QotW10: virtual plastic surgeries and endless shopping

Meet my Second Life avatar, Shelly Martinek.

One of the amazing things I've discovered after creating an account with SL is the amount of control you have with your avatar. I could virtually perform painless and effortless plastic surgeries on myself anyday and anytime! And tada! I changed my facial features in a matter of seconds.

From small to huge eyes!


Flat nose bridge to high nose bridge!

Thin lips to full lips!

Actually, I think that my avatar hardly looks like my real-self, except that we both have long hair. So why did I create an avatar that looks nothing like myself? Because I feel that it's one of the many perks of an avatar on SL. On one day you can look really similar to your real-self and the next day, you can look nothing like it. Or you can look like a fancy robot or anything that is impossible to look like in your first life. Everyday can be halloween.

How could I miss visiting Singapore in SL?

As I started to explore around, I was really intrigued how realistic some things looked in SL and fashion got my attention first. Since I love to shop, one of the first things I got to doing was getting new clothes, shoes, earrings and the like. I realized that there were lots of freebie stores. Many of them were laggy and packed with loads people and boxes containing the freebies. The problem was that most of these freebies weren't sorted. One box could contain 40 different sets of outfits. And chances are, I probably don't even like 39 of them.

Boxes and boxes of unsorted freebies. Which one to choose?

Thanks to the payment details I gave when creating an account, I got 250 Linden dollars free. So I actually had a bit of money to spend. Though with only 250L, I couldn't afford expensive stuff either. But it's okay, since my latest favorite hangout is the GNUbie store, where everything goes for only a dollar! And in my opinion, they have much better designs compared to the ones you find at freebie stores. Let's see some pictures I've taken in the GNUbie store.

Nice! All designs are neatly shown on the.. um.. board?


Ah! The perfect pair of jeans!


Your mums and dads might actually approve these tattoos!


Maybe I could buy some other SL essentials, like houses?

Taking a break after all the shopping. :)

QotW9: what is citizen journalism?

"We all must recognize that the rules for newsmakers, not just journalists, have changed, thanks to everyone’s ability to make the news" (Gillmor, 2004). This statement seems to be supported by Straits Times Online Mobile Print (STOMP), an interactive portal owned by the Singapore Press Holdings. STOMP allows interaction in three forms, namely print, online and mobile ("About Us", 2006). Regular people like you and I can contribute to news to STOMP by SMSing or emailing them. As a response to this week's question, I attempt to analyze if STOMP is an ideal form of citizen journalism for Singapore.

First of all, let's see what is citizen journalism. In Wikipedia, citizen journalism is defined as is the act of citizens "playing an active role in the process of collecting, reporting, analyzing and disseminating news and information". It is also known as “participatory journalism" ("Citizen Journalism", 2007). STOMP certainly fits this definition of citizen journalism, since Singaporeans do play an active role as "journalists of STOMP". Then again, Wikipedia further explains that "the intent of this participation is to provide independent, reliable, accurate, wide-ranging and relevant information that a democracy requires". STOMP may allow citizens to participate in publishing the content, however the fact that content is moderated before it can be published does not really constitutes to independent information. "Citizens are interested in participating and contributing to subjects that traditional news outlets ignore or do not often cover" (Bowman & Willis, 2005). Therefore, in this sense, citizens may still be disappointed when some news are not eligible or chosen to be published on STOMP.

Yet, it is impossible to have an online interactive portal with unmoderated content. Content can end up being inaccurate and misleading. This may sound contradicting, but an online portal is not unlike a personal blog in the sense where the owner of the blog is responsible for all the content published. In this case, STOMP is responsible for the content published on its portal. As the characteristics of citizen journalism and STOMP are established here, I believe that STOMP may not be ideal yet but it is closest to the ideal form of a mainstream and collaborative citizen journalism we can get in Singapore now.

However, STOMP has still some of room for improvement. In fact, if I have the power, the first change I will make to STOMP is to change the layout of the website. In my opinion, the layout of the website can be improved to be less cluttered and more clean cut with less animated pictures. This is especially crucial for the index page, where visitors first determine the comfort level of surfing the website. When I first saw the website, it also didn't seem like an online news portal to me. Frankly speaking, at first glance, it looks like a website with filled with animated advertisements and banners.

The idea of STOMP is great, as it provides an avenue for freelance journalist wannabes. Nevertheless, I feel that the layout of the website is less than appealing. It may be just me, but I believe that the aesthetics of a website can make or break it. Never mind how mind blowing the content of the website may be, a less than perfect layout may not bring back visitors. With that being said, as one of the pioneer interactive news portal in Singapore, STOMP shows great potential. STOMP must listen to its contributors and viewers for making improvements to the website and in time to come, it can reach greater heights in both Singapore and the virtual world.

(Source: CartoonStock.co.uk)

References

About Us. (2006). In STOMP. Retrieved March 30, 2007, from http://www.stomp.com.sg/about/about.html

Bowman, S. & Willis, C. (2005). Neiman Reports: The Future is Here, But Do News Media Companies See It? Retrieved March 31, 2007, from http://www.hypergene.net/blog/weblog.php?id=P327

Citizen journalism. (2007, March 28). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved March 31, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Citizen_journalism&oldid=118429022

Gillmor, D. (2004). We the Media: Grassroots Journalism by the People, for the People. Retrieved March 30, 2007, from http://download.nowis.com/index.cfm?phile=WeTheMedia.html&tipe=text/html#chap3

QotW8: when blogs and politics come together

Adopted blog's information at a glance:

1. Blog’s Title and URL: Singabloodypore @ http://singabloodypore.rsfblog.org/
2. Blogger’s Name (or Pseudonym): Blog owner is Steven McDermott from the UK, a one-time resident in Singapore. The pseudonym he uses is soci. Other contributors to the blog include Clyde, Xenoboysg, Eng Chuan, Charles,Mister K, Locky2K, Elia Diodati, Pantalaimon, Chemgen, AmicaCuriae, Yuen.
3. Blogger’s Occupation (politician or citizen blogger): Blog owner is a research student. For the other contributors, I am assuming that most of them are citizen bloggers, according to their blogger profiles and blogs.
4. Blog’s Date of Birth (look for the first post): 3rd July 2003
5. Technorati Rank: 156,018 (84 links from 28 blogs)

This blog contains entries by a group of bloggers on political and social issues in mainly Singapore, and sometimes South East Asia. Many of the posts contain anti-government sentiments. They also frequently questions and openly opposes and criticizes to the decisions made by the government and the People Action's Party (PAP). For example, one of their latest posts featured an article calling for a protest to ANU's Honorary Doctorate for MM Lee Kuan Yew (Soci, 2007). Despite the controversial content of the blog, the number of comments left on the blog are not overwhelming.


In response to the question this week, that is, if blogs allow for greater democracy in Singapore, I would say yes, but to a limited extent. Here are the reasons why.

• Some local political blogs represent views of ordinary citizens, not PAP politicians or politicians from the opposition parties. These views are invaluable, because they can reflect the opinions of you and I and people around us, who may be too afraid to speak up. These blogs encourage us to read their views, and share our thoughts with them. Being part of an Internet community, like a community blog, is metaphoric of being in a party, where someone needs to start a conversation. In this case, these political blogs discusses these issues, that are considered relatively sensitive in Singapore. There may not be many comments, but at least these posts pose an alternative point of view to many readers.
  

• Like how Thornton (2002) puts it, "the role of traditional media (television, magazines and newspapers) in modern democracy is increasingly problematic, and serious questions have arisen about its capacity as a site for political criticism or rational debate". In our local context, our traditional media has always been questioned with the democracy issues. I remembered following the media coverage of 2006 Parliamentary Elections last year. Although there were news and footage shown on television on opposition parties, they were significantly limited compared to the PAP's. In the past, we could rely on these forms of traditional media to obtain information. Now, with the Internet, we can obtain more information and even discuss about them.

So, why is it that blogs only allow greater democracy in Singapore to a limited extent?

• The reason is because there are ways to control the Internet as well. For instance, last May, Senior Minister of State for Information, Communications and the Arts Balaji Sadasivan announced a ban on “explicitly political” podcasting and vodcasting during the General Election period (Giam, 2006). As Giam (2006) reasoned, this was to counter the availability of podcasts and vodcasts provided on Singapore Democratic Party's (SDP) website. In the end, SDP had no choice but to comply with the new regulation.

• In addition, "a post-election survey by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) revealed that only 33 per cent of Singaporeans — mostly young adults — said that the Internet was important to shaping their voting decisions" (Giam, 2006). If the result is accurate, this evidently shows that although the nature of the Internet allows of the promotion of democracy, it is not to an astonishing extent.

Therefore, I believe that blogs do increase exposure to democracy in Singapore, but not to a huge extent. At least not yet.

References

Giam, G. (2006, December 31). Review - The politics of Singapore’s new media in 2006. Retrieved March 24, 2007, from
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2006/12/31/review-the-politics-of-singapores-new-media-in-2006/

McDermott, S. (2007, March 23). Snap Action! Protest ANU’s Honorary Doctorate for Lee Kuan Yew. Singabloodypore. Retrieved March 24, 2007, from http://singabloodypore.rsfblog.org/archive/2007/03/23/snap-action-protest-anu-s-honorary-doctorate-for-lee-kwan-ye.html

Thornton, A. (2002, October). Does Internet Create Democracy? Retrieved on March 24, 2007, from http://www.zip.com.au/~athornto/

QotW7: so what are u doing now?

According to Dictionary.com,

twit·ter

–verb (used without object)

1. to utter a succession of small, tremulous sounds, as a bird.
2. to talk lightly and rapidly, esp. of trivial matters; chatter.
3. to titter; giggle.
4. to tremble with excitement or the like; be in a flutter.

The second explanation could be the best fit for Twitter, a website COM125 students were asked to join as part of our blog assignment this week. When I first attempted to use Twitter, it felt like I was tagging on a giant tag-board, except that it'd appear on my "followers" page instead on just one tag-board. Also, I can see my "friends' tags" on my main page. Well, it is certainly more convenient than a tag-board!




The question is whether Twitter is considered as an online community. Technically, I believe it can be considered an online community. First of all, it can be updated using the web and secondly, it consists of a group of people communicating with one another. Additionally, Twitter calls itself "a community of friends and strangers from around the world sending updates about moments in their lives" ("Twitter FAQ", 2006). But, is it really one? Let's explore other factors to find out.

In my opinion, Twitter has features that are commonly seen by other social networking sites. Yet it has its own unique features. Here's a small list I've made up based on my knowledge on online social networking sites after slicing Twitter up.



Common features

• Signing up for an account is entirely free of charge (like most online social networking websites)
  
• Allowing you to use either your real name or a pseudonym (like almost any online community)
  
• Uploading an image as an avatar to represent you and customizing your own profile (like online forums)
  
• Adding other users as friends to your social circle (like MySpace)
  
• Sending private messages to friends (like Friendster)
  
• Receiving updates from users you choose (like RSS feeds)
• Using your mobile phone or IM to post updates (like moblogging)
• Having privacy control over it, for instance, showing updates only to friends (like LiveJournal)
  

Unique features

• Posting anything you want in 140 words or less (like a tag-board but a tag-board isn't really an online community)
  
• Selecting messages as "favorites" (like marking some e-mails as important but e-mail isn't really considered an online community either)
  

As we can see, there are many common features shared by Twitter and other popular online communities. Is it now safe to conclude that Twitter is indeed an online community? Probably, but let's examine more to be sure.

"Experientially, community within cyberspace emphasizes a community of interests, usually bounded by the topic under discussion, that can lead to a communal spirit and apparent social bonding." (Fernback & Thompson, 1995). Do Twitter users have common interests? Not necessarily. However, don't forget that users of MySpace and Friendster may not have common interests or character too and yet they are still frequently considered as online communities (Chaffin, 2004).

Fernback & Thompson (1995) also proposed another definition of online communities, referring to them as "social relationships forged in cyberspace through repeated contact within a specified boundary or place (e.g., a conference or chat line) that is symbolically delineated by topic of interest." Someone who uses Twitter will regularly post and check back on the website. This is where the "repeated contact within a specified boundary or place" comes into play.

Like what Wellman & Gulia (1996) mentioned, virtual communities provide possibilities for reversing the trend to less contact with community members because it is so easy to connect on-line with large numbers of people. Twitter allows you to do that. Twitter is an online community since the trends of communities are dynamic (Fernback & Thompson, 1995). In the past, perhaps only forums were commonly known as an online community. Then Facebook and blogs appeared and became online communities in their own right. And, there was the wildly successful Youtube. Maybe given time, Twitter might gain more popularity and be known one as the new generation of online communities. Who knows?

References

Chaffin, L. (2004). The Online Community Phenomena Sites like MySpace and Friendster make up the cyberfriend scene. Rampway Online. Retrieved March 16, 2007, from http://www.rampway.org/article.php?id=310

Fernback, J. & Thompson, B. (1995). Virtual Communities: Abort, Retry, Failure? Retrieved March 16, 2007, from http://www.rheingold.com/texts/techpolitix/VCcivil.html

Twitter. (2006). Twitter FAQ. Retrieved March 16, 2007, from http://help.twitter.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=26

Twitter. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved March 16, 2007, from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/twitter

Wellman, B. & Gulia, M. (1996). Net Surfers Don’t Ride Alone. Retrieved March 16, 2007, from http://www.acm.org/~ccp/references/wellman/wellman.html
title=Reputation_management&diff=113442073&oldid=111797891

QotW6: Hi, may I eavesdrop?

The definition of privacy invasion may differ for every individual. For me, I may consider the websites with tracking cookies a huge intrusion to my online privacy. For some, it may not be a big deal at all (Schwartz, 2001). Now, what about offline privacy?

How do people negotiate their privacy in public where everyone can see and hear one another? When you take public transport, be it the bus or MRT, or even the taxi, there is always someone near you. So when you talk on the mobile phone, chances are, the people near you can hear your conversations. How do you communicate effectively and yet, negotiate your privacy at the same time? Possibly via text messaging. At least for me, I realized that is very often the reason why I SMS. Be it in the bus or MRT filled with people, I tend to be more comfortable texting than calling when I need to discuss personal matters. Maybe it's because I'm a very private person by nature. Or it could be the bad experience I had with one over-enthusiastic taxi driver.

I remembered being in a cab, discussing with a friend about the grades I've gotten that semester, lamenting that it was horrible and that I must buck up the next semester. Upon hanging up, the taxi uncle started a conversation by mentioning that youngsters in Singapore tend to take the opportunities to study for granted (which I agree). That was fine, but he went on further to ask me about my academic background. That includes the secondary school and JC I went to, the university I'm in now, my "O" level and "A" level results, whether my parents paid for my education now and the like. Then he asked me why didn't I do well this semester. And that I should try not to disappoint my parents. Not wanting to rude, I answered his questions, albeit in a vague manner. I don't recall being really mad, but what I do recall is being glad when I finally reached my destination. I realized that a taxi may not be the best place for private phone conversations. "One way of understanding privacy is not whether we choose to expose personal information in public - we all do at different times and places - but the ease with which we can return to being private" (Rosen, 2004). I was having difficulties returning "to being private" in the taxi.


I understand that it could be that he was merely just trying to strike a conversation but ended up striking the wrong chord. Or it could be due to an emotional personal experience of his. But something else struck me. It is one of the reasons why text messaging works. Text messaging can give you the privacy telephone conversations cannot. Of course, on the other hand, we see people talking loudly on their mobile phones in public as well. Some complain. Some boast. Some divulge personal incidents. Others, I guess, are probably just loud by nature. Rosen (2004) explains this well. "Today, by contrast, intimacy and trust are increasingly obtained not by shared experiences or fixed social status but by self-revelation: people try to prove their trustworthiness by revealing details of their personal lives to prove that they have nothing to hide before a crowd whose gaze is turned increasingly on all the individuals that compose it"

According to a survey by the Ponemon Institute, only seven percent of Americans said that they will change any behaviors in an effort to preserve their privacy (Sullivan, 2006). I speculate that the percentage will be much higher if a similar survey was conducted in Singapore. I may be wrong, but I'm certain I belong to the seven percent.

(Cartoon by Chris Slane, http://cagle.msnbc.com/news/PrivacyCartoons2/main.asp)

References

Rosen, J. (2004, July 19). The Naked Crowd. Retrieved March 9, 2007, from http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000CA5FF.htm

Schwartz, J. (2001, September 4). Giving the Web a Memory Cost Its Users Privacy. NYTimes.com. Retrieved March 10, 2007, from http://www.law.upenn.edu/fac/pwagner/law619/f2001/week12/nytimes_cookies_series.pdf

Sullivan, B. (2006, October 17). Privacy Lost: Does anybody care?. MSNBC Interactive. Retrieved March 10, 2007, from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15221095/print/1/displaymode/1098/

QotW5: Online or Offline - Similar Rules of the Game?

"Identity is the total conception that people have of who they are" (Keneally, 2004). Everyone possess their own identity in real life, but what about an online identity? You may not realize it, but a lot of us own at least one or more online identity and that we actually care about them. Also, an online identity works very similarly to an offline identity in more ways than one.

An online community I used to be really active in was Final Fantasy XI, a massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG). In the game, the virtual world is known as Vana'diel. Players establish online relationships with one another. I had my own character and I was careful with this virtual identity of mine. I tried to make sure that my in-game identity was known as a good and respectable one. Just like reality, in the game, there are famous players, notorious players and regular players. One's reputation determines the category of player one is known for.

According to Masum and Zhang (2004), reputation is a surrogate - a partial reflection representing our "best educated guess" of the underlying true state of affairs. In the real world, people establish reputation for the actions they do, things they say, the outstanding skills they have, amount of wealth or authority they have. Not surprisingly, it is similar in the Vana'diel. There are no official rankings or points you can accumulate for being a helpful or nice player. Reputation is mostly established via word of mouth, or the various in-game media. Players can either gain recognition or disdain for the actions they do, the things they say, their outstanding techniques, in-game wealth or authority. Players also have to be responsible for their own identity in the sense that if they break the regulations of the game, their account may be suspended or even banned. It basically works the same way as real life, where one has to be jailed or fined after being caught breaking the law. It is rather comprehensive because in this aspect, it is quite similar to how things work in real life as well.

In Vana'diel, reputation can be vital for a couple of reasons. In order to progress in the game where you need to gain levels for one's character, it is more feasible to form a party of about six players. MMORPGs are highly interactive. With a rotten reputation, one may be rejected by other players, one may be unable to receive the help needed or one may be snubbed by other players for no good reason.

Phishing, according to Ian Loe's presentation, is the act of sending a message to a user falsely claiming to be an established legitimate enterprise in an attempt to scam the user into surrendering private information that will be used for identity theft (Loe, 2007). Attempts to assume identities in Vana'diel are not uncommon too. One of the main reasons why people phish in the FFXI world is because the items and virtual currency in game can be sold online for real, hard cash. One other way people try to assume other players' identities could be simply creating a new character that combines an underscore with the original player's online handle. Motivations for committing such acts can range from hoping to attain some gains to attempting to ruin reputations. Wrecking a virtual reputation tends to be easier since there are relatively lesser identity cues compared to the real life (Donath, 1996).

Despite the fact that online identities are more malleable than real life identities, it is not exaggerated to say that reputation online and offline works in a very similar way ("Online Identity", 2007). Some people take pains to build up a solid reputation online for reasons not very different to people establishing a good reputation in real life. Perhaps, whether it comes to online or offline identities, the rules of the game may be still the same.

References

Donath, J. S. (1996, November 12). Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community. Retrieved February 22, 2007, from http://smg.media.mit.edu/people/Judith/Identity/IdentityDeception.html

Keneally, L. (2004, October 29). Virtual Identity - Development - M/Cyclopedia of New Media. Retrieved February 22, 2007, from http://wiki.media-culture.org.au/index.php/The_Development_of_Online_Identity

Loe, I. (2007, February 14). Phishing, Pharming, and the latest potholes on the Information Highway. Retrieved February 16, 2007, from http://com125.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/it-community-latest-potholes_v7.ppt

Masum, H., & Zhang, Y. (2004, July). Manifesto for the Reputation Society. First Monday, 9 (7). Retrieved February 22, 2007, from http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue9_7/masum/

Online identity. (2007, February 15). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved February 22, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Online_identity&oldid=108207999

QotW4: Give or Take or Give AND Take?

Introduction

A gift is something acquired without compensation. An economy can be defined as the efficient use of resources ("WordNet", 2006). Put them together and you get something acquired without compensation by the efficient use of resources. Therefore, on the Internet, a gift economy is something digitally acquired without compensation by the efficient use of online resources. Sounds too good to be true? Not really, since the Internet itself is considered as a gift economy (Phillips, 1997).

How Can It Be Free?

When one participates in a gift economy, you contribute, receive or engage in both. However, is the gift really free, with no strings attached? According to sociologists and anthropologists, one of the most widespread and basic norms of human culture is embodied in the rule for reciprocation. The rule requires that one person try to repay, in kind, what another person has provided (Cialdini, 2001). If this rule applies, broadly speaking, people who participate in a gift economy will feel the need to reciprocate when they receive something from others. Conversely, it is also possible that one contributes something in hope that someone else will reciprocate and contribute something back in return.

Another motivation for contributing to a gift economy includes the effect on one's reputation. According to Lewis Hyde, status is accorded to those who give the most to others (as cited in Pinchot, 1995). "High quality information, impressive technical details in one's answers, a willingness to help others, and elegant writing can all work to increase one's prestige in the community" (Kollock, 1999).

Also, according to Kollock (1999), having a sense of efficacy, is a third possible motivation for contributing valuable information. Hoping to have an effect or make an impact on one's environment can be powerful for quality contributions, especially when one is aware of that the contributions may reach a larger audience.

My Gift Economy

The gift economy I'm choosing to represent my answer is GameFAQs. GameFAQs is a website that hosts FAQs and walkthroughs for video games. The site has a large database of video game information and has been called a site where readers "can get almost any information" regarding game strategies ("GameFAQs", 2007). In a nutshell, GameFAQs has a huge library of user-submitted walkthroughs, which are documents that attempt to teach players how to beat or solve a particular game ("Walkthrough", 2007), mission guides, specific strategies and maps. Some video game enthusiasts even contribute walkthroughs that are so detailed, they can amount to more 100 pages.

Observations & Analysis

How is GameFAQs regarded as a gift economy? Let's compare it with my observations on the common characteristics of online gift economies. First of all, since it is a gift, it must be free of any repayments. There should not be any obvious obligation to reciprocate, unless of course, the receiver volunteers to. This checks in with GameFAQs, since it is free even if one downloads a thousand copies of walkthroughs. Also, one will never need to contribute a post in order to read the message boards.

Second, the bulk of contribution is from Internet users. Usually, the information is not provided by any authorized experts but is submitted by people who believe they have the knowledge - most of the times. As mentioned above, the game strategies provided by GameFAQs are user-submitted. Anyone and everyone can submit a game guide.

A third characteristic is the interactive nature. Since "gifts" are shared among people online, people will communicate to clear their doubts, express their gratitude, and build relationships ignited by a common interest. This is also evident in GameFAQs, where there is a message board for every game for users to discuss game strategies. Furthermore, in game walkthroughs, writers often include contact information like e-mail address for people who use their guide. This frequently results in users notifying writers the errors they detected after reading the guide. Sometimes, users may even provide writers with extra information about the game. In return, writers usually thank the users who contributed when they update their guide.

Lastly, a common interest in the information shared. This is an obvious trait for contributors and users of GameFAQs alike. In order to write a walkthrough, a gamer typically has to complete the game at least once. It is not uncommon for a walkthrough author to complete a game several times before writing a walkthrough. Similarly, the reason users accessed the walkthroughs is because they are currently playing the game and is interested to discover more strategies.

Conclusion

As the common characteristics of a gift economy were illustrated, it is apparent that GameFAQs belongs to a gift economy. GameFAQs, Wikipedia, SourceForge, IMDb, DeviantART, MyCarForum and many other online gift economies are wildly popular and thriving, owing mainly to the nature of how the system works and the motivations to share. Whether you only give, or only take or give and take, online gift economies will be here to stay.

References

Cialdini, R. B. (2001). 3. Influence: Science and Practice (4th ed., pp. 50). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Cnet Networks, Inc. (2007). GameFAQs Contributor Central. Retrieved February 9, 2007, from http://www.gamefaqs.com/contribute/

Economy. WordNet 3.0. (2006). Princeton University. Retrieved February 9, 2007, from http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=economy

GameFAQS. (2006, January 7). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved February 9, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GameFAQS&oldid=34188321

Gift. WordNet 3.0. (2006). Princeton University. Retrieved February 9, 2007, from http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=gift

Gift economy. (2007, February 4). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved February 9, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gift_economy&oldid=105681971

Kollock, P. (1999). The economies of online cooperation: Gifts and public goods in cyberspace. Retrieved February 8, 2007, from http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/kollock/papers/economies.htm

Phillips, E. (1997, June 2). Gift Economy. Retrieved February 9, 2007, from http://www.rewired.com/97/0602.html

Pinchot, G. (1995). The Gift Economy. In Context, pp. 49. Context Institute. Retrieved February 9, 2007, from http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC41/PinchotG.htm

Walkthrough. (2007, February 7). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved February 9, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Walkthrough&oldid=106414852