17 People

Weekly #8: Position Unchanged

leave a comment »

After our discussion during Class 9, my position on Wikipedia remains unchanged. I still think it’s a great initial source for all topics, including breaking news. Two things in particular stuck out to me from Garrett’s lecture:

  1. Wikipedia values both the crowd and the community.
  2. Journalism is not so much a profession as it is an activity, and that notion is consistent with the interpretation of the First Amendment.

When it comes to breaking news, I find that the traditional media outlet rarely has the facts totally correct in the first hours of the event. Neither does Wikipedia, for that matter. However, what Wikipedia does have that a media outlet doesn’t is the collective wisdom of people who have the common purpose of wanting to spread information as it unfolds. And the amount of contributors can be well into the hundreds within an hour, some of whom are on the ground witnessing the event first hand. These early contributors tend to belong to the crowd, and not each contributor is equally engaged or factually accurate. That’s not a problem, however, because soon the community members of Wikipedia take over. They edit the facts, put them in chronological order, and add visuals to produce systematic coverage of a news event. These are the superusers who are dedicated to making sure the facts are not only accurate but also tell a complete story. They are natural, truth-seeking storytellers.

That same description could be ascribed to journalists. Their professionalism is dependent upon the verifiability of the facts they present in their news stories. So if Wikipedia contributors, specifically the dedicated superusers that make up the community, rely upon the same verification process for news entries, are they not considered journalists too? Even those in the crowd reporting the facts as they receive them for breaking news are acting as journalists. Garrett’s point that the Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment in a way that is consistent with the argument that we can all be journalists was well argued. And it is proven true through Wikipedia every day.

I suppose the next logical question is, should we all be journalists even if we can? I enjoy reading the systematic coverage of a news event on Wikipedia because not only have community members verified the facts, but they have also edited the page and made it a comprehensive story. Professional journalists have the training to create a grammatically correct and engaging story. I’d say that the community members of Wikipedia have this same capability and desire. And they aren’t even paid! So yes, Wikipedia is just as credible as a traditional media outlet, if not more given the multiple sources cited per page.

Weekly #7: In Wikipedia I Trust

with one comment

In the battle between Wikipedia and the published encyclopedia, I would choose Wikipedia any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Here’s why:

  • Price: Wikipedia is “the free encyclopedia.” Who can beat free? Wikipedia is proud to offer you a wealth of knowledge for the price of your internet/smart phone bill. Given its cost, I know just what to expect. Wikipedia is not promising me information that has been submitted and peer-reviewed by Rhodes Scholars. The reason it is free is because people like you and me create and edit the entries. Okay, maybe not you and me so much as people like this guy:
  • Updated daily: Wikipedia has the edge over a published encyclopedia because entries can be updated in real-time. It’s like a news feed in this respect. I have a daily devotional book that is about various topics relating to history, religion, math, etc. and so forth. I barely look at it because I assume that the information is outdated. Wikipedia contributors keep content fresh and in doing so make the entries more reliable and trustworthy.
  • Wikipedia Brown Effect: I saw B.J. Novak perform this bit at Cornell, and it was spot on. Basically, he was commenting on how through the links on each Wikipedia page, you can literally go from one topic to another ad infinitum. I’ve spent many a night doing just that. I once started out looking at the entry on Edward Bernays and ended up on the gas vans used by the Nazis. This level of information gathering and information connectedness does not exist with other encyclopedias. Links make it possible with any online encyclopedia, but the fact is that Wikipedia is the largest with articles on just about every topic imaginable, far more than the published encyclopedia. It’s never been easier to learn and about such a variety of topics.
  • Fast and convenient: Wikipedia is user-friendly, returns inquiries quickly, and by virtue of being virtual is super convenient. And that is the number one reason why it wins. I simply search for what I want to know, and there it is. Again, given this, I know what to expect. I don’t order chicken nuggets from McDonald’s for their all-white natural meat; I do so because it’s fast and convenient.

Of course, Wikipedia is better than McDonald’s because it doesn’t claim to be something it is not. It is very clear that anyone can add and edit almost all entries. That is why I use Wikipedia as a starting point and do not take what I learn there as the final answer. I check the citations and keep looking at other sources. Sure, not everyone does this and more than a few believe everything they read on Wikipedia. But people misuse tools and technology all the time. That’s no reason to get rid of them or stop using them altogether.

I will choose Wikipedia over the published encyclopedia any day, but do I really trust it more? To trust Wikipedia is to trust people – a lot of people. It is the creation of millions of faceless names instead of the traceable hundreds to thousands of editors and experts who work on published encyclopedias. Those in the publishing world are motivated by money and held accountable by their bosses and other experts to provide verifiable, accurate information. The millions creating Wikipedia are motivated by the desire to share information and held accountable by its users. When I think about trusting Wikipedia, I think about my trust in people in general. I assume that its creators have basically good intentions, and I assume they want to do right by others. And I think what the creators are motivated by and who they are held accountable by makes them even more trustworthy than the general public.

 

Weekly #6: Obama, You First

with 6 comments

I fell for Barack Obama on July 26, 2006. I was working as a congressional intern and had already seen Obama only weeks earlier as part of a speaker series put on for the interns. This much-hyped senator was a major attraction and he turned out the best numbers of any lawmaker that summer. I didn’t know much about him other than his star turn at the 2004 Democratic National Convention and his promotion of unity over partisan politics. That first time I saw him up close and personal, I found myself let down. He was close enough, yet anything but personal. He came prepped with a message in mind and delivered it steadily enough. But there was no enthusiasm, no spark. I can barely even remember what he spoke about. In fact, the most memorable part of the whole thing was the faux bomb threat that almost emptied the place (what kind of self-respecting college student carries around a red, reusable lunch bag?). At the close of the Q&A, I sat in the back wondering, “What’s the big deal about this guy anyway?”

Soon enough, I was given another opportunity to see Obama. He was scheduled to have a live discussion with the late, great Tim Russert as part of the Partnership for Public Service Annual Intern Event. The goal was to talk about the importance of public service and encourage me and my peers to opt in. I wasn’t excited to join a throng of 2,000 other DC interns for another lackluster speech, but I did like Russert, and who doesn’t want a few hours out of the office? And how bad could he really be in comparison to then President Bush’s remarks at the NRCC’s President’s Dinner? (Yes, I worked for a Republican and, yes, half of the dinner guests – excuse me, patrons – were straight from Texas, cowboy hats and boots and all). So on July 26, I made the trip to Warner Theatre, and what I saw and heard was undoubtedly one of the best discussions about modern politics and government service to date.

Obama was intelligent, articulate, candid and, most importantly, genuine. Russert himself was quite impressive, and it was fascinating to see him do a Meet the Press session live. He too was enamored with Obama, clearly enjoying honest answers instead of the packaged ones he was so used to from seasoned politicians. Obama was a fresh voice who was confident in his message: America and Americans could lead this new, globalized world if we got over politics as usual and came together to make the necessary changes. The entire dialogue hinted at the “first campaign” that Obama would kick off in less than a year’s time. He then took questions from the audience, and I saw peers take part in a conversation with the man that would become the most powerful person in the world within 28 months. Needless to say, I was hooked. Obama was asking me, a lowly 19-year-old with zero life experience, to step up and take part in the governance of our nation. I left feeling energized and empowered, and like I had just seen a glimpse of the future of American politics in the 21st century.

Obama’s campaign would reflect much of what I saw on that day. If you ask anyone on the street, they’ll tell you that Obama stood out because he positioned himself as the candidate of “hope” and “change.” But as Graff noted, then-Governor Tom Vilsack was already touting a “readiness to change” and “hope of tomorrow” message in the fall of 2006 (pg. 5). “Hope” and “change” were just cherry-picked buzzwords that provided shortcuts for conceptualizing the Obama campaign. Obama would not have been successful armed only with these concepts. Instead, he succeeded because his campaign took on the tone and character of Obama himself on that fine day in July. It was open, honest, and enthusiastically welcomed discussion and participation from those on the lowest level. In Clay Shirky speak, Obama’s campaign offered the following three things:

Plausible Promise: A new kind of campaign and a new kind of presidency, one that encouraged and invited participatory democracy. Obama promised to govern with the people instead of politics at the forefront of his mind, to make tough decisions that were necessary and right, and to make America great again in a globalized world.

Effective Tool: The internet and mobile technology, specifically social networks, blogs, text messages, microtargeted emails, personalized phone calls, webcasts, online videos, and a campaign website that brought it all together. His campaign even personalized the experience through MyBO accounts (myObama.com), taking all of the tools and platforms and putting them together in one simple account.

Acceptable Bargain: If you support Obama, give a little money, and volunteer on his behalf, you will help usher in a new era of politics where transparency is the rule, authentic conversations are the norm, and the voices of many are heard over the voices of the few and powerful. You will be part of the change you seek, you will make a concrete difference. All Obama asks in return is that you give and do what you can (tiered ladders of engagement), and he will make America and Americans great and right once more.

The primary maxim of the Cluetrain Manifesto, “Markets are conversations,” is about a movement towards openness. The Obama campaign embraced this openness. His staff took the tools best suited for open conversations (social media like MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc.) and made them the centerpiece of the campaign. They did more than that – they streamlined them, made them easy to use, and brought them under one roof with a crash-proof infrastructure. They met the millions of people that lived and played in these spaces, and used their raw energy to create a grassroots movement.

The Obama campaign was largely successful because as an nontraditional candidate, Obama recognized early on that he needed to use nontraditional means to build support. His campaign lowered the barrier to entry into presidential politics and made activism easier than ever before. It rejected public financing and put Obama’s success squarely in the hands of the people. It made a national election personal and local, encouraging house parties and providing neighborhood phone lists. The campaign also invested heavily in the layer of “super users” (from Mike’s class discussion on 9/22) that were able to manage various online communities as well as take the lead in offline events and volunteer efforts.

In short, Obama’s campaign was about the long tail. It wasn’t about the loudest few with the most money and power. It was about many groups and communities, most significantly ones that often went unheard in politics (e.g. the young and African Americans), each with their own set of primary concerns, each being empowered to join in the discussion and shape the future of our nation. As Cluetrain mentions, the internet allows conversations that simply were not possible in the era of mass media. The Obama campaign used the internet to foster authentic conversations that were not seen in short tail media outlets like MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News. Bloggers and Facebook commenters were just as important, if not more so, as Russert’s opinion on Meet the Press. In sum, the Obama campaign made good on the Cluetrain maxim, “We want you to take 50 million of us as seriously as you take one reporter from The Wall Street Journal” – and it made all the difference.

***

So what about now? Has Obama the President followed through on his promise? In a word, no.

Before I level my criticisms, know that I had no great hopes for Obama even as tears streaked my face on the night of November 4, 2008. I was overjoyed at the significance of the occasion, and grateful that a Republican wasn’t taking the reigns for four more years. But I knew the challenges ahead would not be easily overcome. I knew that despite his message of post-partisanship and effective governance by the people and for the people, he would be greatly tempted to play by the same old rules of the Beltway to get his agenda through. Perhaps because I had worked on the Hill or perhaps because I lived in DC, I knew the presidency would be far from a joyride for Obama.

That being said, it appears that Obama’s presidency, just like Beltway politics in general, has become about the short tail. The loudest, most powerful voices of the few are the key influencers when it comes to governance. As Graff noted, “Unfortunately, the American political system responds too often only to intense stimuli” (pg. 284). That includes both major events and major players. That is how Washington works. It is an old game after all, and to win you have to play by the old rules. But Obama promised something different. He promised to throw out the old rules and create new ones. He promised a new kind of presidency, where participatory governance was the norm, where those in the long tail were empowered to make a difference. Unfortunately, we have yet to see this.

Just look at the tools that made the long tail so prominent during the campaign. For instance, check out the White House Blog. There you will find links leading mainly to the White House website, to other government websites, or to messaging that clearly is packaged by the communications team. You will not find links to conversations taking place in the long tail. (Even sadder, you will find zero to few comments on Community Blogs posts on the Organizing for America site). Why don’t the White House bloggers point to discussions on social networking sites that support the President’s agenda and progress so far? Why not link to an article that attacks Obama and use the blog as a platform to address the concerns presented, point-by-point? Or why not link to a right wing blogger who is making claims about the administration based out of bias and anger, and set that blogger straight? After all, links subvert authority…oh right, Obama is the authority now. And he has laws to pass. And the mid-terms to win. And his own re-election to win. He can’t afford to piss off anyone with substantive conversation, least of all the major players. No wonder these types of links aren’t seen.

The thing is, the millions that fell in love with Obama did so because of the open, human, authentic conversations that he inspired and encouraged during the campaign. Now, although his messaging is still technically designed to be taken up and spread by others (as Edelman’s report suggests), it fails to spread because it is no longer part of an open, multi-directional dialogue. People aren’t inspired by one-way messaging and hollow appeals for $15 donations. As a result, the long tail grows quieter as the loud and few (Tea Party Republicans) grow louder. I would champion Obama even with his huge missteps (Gitmo and DADT) if he kept up his end of the bargain and at least tried for the same grassroots authenticity that defined his campaign.

In Graff’s book, he cites Ray Scheppach’s observation about what makes a successful governor (pg. 288). If you replace “governor” with “president,” you get the following: “To be great…a president needs to provide the moral leadership necessary to change the game.” Is it realistic to ask this of a sitting president in this day and age, especially with fast approaching mid-terms? If it was anyone else, no, probably not. Running a country is completely different than running a campaign. And when a young, nontraditional player comes in by bucking the system, you better believe that the system won’t go easy on him.

But this is the man who based everything on the promise to change the game and bring about a more effective, open, and morally right administration, which we still have yet to see. Obama has lost his compelling narrative, and in the words of Amy Gardner, “‘Jed Bartlet: Not quite as mean-spirited as the other guy.’ Doesn’t really send me running to my polling place.” And now Obama asks those of us in the long tail daily for a grassroots movement to save the Democratic Congress, after having largely ignored us for the past two years.

It takes two for a bargain to work, and I say, “Mr. President, you first.”

Personal #3: When A Dream Becomes Reality

with 11 comments

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” – Albus Dumbledore

I recently ventured to the Wizarding World of Harry Potter (a.k.a. HPL) in Orlando. For three years, I planned for this. For six years, I dreamed of it. After all, only fools daren’t dream of walking the halls of Hogwarts, binging on Chocolate Frogs, and conquering the Most Dangerous Dark Wizard of All Time. So what happened when this dream finally became reality? The crushing reminder that dreams rarely translate well into real life. Don’t get me wrong, I had a fabulous time, and probably burned more calories laughing than I did circling that damn park 100 times. (Bingham was right – life is better with company.) Despite this, I couldn’t help but feel underwhelmed as I said my goodbyes to HPL. I think the following Before/After shots adequately illustrate my feelings. I went from captivated to crestfallen in 72 hrs. flat:

BEFORE

No way that's the real Hogwarts Express. There's no way!

AFTER

I don't remember a fire extinguisher being in the books...

What exactly went wrong, you ask? Let me break it down for you in bulleted list fashion:

  • Too small: I get that this is only one part of the Islands of Adventure, but come on. Harry Potter – the name that produced the highest grossing film series of all time and first billionaire author was relegated to a section the size of a Wal-Mart Superstore parking lot. Epic fail.
  • Poorly placed: In order to reach the gates of Hogwarts, we were forced to experience arguably the worst part of the Islands: Seuss Landing. I became nauseous and uneasy every time I passed through this pastel-colored abomination. Seuss Landing will definitely make an appearance in my Hell. That and strangers gawking at any portion of my wedding. Both are equally offensive.
  • Hogsmeade: This all-wizarding village was the main setting for the park. Big mistake. About 15% of the HP series takes place here (if that), and it’s mainly just shops. So why did they pick it? Oh right, because it’s mainly just shops. Commercialism is King, even in HPL. After figuring that I’d probably drop at least 30 bucks in each shop, I come to find that most of them were just facades. There were only about four actual shops. With bad merchandise. Take, for instance, the Chocolate Frog that I couldn’t wait to buy at Honeydukes. It was possibly the worst chocolate I’ve ever tasted, and that includes the sketchy generic chocolate my mom would make me throw out on Halloween. Also, Zonko’s sold the jokes and tricks from the series right alongside a rubber chicken and chattering teeth…what?! Despicable.
  • Staff that denied my wizard status: I’d like to speak with the person responsible for the employee instruction manual at this place. Any time I spoke with a staff member, I was referred to as a “Muggle.” How don’t they get that the people who come to HPL are seeking recognition for their magical abilities? And why are you assuming that I’m not a wizard? My involuntary response to each worker was, “I’m not a Muggle!” coupled with a scathing glare. To make matters worse, they all spoke with American accents. The only time I heard a British accent was when the conductor of the Hogwarts Express commanded, “Say butterbeer!” I shall remain forever grateful for his enthusiasm.
  • Lack of dark arts/wizards/magic/aura: I fell in love with this series because of its dark nature, particularly in books 5-7. I expected to have Death Eaters shooting curses at me while simultaneously having my soul sucked out by a Dementor. I thought of the different spells I would use on Voldemort as we battled in the Ministry of Magic. I was even prepared to leave with a piece of my soul safely confined in a Horcrux (my Bette Boop bobblehead being the likely object of choice). Yet there was no sign of the Dark Arts, let alone of Voldemort himself. I suppose the powers that be didn’t want to scare off their core customer base of 4-16 year olds. Still, this was a huge miss.

I will say that, on the plus side, I bought two awesome t-shirts and enjoyed the Dragon Challenge coaster. Overall, though, the Wizarding World didn’t come close to my dream world. Much is to be said for fantasies staying fantasies, because your idea of a thing can only remain perfect in this form. I began this journey desperately wishing to experience the magic of HP in real life. Now I wish I never sought anything beyond what was already in the books, films and, most importantly, in my head.

Weekly #5: The Love Song of tyoung215

with 3 comments

A poem, from me to you:

You and I together a breakneck dream

You show me wonders from your engineering team.

Favoring keywords in one, two’s and three’s

Words without meaning, yet you easily see

Knowing my intention despite spelling so tragic

Powered by PageRank, beacon of math magic.

And before there was us, you went by BackRub

But more fitting a name you would soon be dubbed.

Father Page and Father Brin ignored tradition

Instead used word-of-mouth and PR to up your position.

Marketing agencies felt the raw sting of rejection

Take note, your past only increases my affection.

With free tools aplenty, you promise access, no evil, and care

All in exchange for name, birth, state — a bargain more than fair.

I log in to Gmail, easily a cut above the rest

So simple to chat and sort and add Labs for zest.

You bring me updates from sources far and wide

I even read in a feed to stem the info overload tide.

I dock my docs with you for sharing and safe keeping

Your directions lead me home in time for sleeping.

Again you ask: “What do you want?”

But I know not.

So you show me the Earth and bring down the Moon

You fulfill Jimmy’s pledge — I confess, I swoon.

Even your oddities like Buzz are strange but charming

AdWords appear everywhere, yet don’t seem alarming.

Oh hey, look, it’s as if that ad is speaking to me!

That is your goal, of course, now I easily see.

Knowing my intention

Despite no explicit mention.

I brush this aside because you give much and ask for little.

Or do you?

You’re moving faster than me

Taking over the phone and soon TV.

Robot cars now too?

Jesus, who knew

That you could be

Knowing my intention despite not knowing it myself

Then storing it as if any other on your virtual shelf.

You’ve catalogued my whims, wishes, and wants

Right next to all my faults, failings, and flaunts.

And would you divulge these without my consent?

Turns out, yes, if ’twas the government that sent.

I to you one of many in the Database of Intentions

Exploited for the bottom line without question.

You say: “This is for your own good, trust my helping hand.”

I hear: “All are immortalized and retrieved upon demand.”

You speak plainly now, you ask, “What does the world want?”

Information replacing relationships? I pray not.

You and I are no longer, but you and all stay strong

And I a part of all take you still, no matter the wrong.

All I can do now is trust that you will live your motto

Be not evil, or else shoulder unforeseen sorrow.

Google — you came, you gave, you strayed

And in short, I am afraid.

Read the rest of this entry »

Weekly #4: Happy Days Are Here Again

leave a comment »

Hello, Gorgeous! I must confess that I am totally obsessed with Barbra right now. Just listen to the sheer power of her voice.

On to the point: I am easily obsessed with ____. In searching for online communities about my favorite activity/hobby, I realized that I have no one favorite. Instead, I become quite easily obsessed with something, and then use the the Long Tail of information out there on the interweb to discover more about that thing. I guess if I had to pinpoint an activity that I love best, it is internet research on my favorite flavor of the moment.

Take The Social Network, for instance. I saw it this weekend while visiting HPL (more on that in my personal post), and have since been obsessed. Yes, obviously I love the Sorkin screenplay and the Reznor score. But more importantly, I love the chemistry between the actors. It hints at the male bonding that had to have occurred offscreen in order for such a strong connection to be formed onscreen. I watched several interviews with the cast, read through transcripts of interviews, and then researched cast members and their bodies of work. I searched by referencing the popular sources (EW.com, Variety, IMDB.com, Wikipedia) first and landed on this amazing clip of cast member Andrew Garfield during an ABC News interview. Then I found some stuff from lesser known sources simply by sifting through the massive amounts of returns yielded on Google and YouTube.

Chris Anderson acknowledges in his book The Long Tail the main concern with using the Long Tail of any market, which is any topic on the internet in my case: “The Long Tail is indeed full of crap” (p. 116). The same is true for the internet itself. But he also acknowledges that it is full of brilliance. The key is to be a judicious researcher by checking multiple sources of information, and not just the popular ones.

Garrett hit on this a bit last week when discussing the fracturing of media. He talked about how notions which have been proven false continue to spread as true not because of people on either end of the information access spectrum (“elites” and “non-elites”). Rather, those in the middle are the ones believing these misconceptions and spreading them as credible intel. The middle can access information via the web, but they are poorly skilled at determining fact from fiction. Indeed, it is no longer about getting hold of information, but about making smart decisions based on that information (p. 107). Interestingly enough, Aaron Sorkin talked about his disdain for the internet because of this very problem. As he puts it, “There’s just too much bad information getting out there, and I have to believe that’s mostly the fault of the Internet, which isn’t held to any standards of accuracy.”

I hear that, Almighty Sorkin. However, I think that the standard of accuracy comes from the “wisdom of the crowd” as Anderson puts it. The ratings of a user’s answer to the burning questions regarding offscreen relationships are what connects my demand to the good supply in the internet’s Long Tail. And I trust these users because they are just as obsessed as I am with finding the right answers. No internet search would be complete without the reference to or help of the social web. Of course, that doesn’t mean I rely solely on users (methinks that would knock me out of my elite status). But they are just as valuable a source as the EW reporter fawning over the actors.

I have used the Long Tail of the internet to find out about lasting obsessions such as grammar, Harry Potter and Wegmans. The speed of the internet is especially helpful for those passing obsessions like Kings of Leon. It helps reduce time wasted on something that might not matter as much to me in three weeks. Today it’s Social Network, tomorrow it could be tsunamis. Despite the wealth and variety of information sitting on the internet, I have not found defined online communities devoted to the information sitting on the internet. Perhaps the entire internet is my community, and more narrowly the social web. After all, my favorite activity would not exist without both.

Personal #2: HPL a.k.a. WWoHP a.k.a. Heaven

with 5 comments

It is 5:20 a.m. I am currently experiencing insomnia because “Travel Tara” has kicked in. This is a condition whereby my anxiety/excitement for a preplanned travel activity has inhibited or completely eliminated my ability to sleep, comprehend external stimuli, or form coherent speech. Why has this condition set in? Because in 14 hours I leave for the most magical place on Earth. As a result, I feel what I imagine the love child of Jessie Spano and Richard Simmons would feel on a daily basis.

That’s right, kids. The moment I’ve been waiting for since 2007 has finally arrived. I am flying to Harry Potter Land (HPL) a.k.a. the Wizarding World of Harry Potter (WWoHP) a.k.a. Heaven tonight! This is where my fantasies will literally come true. It is an entire theme park dedicated to all things Harry Potter and marketed toward children ages 3-12. I along with those children will experience the unimaginable joy of living life as a wizard. And if that makes me wrong, I don’t want to be right.

I will also be joined by BFF Tricia. She is the perfect partner in crime for this excursion since her inner nerd can outshine mine any time. (P.S. Trish, how did I Google you and land on a video from your Anything Goes glory days? I love the internet.*)

This is only Part 1 of this post, since I will have to disclose my life-altering experiences at HPL. For the record, Kate asked me to, not least because she is going to HPL in a month. Classmates, you may think us odd, but I think we’re awesome.

One reason is because once I’ve spent four days at Hogwarts, I will finally feel worthy enough to join the Holy Grail of Amazon communities:

Choosing between the Harry Potter community and the Fantasy community is going to be tough. Although, the Boxed Set community is really where the power lies, despite its smaller size. Do you know the dedication one must have to own an entire boxed set? Not to mention the resources to afford it. Boxed Set it is.

*At this moment. In truth I’m terrified that all of this data on me exists in the ether and I never know when it will come back to haunt me. It’s so Kafkaesque. And I am such a loser for saying that.