From the Publisher: 
A Question of Identity 
Life on the Screen is a fascinating and wide-ranging investigation of the impact of computers and networking on society, peoples' perceptions of themselves, and the individual's relationship to machines. Sherry Turkle, a Professor of the Sociology of Science at MIT and a licensed psychologist, uses Internet MUDs (multi-user domains, or in older gaming parlance multi-user dungeons) as a launching pad for explorations of software design, user interfaces, simulation, artificial intelligence, artificial life, agents, "bots," virtual reality, and "the on-line way of life." 
Turkle's discussion of postmodernism is particularly enlightening. She shows how postmodern concepts in art, architecture, and ethics are related to concrete topics much closer to home, for example AI research (Minsky's "Society of Mind") and even MUDs (exemplified by students with X-window terminals who are doing homework in one window and simultaneously playing out several different roles in the same MUD in other windows). Those of you who have (like me) been turned off by the shallow, pretentious, meaningless paintings and sculptures that litter our museums of modern art may have a different perspective after hearing what Turkle has to say. 
This is a psychoanalytical book, not a technical one. However, software developers and engineers will find it highly accessible because of the depth of the author's technical understanding and credibility. Unlike most other authors in this genre, Turkle does not constantly jar the technically-literate reader with blatant errors or bogus assertions about how things work. Although I personally don't have time or patience for MUDs,view most of AI as snake-oil, and abhor postmodern architecture, I thought the time spent reading this book was an extremely good investment.

스크린 위의 삶 = Life on the screen : identity in the age of the internet

Social media engagement: What motivates user participation and consumption on YouTube?

In online communities, antisocial behavior such as trolling disrupts constructive discussion. While prior work suggests that trolling behavior is confined to a vocal and antisocial minority, we demonstrate that ordinary people can engage in such behavior as well. We propose two primary trigger mechanisms: the individual's mood, and the surrounding context of a discussion (e.g., exposure to prior trolling behavior). Through an experiment simulating an online discussion, we find that both negative mood and seeing troll posts by others significantly increases the probability of a user trolling, and together double this probability. To support and extend these results, we study how these same mechanisms play out in the wild via a data-driven, longitudinal analysis of a large online news discussion community. This analysis exposes temporal mood effects, and explores long range patterns of repeated exposure to trolling. A predictive model of trolling behavior reveals that mood and discussion context together can explain trolling behavior better than an individual's history of trolling. These results combine to suggest that ordinary people can, under the right circumstances, behave like trolls.

/pdf/anyone-can-become-a-troll-causes-of-trolling-behavior-in-47sozp544t.pdf

Anyone Can Become a Troll: Causes of Trolling Behavior in Online Discussions

Cognition in Practice: Notes

The Realm of Rights

Knowledge and learning exist as byproducts of social processes such as those that take place in communities of practice. We describe two frameworks for understanding and building online knowledge-building communities, or online communities of practice that enhance collective knowledge. First, the C4P framework is described as a way of understanding how knowledge is created and disseminated by participants in a community of practice. Second, we discuss ways in which technology provides added value for learning in these environments using the DDC (Design for Distributed Cognition) framework, and link this to the particular goals of a knowledge-building community. Examples from two large online communities are discussed.

/pdf/using-technology-to-transform-communities-of-practice-into-3jtik1u5w7.pdf

Using technology to transform communities of practice into knowledge-building communities

In this paper, we analyze a natural experiment regarding anonymity options and participation in a large, successful online community of practice (CoP) for U.S. soldiers. We study the impacts of changes of anonymity options on comment quality for productive discussion and professionalism. Four levels of personal attribution or anonymity of comments are significantly correlated with comment quality under some, but not all, circumstances. Eliminating anonymity options produced significantly fewer antisocial comments and fewer comments overall, although it did not affect overall peripheral participation as measured by logins and page views. Online identity or reputation appears to be more of a factor than external culpability in shaping user behaviors. Attitudes of participants and the evolution of norms over time are presented, and implications for the design of online learning communities are discussed.

Anonymity options and professional participation in an online community of practice

During the nation's worst conflicts, soldiers have wrestled with the morality of killing during combat Pete Kilner argues that leaders have a responsibility to train combat soldiers to kill during combat but leaders also have an obligation to explain the moral justification for such killing. He further argues that leaders must explain the morality of killing so soldiers can live with themselves in the years after combat. THE METHODS that the military currently uses to train and execute combat operations enable soldiers to kill the enemy, but they leave soldiers liable to postcombat psychological trauma caused by guilt. This is a leadership issue. Combat training should be augmented by explaining to soldiers the moral justification for killing in combat to reduce postcombat guilt. Soldiers deserve to understand whom they can kill morally and why those actions are indeed moral. Military leaders are charged with two primary tasks-to train and lead units to fight effectively in combat in accordance with the war convention and to care for the soldiers they command. Military professionals generally hold these two tasks to be complementary, accepting Field Marshal Erwin Rommel's statement that the best form of welfare for troops is first-class training. American military leaders have been very successful in creating combat-effective units. In response to the U.S. War Department's research indicating that less than half of World War II riflemen fired their weapons at the enemy in combat, the military instituted training techniques. These techniques-fire commands, battle drills, and realistic marksmanship ranges-resulted in much-improved combat firing rates. During the Vietnam war, similar research reveals combat firing rates of 90 percent.1 Unfortunately, this improved combat effectiveness has come at a cost to soldiers' welfare. The training techniques leaders have employed to generate the advances in combat firing rates have resulted in increased rates of postcombat psychological trauma among combat veterans. Training that drills soldiers on how to kill without explaining to them why it is morally permissible to kill is harmful to them, yet that is currently the norm. Modem combat training conditions soldiers to act reflexively to stimuli, such as fire commands, enemy contact, or the sudden appearance of a "target," that maximizes soldiers' lethality, but it does so by bypassing their moral autonomy. Soldiers are conditioned to act without considering the moral repercussions of their actions; they kill without making the conscious decision to do so. In and of itself, such training is appropriate and morally permissible. Battles are won by killing the enemy, so military leaders should strive to produce the most efficient killers. The problem, however, is that soldiers who kill reflexively in combat will likely one day reconsider their actions reflectively. If they are unable to justify to themselves that they killed another human being, they will likely, and understandably, suffer enormous guilt. This guilt manifests itself as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and it has damaged the lives of thousands of men who performed their duty in combat.2 This article argues that military leaders' important and legitimate role-transforming civilians into combat soldiers who kill to defend their country-- carries with it the obligation to help soldiers cope with the moral repercussions of their actions. If military leaders train soldiers to kill others in combat, they should also educate soldiers to live with themselves in the years after combat. Military leaders should augment current training by morally justifying killing in combat to soldiers.3 This education would improve the U.S. Army's mission effectiveness. Why Soldiers Deserve a Moral Justification for Killing Military leaders should be concerned with morally justifying killing in combat; it stems from their duty to care for their troops. …

Military Leaders' Obligation to Justify Killing in War

THE ARMY TRAINING and Leader Development Panel's (ATLDP's) Officer Study Report identified numerous challenges that the Army is addressing as it transforms to the Objective Force. The report called on the Army to "establish new systems, models, and procedures from the best of existing programs to develop leaders for full spectrum operations."1 As one of its responses, the Army is developing a digital Warrior Knowledge Network (WKN) to support leader development. The WKN will be a web-based knowledge system that provides Army leaders and soldiers with tailored, timely, and relevant knowledge and information. The dominant structure of the WKN will be online communities of practice (COPs) that provide a powerful new model for knowledge sharing and learning. This article defines COPs and overviews their enormous potential for the Army, especially in the areas of leader development, doctrine, and culture.2 It is not an overstatement to say that COPs have the potential to transform the way the Army does business, helping it to become a knowledge-based learning organization that is even more able to educate and train its leaders, develop its doctrine, and inspire commitment from its people.3 Theory and Practice Although COPs have always existed, the Internet has enabled them to become exponentially more powerful. COPs are voluntary associations of people bound together by a shared passion for a particular practice.4 They are self-selected groups whose members come together to help each other by sharing professional knowledge, stories, ideas, and tools. Such communities seem to form naturally. For example, in antiquity, artisans formed corporations, and in the Middle Ages, tradesmen formed guilds.5 In the U.S. Army, recurring officers' calls and lunchtime discussions often foster small COPs. COPs are not defined by how their members communicate, which may be through journals, conferences, informal meetings, list serves, bulletin boards, and any other forms of communication. Rather, COPs are defined by conversations, relationships, and a spirit of collaboration that develop via various means of communication. The CompanyCommand.com website has become a functional COP for military company-level commanders.6 Visitors to the site are drawn by their shared passion for command. On the site, former and experienced company commanders share their command-related stories, ideas, and tools with current and future commanders. Commanders who have a question or problem can post it, inviting other members of the community-many of whom have helpful knowledge on the topic-to offer advice. Like an officers' call at the club, the website is a forum for leaders to informally share knowledge.7 Participants tell stories, offer and debate ideas, and look for guidance. There is no gatekeeper of knowledge. In this marketplace of ideas, everyone is free to speak, yet all are expected to use their own judgment to assess the quality of what they hear. In some respects, online conversations can elicit more candor than face-to-face communications do. Speaking without attribution, participants are more likely to offer unconventional ideas and say what they really think at the moment. "I can ask questions in this forum that are somewhat taboo within my own organization... [and] can get realworld answers from experienced officers who are not in my rating chain," one captain wrote to CompanyCommand.com. Participants find themselves assessing their hidden assumptions and ways of thinking when they air their ideas and receive feedback that challenges their thinking. Anonymity forces participants to focus on the quality of the ideas presented rather than on distractions such as their contributor's rank, position, or appearance. Another important and unique advantage of online discussions is that they are not constrained by time and space. Participants can engage in asynchronous discussions with fellow practitioners around the world, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. …

Peter Kilner

Papers

Using technology to transform communities of practice into knowledge-building communities

Anonymity options and professional participation in an online community of practice

Military Leaders' Obligation to Justify Killing in War

Transforming Army Learning through Communities of Practice

Soldiers, Self-Defense, and Killing in War