I saw many parallels between the difficulties of establishing group membership articulated in this chapter and Walther's discussion of how individual identity is warranted. In a manner similar to warranting, Burkhalter points out that racial identity is typically established by physical characteristics and people use these characteristics to make inferences about other's likely behavior. Online, the opposite happens, people have to make inferences about the racial identity of other's based on their online behavior. 

This may result in the mechanism of self-fulfilling prohecy working differenty or breaking down. Typically seeing someone's race
leads viewers to make inferences about expected behavior. These
expectations are usually confirmed for two reasons, because behavior is
ambiguous and because people conform to subtle expectations conveyed by
others. Online, identity is affirmed on the basis of how good a fit
someone's behavior is to a stereotype. Although race is malleable I
don't think that it is so malleable that these interactions can change
someone's racial identification. Instead, the incongruity between
behavior and identity would have to be resolved in some other way.
Either other members of the group have to accept the member's own
identification, or the member leaves the community.

Supporting Walther, Burkhalter argues that anonymity (lack of warrants) prevents people from speaking about a group. Unless other members of the community know how to situate the message it is not informative. Also, warranting has a certain inertia to it. It is not enough to simply challenge one's identity if the veracity of this identity is supported by many other members of a community.  

This paper expands on the ideas presented by Walther by pointing out that making a warrant is not enough. The message also has to be heard and accepted by the community. Unlike a body, which is a highly salient and perpetual message, many warrants made online are temporally constrained and of low salience. Thus a warrant can be overlooked when people respond to a message posted by another. I think that this is a really important point because it suggests that online it is more difficult to keep track of which warrants different members of the community have about an individual.

Chapter Summary

Burkhalter makes the case that, despite the seeming 'color blindness' of the computer monitor, race is no less relevent onlilne than it is offline, and that in fact racial stereotypes can be even more influential and resilient in online venues such as the Usenet.

In establishing this, Burkhalter makes a number of interesting comparisons between online (Usenet) and offline interactions. Here are some highlights:

In offline interaction, individuals may use another's racial identity to make assumptions about their perspectives, beliefs and attitudes. Online interaction uses an individual's perspectives, beliefs and attitudes to make assumptions about the individual's racial identity. (62)

[Offline], a situation can arise in which another individual's physical cues and his or her perspective do not agree with the observer's stereotypes. . . .This creates space for anomalies and exceptions to a stereotype. [Online], readers are usually faced with explicit racial identifications and the person's textual perspective. If these do not agree with a reader's stereotypes, the person's racial identity can be read so that racial identity and perspective fit the stereotype (74).

Critique and connections

The author claims that "racial identity is no more ambiguous online than offline", but this statement must be qualified by the fact that he is focussing on discussion groups that focus on specific issues of race and culture. Outside of newsgroups like soc.culture, I'm not sure if this statement could apply elsewhere, where race is not the particular issue at hand--is not the pivot of mutual engagement.

It might be useful to liken groups like the SCAA, SCJ and SCMA as communities of practice, becuase the issues this article is running up against have to do with boundaries (e.g., of who is truly 'in' the racial group), negotiated meaning (e.g., of the racial identity of an author) and a shared repertoire (e.g., stereotypes and related slang terms, an assumed shared set of experiences, and the general assumption that everything under discussion is framed in terms of racial issues and perspectives).

As Wenger explains, there are larger social entitites that exhibit many of the same characteristics of CoPs, such as  corporations, nations, and  racial and ethnic groups, yet these entitites are too big to really be CoPs--at best they might be constellations of them. The extent to which Burkhalter's findings could generalize to racial groups at large and online interactions in general depend on the extent to which we can characterize such groups and venues of interaction as sharing the same features as a CoP. (This is only a partial thought--I think there's more to say about this...)

Racial identity in the BaWers

Racial identity is not an issue nor a means of challenge when a member is attempting to guage the authoritativenes of the opinions of another. While the ethnic and cultural identities of members are mentioned often and explicitly, it is in an atmosphere that is welcoming and appreciative of diversity. There are not enough members from any one culture or ethnicity for splinter groups to even form, much less flourish, in a community which makes such an effort to cohere a large, disparate and diverse group of people in six short weeks.

Instead, the community values compassion, politeness and collaboration above all else, and so judges the authoritativeness of an individual's opinions based upon their exhibition of these qualities in past participation. This is somewhat similar to the SCAA group in that a member's history of participation is important for sustaining her online identity.

Summary

Burkhalter describes the way in which racial identity plays a role in Usenet discussions on culture and race. In most cases race is used:

• To ground a person's arguments or beliefs
• To defend against casual dismissal
• To augment, attack or alter another person's claims without refuting the claims themselves.

Burkhalter also describes the way that racial identities can be inferred, implied and even falsely attributed, and how this impacts discussions.

Application

Burkhalter's analysis of race were at first difficult to attribute to a community in which race is not a central issue. In MUDs like DragonRealms, every player assumes a pseudonym, and the identity of the player is actively and purposefully masked. How can this discussion of race apply?

Many of the Usenet postings the Burkhalter cites focus on the racial identity as a source of authority, or lack thereof. Participants often derided each other for having race-related motives “pro-white agenda” (70) and “…why are you ashamed of people you don't really know?” (69).

In DragonRealms, similar issues occur on their message boards. As players discuss potential abilities or changes to the way current abilities work. As players discuss the merits and drawbacks, they frequently assert or deny their guild affiliations or race. Players use these affiliations in the same way that members of the Usenet groups used race. For example, a player arguing for an ability that is guild-specific to be available for all players is suspect if he or she is not a member of the guild.

In DragonRealms, guild and race for players are very similar to race of members in a Usenet group. Characters are only loosely tied to their players in the message boards, and players have the ability to give clues as to their guild identities in order to maintain or avoid more context, and guild reputations also creep up in much the same way as race reputations did in Usenet.

I'm not sure how much application this has for a developer though...perhaps it would be useful in deciding whether or not to tie character information to profiles that are accessible from message boards, which I can't see happening.

 Summary and Critique

Burkhalter’s article “Reading race online” was very surprising to me because I thought using pseudonyms were beneficial in that it would eliminate preconceptions and prejudices from the offline regarding races, genders, and ethnicities, but his study revealed it is not the case.  As I studied “real names” as identifiers, I felt that using real names might abolish “blinding” effect that could lead to nourishing environments for bridging (especially if members have chance to see other members offline later as Brian mentioned in class) – in Burkhalter’s term, “ambiguous social spaces” (p 62).

However, Burkhalter argued that racial identification does not lack online even though participants cannot see each other’s physical appearances. Furthermore, the experiences online rarely weakens one’s preconceptions toward races; on the contrary, participants often reinforce their points of views mainly because the lack of the physical appearances.  More specifically, an author’s racial identity is negotiated by readers’ interpretation of the author’s posts and the claim about his or her racial identity.  In other words, an author’s claim about his or her racial identification is not taken literally especially when the author acts differently from the racial stereotype readers have.  

When a reader faces the discrepancy between an author’s racial identification and the reader’s expectation toward the race, the reader tries to resolve the discrepancy by the followings:
1) The reader thinks that the author is dishonest about the racial identification or
2) The reader considers the author the anomaly of the race or
3) The reader gathers additional information (additional variable) that fills the gap without altering his or her preconception.

 In sum, Burkhalter’s study shows that online environments are not free from racial prejudices and preconceptions.  

Application

I’ve become to wonder whether using real names makes the differences in terms of changing preconceptions. One’s name often reveals his or her nationality and gender (even sometimes ethnicity). If you know that they are real names, and if you observe many “anomalies” of a particular group then you might accept that they are not anomalies after all.  You might alter your stereotypes towards those identifications for good.

Critique 

This chapter discusses how racial identification online is different than that occurring offline. The author makes several claims/conclusions some of which sound like over-generalization.

“Race is no less relevant in online interaction than it is in face-to-face interaction”.  I am having difficulty with this argument. I feel like race is less relevant in online interaction. In face-to-face interaction people cannot ignore race. This is not to say they change their behavior depending on the person’s race. It happens because one sees the person in flesh accompanied with his/her racial identity. However, in online interaction, people might never know the racial identity of the same person and racial cues might not be enough to form an opinion of racial identity (assuming the participants do not reveal their race by posting their pictures etc.).  Thus, one can argue that racial identification is lacking in some situations, contrary to what the author claims. Racial identity is not always firmly established online.

Another important concept in the chapter is stereotyping – attribution of a characteristic, attitude, belief, or practice based solely on someone’s race. Online, it works the other way, from stereotype to racial identity. One makes assumptions about a poster’s race by looking at his/her post. If the contents of the post don’t match to the stereotype, the racial identity of the author is challenged. And if the identity of the member is not strong enough in terms of his/her participation history and collaboration with other members, his/her membership will be in danger. If it is strong enough then the community will have to find another way to deal with it such as formulating the posts as entertainment. While this makes sense, I have to argue that stereotyping is a problem that people have in face-to-face interactions too. I don’t see how there is a big difference online.

Connections

I think there is a strong connection to Republic.com in the chapter where the effects of crossposting are discussed. “Responses are made to those authors whose identity and perspective match the stereotype expected by the respondent.” (p. 72).  This leaves visible only the stereotypical positions, potentially creating information cascades.

In this paper, the author uncovers traits of various aspects in racial identity in Usenet newsgroups. He finds that unlike in a physical world where phenotypes make up the major reasoning behind identifying races, online the racial identity gets read from the textual description, making it more ambiguous and controllable by the author.

One thing that kept bothering me was how the author was connecting his findings to largely 'Usenet', when the findings actually came from Usenet newsgroups on races. The data he looked at should be perfect for getting in depth data on variations of interactions toward racial identities, but not sufficient for arguing that "Race is no less relevant in onine interaction than it is in face-to-face interaction. Instead racial stereotypes may be more influential and resilient on the Usenet." as written in the last paragraph of conclusion. It would have been helpful to see same analysis done on different newsgroups than those that are focused on racial issues.

It's hard to find any racial issues in Cyworld as Korea is a uni-cultured country, but it does have stereotypes of identities within Cyworld. For example, some people want to be classic, some funky, some scholarly, some cute, some want to be ul-jjang(like queen bee - they want to be popular) and so forth. And such identities are formed from, similar to what Burkhalter notes, textual description that the author controls. Photograph is also an important part of identity formulation in Cyworld. Classic people like to upload pictures of art pieces, roses and poems, or a beautiful building and so forth, whereas ul-jjangs want to upload self-taken photos of themselves. The interesting thing here is that there is no distinguishing way to argue whether this person really is the identity that he/she claims to be, like in the SCAA stories. Or even, whether such identities exist in real world or not.

Seeing that plenty of people have summarized this article already, I'll just explain what goes on at the Fighting 44s.  The Fighting 44 community engages in many of the behaviors described by Burkhalter.   For example, I think in the Usenet groups and in the F44s, there is an assumption that everyone is of the same race.  It would make sense for the members of a soc.culture.african.american would be black and the Fighting 44s would be Asian.   What I picked out most out of the reading is how a person's identity was tied to their view points.  For example, posters who opposed affirmative action or supported Clarence Thomas were accused of being white.  In one of the messages, a poster is wondering if another user is a "white troll" who is pretending to be black instead of his self-identified "pro-Black American."   In the F44s, members have accused others being white trolls for posting messages that discount the racial stereotypicals involved with an Asian female/White man relationship.  In heated discussions (particularly those in the Fight Club), members have been accused of being white apologists because of their viewpoint.  It seems that in Burkhalter's Usenet case and in the F44s, identity is determined by opinions/viewpoints.  Since a users postings are the only thing other users have to identify them, then it makes sense. Also in both cases, in the F44s and in the Usenet groups, users do introduce and identify themselves.  The F44s have a special area in the discussion area to introduce yourself.  Normally, people do self-identify their nationality, Korean, Japanese, Chinese etc.. 

As has already been stated, Burkhalter's basic argument is that racism and stereotyping are at least as relevant online as off, and that they may in fact be even more reified in online settings -- where people's "perspectives resist modification" (73). That is, resolving discrepancies by modifying stereotypes is more challenging in the absence of a visible body.

I'm not swayed by the suggestion that Burkhalter's findings wouldn't hold if he were investigating other communities. I guess I just assume that these phenomena, while more overt in racially-focused newsgroups, are at work whenever we interact, regardless of the topic or make-up of the community. A roomful of white men gleefully rhyming along with Snoop Dogg is enacting racial understandings just as much as posters in SCAA.

I am intrigued by Erika's description of the encouraging, inclusive nature of the BaWers. She makes it clear that race is brought into the conversations, but that it takes place within a community that values collaboration and politeness. This description allows for the continued negotiation of race through conversation. It might be subtle, less visible -- but I don't think it ever goes away. I would be curious to hear in their own words how BaWers experience race in that setting. Online communities are so much about voice and language, and it seems like voice is at the center of many attempts to confront racism and privilege. As a white man, I often have to relearn how to give space -- how to step out of the center and listen to other voices. I imagine I could fail to do that in an online setting (even one that seems devoid of racial overtones), and in the process reproduce dynamics of race and privilege.

Summary
Race and physical body features have been defined in relation to one another for centuries. In an online environment in which cues about physical features are absent, the question is quite literally: how is race read?

Burkhalter proposes that race is read online in several ways: through establishing or assigning a racial identity; use of racial frames (using a phrase like "sisters"); by using an identity (anonymity as disqualifier); through disputes about identity (self-revelation and identity cues); through community collaboration and characterizations; and through exposure to different audiences when items are cross-posted.

Critique
I think it's important to remember that these observations occurred in usenet forums in which the topic of discussion was race and racial identity. It's outside the scope of this study, but I wonder how race is read in other forums? How (if at all) does the context of discussion influence how race is communicated and read online?

Connection
I don't see much discussion of racial identity in Cool Running, even in the off-topic forum. The only potential areas for racial identity cues are the occasional messages about unsafe running areas or close calls with a suspicious person when out on a run. I don't recall that any of these messages had racial undertones (the search tool isn't working, so I have to rely on memory and bookmarks right now), but it might be one the few areas of the forum in which racial identity cues are offered by participants.

+s (pluses)

By exposing a person's racial identity and forming a stereotype, a member
could establish their presence faster and instantly attach an identity. This could
invoke more response / interactions amongst other members (especially in
race-oriented communities). "Since I know this person is Asian, I wonder
what he thinks of this issue..."

Byron concluded that racial self-identification is used to establish a social
position. A racial identity could also lead to quicker clustering and
agreements amongst members. "He must know how I feel too..."

-s (minuses)

Basing racial identity strictly on text could breed extremism. "Typical
African -American behavior."

I think all these effects only matter in an race-oriented community where the topic of race is amplified way more than other communities (dining out, goal setting). I wonder if there is any quantitative data that backs up Smith's arguments
and how adding a picture profile would change things.

Without physical cues, race is anchored to the perspective offered in author's messages. This means that unlike taking a persons appearance into account when listen to their statements, we take their statements into account when looking at their claimed identity.

The author discusses challenges to a poster's self-proclaimed racial identity on the usenet. The same words would have different meanings coming from members of different cultures.

The author also discusses anonymity during these discussions, and how it undermines a user's post - just like slashdot' anonymous coward moniker. In fact, in the channels he looks at which are specifically devoted to discussions of race, posters' eagerness to bring their same off-line social constructions to bear seems to mean that a good chunk of the discussion centers around de-anonymization. In other words, convincing the group that you are a member of the race / ethinicity you say you are, and that our post / persspective should be taken seriously.