissociative imagination and I think it reads really well! I like your example of Thomas Montgomeray and how dissociative imagination can affect our lives offline. One thing I would suggest though is having a look at the links you have used on the section because I don't think some of them are working and some of the links don't appear to be footnoted and the text links appear in the middle of sentences. Apart from that, everything seems great- especially I like that you how you have linked dissociative imagination to toxic disinhibition and the real-life consequences. Stuarta11 (discuss • contribs) 14:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Stuarta11: Hi! Thank you so much for your feedback. Yeah, I am really confused about how to do the whole referencing thing. I might email Greg and see if he can help, or try and arrange to go in and see him at some point this week to see if I can figure it out. If anyone knows what I've done wrong or how I could fix it please let me know! But yeah, thank you for your feedback, I really appreciate it :) BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 17:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey @Stuarta11: I just read the section on Asynchronicity, and a real life example I thought of that could connect would be Turkle's idea of the tethered self - especially the fear that we will 'come to see others as objects to be accessed', as having the ability not to reply immediately could be linked to how technology is perhaps changing our relationships with one another? So you talk to people with text communication when you need a distraction or want to talk about something, yet, if they do the same, you don't have an obligation to reply, listen or engage with the person because there is always the excuse along the lines of 'i was busy' or 'i didn't see your message', which couldn't be possible in face-to-face interactions. Jade144 (discuss • contribs) 19:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jade144: Hi! I read your section on Toxic Disinhibition andI think it is a really great start. I feel in terms of what could maybe be added would be to try and link it in with the factor of dissociative imagination, as after doing research about this area I have realised that it can have many negative consequences. I feel like this factor is one which leads people to live a life of denial for they refuse to see anything wrong with their online behaviours because to them it is just a "game" as Suler mentions, and thus lack any form of remorse or sign that they are willing to take responsibility for their actions. If a section on cyberbullying and trolling is added in, I think that this would work in really well with that as I feel like this is the area where people tend to be the most negligent in terms of taking into account that there is someone on the receiving end of their digital hate. Perhaps we could look into some examples here within the YouTube community or even just celebrities in general? Obviously there are lots of everyday cases - far too many actually - but I feel like referencing a well known YouTuber might back up the idea that people tend to think that these individuals who they watch on a regular basis only exist on their screens. Not only that, but perhaps (if you guys felt it was relevant) we could broaden this out and talk about how it is a common misconception that people who put themselves out there online like this deserve to get hate as they are 'opening themselves up to it'. That could be totally irrelevant, and also something that is not really necessary if we are struggling with word count. However, I thought it might be a useful in terms of putting things into context? We could also maybe look at some of the organisations that have been set up by parents to try and tackle issues of cyberbullying, or we could have this in another section towards the end of the essay? Of course these are only suggestions. But I really like what you have written so far! :) I also agree with what you said about linking the asynchronicity section in with Turkle's argument. This would be a really strong point to make. BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 20:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey @BeccaWithFreckles: thank you for your feedback! from reading your section on dissociative imagination I agree that the two topics would merge nicely. Maybe after the general stuff is said about both we can think about integrating them. I definitely think that it would work well with cyberbullying - especially in online gaming where there is a lot of immersion, so when that is being written there could be a collaborative process there. The Youtube example would also be effective too, there are so many 'responding to hate' videos by people that is just the tip of the iceberg of abusive behaviour on there, and linking to well known figures normally has a greater impact. I like all your suggestions and once the skeleton is up for the essay we can consider word count and relevance to see how we'd fit it in. Jade144 (discuss • contribs) 15:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jade144: Thank you for your feedback. I think referencing examples on YouTube is definitely a good option, as it seems to be a 'trend' that is growing more and more popular. Just off the top of my head, I thought about maybe we could use the example of all the videos that came out attacking Zoe Sugg when she released her advent calendar? We could also maybe mention that YouTuber who posted the video of the dead body found in the forest in Japan? He clearly didn't think about the impact that his actions would have. Thus, we could argue that the online world almost takes over any form of logistical thought processes and leads to rash decisions being made with extremely negative consequences? I am not sure how relevant you think this would be, but I would love to know what you think! I think it would also be a good idea to look into some sort of statistical chart which shows perhaps the number of suicides that have come about because of cyberbullying and the responses of young people to that. I think young people especially are oblivious of the impact that their online behaviours can have and see it as nothing more than a joke. Therefore, it is important to emphasise that online actions can have severe offline consequences. But yeah, let me know what you think and I can't wait to hear any suggestions that anyone might have! BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 18:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@BeccaWithFreckles: because Youtubers are so relevant in today's consumer society (especially with younger audiences), I do think it would be worth while adding a segment about one into our essay at some point, if you think there's a particular bit in your argument that it would work well with then I'd say just go for it, and if it ends up not working out it can always be removed, but it sounds like it would help illustrate some of Suler's factors so it sounds good to me. I agree, finding statistical charts to add into the section on cyberbulling would be really effective. I'll browse wikicommons for some - if there isn't any we may be able to make our own from data we find on a article, so i'll start looking more into that too, and yeah getting the point across that the divide between online and offline is a myth is a top priority. Jade144 (discuss • contribs) 12:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Stuarta11: Hi! I am currently reading a source by Danah Boyd and it makes a really interesting point about lack of authority in an online context. I rememebred that you were looking into this section in the essay and so I thought I would share the quotes with you here. I am more than happy to add them in if you are happy with them, but seen as you had been working on this section I didn't want to add them in just in case you had finalised what you felt like we should do with this part of the essay. The two quotes are as follows and can be found on pages 33 and 34 of this source which I will link in the external links section for anyone who wants to read it! It is really interesting so far, and I am only focusing on part of it but it seems to have a wide range of content:

• “While they may be comfortable having strangers overhear their exchange, the sudden appearance of someone with social authority changes the context entirely.”

• “Online, there’s no way to change the conversation, both because it’s virtually impossible to know if someone is approaching and because the persistent nature of most social exchanges means that there’s a record of what was previously said.”

• “The ability to easily switch context assumes an ephemeral social situation; this cannot be taken for granted in digital environments."

I don't know how useful you think these are, but thought they might help with this section. Let me know! :) BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 20:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@BeccaWithFreckles: Hi, I'll have a look at the source and see what I can add to my section of the essay. Also sorry for the lack of activity recently, I have had a lot on at the moment but I'll try get some more work done over the weekend. Stuarta11 (discuss • contribs) 11:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Stuarta11: No worries at all! Like I said, hopefully it will be useful for you. If not, I think it would still be really good to keep in mind for other sections of the essay. Some really strong arguments which would help us make our points very clear. BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 11:44, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey @BeccaWithFreckles: I just read your addition to causes of online disinhibiton. I think that it's a great way to get into the essay as it's important to foreground what we discuss later, as we can't assume everyone reading will know what online disinhibition even is. I think we could take the section out too though if need be, as this information could be integrated as part of the introduction, and the information you added seems similar in ways to what the introduction has or what it should have as an entry to the essay, so yeah I think this could be cut if it comes down to it. However, I do really like that you branched out more from Suler's work with online disinhibition into psychological theories, I think this is a component we should definitely keep in some way. Jade144 (discuss • contribs) 21:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey @AlwaysCarryingBagpack: I think you provide a great amount of depth in the section for evidence of online disinhibition which is great. I also think your idea of combining both benign and toxic disinhibition together in regards to evidence is a really smart move that will definitely make the word count more manageable. The only issues I saw were in regards to some punctuation, but these are easily fixed and if you are okay with me doing it, I don't mind changing these things? They are not major at all so I would't worry! But I didn't want to go changing anything unless I knew you were alright with it. But you have clearly done a lot of research and as a result have found a substantial amount of information that makes this section a really strong addition to the essay. Great work!

@Stuarta11: I also read your additions to the minimisation of status/authority section and think it reads really well. You provide a great amount of detail which covers basically everything that is needed for this area. Again, only issues I saw were minor errors in punctuation, but I don't mind editing these slightly for you. It was only one or two I noticed so again, I wouldn't worry about it, but if you are happy for me to correct them I am more than happy to.

Great work guys overall! :) BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 21:58, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• @BeccaWithFreckles: yeah of course, feel free to make any slight edits. Its always good to have a second set of eyes to look through the work. Thank you for your feedback! Stuarta11 (discuss • contribs) 11:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey @BeccaWithFreckles:, thanks a lot for the honest feedback I really appreciate it. Of course you can fix the punctuation issues that you mentioned. Please feel free to do so. Also don't worry about the section of solipsistic introjection, post whatever you have come up with and we will work this out all together. :) AlwaysCarryingBagpack (discuss • contribs) 23:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@AlwaysCarryingBagpack: No worries at all! I will get to that as soon as I can. And perfect thank you. I have added to it now, so let me know what you think or if you have any ideas that would make it better/make more sense please feel free to add them in. Like I said, I am not that confident with this factor so it is possible that I have completely misunderstood what Suler meant by it or I have missed out some crucial points so any feedback would be greatly appreciated. BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 23:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi @BeccaWithFreckles: I read over Suler’s section on Solipsistic Introjection so that I had a clearer idea of what it was saying and then read the bit you added to the essay page and honestly don’t think there’s anything to worry about over what you have added. I think that the way you describe the factor is accurate to how Suler tried to illustrate it and makes it very clear what Solipsistic Introjection actually is. The quote you tie it into at the end really works nicely and links to Turkle’s always on in a way, so that was effective. I really like how you brought up Tinder as an example of this, it made it easier to understand when relating it to a thing most people are in some way familiar with. When reading the section and your comment “The inability to sense tone and other social cues is a dangerous combination”, I also thought of online grooming as a darker example, which has had really devastating effects. I think Solipsistic Introjection is a reason that this is made possible because people may think they know the person they are talking to but it is actually this introjection that has actually filled the gaps. As Suler states: “As the constructed character becomes more elaborate within our minds … [it is] as if we become authors typing out a play or a novel while the characters speak to us” p.102. So if you need any other example of it that’s the one that came to mind, might be useless to you but thought I’d say anyways. In terms of word count and maybe even relevance in the essay, this factor could maybe be paired with Asynchronicity, or even just Asynchronicity mentioned as an aspect which makes Solipsistic Introjection possible, as it also has elements of 'using people as objects to be accessed' (Turkle). As the word count is way over, I do think that some of it could be condensed as some of the info is repeated slightly, if you need help with this I could try and condense it a bit, let me know what you need. That’s really all that comes to mind about it, but I really like this addition and I think you did great work with it, so thank you for working on it! Jade144 (discuss • contribs)

@Jade144: Hi! Thank you so much for your amazing feedback, it is very much appreciated and definitely puts my mind at rest a little bit. I think your idea bout online grooming could prove as a really good example of showing the opposite, and as you said, far more detrimental implications that this factor of online disinhibition can have. I am however, aware of the word count as you have said. So I agree with your idea of combining solipsistic introjection together with asynchronicity, and it if is alright with everyone, I am more than happy to try and get a head start on doing so this evening? What I might do, is look over both sections as they are, and write down my ideas about how I could combine them. Then, before publishing them on the book section, I will outline my ideas/plans on here to make sure everyone is happy with the changes I plan to make? I also am aware that I have a habit of repeating the same points when I write essays, so any help that you @Jade144: can give me in this area would be hugely appreciated! Let me know what you all think, and thanks again :) BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 21:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@Tessanotyourseminar: Hi! I had a read over your section on invisibility and I think you make some really good points that sum up this factor very well. I like the fact that you mention both positive and negative impacts, as I feel like we really need to emphasise Suler's idea that online disinhibition is like a "double edged sword." However, I do think that - if we are still struggling with word count - it would be worth considered merging this section with the anonymity section. My only concern with doing this is that we need to make it clear that these are all distinct factors that, whilst related are not exactly the same and all play a different role in the creation of online disinhibition. I think @AlwaysCarryingBagpack: or @Jade144: (sorry I'm getting a bit confused!) mentioned something about having one big section for all the factors and just having the title of each in bold. I think this is a really good idea. What I think it would therefore be worthwhile doing, is if we go through the sections as they are, and pin point the crucial pieces of information that we feel best describe each factor. We can work on a nice layout for this as well once we have got the content down. What does everyone think? Like I said, I don't want to start making changes unless I know the group are happy with me doing so, so if you could get back to me when you can that would be great! BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 13:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I've added a little bit to the book, mostly in the dissociative anonymity section to discuss a little bit more about the real-life implications of dissociative anonymity and its toxic disinhibition effects in real life, complicating the idea that our identities online and offline can be separated and that toxic online behaviour can be seen as not really being you as this is one of the major justifications for bad behaviour online that Suler mentions in his article. Also discussing a little about how the topic of dissociative anonymity links to debates of whether anonymity online should be allowed in its current form or if it should be banned or curbed in some way or another as I think this is quite intersting and links it to contemporary debate. I wasn't completely sure about referencing but I used the shortcuts in the editing section so hopefully it's all up to scratch! Feel free to read it over and change whatever if you feel it's not relevant or if you feel it can be better worded or more concise! Also, not sure if I'll be able to add anything about the social facilitation, groupthink etc that I had done some reading on as the book has so much stuff written already! So I think we could focus our efforts now on reading everything over and really try to get the character and word count down! I really wish we were allowed to have a longer word count because there is so much stuff to discuss on this topic! Seanmcb2 (discuss • contribs) 15:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@BeccaWithFreckles: Hi, I just read your rewrite of the anonymity section and I think it's all great. I'm just thinking though that it may not all be 100% necessary. You've put a lot of work into it so it feels bad saying but if we're struggling with word count I think that the cyberbullying example could perhaps be cut because there is a cyberbullying discussion later in the essay which explores the anonymity in action in this way too. I think that defining the sections by what they mean and how they contribute to people becoming disinhibited is enough because we end up going into examples for it later with case studies, like the one you added recently, which was great and the other ones too. This would make integrating all the factors together a bit easier too because it's just a basic description of what they are and then it's later when we get into examples and stuff? This is just a suggestion I thought of but feel free to dismiss it if you think that it's important to keep in. Like I said the section is great and I wouldn't of even of thought of cutting it if the word count was more. Jade144 (discuss • contribs) 18:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Annotated Bibliography

Writing any sources we use for research Greg said that it might be useful to do annotated bibliographies, so could do that here potentially?

• Lapidot-Lefler, N; Barak, A. (2012) Effects of anonymity, invisibility, and lack of eye-contact on toxic online disinhibition. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 434–443. doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.10.014

This article revolved around research that was conducted with 142 participants in which anonymity, invisibility and lack of eye contact were tested and recognised to be individual factors to contributing to negative online disinhibition. Explaining negative/toxic online disinhibition to readers as lack of inhibition online resulting to aggressive and ‘flaming’ behaviours that damages one’s self-image and/or other’s self-image through this behaviour that would not have taken place if outside of the virtual world. Their findings identified that when communicating online, lack of eye contact was the most influential element of toxic online disinhibition. With lack of eye contact during communication, participants felt more anonymous and thereafter led to their likelihood for engaging in an increasing amount of ‘flaming behaviours’. The article also singles out that there is a gap in research around lack of eye contact producing negative online disinhibition, suggesting this should be researched further especially because it is recognised as causing the most ‘flaming behaviour’ in online communication among the participants of this study. The authors also express that research within this field tends to generalise anonymity: which can prove flawed as they argue that there are many factors that make up anonymity for an individual, the term itself being too broad. This is a comment we should take note of when writing our own essay, as defining anonymity seems to be an essential element to the topic. Jade144 (discuss • contribs) 13:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oldberg, C. J.A (2016) Organizational Doxing: Disaster on the Doorstep in journal on telecommunications and high technology law, 15(1), 181-206.
  • Article link

Oldberg’s article focuses on organisational doxing. Doxing (sometimes spelt as ‘doxxing’) is explained as researching available information online to find and publish someone’s personally identifiable information (PII). Through use of specific examples, Oldberg emphasises the dangers and catastrophic effects that large scale organisational doxing can bring to people. For example, the ‘Ashley Madison’ hacking scandal was analysed in order to make readers aware of the threats organisational doxing presents. In this scandal an organised group who called themselves “The Impact Team” published data belonging to 35 million people in order to expose the dating site for lying about their paid feature of the “full delete” button - which advertised that this would allow all personal data of users to be completely destroyed. Ashley Madison was a dating site specifically made for people in marriages and relationships to find affairs, so once this personal data proving affairs and cheating was released to the public, there were disastrous consequences: ranging from divorces to suicides. This is just one of the examples that the article uses to demonstrate the mass amount of people who can be effected through organisational doxing – Oldberg even stating that this online act can be used as a form of terrorism. This concept fits into the topic of toxic online disinhibition, as with the Ashley Madison example, this type of behaviour could only be possible online. The use of the code-name “the impact team” means that although the act is credited; the individual members responsible remain anonymous from their destructive actions, a concept that we could connect to Suler’s 6 factors. In addition, we could connect organisational doxing to Dataveillance, always-on and online identity, as doxing uses information that is publicly available and therefore is data that we have put online ourselves through involvement in social media or agreed to be collected through signing terms and conditions. I would highly recommend this article if we want to discuss consequences of toxic online disinhibition. Jade144 (discuss • contribs) 20:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

• Suler, J., 2006: "Contemporary Media Forum: The online disinhibition effect", International Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies 2: 184-188

https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/30420106/suler.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1551835966&Signature=X%2FQJQh0Yz1rsHsY6%2B1tjsKgn9Xw%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DThe_online_disinhibition_effect.pdf

Suler discusses benign and toxic disinhibition online and how online anonymity creates the disinhibition effect. While the source discusses the main reasons behind online disinhibition effect, the source lacks evidence to support to support these reasons. The source is a useful starting point for discussing why disinhibition exists online.

Stuarta11 (discuss • contribs) 15:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• Moore, R. (2011). An Introduction to Cybercrimonology: What is Cybercriminology: Deindividuation Theory. Cybercrime: investigating high-technology computer crime, (pp.277-9) Kidlingston, Oxford. Anderson Publishing.

I just read this chapter and I think it would be really useful in terms of how old theories apply to Online Disinhibiton. It will be particularly useful for whoever is looking into the anonymity factor as it discusses the impact that lack of identification has on how people act. It also provides examples of previous studies where this theory has been put to the test. Specifically, it looks at how people are more likely to try and access illegal material online when they know their identity is concealed. One interesting point it makes following on from this is how people who commit piracy crimes will claim that they would never even consider shoplifting a DVD, however don't have any issue with it online. This just shows how much people stray from their 'normal' behaviours when they feel it is less likely that they will get caught and furthermore face the repercussions of their actions. This book in general seems like it will be really useful as it goes into a lot of areas which I feel could be applied to Online Disinhibtion. There are also many other theories included in the chapter I found this one which I am yet to read but if I come across any that might be beneficial for us to look into I will be sure to post them on here. But yeah, I highly recommend looking into getting a copy of this book from the library as I have found it really helpful/interesting so far! Also, does anyone know if I have done the referencing right? I find it so confusing! Thanks! BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 14:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• Moore, R. (2011). An Introduction to Cybercrimonology: What is Cybercriminology: Space Transition Theory. Cybercrime: investigating high-technology computer crime, (pp.277-9) Kidlingston, Oxford. Anderson Publishing.

In this section of the book, Moore talks about K. Jaishankar's 'Space Transition Theory'. Unlike the other theories mentioned in this book, this one was developed specifically for cybercrime. The theory puts forward several propositions which aim to explain why it is that people are susceptible to committing crimes online when they would never dare to do such a thing in real life. This, I feel, would be really useful for our essay as it heavily ties in with a lot of Suler's arguments, as well as other psychological theories which seek to explain the causes behind such deviant behaviour. What I found especially interesting about this theory was the idea that a lot of the time, people hide their inner desires to commit unsavoury acts in person for fear of how it will make them look and furthermore, the destructive impact that such behaviour will likely have on their reputation. Yet, when it comes to online activities, this fear is almost erased. This would tie in nicely with the idea of anonymity, lack of authority and the lack of consequences that often comes from the online world. I think it would be great if we could look into how much people value their self-image in person, and why they feel they can so freely abandon such moral standards when they log onto their computers. BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 14:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• Vilanova, F., Machado Beria, F., Brandelli Costa, Â., & Helena Koller, H. (2017). Deindividuation: From Le Bon to the social identity model of deindividuation effects Cogent Psychology, 4(1) 1-21. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2017.1308104

This journal article gives an overview of psychological theories of Deindividuation, Self-categorization theory and Social identity theory. Of specific interest to me it discusses how, as well as having their own personal identity, in social situations individuals also create a social identity and in a group individuals tend to see and categorize themselves as interchangeable representatives of the group rather than n as different and unique people. In these social identity situations, the individual 'tends to follow the group rules about how to feel and behave, producing normativity among the members.' This source could be of relevance in discussing Suler's social facilitation factor of online disinhibition and can be used to explain how groupthink and identification with opposing online groups can come about, e.g GamerGate, SJW, alt-right. Seanmcb2 (discuss • contribs) 16:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• Cheung, C. (2007). Identity and self-presentation on personal homepages. In D. Bell, & B. M. Kennedy (Eds.), The cybercultures reader (Second ed., pp. 273-285). Abington, Oxon: Routledge.

In this chapter, Cheung provides an insight as the multiple ways in which the creation of personal homepages can not only help one express their identity, but also explore what their true identity is when they are left feeling uncertain. This heavily relates to the idea of benign disinhibition for it shows the benefits that a platform which allows for such a high level of self-expression and exploration can have. These are things that cannot be achieved when it comes to face-to-face communication for a number of reasons. For example, some people lack confidence when it comes to physical interactions. Not only that, but face-to-face communication does not allow time for one to pause and reflect on what they are going to say. It's immediacy creates an overwhelming amount of pressure, meaning that mistakes and misinterpretations are likely to occur. This can result in the individual being mocked, ridiculed or looked down upon and thus discourages them from expressing their true self in the future. Yet, personal homepages which Cheung defines as always being "under construction" in this chapter means that we can constantly modify our ways of expressing ourselves until we find the way that we are the most satisfied with. Not only that, but even when people don't agree with what we say online, we can ignore their hate/backlash in a way that once again is not permitted by the immediacy of face-to-face interactions. However, in this chapter Cheung does admit that their are limitations to the level of freedom one can have in regards to expressing themselves online. Depending on things like age, gender, occupation, education level, location, etc, some people don't have the same level of access to these personal homepages as others. Or, even when they do they are manipulated by already existing and domineering ideologies within society. Thus, he uses this chapter to not only illustrate the importance of personal homepages in the expression and exploration of identity, but also to stress that not enough people are currently aware of just how vital they can be and thus it is something that should be promoted. I feel this would be a really useful addition to the benign disinhibition section for anyone who is looking at that. It could also potentially be linked into some of Suler's factors for Online Disinhibition. Copies can be found in the library. BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 20:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Henderson, S., Gelding, M. (2004). ‘I’ve never clicked this much with anyone in my life’: trust and hyperpersonal communication in online friendships in New Media & Society 6(4) p.487-506

Henderson and Gelding observe hyperpersonal communication and trust on computer-mediated communication. It uses 17 interviewees to explain the growth of trust online. The article looks at four sources of online trust: reputation, performance (acting in a positive way to be liked), reciprocal self-disclosure and situational factors. The article is useful for our research as it discusses benign disinhibition through looking at factors such as asynchronicity as it allows time for self-reflection and to consider our actions. It suggests that the lack of social context cues online allow us to elaborate on our thoughts and thus suggests that we are more likely to be hyperpersonal online. The article also points out the negative aspects of hyperpersonal relationships like unrealistic self-presentation and expectations. Since none of the participants were not strictly anonymous the study does not explore the impact of reputation and anonymity on computer-mediated communication. The article is useful for looking at asynchronicity and social context cues in relation to online disinhibition but fails to explore factors such anonymity. This article can be used to show how trust and hyperpersonal relationships can be formed by asynchronicity and the lack of social context cues. Stuarta11 (discuss • contribs) 15:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• Fox, J., Cruz, C., & Young Lee, J. (2015). Perpetuating online sexism offline: Anonymity, interactivity, and the effects of sexist hashtags on social media. Computers in Human Behavior, 52(1). p. 436-442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.024

In this study the writers, with reference to Suler's framework of the online disinhibition effect, research the importance of anonymity or lack of anonymity in the creation of and interaction with sexist tweets online. Fox, Cruz and Young Lee asses to what extent the anonymity of these sexist online activities subsequently affected the participants' perceptions of female job candidates. According to the authors the results of this study go on to show that the anonymous writing of and interaction with sexist tweets led to diminished perceptions of the ability of female job candidates and in this way, created more sexism after the toxic online disinhibition caused by dissociative anonymity online. The authors claim that these results then complicate the notion of the perceived distinction between an online anonymous self and an offline 'real life' self used as a justification by toxically disinhibited individuals online. This research is of importance to the collaborative essay on online disinhibition as it links to Suler's work on online disinhibition and dissociative anonymity in particular, while also illustrating the real life offline consequences of online disinhibition that carry on from the incivility displayed online. Seanmcb2 (discuss • contribs) 18:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• Santana, A.D. (2014) Virtuous or Vitriolic. Journalism Practice, 8(1), p. 18-33. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2013.813194

The author carries out a quantitative study of reader comments left on comments sections of online newspaper outlets to empirically understand the effect that anonymity has on the level of hostility the comments as compared to sites in which you must be signed up and made identifiable to comment. The results of this data show that the expectation of the toxic disinhibition of commenters through dissociative anonymity occurs, as Santana found that there was indeed a 'dramatic improvement in the level of civility in online conversations when anonymity is removed'. This reading could be of use in the essay as it tackles questions of whether online anonymity should be allowed or not as Santana discussed how many of these news outlets have stopped allowing anonymous comments, due to the overwhelming number of vitriolic and hateful comments, and have made it a requirement to be made identifiable - by signing up through Facebook for example - in order to be able to leave a comment. Seanmcb2 (discuss • contribs) 21:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

• De Choudhury, M., & De, S. (2014) Mental health Discourse on Reddit: Self-Disclosure, Social Support, and Anonymity. Eighth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, pp. 71-80.

This study explores to what extent the disinhibiting effects of reddit in the fork of 'throwaway accounts' allow for a greater self-disclosure of health related discourse and discussion of mental illness on the forum. they discuss how the thruway accounts allowed by the reddit platform act as a form of anonymity in which temporary identities can be created in order to talk more openly about their feelings and health issues that would normally be unsuitable in mainstream or real-world situations. The study's findings show that the dissociative anonymity offered by the throwaway accounts allow individuals to talk more openly and give support to others about mental health issues without fear of being identified. this reading is useful to consider or discuss briefly in the wiki book section regarding dissociative anonymity as it offers a situation in which it can be seen that dissociative anonymity actually has good effects and implications as opposed to the toxic effects of trolling, flaming etc. Seanmcb2 (discuss • contribs) 16:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• Suler, J. (2006). The First Decade of CyberPsychology. The Psychology Of Cyberspace, 1. Retrieved from http://users.rider.edu/~suler/psycyber/decade.html

John Suler is a psychology professor who is based at Rider University in New Jersey. He is known for his extensive research into the cyberspace and specifically his work on Online Disinhibition. The purpose of this online article is to explain and develop Suler’s original ideas on cyberspace and identity. Suler makes many points but his main points revolve around how over time cyberspace has changed and how theorist need to understand this change better within the aspect of cyberspace as there is no real definition that can be made and if there was it would change for each individual. Suler’s main conclusions is however is that some aspects of cyberspace will never change. For example, the idea that the cyberspace allows online disinhibition due to varying degrees of “Imaginary identity”. When looking into cyberspace and disinhibition, Suler’s work can be extremely helpful and reliable. This is known due to his stature within the psychology bubble but also within the Digital media bubble and how he has related these two topics very clearly and concisely through all of his work. Isabellathebull (discuss • contribs) 00:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• Vandebosch, H. Van Cleemput, (2008) Defining Cyberbullying: A Qualitative Research into the Perceptions of Youngsters, Cyberpsychology & Behaviour, 11(4), 499-503.

This article was based around these focus groups that were made up of 10-19-year olds and were asked about how they defined “Cyberbullying” there were many conclusions made and multiple different definitions of what cyberbullying is nowadays. For example, there were many participants that considered cyberbullying to be abuse online and foul behaviour towards others and themselves. They also admitted to why they themselves cyberbullied rather that talk to the other person in real life. This was due to their ability to remove themselves from their identity the perceived use of the internet. As well as this the groups spoke about how its not online internet that grows cyberbullying its mobiles as well. A few participants expanded on how they got phone calls in the middle of the night and received threatening phone calls too. It is showing the different aspects of toxic disinhibition many of which will be extremely useful due to the wide variety of participants and how they define cyberbullying. It further shows us how personal cyberbullying is and how difficult it is to define such a wide topic. Isabellathebull (discuss • contribs) 01:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Document Planning

Planning the layout of the document

As I said in my first comment, some of the possible sections we could include could be:

- general overview

- benign and toxic disinhibition

- Suler's six factors

- impacts of it (maybe look at a case study or something - for example, the impact it has in the YouTube community) - the theories behind online disinhibition (maybe psychological approaches)

- importance of social cues - causes

Again, these are just ideas and I feel like a lot of them will probably link in/overlap with each other. But because they have come up frequently in research, I thought they would be at least good starting points. What do you guys think? Is there anything you think we should take out or add? BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 17:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Updated document plan:

1.Introduction- general background into online disinhibition and mention Suler's 6 factors

2.Causes of online disinhibition

3.Benign disinhibition

• "Social media is currency for young people. It is a portal to potential possibilities for people who feel hopeless, uninspired, scared and alone." - Aija Mayrock

• "you can use social media to connect with people with the same issues as you, social media can be an incredibly powerful support network." - Julie Lythcott-Haims

• You can see the healing power as we start to radiate kindness and goodness and gratitude through our tweets and posts." - Julie Lythcott-Haims

• “For many teens, social media is a source of connection and inspiration, a chance to share their creativity and alleviate loneliness.”

• “But they are also the kids who benefit from finding communities to embrace them, from being able to interact freely and practice skills in a safe space online.”

All five of the quotes above came from the following source Social Media, Social Lives BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 23:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

• Facebook motto: sharing will "make the world more open and connected."

Taken from Online Lives BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 22:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

• “people are much more ready to say things, personal things, more reflective things, deeper things about themselves, on Facebook than in everyday life.”

• “Facebook is in itself more truthful than an encounter with people.”

Both of the above quotes are taken from a chapter in the book Tales From Facebook (definitely worth a read) BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 23:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

4.Toxic disinhibition @Isabellathebull: @Jade144:

• "It is possible that children who ordinarily would not participate in bullying experiences feel disinhibited by the anonymity that the physical distancing from their target the Internet provides." - This quote could work for this section, but it could also work for the anonymity section. Thus, it would be a really good way of linking the two together. Taken from Comparing Children and Adolescents Engaged in Cyberbullying BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 23:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

5. Evidence of online disinhibition @AlwaysCarryingBagpack:

• "According to teens themselves, using social media strengthens their relationships with friends and family at the same time it distracts them from face-to-face communication." Taken from Social Media, Social Lives BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 23:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

6.Dissociative anonymity @Seanmcb2:

• "Being anonymous allows for reduced social accountability, which may encourage individuals to engage in inappropriate behavior online." Taken from Comparing Children and Adolescents Engaged in Cyberbullying BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 23:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

7.Invisibility @Tessanotyourseminar:

• “The significant number of exposed participants with personal e-mail accounts not accessible by parents suggest infrequent parental monitoring may increase the chance that youth will engage in inappropriate behavior online.” Taken from Comparing Children and Adolescents Engaged in Cyberbullying (I don't know how relevant this is to this section, but thought it might work...) BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 23:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

• “even if there is a million people behind you. You could still have a silent conversation on the internet… Silent, meaning if I am in a group with people you wouldn't want to tell me anything because you would have to say it via voice”

• “But the key difference is that at a party, with so many people milling around, an individual might be more afraid as to what they say to you.”

Again, not sure how relevant these two quotes are, but thought they might work. Both taken from Tales From Facebook BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 23:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

8. Asynchronicity @Stuarta11:

• “the individual becomes disinhibited due to the absence of immediate feedback which would normally steer a conversation towards the direction of adhering social norms.” Taken from Investigation into Asynchronicity and Online Disinhibition BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 23:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

9.Solipsistic Introjection

10.Dissociative imagination @BeccaWithFreckles:

• “Many individuals cyberbully because they think it is entertaining and funny, not realizing the negative impact it has on the victim.” Taken from Comparing Children and Adolescents Engaged in Cyberbullying BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 23:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

11.Minimisation of status and authority @Stuarta11:

• “The significant number of exposed participants with personal e-mail accounts not accessible by parents suggest infrequent parental monitoring may increase the chance that youth will engage in inappropriate behavior online." Taken from Comparing Children and Adolescents Engaged in Cyberbullying BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 23:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

12.Conclusion

@Stuarta11: I hope you don't mind but I copy and pasted your layout here just to make things easier. I think it would be good if everyone could leave their name under the section they would like to tackle so that we all know who's doing what and there is not as much confusion. If anyone also has anything they would like to change/add also feel free to leave it here. It will be great to hear everyone else's ideas. Once we know who's doing what, we can begin making progress with the essay! Look forward to hearing what you guys think/come up with :) BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 16:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Possible re-write of the 'Anonymity' section:

On the internet we have a choice. We can either create a page which has the same name, same identifying features as our offline selves. Or, we can stray completely and remain anonymous. According to Suler, the ability to do so through fake usernames and emails is a key motivator behind the idea of online disinhibition. Not only do we feel more in control of how we present ourselves, but in doing so we allude ourselves to thinking we can say whatever we want without it having any repercussions for us. We begin to separate our online self from or offline self. Or at least, the line becomes increasingly blurred.

Peter Singer sums this idea up the best in his famous New Yorker cartoon, On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog Whilst anonymity can be seen to encourage cases of benign online disinhibition, it is far more prevalent in the toxic side. By granting us such a high illusion of power, the online anonymity has led many to abandon morals and partake in horrible acts such as cyberbullying. Whilst digital, these threats can still have a severe impact on an individuals well-being, which is then only amplified by the anxiety which arises in being unable to trace who it is that is actually sending you such derogatory messages. Imagine being a young child who has to walk around school every single day, not knowing whether or not they can trust those who, in person, say they are their friends. This is a tremendous example of what Suler means when he refers to online disinhibition as a double edged sword. For, although anonymity may help build someone’s confidence in one case it can also completely shred someone’s confidence in another. By convincing ourselves, though anonymous usernames, that our online selves are completely separate from our online selves, we are completely ignorant of the consequences that our actions can have. Words still hurt regardless of whether or not they are digital. They hurt even more, when the culprit behind the mask (or screen) cannot be identified due to the extremely uneven playing field.

• I feel like this could still be cut down more, but I have managed to get it down from 784 words to 354. What does everyone think? @Tessanotyourseminar:, @Jade144:, @AlwaysCarryingBagpack:, @Seanmcb2:, @Stuarta11:, @Americanlydia: and @Isabellathebull: (I hope I haven't missed anyone out!) BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 14:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• Also, as a side note, I will obviously add in all the references for the above section once we finalise what we are going to include in it! BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 16:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Possible re-write for 'Dissociative Imagination':

Being that there are so many ways of expressing oneself online, it is unsurprising that users have become prone to viewing their online activities as “a kind of game with rules that do not apply to everyday living.” . This is what Suler defines as Dissociative Imagination.

By immersing oneself in the virtual world, many are guilty of thinking that their online actions have no offline consequences . Thus, this factor can be heavily associated with the idea of toxic disinhibition, whilst also being applicable to online fantasy/role playing games as outlined by Suler. Partaking in these activities on a regular basis, the user alludes themselves into thinking their online actions are no more real than the stories they read as kids, which is all the more troubling being that they don't realise how distant they become in the offline world as a result.

However, this is far from the truth. The case of Thomas Montgomery is a prime example of the dangers that dissociative imagination can bring. After starting an online affair - something that those guilty of such dissociation would claim "exists only in cyberspace" - he began a double life. It may have only existed on screens, but it had disastrous real life consequences. Upon finding out that someone whom he worked with (in the real world) was also having an online affair with the same woman, Montgomery flipped and shot his co-worker dead in the car park. An act that he certainly could not log off from. For, no matter how much we would like to forget, “emotions don’t turn on when we log on and turn off when we log off.” [1]

• I know I said in the discussion section that it was 252 words, but after having to add in a bit of information, it is not 274 which hopefully isn't too bad. But yeah, let me know what you guys think!@Tessanotyourseminar:, @Jade144:, @AlwaysCarryingBagpack:, @Seanmcb2:, @Stuarta11:, @Americanlydia: and @Isabellathebull: BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 16:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Delegation of Tasks

Decisions about who is contributing where

• Two topics i'm quite interested in are: real world effects and consequences of toxic disinhibition (cyberbullying, doxing) or The factor of dissociative anonymity from Suler's concepts. Jade144 (discuss • contribs) 23:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• Some of the areas I would be interested in working on are the causes/impacts of Online Disinhibition - so like case studies, news stories, etc, theories behind Online Disinhibition, and either the factor of Minimization of Status and Authority or Dissociative Imagination from Suler's concepts. BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 10:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• I would be interested in writing about benign disinhibition and the positive effects of online anonymity. Stuarta11 (discuss • contribs) 12:45, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• The first concept I would be very interested in working with is theories of psychology and psychoanalysis related to online disinhibition, of witch Suler gave a brief mention, as well as cyberspace psychology or any of the six factors, but mostly on invisibility or solipsistic introjection. AlwaysCarryingBagpack (discuss • contribs) 13:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• I'd be interested in discussing any of the six factors of online disinhibition but I am particularly interested in social facilitation, perceived privacy, invisibility or dissociative anonymity. In particular I'd be interested in discussing the factor of social facilitation in relation to doxxing, flaming etc. carried out by specific online groups and how these respective groups see it is a good thing or act of social justice (linking to Greg Singh's article about the 'Wupocalypse' and GamerGate) Seanmcb2 (discuss • contribs) 17:42, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

External Links

This will be the space for any external links, such as websites and online articles we may find helpful in our research.
1. Effects of anonymity, invisibility, and lack of eye-contact on toxic online disinhibition In the bibliography of this writting you can find plenty of other resources linked to our topic. AlwaysCarryingBagpack (discuss • contribs) 22:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

2. Self-disclosure in computer-mediated communication:The role of self-awareness and visual anonymity AlwaysCarryingBagpack (discuss • contribs) 22:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

3. The Disinhibited Self AlwaysCarryingBagpack (discuss • contribs) 22:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

4. Psychology and the Internet : Intrapersonal, Interpersonal, and Transpersonal Implications Second link from the top. Check chapter 4: Disinhibition and the Internet. AlwaysCarryingBagpack (discuss • contribs) 22:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

5. Experimenter-subject 'distance' and self-disclosure This research refers only to physical distance between experimenter and subjects but it could be used for comparing and contrasting with our topic. AlwaysCarryingBagpack (discuss • contribs) 23:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

6. Wupocalypse Now: Supertrolls and Other Risk Anxieties in Social Media Interactions. Greg Singh chapter that discusses the 'disinhibited mob-like behaviour' of GamerGate and online trolling, doxxing of female game journalists. Interesting discussion of polarisation of viewpoints and online groups that could link to social faclitation and dissociative anonymity. Seanmcb2 (discuss • contribs) 18:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

7. Kentucky approves bill to make 'doxing' illegal after Covington student's online backlash I found this news article, which was only published today, that discusses how the state of Kentucky in the US has recently approved a bill to make ‘doxing’ illegal. This is in response to backlash that took place in January with an underage student who people labelled as racist. The father of the student stated that his son was the "victim of the most sensational twitter attack on a minor child in the history of the internet”. Whether or not the student ‘deserved’ the backlash from his actions, ‘doxing’ itself seems to be an especially dangerous form of toxic online disinhibition. This is identified further in Greg’s 2018 book chapter Wupocalypse Now which discussed the #GamerGate and ‘The Zoe Post’ controversy as examples of this danger of how 'doxing' lead to the harassment of the individuals involved, through rape and death threats and further publication of private data and nude photographs on revenge porn sites (this article is linked above). There are debates on the bill which revolves around concerns on freedom of speech, which is an interesting idea in this topic. Does freedom of speech mean freedom of hate speech in certain context? The main interest of this news article is that ‘doxing’: a form of toxic online disinhibition, is being seriously considered as an act of abuse in the ‘real’ world by law and not just as a separate online act that can’t cause any real effect – this was the case of the women in Greg’s article, as the threats they received weren’t taken seriously by police. Now that we are in the digital age, these threats are starting to be taken more sincerely. Jade144 (discuss • contribs) 23:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

8. Milgrim's Experiment Like I said, this may or may not be useful to our theme, but would love to know what you guys think! Or if you feel there is any way we could adapt it to help our essay! :) BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 14:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

9. The benign online disinhibition effect: Could situational factors induce self-disclosure and prosocial behaviors? This is a study that focuses on the benign effects of disinhibition carried out by Noam Lapidot-Lefler and Azy Barak as a continuation of their previous study on the toxic effects (1st link in this section). The study examines the factors of anonymity, invisibility and lack of eye-contact on benign disinhibition. AlwaysCarryingBagpack (discuss • contribs) 19:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

10. Internet Matters Website This site looks into some of the issues that occur within the cyberspace - particularly in relation to the younger generation. It also provides advice for parents in terms of tackling these issues, as well as links to further articles for research. BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 10:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

11. To Get What You Need: Healthy and Pathological Internet Use. You can download the article or read it online. Here Suler discusses the pathological and healthy use of the internet which is related to toxic and benign disinhibition as well as to his six factors. AlwaysCarryingBagpack (discuss • contribs) 19:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

12. The Online Disinhibition Effect (2004). Here J. Suler discusses about what online disinhibition is and mentions the six factors but at the end of his article he talks more about the psychological factors. The article is the first link on the google scholar page. AlwaysCarryingBagpack (discuss • contribs) 22:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

13. How Deindividuation Encourages Cheating This link was quite interesting. It talks about an experiment (albeit offline) which took place during the 1970s. It looked at how honest children were on Halloween when the adult left the room and how much groups, anonymity and shifting of responsibility affected their honesty. I feel like although this is an offline example, it might be a good example to show how this is something that has been going on for a long time, and that the internet did not create it. Rather enhanced it. What do you guys think? BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 20:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

14. Psychotherapy in Cyberspace. This article demonstrates various approaches to conducting psychotherapy through cyberspace and analyze the pros and cons of five dimensions, each one involving a different type of relationship between therapist and client. AlwaysCarryingBagpack (discuss • contribs) 23:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

15. Deindividuation: From Le Bon to the social identity model deindividuation effects. Many of the aspects on this reading are mentioned in Joinson's chapter on the 4th link in this section. I strongly suggest reading section 5. Intrapsychic aspects of deindividuation which discusses about self-awareness and aggressive behaviour. AlwaysCarryingBagpack (discuss • contribs) 23:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

16. Self-control in Online Discussions Disinhibited Online Behavior as a Failure to Recognize Social Cues; - Experiment that looks at the role of self-control in recognising social cues in the context of disinhibited online behavior Tessanotyourseminar (discuss • contribs) 16:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

17.https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/21949/Piper2015.pdf?sequence=1 - "Workplace Toxic Online Disinhibition: Causes and Effects" This might be quite helpful to get a specific look at toxic disinhibition within a demographic like the workplace? It makes some very good points! Isabellathebull (discuss • contribs) 17:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

18. Online Disinhibition Effect (Suler) This is a brief article on each of the 6 suler factors, described very simply and easy to understand for back ground information. Tessanotyourseminar (discuss • contribs) 17:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

19. Real-life consequences in a digital world This article highlights the issues that emerge from us viewing the online world as separate from the real world. It provides a real life example where someone lost their job because of insensitive Tweets and furthermore shows the importance of taking the time to think before posting. I think it would be really useful for the Dissociative Imagination section! BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 21:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

20. The Digital Self: Our online lives are our 'real' lives This article looks again at the issue of viewing online actions as irrelevant in the offline world. It urges us to consider the implications that our online actions can have offline and thus, that a username will not protect us from the consequences that our posts have. Again, I think this would also be very useful for the Dissociative Imagination section. BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 21:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

21. Online conduct can have far reaching effects: Think, Type, Post This article examines steps taken by the US Army to encourage soldiers to be more cautious about what they choose to share on their social media platforms. They do so by promoting the motto 'Think, Type, Post.' This once more links in really well with the idea of Dissociative Imagination and I think it could be really useful to consider. BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 21:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

22. Fantasy Choices and the Real Self This article is really interesting as it kind of counteracts the idea put forward by Suler about Dissociative Imagination. It instead suggests the idea of the 'Magical Law of Similarity' which is basically that people do see their online self as their real self and so, feel that what they do online will impact them - or others - offline. BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 11:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

23. Don't Dismiss Online Relationships as Fantasy This source makes some really good points in relation to dissociative imagination. It provides real life examples which highlight that online relationships are just as real as offline ones and can have very serious implications on our lives overall. I am not sure if it could be counted as an academic source, however I think it would be really useful to use as a springboard for further ideas/research. Let me know what you guys think! BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 14:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

24. Sherry Turkle (2011), Always on (151-171) I believe all of us are familiar with this reading from the resource list in canvas. I believe this chapter does relate to the online disinhibition effect and I strongly recommend reading "The new state of the self: from life to the life mix" to those who are interested in the benign effects of disinhibition. AlwaysCarryingBagpack (discuss • contribs) 23:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

25. Self-Love and Self-Curation Online This article discusses the notion of self-love and how we create a different identity on social network systems. The author supports that self-exposure gives a platform for re-definition of offline identities and new sociabilities that can change the notion of community and friendship on SNS. AlwaysCarryingBagpack (discuss • contribs) 00:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

26. Are Internet Affairs Different? This source looks into the issues of online affairs and why they are perhaps becoming more common. I feel like there are a few key points from this source which could be used for the dissociative imagination section, however there is also a lot in terms of anonymity and perhaps even toxic disinhibition? I would be really interested to see what you guys think of it/if you find it useful! BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 20:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

27.Millennials are struggling with face to face communication This article is really interesting and highlights some of the reasons as to why young people are growing less and less confident when it comes to having to communicate face-to-face. BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 21:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

28. Tor This website is used as a way of protecting people being traced online. They encourage us to stray from our offline identities, so that our lives cannot be compromised in any way shape or form by our online actions. They present a without a trace system meaning you cannot be hunted down by other online users. There is a lot on this site, and it might be worth using as a reference in the anonymity section especially. BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 18:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

29. Virtuous or Vitriolic: The effect of anonymity on civility in online newspaper reader comment boards This article analyses the difference between the comments on online newspaper websites when the comments are either allowed to be posted anonymously and when they disallow complete anonymity. The article finds that the sites that did not allow anonymity saw a rise in online civility in the comments section compared to anonymous comments sections which continue to be incredibly uncivil, xenophobic and threatening. I think this article is really useful as it directly discusses whether online anonymity should be allowed or not in order to curb toxic disinhibition. Seanmcb2 (discuss • contribs) 22:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

30. Online Lives 2.0 Introduction This article is really useful as it provides a lot of information that covers multiple areas within this topic. It also provides a full list of all of the other articles mentioned within the intro thus giving us an abundance of sources which would be really good to use for further research. I have written down key points that I felt were important from this text, I will go over them and see if I can map out where I think they would best be applied on in the book section. Then, if everyone is happy, we can expand on them and begin writing the essay referencing the points/arguments that have been made. BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 12:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

31. The Social Life of Networked Teens Here, Danah Boyd discusses the behaviours of teens on the internet. I am working my way through the first section about the strange behaviours they often portray and I feel like there are a lot of interesting points made which we could work with for the essay. BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 20:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

32. Coming out in the age of the Internet: Identity" demarginalization" through virtual group participation. This reading includes three kinds of research regarding how marginalised newsgroups benefit online and also includes information of how these people reveal their interests in real life affected by the online groups. AlwaysCarryingBagpack (discuss • contribs) 05:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

33. How One Stupid Tweet Ruined Justine Sacco's Life This article would be really useful for the toxic disinhibition section as it provides multiple real life examples of the detrimental impacts that posting online can have. It highlights that whilst many believe that what they post on these sites is just a 'joke' they can be taken as incredibly offensive and furthermore cost the perpetrator their livelihood and whatever reputation they may have built for themselves - and even their family. BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 11:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

34. Jack Maynard This source is really interesting. Lots of good quotes that could work really well for the toxic disinhibition section. Not only does it provide insight as to the case with Jack Maynard, but it also provides other examples such as the issue of tweets Zoella posted when she was 19-22. BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 23:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

35. Eight Times Celebrities Messed Up on Social Media This is a really good source as it gives real life examples that we could use to strengthen the arguments we make in our essay about the negative impacts that social media can have. These examples are also really modern so that is a bonus! BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 00:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

36. Study of teens experiences with social media This is a really valuable, up to date study. It compares findings from 2012 and 2018 of the impact that social media plays in the lives of teens. It explores issues such as how social media makes them feel more confident, how it impacts vulnerable and less vulnerable teens differently and how, overall, teens have grown to dislike face-to-face communication. I will take my notes and map out possible sections where this information could be used in the document planning section. BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 19:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

37. [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00811.x%7C Computer-Mediated Communication Effects on Disclosure, Impressions, and Interpersonal Evaluations] This is a study conducted by Tidwell and Walther which provides plenty of inside about how people are more likely to disclose about themselves online and provides some evidence which I think would be useful for the evidence section. AlwaysCarryingBagpack (discuss • contribs) 20:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

38. All 37 Celebrities Who Have Been Victims of Nude Photo Hacks: It's a problem that's only getting worse. Just posting some links that discuss some of the doxing scandals that have happened over the years, that could be good to use within the essay for case studies, especially because I've also found some academic work that would go along side this and the following links i'll post. Jade144 (discuss • contribs) 21:11, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

39. The Great 2014 Celebrity Nude Photos Leak is only the beginning This link and the one before also suggest that this doxing issue, especially as a way to harass women, is only getting worse as time goes on, which is a worrying idea that could be looked into further. Jade144 (discuss • contribs) 21:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

40. 4chan and /b/: An Analysis of Anonymity and Ephemerality in a Large Online Community This is an article that discusses 4chan - the anonymity of this website means that it is overflowing with toxic online disinhibition. It would be interesting to talk a little about if this website should even be allowed to have users remain unknown because of how hostile it's reputation is, especially against women. Jade144 (discuss • contribs) 21:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

41. The Dark History Of Celebrity Photo Hacks This offers some general background for 'The fappening' case study I mentioned briefly in the toxic disinhibition section. If anyone would want a quick understanding of 'The fappening' then I would recommend this as a starting point. Jade144 (discuss • contribs) 21:43, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

42. Dooley, J. Pyzalski, J. Cross, D (2009) Cyberbullying Versus Face-to-Face Bullying: A Theoretical and Conceptual Review. Journal of Psychology, 217(4), 182–188 This article examines previous research into cyberbullying to engage with the similarities and differences it has with face-to-face bullying. It offers a wide look into debates on this field of study, which allowed me to quickly understand the main debates within the topic, as well as identify more specific articles to read next that tie more directly into online disinhibition. I think it would be a good article for anyone wanting to get up to date fast with general academic discussions of cyberbullying. Jade144 (discuss • contribs) 20:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

43. Cyberbullying facts and statistics for 2016-2018 This website seems really useful in gathering cyberbullying statistics as an online webpage that has recent information to go along with the academic articles i found from 2008/9 Jade144 (discuss • contribs) 21:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Potential Images

Here we can insert images from Wiki Commons that would benefit our essay.

• For help and guidance with using photos on the wikibook, see Help:Files. You can also use images with a lot less hassle by using the 'Embedded File' shortcut(the little icon that looks like a landscape photo) on the editing page. Seanmcb2 (discuss • contribs) 15:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The different forms of harassment experienced by female journalists due to toxic online disinhibition

Seanmcb2 (discuss • contribs) 15:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Milgram and Kishino's 'Mixed Reality' continuum represents the undeniable connection between the on and offline world

BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 19:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC) [[

'On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog.' - Peter Steiner

BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 19:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Logan Paul came under fire in 2018 for posting a video featuring the body of a man who had committed suicide in a forest in Japan

(I thought this might be useful for the dissociative imagination section, for in my opinion, he clearly didn't think of the implications that posting such content would have and the upset it would cause. It could also link to the idea that many refuse to take responsibility for their actions in the online world, and expect to be forgiven instantly when things like this happen. Another example we could use would be the video posted by Alfie Deyes where he said he was going to live off of a £1 for a day, which many people took as him making fun of poverty). BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 19:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Cyberbullying By Year

I thought this might be useful to insert in the toxic disinhibition section as evidence for cyberbullying amongst youths. BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 00:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Example of cyberbullying via email

Again, this might work well in the toxic disinhibition section. BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 00:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Catfish, the TV Show Logo

I thought this might be quite useful to place somewhere within the essay, as it is a prime and current example of people acting online in a way they wouldn't offline. BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 01:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Texting to avoid face to face communication is the new norm

I thought this might be quite good to just insert somewhere in the essay. This could really fit in anywhere, so might be just a good image to keep in mind if we need it! BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 01:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

#MeToo - the hashtag that went viral

I think this would be really useful to include in the benign disinhibition section, and we could maybe even expand the written part of this section to provide examples from the #MeToo movement as I think they fit in really well.

real people's lives are hit hard by cybercrime

Just a general image that could be used with the doxing discussion, to make the section more lively Jade144 (discuss • contribs) 13:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Ready Player One Panel (4) (36109153046)

Ready Player One logo

Ready Player One Panel (3) (36015043531)

• These are the only images I could find on wiki commons for Ready Player One. What do you guys think? BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 20:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Brain in a vat

I was looking for images that could go in the solipsistic introjection section. This was all I could find. It is in reference to a famous thought experiment which played with the idea that our brains our actually in a vat and that we are just imagining our day to day experiences. Do you think it would work in this context? If so, would it be worth briefly mentioning the experiment in the written part of the essay section? BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 00:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

NetworkSociality1

What do people think of this image for solipsistic introjection or any other area within the essay? I thought it was a good illustration of how people pass on messages to each other nowadays without actually vocally communicating. BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 00:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Help with Formatting

Any doubts about how to format anything can be asked here, as well as anyone adding any links that would demonstrate how to format specific things.

I found this Cheatsheet from the Wiki:introduction page and it's helped me a few times already, hope it helps any of you too Jade144 (discuss • contribs) 17:36, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

General Questions

Write here any questions we have and we can all try and answer them
I added my name into the contributors section but it is in red. I remember Greg talking about this but can't remember what he said. Will it turn blue eventually? If anyone could let me know that would be great-thanks. Tessanotyourseminar (discuss • contribs) 18:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Tessanotyourseminar: Hey, I remember Greg saying that this was if you didn't add any info to your userpage/discussion page yet which obviously isn't the case for you, so I looked into Wiki and there is this page that may explain it Wikipedia: username policy and if you look at section 2.5: confusing names, it says that this might be a reason as to why. I'm not sure if this is the reason but it's the only I could find. Maybe ask the The Teahouse for their help if it remains red Jade144 (discuss • contribs) 19:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jade144: Hi I am going to try and look into this more because still cant seem to see why its remaining red. Also to everyone else in the group, I thought that it was seminars this week so didn't attend my usual lab. Due to this, I am coming to the lab at 4:30 so please could you possibly make yourself known when I am there so we can all sit and discuss the essay so far etc. sorry for inconvenience- see you soon! Tessanotyourseminar (discuss • contribs) 14:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jade144: Hi again, managed to fix it, thanks for the help. All good now and in blue! :) Tessanotyourseminar (discuss • contribs) 17:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi guys, Sorry stupid question but is the essay due on Friday at 12 o'clock or is it due on Friday at midnight, sorry unsure and just wanted to check!! Thank you very much.  :) Tessanotyourseminar (discuss • contribs) 11:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi sorry, I never tagged you guys in this last time. Please could you possibly read the above question- sorry having a mind blank and cant remember when its due!! Thank you @Jade144:, @Seanmcb2:, @AlwaysCarryingBagpack:, @Isabellathebull:, @Stuarta11:, @Americanlydia: and @BeccaWithFreckles Tessanotyourseminar (discuss • contribs) 16:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

List of Contributors

Adding our usernames here will help us find each other easier and allow those not in the module to know who is working on this topic

1. Jade144 (discuss • contribs) 17:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
2. BeccaWithFreckles (discuss • contribs) 17:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
3. Isabellathebull (discuss • contribs) 17:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
4. AlwaysCarryingBagpack (discuss • contribs) 17:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
5. Seanmcb2 (discuss • contribs) 18:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
6. Tessanotyourseminar (discuss • contribs) 18:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
7. Stuarta11 (discuss • contribs) 12:51, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
8. Americanlydia (discuss • contribs) 13:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

References

INSTRUCTOR FEEDBACK: COLLABORATIVE ESSAY

General Feedback: Essays of this standard attain the following grade descriptor for the collaborative essay. Whereas not all of the elements here will be directly relevant to your particular and individual response to the brief, this will give you a more clear idea of how the grade you have been given relates to the standards and quality expected of work at this level:

Excellent. Among other things, this work will probably demonstrate a complex, critical understanding of the themes of the module. It will communicate very effectively, making excellent and creative use of the possibilities of the form (including links, as well as perhaps copyright-free videos and images, linked to from Wiki Commons), and may be written with some skill and flair. It will make insightful connections between original examples and relevant concepts. It will be informed by serious reading and reflection, is likely to demonstrate originality of thought, and will probably be rewarding and informative for the reader. The wiki markup formatting will be impeccable.

Specific Feedback:

You have submitted an extremely well written (for the large majority) response to the brief. Here you outline a number of arguments that specifically address the theme of ˈˈOnline Disinhibitionˈˈ, and your discussion of the research evidences a very clear familiarity and working knowledge of not only Suler’s work, but also more generally, a wide range of scholarship on your chosen topic. The examples that the groups have chosen to discuss the theme of Online Disinhibition are well-chosen, evidencing background reading and research, as well as making links to appropriate illustrations of your argument.

The essay is written in a fairly mature style, and your argument is , in the main, extremely well structured, following a clear line of argumentation, and supported through various kinds of evidence including relevant peer-reviewed literature. This is very good work, and (if we are being picky, I would say that apart from one or two aspects in the various “factors” sections) this essay is critically engaged, and you have demonstrated awareness of many of the contradictions inherent in the theme itself. Excellent work, well done team(s)!

N.B.: Feedback for your discussion, and individual contribs elements for the assessment will be given on your individual User Discussion Pages. Grades for all work will communicated confidentially via Canvas. GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 15:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)