Miscommunication and Web 2.0

Stalder focuses mainly on the issue of cooperation between what he deems the front and back ends. The front end consists of the consumers, often painted as the heroic party, and the back end the producers. There is a fairly basic assumption among many researchers and analysts that all of the problems that arise between these two parties can be boiled down to miscommunication and uncooperative action.

This idea holds a very strange mix of technological determinism and personal choice in it. On one hand a person may suggest that it is the mechanism (technology) that has prohibited the free exercise of communication, while another would say it is the persons not effectively using the technology causing the communication breakdown. Seeing as I am not a technological determinist I very much side with the latter. In fact if I were to make an assumption from my own subjective perception of the world, I would say that people often use technology manipulatively to disrupt the conversation. Just like when companies pose as unassociated, anonymous users, it is dishonestly wielding the technology, not the technology itself that cause the communication breakdown.

Perhaps my favorite passage from the reading is when Stalder writes: “…in the realm of the digital, sharing means multiplying, rather than dividing.” (pg. 243) I’ve never truly considered this aspect that differentiates the material world from the digital world. In an essence, there is no physical sacrifice in the sharing act, and therefore it is much easier and much more widely done in the digital sphere. This idea, though basic maybe, was particularly revelatory, and will no doubt shape how I analyze these interactions in the future.

I would like to end by commending Stalder. He consistently exceeds at in his article is detailing all of the shifts brought upon by the rise of Web 2.0 in neutral terms. He understands that while desire and choices do affect the overall outcome, it is mainly regressive to attempt to categorize one as inherently superior. All are simply tools. But  what do you think? If miscommunication is truly the issue, will increased understanding lead to a more amicable relationship between the producers and consumers? Or will greed and personal biases ultimately prevent true communication to flourish?

you, me, the government, etc.

In his deconstruction of, as quoted verbatim from its title, the role of new media for the democratization process in the Arab World, Marks Sabadello targets the literal understanding of the the terms that precede “Revolution” in those bold square quotes. They are, as Sabadello notes, “catchy-sounding terms”, and “[suggest] a strong role of the respective Internet services”. But what these technologies have done are allow for new ways of strong dissenting voices to communicate with other minds, for platforms and for people to people contact across vast distances. While this might strengthen the revolution and bring more people into it, it by no means started the revolution. 

What “Twitter” and “Facebook Revolution” insinuate is a gross oversimplification of the ignorance or resolve of the nation’s people, and an exaggeration of the necessity of the West’s invention in inciting movement, or the power in which these “weapons” might overcome authoritarian regimes, as specifically assumed to the more recent phase in New Media. The old adage involving a squeaky wheel is applicable: word-of-mouth and the West’s involvement in generating memes (cross-pollinating internet productivity, where activism meets slacktivism) lend significant credence to the smaller ratio of the population that are actually taking to social media sites to lend their voice. 

Sabadello provides a report by the United States Institute for Peace on “New Media in Contentious Politics” that outlines several levels of new media influence that can be distinguished:

• Individual Transformation: New media can affect politics via the effects they have on individuals, their competencies and their political views, e.g. new participants can be recruited to a movement. 

• Intergroup Relations: New media can promote or undermine the bonding of group members to one another, and the bridging of members of different groups.

• Collective Action: New media can be used to initiate and organize collective action, such as marches or demonstrations. 

• Regime Policies: New media can help established regimes to maintain their power in various ways, such as through censorship or counter-propaganda. 

• External Attention: Information about a movement such as its ideologies and goals can be published to a wide audience, both domestically and internationally. This can happen in the form of manifestos, statements, demands, images or videos on web sites or social networking services. As a consequence, political sympathy or hostility from outside actors can be mobilized. 

All of which does suggest an increase in social movement and recruitment, while also outlining the kinds of political action that pushed forth #jan25, wherein Twitter (and Facebook) users took to gather mass protests on January 25, 2011, gathering more than 80,000 clicks and more, considering the West’s interest into the news. Which leads back to the biggest issue when discussing the revolution-- any revolution-- simply by the means in which people take action. What caused the revolution? Not Twitter, nor Facebook. These terms are not applied to the revolution flippantly, but the understanding of their connection (and weight) suggest so. These new modes of media will always be subject to their government, as they were during the Arab Spring and before it. 

“Twitter” nor “Facebook” are not experiencing a revolution; they are being manipulated to suit another one, but they themselves are subject to government interference, and little political movement on their own part. A mere handful of people (large in number, but small potatoes in theory) took to circumventing restrictions to call forth to their neighbors, and we heard it around the world. It says something about our ability to hear it, to study it, and for people to have a voice, a rebellious one; but it says nothing of their struggle, or why they are taking action now. We* just now have the means to tune in**.

*you, me, the government, Egyptians, Chinese, etc.

**get tuned out, per government’s request

Citizen Journalism

For all the ways that new media and technology have converged to enrich our lives, none are more important than the new citizen documentation and journalism. While this may be hotly debated by some, I hope to illustrate through several key points why this is such an important facet of the modern media landscape.

Primarily, the importance of citizen journalism ensures not only that previously ignored issues will be delivered to the world, but with more and more individuals documenting the same issues and incidences from different angles a greater degree of truth can be surmised. More concisely, individuals documenting reality simultaneously offers new perspectives while undermining the seemingly “objective” viewpoint that the mass media corporations display. Citizen journalism provides a safe guard, and encourages a mindset that constantly questions the information given. Too often the recorded “actualities” in the news are mistaken for fact, regardless of context or the possibility of malfeasance.

 

The other important factor is found in Habermas’ description of the Public Sphere, notably defined by “a political space where publics come together to engage the state in mutual discourse over issues of political legitimacy and common concern.”  It is the “mutual” that is so important, because the new public sphere offers a more equal footing between the established electorate and the governed people than any previous societal model. This discourse is greatly indebted to the citizen journalism. It constantly reasserts its own necessity by consistently reigning in those in power who abuse said power.

As a result, the media corporations are now in a similar position to the populace: a constant shifting between the defensive and offensive positions. The truth that the media outlets can no longer ignore is that there will always be a person, group, of agency that can regulate them from the outside with contrary information should said organization decide to not abide the “moral” conduct established in the public sphere. It’s a bit like sweet revenge, and probably speaks to the lack of sympathy directed at organizations that so long carried themselves as vicious guard dogs with little regard for those they provided information to. The competition and watchful eye of a plugged in populace now ensures that they will in turn perform more rigorous self regulation as a means to maintain credibility.

Most importantly though, the new citizen journalism is better for everyone on an individual and group basis, so long as they abide by the codes of conduct set in place by their perspective cultures. If one carries themselves ethically, there is no real threat posed by the citizen journalism save for questions of personal privacy. Those who actively circumvent the law of land are at a greater risk for exposure, the anonymous documenting mob waiting to reveal their indiscretion to the judgment of the masses. However there are some complications that could arise. Does the possibility of constant surveillance by your peers instill paranoia? Does your ability to document events give you a sense of power, or does it pale in comparison to the control exhibited by the larger media corporations? Lemme know.

dose online journalism represent the essence of web 2.0?

I think that civic engagement and sort of citizen participation in journalism online represents the root of how Web 2.0 changes our society. Obviously aspects of online culture like remix, privacy and identity shape the way we perform on and experience web 2.0, but I think that this weeks topics are really a culmination of all the ways we use the web today.

I would say that citizen journalism and activism in pretty much the essence of participatory culture. I can't necessarily prove it, but I personally feel that journalism (that is the way we record and report on things happening around us) is the main way that people share themselves and todays online society allows pretty much everyone to share what they think is important and for the online community to decide if it is.

In the the study of citizen journalism read for class journalism was acknowledged more or less as people filming what is going on around them but I think that it probably goes a little bit further than that. Whether it be twitter, a blog, your facebook, reddit, youtube these are all outlets where we can be (to some degree) journalists, (while its not exactly the same i like this article for discussing how publishes can incorporate citizen journalism)

Previously mainstream culture has pretty much been at the disposal of major news outlets which in many ways allowed a select few to decided what was important. I think that one of the most drastic changes between now and a pre-internet era is that that dynamic has shifted. No instead of a media outlet choosing what is trending on twitter, it actually a community of citizens on their cell phones deciding what information we should care about.  

The idea that anyone who experiences, witnesses or understands something happening in the world is able to share it with others and that that information is nearly as accessible as the home page of CNN I think is the essence of what Web 2.0 means to society.

I also think the international aspect of citizen journalism online goes to show just how reaching this part of online society is. We live in a place where there is trust between mainstream media and the public, but other parts of the world are a lot different. Consider Syria and Egypt where oppressive governments control media. The internet allows people who wouldn’t normally be able to communicate their experiences to do so, like these Syrian Bloggers .

I think it would be ignorant to really dub one aspect of online culture as the most important, but when you really look at the way elements of online society fall together I think these kinds of information sharing/ citizen journalism is the result that you get.  In terms of how important it actually is? I think it is essential to empowering the general public and to the accuracy of information . Being able to share experiences isn't just about participating, it allows the people who read it to understand the world around them.

How Do You Regulate Expression?

Is it possible to put a boundary on expression, opinion or creativity?

In a Harvard Law paper entitled “Four Phases ofInternet Regulation,” John Palfrey discusses the different stages of online rules and censorships since the birth of the so-called ‘cyberspace’.

 Palfrey breaks down Internet regulation into four distinct stages:

This first phase is characterized as the Open Internet, where cyberspace was considered to be an entity separate from the real world, and thus exempt from the laws of the real world. However, when problems from offline space began trickling into the online environment, it made governments realize the need for control.

States started to think that activities and expression on the Internet should be blocked, managed and filtered in order to prohibit users from accessing certain information. Thus, bringing us into phase 2, otherwise known as Access Denied. During this time, filtering occurred on a national level, and different countries would block a wide variety of content – dealing with anything from social, to religious to political information. While some countries would use this to drastically prohibit users from accessing certain things, some censored in a more positive light (like the democratic countries who utilized censorship to block child pornography).

But with the advancements in technology, governments couldn’t keep up. Web filtering became inconsistent with the innovations of mobile devices and social networking, especially when it comes to the regulation of free speech.

The third phase of Internet regulation is referred to as Access Controlled. This stage acknowledges a hybrid world of interrelated online and offline lives, and accepts the fact that one can directly affect the other. To impose regulations, some states inflict registration, licensing, and identity requirements to control what users do online. Through this use of surveillance, those publishing know that they are being watched.

This brings us to the last and present phase, Access Contested. Cyberspace is currently seen as less of a separate space and more as a fundamental part of our lives. Online activity continues to increasingly be a part of everyday lives, and there is starting to be more pushback against some of these controls and restrictions. Citizens are becoming more and more resistant to Internet limitations.

Presently, Internet regulations have the capability of being opposed and backfiring. In an article from the International Media Conference, constitutional law professor Kyungsin Park stated that government policies have the capability of harming innocent users. The problem comes from the abuse of the law that requires users on heavily trafficked portals to register their personal identification data before they can post anything. However, those who post illegal content intentionally will simply submit somebody else’s identity. This type of verification inhibits the flow of ideas and innovation from users.

Palfrey leaves us with this question:

“Instead of asking whether the Internet can be regulated, the question should be whether  it will be regulated in precisely the same way, or more extensively, than the offline world…”

One side of the argument states that regulation of the Internet is counterintuitive of our human rights to free speech. We aren't prohibited from saying what we think in our offline lives, so should the same barriers extend to online activity? Monitoring what people say and when they say it directly infringes on the first amendment. The online world offers a gateway for people to express ideas and opinions freely and openly, in countless shapes and forms. However, on the flip side are arguments about national security, invasion of privacy, and criminal activity, which are also plausible. 

What is your answer to Palfrey's question? Should speech and expression be regulated the same way online as it is offline?

Social Media Pressure

Knowing your audience is something I have always been aware of growing up in the performing arts world. That being said, I agree with the authors Marwick and Boyd’s article, “I tweet honestly, I twee Passionately” and the discussion of the unknown audience social media has created. 

Like most new beginnings in life such as going on a first date, job interview, first time playing a new sport, society always tries to hide their flaws. Social media has made it easier for people to put out their “perfect” versions of themselves on the web for friends and family to see.  Now, from what I have observed watching friends and family on the web people seem to think twice before posting an opinion on a political statement because of the fear of being ridiculed by their fellow social network community. In my opinion such a common fear as an individual not posting there believes or moral values on the web because they do not want to offend or be made fun of, takes away that individuals voice and right of expression. I am not saying that this form of self-censorship is a bad thing; some people need to think before some questionable posts. However, I do see a trend from social media acceptance correlating with the need for instant acceptance in the outside world. As a result of this trend I have seen people disregarding subjects that were once very important to them all because of how they think their audience will perceive them.

Then again the user does get to choose who is allowed to follow them, well at least the social media platform facebook allows friendship requests. Although, for such media sites like twitter, it does cause a problem for the user especially if they have celebrity statues and have to be extremely careful with what they decide to post to the public. Take Jimmy Fallon for example. He has a huge twitter following, well at least in my opinion he does, anyway because he has such a big following with such a diverse group it can be very difficult for him to say what exactly is on his mind. Which is why he uses twitter as free advertisement for his show Late Night with Jimmy Fallon.

Even though you know your friends and family on social media you never know who else can be viewing your post. So, my question is since social media has allowed people to show what they believe is a perfect version of themselves, can this trend cause problems for society in the future when the need to speak against an important issue arises? 

Politically Correct Tweets

Although I am new to Twitter, I can relate to and understand Marwick and Boyd’s discussion of audience in the social media realm. I have used Facebook since 2007 and my idea of who “my audience” is, has changed drastically since then.
    I would argue that everyone using social media, whether it is Twitter or Facebook, tries to put their “best self forward”. We post our likes and dislikes, our favorite bands and movies, all in order to give off a certain image of ourselves.  (See #25) We decide against posting about controversial ideas because we don’t want to upset certain groups or people who follow us. I know that I think about my audience on Facebook, without even realizing it sometimes. Is this post going to upset my aunt Jan? I know my friends at work will think this meme is hilarious...These are some thoughts that might cross my mind before posting something.  Marwick and Boyd believe that “Self-censorship can be a useful technique in the face of an imagined audience that includes, parents, employers, and significant others.”  What you choose to post online is partly decided by the people you allow to follow you. What are you comfortable with them reading or seeing? “Social media participants are far more concerned with parents or employers viewing their Twitter stream than a complete stranger.”
    But we also know that when we post something, it has the capability of being seen by more than just your “friends” or “followers”, but we still do it. There isn’t any stage fright when it comes to expressing yourself in front of all these people because you can’t see them. You can only see your imagined audience, which includes your 654 friends, and probably more specifically the ones you interact with online the most.  
    Jodi Dean says the “ideology of publicity is valuing whatever grabs the publics attention”. Although I cant speak for celebrities on Twitter, I know that sometimes I post statuses/articles/videos on Facebook, already knowing exactly which people on my friends list will have something to say on the subject matter. I am strategically posting to a specific part of my imagined audience; Instant gratification in the form of a notification or retweet. While I don’t personally understand the hype of Twitter, the person with 100,000 friends would probably use this kind of strategic posting in order to gain and keep as many followers as possible.
    So, are people exposing the “real me” on Twitter and Facebook? Or are they posting the ideal version of themselves, who are politically correct and strive to make their audience happy...

Pseudonymity

Danah Boyd’s article "'Real Name' Polices Are an Abuse of Power" points to the issue of pseudonymity and its conflation with anarchic anonymity, where those without boundaries (i.e. social stigma associated with one’s public persona) will turn to frothing at the mouth and laying waste to common decency. What Boyd counters with, and with which I very much agree, is that pseudonyms allow for people to hide, and ultimately counter, those very attacks of the frothing masses, which Facebook has proven time and time again are not afraid to use their real names. I think Google, and especially Google+, are founded on the idea of consumer interactivity, where ads can be targeted to a person’s name and interests. And because it exists under its own Terms of Service (free of pseudonym-friendly Google tech like Gmail or Youtube), they are free to do such a thing, though it might hurt their PR in the wake of Facebook’s acceptance of nicknames.

The anti-bullying stance cannot be ignored in this conversation, and important in weeding out potential victims versus aggressors under their own pseudonyms. Rather than laying blanket statements on the needs and intents of a social media site’s population (looking at you, Randi), the communication between user and producer needs to become stronger, so that they understand why we want to use pseudonyms, and we can let them know when pseudonyms are being abused. Is Google, as a singular entity, not a pseudonym for the abusive power of its creators and other faceless organizations ready to gain from this policy? Does this not force us to be consumers and not just people? What might happen if they started treating us like people-- yes, even the ones named "timidboy12"?

What Google might consider doing, especially with its innovative design, is to create a function where one can privately arrange and identify under one gmail account the various pseudonyms he or she goes by to different groups. The discourse might revolve around what Google can know about you regardless of what is posted publicly, but it might be the start of a new phase in outsourced communication, where one can more easily float between personalities without the psychological break between sites and selves. In this way, Google+ might create a new valid way of sharing and assimilating identities unmatched in other social media markets, and a step in creating an overlap between these personalities when an individual is ready to do so.

Must our online identities be real?

So the idea of creating and maintaining online identities as well as the term "networked self" means a whole lot of different things. As we have all experienced our online identity is closely linked to our social life, employment and even education but these identities are pretty malleable. While we can represent a “real” or public version of ourselves we can also create identities, join communities and interact with others using and identity that might not be the same as they way you identify offline. I think one of the most important and interesting aspects of online identity is being able to build a secondary representation of yourself and I think the debate on whether or not people should be able to act anonymously online or need to use their real names in order to use internet services is incredibly important to the way that we interact with web 2.0.

I found the Danah Boyd blog assigned resonating when we think about representing yourself with alternate names. She mentioned ways that people use pseudonymity to protect their public selves. What I took from these cases is that these secondary personas allow us to explore our identities, especially aspects that might not go over so well in public, aspects relating to politics, sexuality, and other more taboo subjects as well as being able to protect ourselves in a way that isn’t possible offline.

While I think that Boyds article really does the best job expressing why it is important that people aren't required to use their real names online this article expands on examples of people using pseudonyms or writing anonymously.

Theres another side to this of course that deals with the dangers of accountability in anonymity. It seems that while there are benefits to participate with online identity attached to a real person, its hard to make sure these people are accountable.

I understand why facebook and google might want you to use your real name (some of their thoughts on the matter can be fleshed out here, because they want to be able to hold someone accountable for their actions. But should this mean that we have to use our real names online? I don't think so. Our first amendment rights protect our ability to speak freely and anonymously and in addition to that I think the idea that anonymity can protect a lot of people who really need a safe space far outweighs the dangers of anonymity online.

“Not everyone is safer by giving out their real name. Quite the opposite; many people are far LESS safe when they are identifiable. And those who are least safe are often those who are most vulnerable.”

So I wonder what you guys think? I know there are dangers of people writing anonymously online, and there might be more examples of those dangers, but to me Boyds ideas about real name requirements actually hurting people who are marginalized outweighs the dangers, do you agree?

Glee Fandom and Twitter

            I have only seen the show a few times and though I do find it creative. I just don’t understand how viewers can get so attached to characters from the show that would compel them to create twitter character accounts of the shows main characters, and create their own personal narratives separate from the show. I guess that is because I have only been recently introduced to twitter and the social environment it creates for users. I find it honestly puzzling that some users post anything that is on their mind and having that info assessable to fellow friends and followers at any moment. With that being said. Society can see that producers and other television shows are taking advantage of this media tool to bring viewers back to the television set to keep ratings from falling to sites such as: Netflix, Hulu, and Couchtuner that allow viewers to watch their favorite shows at any given time.

            The article, “Glee Fandom and Twitter: Something New, or More of the Same Old Thing”, by Wood and Baughman talks about the ups and downs with fandom in media. In the article it is explained that this new idea of social role-playing is helping television broadcast ratings by motivating viewers to watch their favorite shows the day they air, in order to participate with their fellow role playing twitter members. Another plus for fandom is that even after shows have stopped airing the fan base can still continually grow from one generation to the next just by users seeing others members role playing post on social media. This brings a whole new group of viewers and possible money making opportunities for shows that have been off the air for years. One of the most popular examples of this in my opinion is the Trekkies. Even years after the show has stopped airing there are yearly Star Trek conventions and that thousands of fans attend connecting with fellow Star Trek fans around the world.

            Now the main issue with Fandom is that with millions of users posting their own thoughts and narrative stories, it causes a lot of confusion and anger between fans and new follower.  For instance, say someone who has never seen the show before decides that they want to join the new television crazes. By the time they decide to start watching so many spoilers are on the web that the new viewer can’t enjoy what they are watching thus, resulting the new viewer to move on to another show. So, even though many viewers like taking part in Internet communities does Fandom help television shows gain more viewership or hurt them? 

Gender Trouble

In Tanja Carstensens’ article “Gender Trouble in Web 2.0: Gender Relations in Social Network Sites, Wikis and Weblogs” Carstensen states that some of the main issues with web 2.0 is if feminist ideals are as equal to masculine ideals in today’s social and blogger sphere world? With these new technological advances has it made an impact with identity in social media? Is it harder to tell if someone is really who they say they are?

                  In the beginning of the article it Carstensen states that with the amount of research that has been involved in the understanding of gender equality in this cyber world that women are viewed differently depending on  the age group. Though, the internet has been labeled as a man’s domain girls in their late teens to early adulthood actually participate in more social networking than the men of their age and therefor have a major tool for voicing their opinions and making a stand for gender equality.    

                  Now something that had made national attention in 2010 about a major issue with gender identity on the web was the movie, Catfish. Now a regular seasoned show, Catfish introduced to the general public that you can’t always believe what someone post on the web about their gender. The premise of the whole thing is to point out that social media, even though it has brought society a great amount of resources, has also given people the ability to play out alternate lives with other users on the web. I find this personally as frightening information. I’ve always known that I should always be careful about what kind of personal information I put on the web but, just the thought of starting conversations with people and believing them to be who they say they are only to find out it is all a lie physiologically terrifying.  I know one can avoid such a misfortune by only talking to people who you actually know personally on the web, which is how I go about my social media. Yet, there are still thousands of people who just don’t seem to understand that just because someone says they are male or female it isn’t always true.

                  That brings us to another issue in society; homosexuals in social media. It is true that on some social media sites they only allow the user to state if they are male or female, or interested in men or women. Specifically with these kinds of social media sites we can only see what the webpages wants us to see, which blinds us from the actual truth. Thankfully this is not the case for all social media site especially Facebook and MySpace which allow the user to say, “Not sure” or even for relationship statues, “complicated”. So my question is even though some social media sites allow multiple identities for users to access will we ever be able to differentiate someone’s identity on the web honestly? 

Sorry guys, I was having technical difficulties getting these blogs up...

Fandoms Infiltrated by Producers

Personally I don’t get the hype behind Glee, it’s not really my cup of tea. That being said, I completely understand Glee fans partaking in fan fiction, live tweeting and role playing centered around the, BEST SHOW OF ALL TIME. Television shows that run for a long time gain huge followings that feel personally connected to the shows. Trekkies have their conventions, Buffyverse remains loyal to their slayer during this sparkling vampire epidemic, and Friends fans continue to quote Chandler and Joey in their everyday life. With more recent shows like Glee and The Walking Dead, fans have taken to their social media accounts to prove their loyalty, and producers have noticed. 
    Wood & Baughman’s article, “Glee Fandom and Twitter: Something New, or More of the Same Old Thing”, examines how these role playing fans are tweeting in real time as the show is on air. This helps broadcasters ratings by forcing fans to watch the show live, in order to stay up to date with their fan communities online. “Those participating in or following these tweets as they happen are more likely to (actively or passively) watch commercials, giving marketers a better opportunity to sell their products to these kinds of viewers.”  Are these fans a source for free marketing labor?
    The Walking Dead has gained a large fan base and its marketing campaign focuses on the popularity of twitter hashtags. When watching the show, commercial breaks start with a hasthtag “#itsrainingzombies” representing what just happened on the show.  Thus telling fans to use this hashtag to connect with other fans through twitter, but only if they’re watching live, otherwise the hashtag would be old news. “The content of transmedia texts are embedded with marketing strategies, wherein the goal of the producer is to expand the audience experience, resulting in more consumption overall.” The Walking Dead is using the participatory culture of fans to promote and enlarge their growing fandom, and it's working.
    Wood and Baughman say “Fan cultures are shaped (and their practices reshaped) by the combination of television and the Internet.” Is television going too far by asking us to participate in a “two-screen experience LIVE” where fans can interact and take polls...which will in turn be used to better market to them in the future?

Wikipedia, where the ladies at?

The study about gender on Web 2.0 brought up a topic that I consider to be one of the more relevant issues regarding the equality of women on and offline, the extraordinarily low number of female wikipedia editors. As of 2011 nine out of ten wikipedia editors are male and there are two main reasons that I find this important, both reasons a little cryptic, but never the less important.  First of all, it means that there must be a gender bias a dominant information source and secondly it indicates that there is a major difference in the way that men and women participate in Web 2.0.  

While I hate to quote an entire paragraph I think that this interview with Sarah Stierch, a Wikimedia Fellow gives several examples as to how this difference effects information on wikipedia: "Whether small things like women’s movies, fashion, makeup, or things that are extremely critical to women’s lives, like abortion, pregnancy, feminism, motherhood, these [articles] are being written by majority men. The arguments taking place on the talk pages are being dominated by men. So the content, the images, etc. are coming from a primary male point of view. That automatically causes a systemic bias, even if all these editors are working in good faith and aiming to be neutral in their contributions."

I think its pretty clear that a gender gap can seriously effect the type of information we receive online, (not to say that there isn't a gap in textbooks, newspapers and journals, but thats another discussion altogether) however I'm more interested in why women don't edit. 

This blog Sue Gardner, the Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation, is worth a read. It cites comments from women about why they don't edit on the site. Their reasons range from being uncomfortable with the user interface to to disliking the conflicts and arguments that come along with many edits to simply feeling that wikipedia has a misogynistic environment.

So what does this mean for Wikipedia? Ultimately I'm not sure. Historically information has always been pretty male dominant so in context Wikipedia isn't all that different from information we've been receiving all our lives. But it also seems to me that Wikipedia strives to be a revolutionary source of information and I'm going to go ahead and assume that because of this it is important to represent gender equality in their information. 

So I ask, what can be done to change this? What are other consequences of a male dominated online culture? Should this be regarded differently than gender inequality in offline society?

The idea of gender equality in online information seems to be very sticky, and imposing, hard to answer and of course essential to gender equality in society overall.