Wikipedia: Friend or Foe?

“A ‘wiki’ is a collection of web pages designed to enable anyone who accesses it to contribute or modify content, using a simplified markup language. Wikis are often used to create collaborative websites and to power community websites. For example, the collaborative encyclopedia Wikipedia is one of the best-known wikis.” by Wikipedia for the article on Wiki

Lecturers are constantly reminding us not use Wikipedia as a reliable source of information for research work. “Never ever cite a Wikipedia article. Never!” said one of my lecturers. Those words keep playing in my head.

However, according to many formal and informal studies on Wikipedia e.g. Thomas Chesney’s, experts found Wikipedia articles to have a considerable amount of credibility. In Chesney's study " An empirical examination of Wikipedia’s credibility" experts found Wikipedia articles to be more credible than the non-experts’ articles suggesting that the accuracy of Wikipedia is relatively high (on a scale of 1 to 7 it was given a 3). Chesney did warn readers that the study was small and that its ‘results should not be seen as a support for Wikipedia as a totally reliable resource’ but it should definitely be taken into consideration. I do agree with the fact that it’s a good starting point and its availability in over forty languages means it has a huge advantage over other websites of similar nature and while academic institutions may not accept Wikipedia as a high quality source of information, I’m sure other organisations do. I agree that it is a good research tool and but the fact that anyone can have access to change it contents means there’s possibility for the information (especially for controversial issues) to be very biased or less biased depending on the reader’s stand on the issues.

For example, I once Wiki-ed the history of Malaysia for a presentation. I noticed that it had a common theme and tone to put the former Malaysian Prime Minister, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohammed under a bad light (in quite a subtle manner). The biasness was very evident and I’m sure while there are many who would agree with it there would also be many who would not view the article as a reliable source of information.

Just from that experience alone (plus hearing my lecturer’s voice repeating in my head), I disregarded Wikipedia as a credible source of information. As a result, I try to avoid using it and only refer to it as a last resort. Besides, if it doesn't make for credible reading, it would at least be interesting!

"Thanks to the Internet, it is now possible to be extremely well-informed and completely wrong at the same time!"

Virtual Communities: One Man's Trash is Another Man's Treasure

“….rather than understanding the Internet community as contributing to the decline of the social, we should better understand it as a response to that decline.” As written in Bowling Alone by Robert Putnam

This is a topic that truly interests me for many reasons. Studying about virtual communities is about understanding how the Internet has changed our lives for the better (or for worse, depending on your stand). It also meant studying about sociology, psychology and anthropology, fields that are so relatable for all of us.

The study of virtual communities has sparked many debates but one which is most prevalent is about whether online social networking has negatively impacted people’s social behaviour and interaction in the offline world. Many research studies have been carried out to test existing theories about how the Internet has been a cause of the decline in the traditional sense of community (shared space, close proximity, co-presence). For example, Nie and Erbring’s studies found that Internet users had less contact time with family and friends as they spent less time offline. However, many people who are the likes of journalist David Amis believe that ‘the Net is a communications technology which is in part shaped by the demands and needs of a more fragmented society. It is not responsible in and of itself for that fragmentation and isolation.’ (Read more about it – Does the Internet Make You Sad and Lonely)

There are also studies to defend the Internet and its alleged crime of causing negative social impacts in society. For example, the Pew Project results showed that Internet use, in fact, improves relationships especially strong ties and also increases the size of a user’s social circle. Furthermore, Robert Putnam (who wrote groundbreaking book called Bowling Alone shows how we have become increasingly disconnected from family, friends, neighbors, and our democratic structures-- and how we may reconnect) points out that ‘voting, giving, trusting, meeting, visiting and so on had all begun to decline while Bill Gates was still in grade school’. He also suggests that rather than understanding the Internet community as contributing to the decline of the social, we should better understand it as a response to that decline.

So why do people socialise in cyberspace? Why do virtual communities exist? In general, people flock on the Internet to belong and find acceptance within groups of other people, perhaps with similar interests and values both locally or globally. Virtual communities exist because its users are social beings. Regardless how good or bad they are at it. The Internet is also a great avenue to escape the problems and issues of the real world. Additionally, on the Internet nobody knows you’re a ‘dog’. Socialising with anonymity or partial anonymity (does not apply to the WELL) has great advantages for some users. They may find it easier to gain acceptance when it is not based on their physical appearance, ethnicity, religious beliefs, social status, disabilities, etc.

Are online social butterflies as successful in their offline social worlds? Some onliners and their POVs:

Onliner #1

“…the people who are successful at social networks are the same ones who are great in offline networking.

Other than the fun value and some exclusive or niche networks (technology) all the other networks don’t add anything new to our life.

It’s a group of like minded people with like minded interests. The difference is there are no physical boundaries.”

Onliner #2

“From my personal experience, it seems that more online-social-networking people are bad at offline communication [or bad at hiding certain things that shouldn't be shown] than people who are not focusing on online social networking. There are people who are good, but not that many.

Also, regarding like minded people with like minded interests, I see many people interacting a lot when it comes to similar interests on places like MySpace or Facebook. However, majority of the people do nothing: they simply add each other based on interests, and then communication and interaction goes down from there.”

See what I mean? Fascinating! Another point that should be made is that virtual communities work for some and not for others. Not everyone finds socialising online fulfilling enough while some build really meaningful and lasting relationships with other virtual community members, as Howard Rheingold and other WELL members speak of the WELL. One man’s trash is truly another man’s treasure…

After doing all the readings, I personally feel that the Internet has more pros than cons and that virtual communities do not contribute to the decline of traditional communities. In fact, communities are transforming not disappearing. A lot of the online socialising that we do actually supplements our offline social behaviour and interactions. Many people who 'meet' online end up meeting in the 'real world' and many people who are unable to keep in touch with their close friends due to being geographically challenged can now do so thanks to virtual communities and online social networks such as Facebook. People haven't stopped going for chats over coffee or watching movies together at the cinema. In fact, thanks to the Internet the world is communicating even more than before - crossing many physical and social boundaries that society itself constructs. Today, communities are stronger and bigger than people could have ever imagined in the past.

Hacking, Cybersecurity and the WCIT 2008

Is hacktivism ethical? I did give this question some thought. In the real world trespassing or breaking and entering without permission would make it an illegal act. But on the Internet what is illegal is not necessarily unethical. Furthermore, the boundaries of cyberspace are dynamic and ever-expanding. A set of principles have been created to align hacktivism with Gandhi’s philosophy of civil obedience thus drawing a line between what is ethical and unethical for hackers.

But what about hackers who don’t care about these set of ethics and just go about according to their own whims and fancies? What happens to hackers who are guilty of violating privacies, stealing information and identities, commiting fraud and extortion?

“Although law enforcement agencies are quick to trumpet their occasional victories against cybercriminals, they are rarely able to track down hackers sophisticated enough to pull off such complicated heists. Few hackers of this caliber are arrested, and fewer still spend time behind bars.” Greg Sandoval in Why Hackers are a Step Ahead of Law

Another issue would be the punishment for committing cyberterrorism. I am aware that just like in the real world some crimes are worse than others therefore different penalties are prescribed for different cases. Should a student who hacked into a university network to change his grades get the same punishment as hackers who committed credit card fraud to finance a terrorist group such as the Al-Qaeda?

Greg Sandoval mentioned that according to security analysts the rise of cybercrimes is due to the scarcity of law enforcements agents who match the sophisticated knowledge and skills of malicious “crackers”. Meanwhile, Don Sambadaraksa states that in nations like Thailand, information theft is not considered illegal, allowing hackers to walk scot-free from their punishment. Either way, the situation can be improved by making cyber security a priority and creating a clear set of rules and regulations and punishments to reduce cybercrimes of all sorts. A good start would be what most countries like Malaysia have done which is the setting up of an government agency to protect national online security. CyberSecurity Malaysia (formerly known as the Malaysian Computer Emergency Response Team - MyCERT) aims to improve the nation’s overall experience of IT users by reducing vulnerability and nurturing a culture of cybersecurity amongsts users, ISPs and other related parties.

The next possible step would perhaps be to have computer experts and government representatives from all around world meeting collectively to find and share effective ways to prevent cybercrimes globally. This is precisely what the World Congress on Information Technology (WCIT) can achieve this year.

The theme for the 16^th WCIT is “The Global Impact of Information and Communications Technology: Enable Businesses, Empower Societies, Enrich Economies”. It is currently taking place in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia until the 22^nd of May 2008 to showcase international IT related issues including cybersecurity. The event was also used to launch a new organisation, the International Multilateral Partnership Against Cyber-Terrorism (IMPACT), with tech experts like Symantec's CEO, John Thompson and Google’s Vice-Chairman, Vint Cerf on the advisory board it aims to become a platform for international cooperation on cybersecurity. A great step towards a safer and more enjoyable online environment for everyone.

Hacktivism vs. Cyberterrorism

With the advent of new media, a new type of crime has emerged to challenge us – cybercrime – and because cyberspace is not so easy to define spatially and legally, it is not exactly easy to identify what exactly can be categorised as a cybercrime. Most of the time hackers commit fraud for various agendas, such as to learn and explore, but these days hackers have come up with a a more grandiose agenda - political involvement and intervention.

Hackers from the late 90s became more political and they started a new trend of using the Internet as a means of achieving political goals which in turn will result in social and political changes in the world. These activities are called hacktivism and cyberterrorism.

Hacktivism

In essence, hacktivism is the combination of hacking and activism. It is the intention of achieving activist goals hoping that it will produce social and political changes in the world. Hacktivists aim to bring political awareness through disrupting normal operations by temporarily blocking access (e.g. a virtual sit-in) without using violence or causing any serious damage. It is a form of electronic civil disobedience, a movement inspired by Gandhi’s civil disobedience, a non-violent way of challenging injustice. Hacktivists use four main methods to achieve their goals: virtual blockades, e-mail attacks, hacking and computer break-ins; and computer viruses and worms. Having said that, hacktivism primarily occurs in the form of website defacement. Some examples of hacktivism are:

• X-Ploit hacked Mexico’s finance ministry Website, replacing it with the face of revolutionary hero Emiliano Zapata, in sympathy with the Zapatista rebellion in the Chiapas region in southern Mexico
• The Portuguese group Kaotik Team hacked 45 Indonesian government Websites, altering Web pages to include messages calling for full autonomy for East Timor
• The New York Times had its Website replaced with a long screed calling for the release of jailed hacker Kevin Mitnick
• Political activists took over an Indian government Website and posted messages and photos calling attention to alleged government-sponsored repression and human rights violations in the contested northern Indian state of Kashmir.
• Nike.com was “hijacked” and visitors were redirected to an Australian labour rights site.
• Milw0rm hacked the Web site of India’s Bhabha Atomic Research Center (BARC) to protest nuclear weapons testing

Cyberterrorism

It is important to distinguish the difference between hacktivism and cyberterrorism to avoid offending hacktivists! The latter has far more destructive repercussions and has been known to disrupt communications at an airport control tower in Worcester and block 911 calls in Sweden. Cyberterrorism has been defined by the American FBI as the “the premeditated, politically motivated attack against information, computer systems, computer programs, and data which result in violence against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents." Although the act of cyberterrorism itself is not violent, one could argue that death and violence in the physical world can be a direct result of cyberterrorism. For example, the spread of disinformation by cyberterrorists can spark riots and protests. There have been very few political cyberterrorisms reported but it is a threat with potentially disastrous outcomes for many nations. Several organizations such as Interpol are already actively working to prevent worldwide cyberterrorism and the potential risks they pose.

Activism, Hacktivism, and Cyberterrorism: The Internet as a Tool for Influencing Foreign Policy - An academic paper by Professor Denning, of the Department of Defense Analysis Naval Postgraduate School, which helped me understand the political outcomes of activism and hacktivism and the potential outcomes of cyberterrorism.

Cyberterrorism: How Real Is the Threat? - An article by Gary Weimann which cleared up my questions in regards to differentiating hacktivism and cyberterrorism.

How do you like them Apples?

This is a mosaic of the legendary Steve Jobs created with images of various Apple products.
And here are some images of Apple's range of 'Think Different' posters featuring inspirational and world-renowned icons such as the Dalai Lama, Mahatma Ghandi, Ted Turner, Jane Goodall, Muhammad Ali, Charlie Chaplin and even Flik the Ant!



To view more of the 'Think Different' range of posters and to get more information on the icons featured click here.

And here are some of the more recent ones...

Hackers 101

Here are some interesting definitions of the term 'hacker' as food for thought.

"A hacker is a person intensely interested in the arcane and recondite workings of any computer operating system. Most often, hackers are programmers. As such, hackers obtain advanced knowledge of operating systems and programming languages. They may know of holes within systems and the reasons for such holes. Hackers constantly seek further knowledge, freely share what they have discovered, and never, ever intentionally damage data."

- Armchair Revolutionaries article, Difference Btw Hackers N Crackers

"A hacker is someone who thinks outside the box. It's someone who discards conventional wisdom, and does something else instead. It's someone who looks at the edge and wonders what's beyond. It's someone who sees a set of rules and wonders what happens if you don't follow them. A hacker is someone who experiments with the limitations of systems for intellectual curiosity."

– Bruce Schneier, security technologist and author, from his article What is a Hacker?

From the readings, I realised that to understand the world of hackers it is important to understand their history and the various categories they fall in. Historically, there are two types of hackers : the old school and the new school. While it is debatable that the new school hackers are less 'ethical', one can also say that there is not much difference between the two groups and that they actually share the same principles and motivation. After all, it was the old school hackers that inspired and set the scene for the new school hackers.

Old School	New School
Silicon Valley industry giants “who have turned corporate” David Lightman (WarGames) Robert Morris (Internet worm unleasher) Information wants to be free MIT, Harvard, Cornell students (50s-70s) Founders of companies that made the computer revolution Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs of Apple No PC World threatened to become a secret Mostly individual effort	Culture is based around questions of technology to better understand cultural attitudes towards technology and their relationship to it Cryptography – violates ‘hacker ethic’ 80s and 90s child raised on WarGames, Hackers and The Net Founders of hacker groups e.g. Legion of Doom, Masters of Deception PCs and modems World full of secrets Team effort

While categorically, there are four types of hackers who hack for very different reasons:

- Crackers : they hack with malicious intent

- Hacktivists : they as a form of political activism
- Hobbyist hackers : they hack to learn and explore and share with other hobbyists
- Research and security hackers: they are concerned with discovering security vulnerabilities and writing the code fixes.

The inaccurate image of a hacker as a 'white' young man set to create a revolution or chaos by entering computers and computer networks is just another media stereotype! And I am so glad to have learned that because I'm just not a big fan of stereotyping.