jrussel

Pearson Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have a big confession to make! > I didn't read it... > > Why don't you just post it up here? Sorry for the delay. Unfortunately I have been hospitalised for a few weeks as a result of an incident on another forum. The reason I can't post the article here is that it would be an infringement of copyright - my apologies for this. I believe the Telegraph will send out back issues at a nominal cost if you are interested in seeing it.

So what did you guys think of the article?

Ok, well, I'm now back, a little jet lagged which is why I am posting at a slightly strange hour, but to cut to the chase, the article wasn't published as you all found out when you looked for it (thank you for being interested enough to actually look for it though). Shortly after I'd set off on my vacation I got a call from my editor saying that the piece wasn't going to be included as originally intended due to another feature becoming more extensive than originally anticipated. But the good news is that it will now be published in next Sunday's paper! I won't be away that weekend so look forward to discussing it with you lot on the day or soon after. Sorry for the anti-climax! I know some people were looking forward to reading it. But you don't have to wait much longer now!

I will be interested to discuss with you all what you thought of the piece, of course. But I am going away on holiday (I need one after all this!) for a couple of weeks so that will have to wait until I get back. Don't think I am being rude by not responding this weekend!

Good news - the piece is now finished and it should be published in the "Seven" supplement in this Sunday's Telegraph. One or two of you get a mention but you'll have to wait until Sunday to find out who!

Sorry I haven't replied more promptly but things are very busy at the moment, what with trying to get my piece finished, and dealing with some unrest on a much bigger and busier board than this one. The reason I can't link you to the thread I think you would be amused by is that that forum has very specific rules which disallow linking to or from other forums. The reason for this is that the moderators don't want what they call "board wars" which is something they have had problems with before. In any case, when you read the piece (which should be out pretty soon!) you will be able to see the other places I have been posting nad check them out for yourselves. It kind of amuses me that some of you think I'm still a "troll" and that this thread is a wind-up. I guess I did my job a bit too well! I'll enjoy seeing you backtrack when the article is published.

Just been catching up on this thread. It's been a busy week. I think some of you guys on here would be amused to see how the discussion has developed on the equivalent thread on a certain other forum!

ianr Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > >Fair use (US law) explicitly includes commercial > use > > I didn't know that. Thanks. It will be > interesting to see its scope. > > In my set of conceptual pigeonholes: "fair use" - > a general term, referring to the set of > provisions, however named, in any legislation, > that permit the use of material otherwise > protected by copyright. > > It turns out that US law uses the same phrase as > its specific legal term; hence a possible > confusion. I'd have used "fair dealing" if I'd > remembered it at the time, as I don't like causing > confusion. > > I think the article's ok'ish. Writers have to > deal with other legislations as well. And if you > manage to get to para 6 before erupting, you're > firmly in UK territory. :) > > I hope everyone reads at least the "fair dealing" > summary that it links to, as I feel there's a lot > of misunderstanding here. In my unauthoritative > opinion, JR or anyone is fully justified in using > any words we've writ here, without our permission, > if s/he wants to perform research or produce any > analytic or critical review or commentary thereon. > And an absolutely vital and necessary provision > that is. > > Notwitstanding that right of fair dealing, each of > us retains the copyright in our own wordy > emissions. Not even the forum admins have the > right to assign copyright in them to, or license > their use by, anyone else. > > If JR's product turns out to be wonderful, we can > quote and extol it. If rubbishy, we can quote and > ridicule it. If it grossly misrepresents, we can > seek correction and complain to its publisher > and/or any relevant regulatory body. If it > defames any of us, we can spend our life savings > on seeking redress through the courts, and ask > that JR be banned from the forum. And if it > doesn't appear at all, we can be very very rude to > him. > > BTW, whatever happened to investigative > journalism? This is a good post, and considerably more well-informed than most inn the last page or so. People, even if you read my article and reckon it's all a load of rubbish, maybe this has at least prompted you to have a think about how public anything you post on the internet is. I'm frequently surprised about just how naive and unrealistic many people are when it comes to their beliefs about what 'rights' they have in relation to their postings and in their expectations when it comes to privacy. Someone said something about this being a 'private forum open to the public'... you what!?

Where have you got that idea from, expat? The main thing the law is concerned with is whether quoting something diminishes the market value of the original. This is clearly not an issue when quoting a forum post. The other issue is that of privacy, and as this is a public forum, everything is public anyway so I have no concerns in this regard. As a matter of courtesy I will attribute all quoted material to the relevant user name.

In response to those raising questions about ethics and so forth. Let's be clear that I am under no obligation whatsoever to state to members of which codes I choose to abide by. And let's be clear about the difference between what the law says and whatever codes various bodies offer up for voluntary adoption. All I will say is that I agree in principle with the NUJ code of conduct and follow it on a voluntary basis. I am not however a member of the NUJ, and ultimately I make my own decisions about what is right and acceptable. The paper which will be publishing my work has its own legal team and they will be the ones who decide whether or not anything is problematic. Finally, the suggestion that I might be breaching "intellectual copyright" by quoting any of what's been written in response to me on this forum - come on!

Karrie Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dear J. Russel > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIZ-SGljHik&feature > =related > > I hope you?ve had a nice weekend off from > trolling. > > While I am waiting for your paper?s code of > ethics, so I can decide how I feel about your > intrusion, I thought I?d view all your posts. I > have done a summary of the profile that you > portray to me. I have done it in a PDF format as a > keep-sake for you, because you must be very proud > of your achievements, lol, lol, lol, lol, lol, > lol. Dear Karrie, Thank you very much for the lovely CV. As far as ethical issues are concerned - I'm not sure what you think I've done wrong. Obviously if I were to be publishing private messages that would not be on, but the only bulletin board content that will be included in my feature will be what has been posted up for all to see on what is after all a public forum. It's all there for anyone with an internet connecttion to view already. Therefore I do not see how I am broaching anyone's privacy. Furthermore, in none of my postings on here have I discussed other posters' personal issues of private lives (and if I had, I would not include it in my piece). Do let me know if there is something I've overlooked.

DJKillaQueen, why are you getting so worked up about something you haven't even read yet? Maybe you would benefit from remaining a little more open minded. Much interesting stuff comes from the study of the apparently mundane, or from looking in places most people would not expect to find much of consequence. Ask Alexander Fleming! And the EDF is not a "control group" for my purposes - that's an odd remark to make.

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > " You describe my field of investigation as "quite > narrow" - maybe, but that doesn't mean that there > isn't a lot to mined from that particular seam. By > the way I'm not quite sure why you see the two > quotes you isolate as contradictory. The > differences between communities will be examined > through the lens of their reaction to the troll. > The piece will be about both the troll and the > communities he interacts with." > > How much can you usefully learn about a community > simply by witnessing a range of individual > reactions to overtly contrived provocation? The > two quotes are not contradictory, but this: > > "The contrasting responses I have encountered will > be used in my analysis of what unites and > separates these disparate groups" > > is more than a little disingenuous. Unless you > really believe that how people react to obvious > trolls tells you more about them than...how they > react to obvious trolls. > > The significance of the online vs real persona > point is that it seems obvious to me that your > project is fundamentally ego-driven - it's not > about any real examination of, or interest in, > communities or individuals, it's about how they > react to YOU. Again, not exactly rare in the > world of journalism, but it kind of undercuts any > pretence to your piece being serious investigative > work. I understand why you might be sceptical that there is much to be learned from my work, but all I can really say is - wait till it is published, and maybe you will change your mind.

RosieH Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > jrussel Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Articles in the mainstream printed press about > > internet trolling are far and few between. I > have > > been able to find very few. But if you are > aware > > of it being a frequently written about subject > - > > please link me to any relevant pieces. > > If that was in reference to my comment about its > being after the fact, I'm not sure that I have > seen any articles on the subject. But this > forum's been going for a good few years, I was on > other forums for a good few years before that - my > point is that it's not terribly au courant. > What you say is true. Online forums have been in existence for some years now, and so has the phenomenon of the internet troll. However, in the past few years the situation has changed somewhat - largely due to the increasing prevalence of Facebook (and similar social networking sites). Whereas (at least for people under a certain age) interaction via Facebook is the norm, interaction via online forums has always been, and still is, practised by a minority. The rise of Facebook has brought the practice of online interaction to the masses and along with it the notion of the troll, although the way Facebook works means that trolling does not take place in quite the same way, nor is the term "troll" as widely understood. It has certainly brought the notion of the online versus "real" persona to a greater proportion of the population (although with a degree of the anonymity factor removed). It's with this context in mind that my feature will be presented, and presented to a mainstream (rather than internet-savvy) audience.

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > jrussel Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Mick Mac: > > > > When I talk about "socio-economic circumstances" > I > > refer to a tendency across the membership of > the > > discussion board. This is not judged on the > basis > > of trying to second-guess what the > circumstances > > of individual members are. It is judged on the > > basis of the predominant themes visible in > > discussions across the boards. > > > Yes - I know that was what you meant. But since > you professed to be able to guage this on a forum > by forum basis I thought I'd challenge you to put > your abilities to the test on a more specific > basis. I could, but to be honest I'd rather not. Firstly because I don't want to offend individuals and secondly because it wouldn't be productive as far as the progress of my work is concerned.

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What a load of nonsense. Daring to dignify an > article about forum trolling as journalism? What > will you be writing about next? Do Chav's really > exist? Dull dull dull. I'm flaberghasted anyone > would even pay to publish such a meaningless piece > of reporting let alone read it. > > It's not journalism at all....just lazyness > masquerading as journalism. Perhaps you would like to wait until my work is published before passing judgement? I don't really see why you see the subject matter as meaningless, or compare it to an article about "chav's [sic]". Articles in the mainstream printed press about internet trolling are far and few between. I have been able to find very few. But if you are aware of it being a frequently written about subject - please link me to any relevant pieces.

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > jrussel will no doubt suggest that the online > community reacts aggressively and defensivley to > the revelation of the troll in their midst. > > In fact its just a typical group reaction to > someone proving themselves a complete t wat. No, in fact the reaction is not always aggressive. In fact one of the distinguishing features of the EDF is that there was little aggressive reaction. In fact these boards are on the whole remarkably polite! Even swearwords are censored. I'm interested to find out whether this is a result of the postership or the administration. I am looking into this at present in fact. Perhaps someone can tell me whether the EDF is run as a commercial enterprise? Generally when there is advertising, a board's moderators are more cautious about what they allow. Although it makes for a "family friendly" atmosphere, it can sometimes restrict the scope of discussion. Again, the postership's socio-economic tendencies will determine to some extent how much censorship is tolerate.

Mick Mac: When I talk about "socio-economic circumstances" I refer to a tendency across the membership of the discussion board. This is not judged on the basis of trying to second-guess what the circumstances of individual members are. It is judged on the basis of the predominant themes visible in discussions across the boards. As a crude example, there is a lot more discussion related to parenting on the EDF, compared to certain other boards. Another useful indicator is the nature of discussion about housing prices - whether for example it is discussed from the point of view of individual buyers and advice about that process, or as part of a discussion on a macro-economic level. Also, whether a fall in house prices tend mainly to be viewed as a positive or negative trend. DaveR: You are quite correct that an online persona can never be entirely independent from that of the "real person", subconsciously or otherwise. In fact a substantial portion of my work has involved looking at this very issue. You describe my field of investigation as "quite narrow" - maybe, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a lot to mined from that particular seam. By the way I'm not quite sure why you see the two quotes you isolate as contradictory. The differences between communities will be examined through the lens of their reaction to the troll. The piece will be about both the troll and the communities he interacts with. I am writing a multi-page feature in a respected national paper, not a couple of columns in the Metro.

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "I have been posting in various different forums, > which have been selected to represent a wide > cross-section of the different common-interest, > geographical and socio-economic groups that exist > in the form of online communities across the > internet. > > The contrasting responses I have encountered will > be used in my analysis of what unites and > separates these disparate groups, and what > comparisons can be drawn with the nature of > "real-life" communities." > > How reliable is your analysis going to be when you > have, by your own admission been trolling? The > only thing you'll be in a position to do is > compare reactions to postings by 'jrussell', which > were understood by pretty much everybody to be > wholly artificial. And as for the 'reveal' - at > most it's a tiny bit disappointing to find out > that 'jrussell' is not simply an eccentric troll, > but rather a self-important idiot journo (not > exactly a rare breed). DaveR, the main focus of my piece will be the reaction of the online communities to the presence of a "troll" and there will additionally be some discussion on the "real life" equivalent of the internet troll. The etiquette of how to respond to a troll varies quite significantly from forum to forum and it is not difficult (if you know what you are doing) to relate these differences to (for example) the differences in the socio-economic circumstances of the various forum posterships. Having conducted interviews with people who spend little or no time on discussion boards, it has become quite apparent that the term "troll" is unfamiliar to them (other than the traditional fairy-tale meaning of course). Furthermore most are perplexed when it comes to understanding what exactly the internet troll does and why he does it. There are many reasons why the act of "trolling" is more common online than in real life, some of them obvious but some of them rather less obvious. I can't go into them here prior to publication of my feature but they are interesting and have been identified with the help of some well-respected psychologists. In fact partially as a result of our conversations, an academic psychologist at a leading university is considering introducing a module to their undergraduate programme which looks specifically at these issues.

Jah Lush, it's a shame that has been your experience. There are "bad eggs" in any profession of course, but is there really a higher proportion than average amongst journalists? In what role have you worked with them?

Hello people of the East Dulwich Forum. I have got to know some of you a little bit over the past while. Now, some of you have spotted that some of my contributions and opinions have been a little, well, unusual. Well, I am going to come clean now, and confess that I have been being what many online call a "troll". My name is not, as you have come to believe, J. Russel. I haven't been doing this simply for my own amusement, however. I am an investigative journalist and have been working on a long-term project which will culminate with a feature in a national newspaper focussing on certain aspects of the nature of online communities. It is likely to be published in either September or October of this year - I can give you further details nearer the big day. I have been posting in various different forums, which have been selected to represent a wide cross-section of the different common-interest, geographical and socio-economic groups that exist in the form of online communities across the internet. The contrasting responses I have encountered will be used in my analysis of what unites and separates these disparate groups, and what comparisons can be drawn with the nature of "real-life" communities. The feature will make specific reference to the forums I have examined, and in some cases, specific posters. I will be making direct quotations from posts that people have made in response to my interventions. If any of you are uncomfortable with this, please register your feelings on this thread. I can not guarantee that requests will be met but I will do my best to accommodate them so long as the integrity and scope of my feature is not compromised. Naturally, the response to my unveiling of my disguise will also be covered in my article so I will be reading this thread with interest. Please do not be disappointed if my replies are a little delayed: the EDF is just one of 23 different forums I have been monitoring. I will however respond to all questions eventually. By the way, don't bother trying to google portions of this post to find out which other forums I have been working on - I have written a differently worded "reveal" for each. Not an easy task I can assure you! Thank you all for your time and I hope you will be pleased to learn that you have been involved in what I hope will be a unique and revealing piece of research! Yours, "jrussel"

Jah Lush Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you have a car no matter how much you paid for > it you've got to park it somewhere and ummm... > oooh let me think...ummm that'll be the street > then. Jeez! That's right. They can park their reasonably priced cars on the street, instead of vulgar and expensive ones. Just like everyone else does. I'm not sure what you're getting all worked up about.

Jah Lush Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > jrussel Wrote: > > If rich people found that parking their > > expensive cars on the street lead to them being > > damaged, they would be less likely to purchase > > such vehicles. > > Where else do to you expect them to park? > If they don't have the expensive cars in the first place, they won't have to park them anywhere. Come on - it's not that difficult!

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Posh people's car tend to be nicer to look at and > reasonably new. I'd be happier to make this > regressive and torch any of the myriad old, ugly, > clapped out, polluting, dangerous bangers that > London's streets are full of. Ideally, we would rid our streets of all private cars. But that is another discussion.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > By displaying their wealth in such an ostentatious > way they are showing a disregard for the feelings > of those less fortunate than them. > > Ok, I'm feeding the troll here, but it's > Friday... > > Do you mean like using drinking water for flushing > your toilet, whilst a lot of the world goes > thirsty? > > Or by throwing away a large percentage of > perfectly good food whilst a lot of the world goes > hungry? > > Relatively, this whole country is, in world terms, > that ostentatious person you hate. Of course, and I am all in favour of actions which try and reduce this inequality. (Although your drinking water point is a bit of a misplaced one)