Beauty is in the eye of the beholder- Op-ed

Documents has taken a new form- Wikipedia, technology has transformed ideas and concepts written on paper and posted them online for masses of people to see. Brown, J. S. & P. Duguid. (1996) discuss how documents have always been passed around through groups of people, and essentially is has changed overtime but really the internet is a document. Therefore Wikipedia is great in the fact that many people can enjoy the access to online information, but we have to be careful to see where the information is coming from.

My blog does focus on children’s beauty pageants, but for the op-ed piece I have decided to focus on beauty as a general topic area, as Wikipedia didn’t offer too much information on beauty pageants alone. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beauty is the Wikipedia address and I will be discussing the talk section of this webpage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Beauty

.

This talk page allows people to discuss and see multiple views in order to ensure reliable and accurate information. The themes that are present on this talk page are body weight, definitions of beauty, why feminine beauty is also discussed and seen and not masculine beauty, the viewers wanted to change things such as images (picture of a beauty pageant winner, as this focuses mainly on physical appearance), along with beauty being directly related to youth. These themes all touch on the idea of children’s beauty pageants.

Young (mostly) girls who are competing in these pageants are being taught to put a huge emphasis on self-appearance and overall beauty. For the last blog post we had to discuss whether or not we use Wikipedia as a reliable source, and many people said no. After reading these “talk” pages I still stand by my decision of not using Wikipedia as an academic source. Many of the people commenting and making changes have no accountability or real legitimacy. While reading the posts by others, there was no real tension between people, they just stated their opinion and moved on.

In the article Wikinomics and its discontents, Van Dijk, J. & Nieborg, D. (2009) state that Wikiepdia is created by crowds of users who define the information, Wikipedia relies on peer production. This shows the co-creation aspect of Wikipedia, and although this is democratic of the site, because everyone has the equal opportunity to state their opinion, I don’t think this makes the site very reliable.

In one section of the talk, it discusses the image used on the beauty page, which was of a beauty pageant winner. A person referred to as Jcbutler commented on a lot of posts, including this one and when I went to click on them, it shows they have retired. Therefore I wouldn’t say they are a very accurate contributor.

The topic that I found most interesting was how body weight and beauty are rarely discussed in relation to men. A couple people were concerned with this fact, and so am I. I believe this is a western way of thinking, how women are so obsessed with looking good. They participate in hair dye, manicures, pedicures, waxing and many other things to stay looking young and “beautiful”.

All of the information edited for this Wikipedia page seems to be personal opinion on a given topic, most of the people also don’t care what others have to say, as long as their opinion is heard (or seen).  Van Dijk, J. & Nieborg, D. (2009) say that Wikipedia is edited by people to satisfy themselves, and get a lot of views, not for the good of the community. I believe this is mostly true, as the posts didn’t seem to be a collaborated agreement. Most people changed what they wanted, when they wanted, and most of these people lacked credibility.

In one section of this talk, called “human beauty” it is discussed that there won’t be a general consensus on one attractive female (again with the feminization of beauty) to post a picture of. The idea is that anyone’s picture who is posted on the beauty page, will be subject to recurring debate and ridicule, when I researched this person they come up as blocked, and therefore even though I believe what they said, by not showing themselves, they don’t show much credibility. Many of the comments are purely based on personal opinion, which let’s face it, isn’t that what beauty is?

When searching through peoples comments, only one had a direct link to who they are, although we can appreciate that, he was just an average person blogging from “his vacation home”.

Royal, C. & Kapila, D. (2009) discuss in their article What’s on Wiki and What’s not….? That although more writers and editors are better than fewer, as this would help to decrease bias and provide more feedback and opinions, allowing all these people to comment also leads to individuals believing the information is inaccurate. They also discuss how current topics are covered more, I saw this first hand, and this is why I had to use a very broad topic area. Therefore we see that Wikipedia is incomplete in certain areas.

I actually do like the idea of masses of people being able to participate openly and having freedom to discuss their ideas. This being said, I still think Wikipedia lacks reliability and credibility as they do allow anyone to share. Despite the fact that everyone can share, only certain people will, Van Dijk, J. & Nieborg, D. (2009) state that only 13% of online users are creators, making the content lack variety and unbiased material.




References

Brown, J. S. & P. Duguid. (1996). The Social Life of Documents. First Monday. 1, 1.

Van Dijk, J. & Nieborg, D. (2009). Wikinomics and its discontents: a critical analysis of Web 2.0 business manifestos. New Media & Society. 11, 5. pp 855-874.

Royal, C. & Kapila, D. (2009). What's on Wikipedia, and What's Not . . . ?: Assessing Completeness of Information. Social Science Computer Review. 27, 1. pp 138-148.


http://theilliterateparent.wordpress.com/
http://ao04rs.wordpress.com/
http://mimmzz.wordpress.com/    

Summative Blogpost - WIKI

I enjoyed reading what people had to say with regards to my blogpost about Wikipedia. First, Colin brought up the issue of bias material on Wikipedia, and how I think that is the main issue. He said that it isn’t the fact that people are bias, because truly everyone is, it is the fact that these comments are posted anonymously and therefore we can’t do a background search on these people to see if they are legit. I didn’t think of it like this, but I really enjoy this point. If we could see who posted ideas and comments on Wikipedia we could than see if they themselves are a reliable source. As Colin said, they can hide behind their bias, which makes it an issue. I think the idea of Wikipedia is the fact that it is anonymous and therefore everyone is equal when commenting, so I highly doubt they will change that even though it does raise issues about the idea of bias.  Michelle, the second posting raised different ideas and issues. I enjoyed her perspective on re-thinking and re-wording comments as more information is brought to light in the future, this relates to the community involvement of Wikipedia. The only problem with believing Wikipedia is completely community involvement is that although anyone can comment and share their opinion only certain types of people are actually going to log on and do so, one article says only 13% of people are actually creators the others don’t participate in development. Also as talked about in the articles, people post their opinion to satisfy themselves, so although it is supposed to be a community effort, most views aren’t for the community. Michelle discusses how different viewpoints, religions and cultures have different views which may clash, but I think this is a good thing. It shows diversity and different viewpoints on a given topic. Canada is a multicultural country and I think we can continue to learn more by listening to others. Even though I do agree with her that it brings chaos sometimes (lol). They both talked about different things, Colin focused on bias (which isn’t always bad) while Michelle focused on the communal aspect of Wikipedia. Overall I agree with Colin that because the posts are anonymous, we can’t form an opinion of the author, if we could we would be able to make our own assumptions of the topic. Michelle talks about it becoming harder to adapt to change in technology because it is always improving. I agree with this statement, I am 20 years old (you’d think I’d be pretty good with technology) and I still feel behind on the times.

Thanks for the comments Colin and Michelle!

"all users are equally creative and are created equally"

Before reading these modules, I did not use Wikipedia as a reliable source, mainly because teachers or professors always told me not too. Therefore for assignments and papers I did not trust this content. I did however use Wikipedia if I wanted a quick overview of a topic for my own knowledge, because I believed it gave me enough insight instantly on a subject. After reading these articles, I gained more knowledge about how Wikipedia works and functions, but overall I do not think I changed my opinion. I still would not use Wikipedia as an academic source, but I do take pleasure in why Wikipedia endorses this type of encyclopedia. The reason I would not use Wikipedia as a reliable source is because in Royal, C. & Kapila, D. (2009) article they discuss that Wikipedia reflects the people who use it the most. Bias is created, as current topics are more covered and as anyone can edit and change the content it leads to people thinking the information is inaccurate and incorrect (Royal, C. & Kapila, D, 2009). This bias is also explained by Van Dijk, J. & Nieborg, D. (2009), they explain that out of all the Internet users, only 13% are actually creators and therefore the other 87% are not contributing to creating and discussing information online. This proves the point that Wikipedia reflects those who chose to contribute. Although the information processed on Wikipedia can easily be changed, and only certain people will take time out of their day to contribute, making it bias, I do actually enjoy why the site was created and is so popular. Van Dijk, J. & Nieborg, D. (2009) also discuss the importance of Wikipedia, they say it is a co-creation, as the users define the information. It allows masses of people to participate which gains collectivism, participation and creativity from a wide variety of people. Leadbeater (2006) says that consumers become workers because they devote their time and effort to develop ideas for one another, I think this is what our world should be aiming towards. Everyone is seen as equal and has the equal opportunity to be creative. Although also in this article Van Dijk, J. & Nieborg, D. (2009) explain that usually this information is provided to satisfy themselves, to receive the most views or comments, it is not usually shared in order to help others. I am really torn between the content being bias and the idea of an open and free website for writers and editors to share their insight. Technology is constantly improving and changing, which relates to Brown, J. S. & P. Duguid. (1996) article that discusses how documents make social interactions and practices. The Internet (Wikipedia) is simply just a new form of documents. All along documents have been shared and created through networks of people. Overtime this fundamentally may change from a piece of paper to a computer but we will always have a way of circulating information in a document form. Wikipedia is a prime example of this because it is crowd and community based, everyone is sharing their own understanding of a topic which is being changed and altered by others, making it a peer production. As for me, honestly until I get the “go ahead” from professors I will not be using Wikipedia as a reliable academic source, but I appreciate the way it allows masses of people to participate and I will continue to use Wikipedia for my own quick and easy searches.



suupedupscience.blogspot.com 

References

Brown, J. S. & P. Duguid. (1996). The Social Life of Documents. First Monday. 1, 1.

Royal, C. & Kapila, D. (2009). What's on Wikipedia, and What's Not . . . ?: Assessing Completeness of Information. Social Science Computer Review. 27, 1. pp 138-148.

Van Dijk, J. & Nieborg, D. (2009). Wikinomics and its discontents: a critical analysis of Web 2.0 business manifestos. New Media & Society. 11, 5. pp 855-874.



Summative

Although I only had one reply to my last blog post, it was long and I really enjoyed receiving this feedback and have decided to reflect upon just the one anyway. Colin (who commented) is a Dad, and getting his perspective on these topics is very interesting and makes me think of things from a different viewpoint. This comment gave me a new perspective, I had mentioned that toddlers and tiaras related to creating an online identity because they are both "made up" and these children act a certain way when they are in their own worlds, whether it be at a pageant in front of judges, or in the online social media world. I especially liked when Colin had brought up the point that this has to do with control that the parents have, in the pageant aspect they have full control over all the decisions the children make, their dress, makeup and hair. Meanwhile on the Internet they have little to no control over what their children are doing and the children can control their online identity. I don't know which is scarier? There has to be a happy medium. Colin pointed out in his blog, you can't be in control over everything your child does if you want to maintain a healthy relationship with them. Rather than focusing on whether the government or a higher power has access to my account and information wasn't my main concern, as they wouldn't have too much to find. As just an average person, if the government wants to see what I Google the most, or target what I purchase online, I'm really okay with that. We both agreed that it is more necessary to be aware of what you are posting in relation to how you represent yourself. Others may interpret something differently than you expected, because you can't hear the tone of voice, and they may take it out on context. Another idea that we both agreed on was that children may not be mature enough to realize what should and should not be shown online. Children are extremely smart (most know how to work social media better than their parents) and so, I believe that we should educate children on their choices, as social media is a huge phenomenon now, so they don't have to suffer with the consequences later on in life. I think as I have grown up, even though my parents warned me over and over about Facebook and privacy, I myself have matured into being careful about what I post online. Perhaps because of all the talk about potential employers looking at your Facebook, and hoping to have a career in my near future.

Thanks for listening! Amanda

"We won't feel truly wanted again until the next email, text or call"

 



http://lighthouseinsights.in

“We won’t feel truly wanted again until the next email, text or call” (Marsden, 2010). As Sherry Turkle (1999) explains cyberspace is changing everything, from our identities, sexualities and communities. We can create different personae’s online, therefore we represent ourselves through multiple identities. The internet gives us the opportunity to do so, it makes us think of identity in complex ways, gives us the choice of who we want to be. This relates to my topic of Children’s beauty pageants, they practice their routines of being someone else, and being perfect performers. These children put on make-up, hair, and even fake teeth, they flash a smile, sing a song and change who they are in order to win a prize. This idea of pageants, is really creating a different identity, someone who you can’t be in everyday life, much like social networking sites. When we log on, we think it is just us and the computer, it feels secluded, and when in reality we are linked to millions of other people (Turkle, 1999). As for me, it can be difficult to maintain a good “rep” online, because friends can post things that you didn’t necessarily want shown and now it is on the internet forever. I have a Facebook and Twitter account, and when I was younger, before I knew about the privacy settings I use to post everything and anything, where I was, what I was doing, who I was with, and pictures of me from parties. Now as Anders Alberchstlund (2008) explains in his section of life after social networking, that your chances for employment can decrease if your social media feeds show damaging events from your past. The embarrassing thoughts and pictures can be accessed (Tribble, 2005) and therefore used against you, and this is one of my concerns with social networking. I try to keep my online identity respectful, as now my parents’ generation is becoming familiar with Facebook, and I want to give off a good representation of myself. When it comes to me knowing that I am under constant surveillance, say by the government, I truthfully don’t focus too much of this aspect, rather than of people I know being able to search and “creep” me. It rarely crosses my mind that a higher power has access to my accounts. On Facebook (referring to this the most because I have had it the longest) I am “private”, so only my friends can see what I post. Now I am aware that this probably isn’t the case, but I have tried to takes steps to make my Facebook page less visible to the public. I especially liked when Turkle (2012) said “they don’t change what we do, they change who we are” I think this is specifically related to cellphones. Texting is now very familiar to people, we all want to “hangout” with certain people, while still keeping in contact with others (thinking of this, it is very rude). She explains that we want to spend more time with technology, because we believe that no one is listening to us. I think this is very true, when we are on our phones we feel a sense of belonging, this is also true with all social networking sites, it’s the fact that we are never alone. Social media in my opinion is a huge phenomenon that isn’t going anywhere anytime soon, and therefore we need to spend more time making younger generations aware and helping change the way communication is learned, by having face to face conversations and learning that it is okay to be alone sometimes (Turkle, 2012).

References

Albrechtslund, A. (2008) Online Social Networking as Participatory Surveillance. First Monday. 13,3

Turkle, S. (Nov., 1999). Cyberspace and Identity. American Sociological Association, Vol. 28, No. 6, pp. 643-648.

Turkle, Sherry. "TED Blog." TED Blog Places We Dont Want to Go Sherry Turkle AtTED2012 Comments. N.p., 1 Mar. 2012. Web. 16 May 2013.

 

About

Hey everyone! Thanks for visiting my blog, my name is Amanda Sexton and I am in third year Sociology at BrockU.
This blog will be discussing the controversial issue of children's beauty pageants, the good the bad and the ugly! Issues dealing with all aspects of the pageants, the positives such as self-confidence and the negatives such as eating disorders.
The hit show "Toddlers and Tiaras" will be discussed as it is on the TLC network, and brings fourth many of the concerns and aspects of children's beauty pageants. I find this show quite entertaining, while others might find it atrocious!
Continue to visit this page in order to learn more!

BlogRoll

http://diaryofapageantgirl.com/
Beauty Pageants: Applying mascara to minds? (2013rgs301grp1.wordpress.com)
I judged a child beauty pageant (fourfour.typepad.com)
Behind the Scripted Screen (2013rgs301grp1.wordpress.com)
Center for Discovery Eating Disorder Treatment Center Adds Equine Assisted Therapy (prweb.com)

Related Websites

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/jul/11/child-beauty-queens
http://www.cheo.on.ca/en/eating_disorder_info
http://kidshealth.org/teen/your_mind/body_image/body_image.html
http://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/beauty-pageant-children-effects-1115127
http://psychcentral.com/news/2012/10/29/child-beauty-pageants-may-be-more-about-parents/46818.html

Twitter Hashtags

#selfconfidence
#bodyimage
#beautypageant
#narcissist
#eatingdisorder