1. Advantages and disadvantages of using formal and informal knowledge.

Formal knowledge and informal knowledge, although fairly distinct forms of information, are inseparably intertwined. All formal knowledge begins its existence as informal knowledge (even if for negligible periods of time, as with formal knowledge derived from research), and unavoidably will find itself spread in some amount as informal knowledge. Therefore, the transfer of all knowledge among humans is a mechanism which utilizes both types.

Formal knowledge has the benefit of trust as having stood the test of time, to the ends of becoming "canon" or accepted knowledge. In terms of responsibility for the results of its use, formal knowledge gives an advantage as it can be directly referenced and recalled upon by the reviewer of the work. Formal knowledge is normally kept in centralized locations (e.g. the compendium of formal knowledge in a single encyclopedia, or the collection of reference and literary works in a library) making it easy to locate, though not necessarily easy to filter. The density of useful information in proportion to static in formal knowledge is typically good, especially in reference works.

Informal knowledge is more proliferant but not necessarily more accessible, as one needs to create social ties with others in order to begin collecting informal knowledge. The ratio of useful knowledge to noise tends to be lower than formal knowledge, couched within social protocols and interrupted by distractions and changes of fancy. Informal knowledge is often intimately connected to the human experience, i.e., it is often better to show it by example as opposed to trying to communicate its concepts, as in Perrolle's example of knowing how to ride a bike.

One benefit of using informal knowledge (i.e. informal social communication) is its ability to lead the questioner to other sources of formal (and informal) knowledge, as in Wellman's examples of communication in the workplace. Others who have had similar experiences can point you toward sources of knowledge (both formal, e.g. books and web pages, and informal, e.g. experts or dabblers in the field) you did not know about or are not even normally available to you.

The ways in which informal and formal knowledge commingle can be both advantageous and detrimental. One the one hand, the reliance on personally-stored information can allow for better filtering of information (of both kinds), for example, a classmate directing another classmate towards a formal source which is known to be helpful in succeeding in a class. (Formal knowledge rarely points one to other sources of informal information, creating a deeper immersion and reliance on formal information.)

On the other hand, informal knowledge is also littered with interferons from undue reliability placed on it as it travels. Informal transmission of knowledge often lacks any reliable verification, and is accepted on its face value. As a result, informal knowledge is prone to errors from accidental misinterpretation of the input (as in the famous "telephone" game), insertion of purposefully misleading information, and from rumor, often a combination of both problems (as well as other human flaws). All these interferons are naturally possible in formal information as well, since all formal knowledge was at one time informal knowledge; but the propensity of formal knowledge to be researched and verified diminishes them. Ironically, Plato worries the exact opposite will happen; that putting informal knowledge into formal forms will cause it to dull.

Informal knowledge is usually the most common form of new information; naturally since new information tends to begin informally before being formalized, but also because newly formalized information can best be advertised through informal channels. The larger your social ties, the more intelligently-filtered (and usually informal) information you can get your hands on (as in Brent's 'quasi-social networlds'). The probability of information serendipity is higher with informal information as a result of this intelligent filtering; in formal information, this happens rarely, especially when the search is concentrated on the specific topic. The ability of intelligent agents (humans) to identify and relate to your information needs through their informal experiences allows them to 'bring' serendipity to you more frequently.

2. Compare your experiences as a member of groups with the research [of] Oravec and Wellman.

Wellman's article on computer-based communities touches on all of the common statements about such groups that have been reiterated to the point where they are a sort of novelty common knowledge in those circles which enjoy acting as experts on Internet social dynamics. Seen through the light of my own experiences with various online communities (and such), this attention to cliché'd aspects of online life focuses on topics that don't merit investigation (anymore), and the article seems to ignore other notable aspects related to topics they do bring up.

One aspect which strikes some observers as an interesting "side effect" is really not all that strange, as it has its roots in the therapeutic benefits of old-fashioned letter writing. Many online observers notice that Internet communication, especially email, breeds a bold, less inhibited communication norm, which encourages some to express themselves more or to be freer with personal information, due to the subconscious perception of the non-presence of the other person. Few who find themselves involved in online communities at any level will find themselves exercising the same inhibitions that they may have in similar offline situations. [But I contend that this is not a new thing; the therapy of writing letters to others comes from the freedom of expression resulting from not being in the presence of the person being addressed. Love letters and "Dear John" letters are a fair examples of this. Especially in the latter, the non-present aspect of the medium allows the writer to make expressions they would not make in person.]

Commonly, online interactions are more frantic in this sense than offline interactions. A combination of multiple strangers in a chat environment (usually but not always intended for a certain focus) will almost always spawn an involved conversation (though not among all present) which often finds itself carrying on for hours and prompting each person to desire to continue the 'conversation' later with the same people.

Placing the same strangers or any group of similar strangers in a physical room is not likely to spawn the same relationship in the same amount of time. At my Northeastern orientation, it took at least a day for a group of new students to find comfortable associations which can compare to this sort of social genesis.

Online, this takes less than half an hour; and on the off chance it doesn't happen within that time, any hope of it occurring dissipates.

Some have also hailed computer communication as a way to communicate without the 'distortion' created by elements of prejudice (sex, color, age etc.). Since many of these are not readily available or immediately detectable in a faceless conversing environment, communication failures often common in offline interactions are daunted. In such environments, the discovery of these aspects later tend to cause a pleasant and positive sense of surprise (having the potential to uplift the discerner's opinion of that person's group) rather than a backlash reaction which destroys the social tie built up until that time.

However, since only anonymized chat environments offer the greatest amount of this double-blinding, in general some of the elements of distortion are immediately detectable or assumable even before the communication has started. Newsgroup posts and emails for example display the sender's name at the top, which will offer clues to the sender's sex and possibly ethnicity as well. One's originating source offers more clues to the attentive; not only geographic information (and therefore ethnicity) but the type of establishment (e.g. a university or k-12 school) which can prompt assumptions of age. [I could also use as an example the introduction of online services like America Online to the Internet, and other 'sites of ill refute' which are notoriously attacked by 'traditional' Internet users, who see such infidels as marauding ingrates. Wellman's article mentions AOL's introduction but doesn't discuss this phenomena.] When these elements are present and detected, the distortion often returns. Coupled with the aforementioned tendency for boldness and uninhibitedness, the distortion can be even greater than in offline (face-to-face) interactions.

[There are plenty of examples of groups spreading rash prejudice and ethnic defamation etc. throughout the Internet, some in jest and some serious, which are able to express themselves more widely and sometimes, as in the case of the newsgroup alt.politics.white-power, perhaps gain an encouraging sense of legitimacy.]

The Wellman article mentions some other clichés, such as a person traveling hundreds of miles to marry or live with a person they have yet to meet face-to-face. This did occur between two people in a chat environment I frequented in 1995; it happens more than the article suggests. Others from the same online group traveled from around the country to attend their wedding. Normally however, members of the group meeting in person was more often a coincidental occurrence than a purposeful intention. It was not common among members of the group to go out of their way to meet any of the others in person; when it did happen, it was simply a side benefit of happening to be in the area.

I would also concur with the article's suggestion that online ties are often just as strong as offline social ties. A concern arises when I take into account my observation above that 'social genesis' occurs within a much smaller time frame online than it often does in real life; that the ease of forming such groups may indicate that these ties are not as strong as they seem, since they were built so frivolously. It can happen that what is perceptively a strong social tie is only strong within the aspects of the medium, and disintegrates outside of its limitations. This did occur between some members, sometimes when two would meet in real life, but also when certain distortion elements which had not already been exposed were exposed abruptly.

There is a fantasy element involved in one's online interactions (which may be psychologically necessary in order for us to treat them as well as offline ones) which causes us to create images of the others in the group to fill in the gaps in our knowledge of their existence. Some members of the group preempted these problems somewhat with the practice of trading pictures of themselves and creating personal web pages which described their offline existence.

Wellman's article focuses on asynchronous communication, which avoids issues of online power struggles that are predominant in synchronous methods (notably both IRC, with its channel and server operators; and MUD/MUSH, with its builders and wizards). But the article also makes no mention of phenomena surrounding 'regulars' and their relationship both to non-regulars and to regulars of other groups. In this sense online groups and communities can be envisioned as coffeehouses or bars where repeat customers create communities within otherwise established environments. Though this is easier (i.e. faster) to see in synchronous environments (especially IRC channels), it is not limited to them and are quite common in asynchronous environments, especially newsgroups. Many of the Usenet newsgroups have pseudo-constructed subgroups which often have an overbearing presence on the discussions of the newsgroup. Good examples are the semi-imaginary EBOAI of alt.irc, the CASHPIEs of alt.life.sucks, and the closet-cabalistic BOFH of alt.recovery.sysadmin. Aside from appearing as 'leaders' of the newsgroup (novices unfamiliar with the structure of newsgroups often mistake these groups as being 'in charge'), these groups also tend to fall under attack from newcomers who feel discouraged by the group's enthusiastic presence.

Many of the aspects of online communication that tend to most interest online observers such as Wellman's group are either accelerated versions of real life possibilities in group interactions, or expansions of the natural human inability to perceive the total existence of another person. Many of these online phenomena can already be found in some amounts in the offline world. I already mentioned my perception of how the non-presence of online communication mimics letter-writing, and compared the phenomena surrounding 'regulars' to real-life bars; I would also suggest that the 'online blindness' to discriminated traits can be found in those blind in real life, and that the breakdown of 'fantasy' perceptions of online counterparts happens to a lesser extent when we find out a 'deep dark secret' of a longtime associate.

3. Write a response to the ACM Code of Ethics.

Like almost all written codes of ethics, the ACM Code exists as a conundrum acting as a set of rules. Codes of ethics are intended to redirect the actions of the individual away from personal inclinations which may be irresponsible and inconsiderate of their results upon others. However, ethical situations are not always predictable, so in order for a code of ethics to have a presence in all ethical matters, the code needs to be flexible enough that it can be applied to any situation, especially those which have not yet been presented.

As a result, the ethical decisions made under code must ultimately rely on the opinion of the individual. So a code of ethics is, in general, a set of rules that demand that the individual not do what he wants to do and instead do what he thinks he should do. The hope is, apparently, that being asked to think about the potential for wrongdoing in an ethical situation will result in a decision that avoids that wrongdoing in which the original decision or desire may have been involved. It gives individuals the responsibility to be responsible.

This may be best demonstrated in the code's attempts to give the individual plenty of leg room in coming to an ethical decision. On the surface of the code (i.e. the outline page), most of the imperatives the code demands seem clear and unambiguous: avoid harm to others, be honest, honor contracts, etc. Being honest and avoiding harm to others seem simple enough.

Contributing to society and human well-being, as the first imperative (in order), is one of the most vague. This is simply defined in terms of subsequent imperatives: avoid harm to others (or the environment), and don't discriminate. But what constitutes a contribution to society? Different actions by professionals in the work they do can be distinctly different, even counterproductive, yet both could still be considered positive contributions to society. Which contributes to society - Stallman's contribution of free, open software to the computing community, or Gates' contribution of a successful software empire to the economic state of the world? Both of these contributions will tend to work against each other, but both will be considered positive contributions to society, by different people.

Avoiding harm to others seems clear cut until the details of the section are examined. The determinants for what is "harm," or what is the greater harm, is in terms of fully subjective concepts. The code suggests the professional use "generally accepted standards for… testing" but of course cannot give a specific example or definition for this. What is a standard, and how can you measure what is general acceptance? The professional is also asked to "assess the… consequences" and "carefully consider." Like other imperatives in the code, this one relies heavily on the hope that the professional's viewpoints and perceptions will allow him to come to a positive conclusion. But if the professional is capable of coming to a positive and ethical decision, why then is a code of ethics necessary for him to make them?

Quite clearly then, the existence of a code of ethics is not primarily intended as law for those it is directed at to follow -- or else; a code of ethics is a statement of principles which the people creating it and for which it is intended for already are in the practice of following. However, the end of the code contains two special reinforcing imperatives. One demands that in order to be compliant with the code, one must be compliant with the code. The other demands that professionals treat violations of the code as alien to ACM membership. The details of this second imperative provide that "if a member does not follow this code by engaging in gross misconduct, membership in ACM may be terminated."

The suggestion is that this is a set of rules for ACM members, and not simply a statement of principles. It can be interpreted as both, perhaps, but if a code of ethics is treated as a set of rules to be enforced, whose responsibility is it to enforce them, and who decides what constitutes their violation (defined simply as "gross misconduct)? The code, unfortunately, makes no provisions for this; so I would argue that this code (as are most codes of conduct) is simply unenforceable, and simply a statement of principles.

Other imperatives in the code are defined in similarly vague terms as those mentioned above. The code is littered with indeterminate values like "proper" "appropriate" and "excellence" which are not only difficult to measure quantitatively but also have no upper or lower benchmarks to be judged within, when it comes to the computing industry. The introduction to the code admits this inescapable difficulty, and the best advice it can give is to determine their quantities through "thoughtful consideration." (So there should be thoughtful consideration of the assessment of the careful consideration of the general acceptance…)

The code includes another difficult imperative. 2.3 says in essence that being ethical means following the law, as long as following the law is ethical. Aside from that puzzle, it reminds the professional that in order to be ethical, it is sometimes necessary to defy unethical laws and pay their penalty. This has the potential to force a professional in a lose-lose situation, not just from a legal-professional standpoint, but also from an ACM standpoint. A professional caught in such a problem isn't going to find any real help from this imperative. The professional might lose his job and go to jail, and be ruined professionally, but he'll still be an ACM member in good standing, whatever its worth. (Likewise, the imperative "avoid harm to others" ignores situations where all decisions will cause harm to someone. The imperative seems to expect that the professional will take a utilitarian stance, but that doesn't help fulfill the imperative.)

Is this code useful then beyond being a statement of principles that ACM members believe in? It is neither enforceable nor helpful. ACM members won't be held to it, nor does it seem they could be, and if a professional finds himself in a troublesome ethical situation, this code wont actually help him make a decision, but only remind him of the depth of his dilemma. It is something for ACM members to stand by, but not to be held to - like a Golden Rule for computing.