An experiment: here’s the current draft of the paper I’m writing on ways in which social media visualise and narrativise their users historical data, providing us with new kinds of mirrors in which to see ourselves and decide who we are. Here’s my previous blog post about the paper. It’s due in four weeks and there’s still plenty to do, but I’d love comments, feedback, corrections etc if you have the time and inclination.

Stuff I’d particularly like feedback on includes: are there more than the three ways of researching social media that I identify in the fourth paragraph and on? What do you think of the patterns/templates I identify in the visualisations? Are there more dark sides (towards the end of the paper)? Who should I cite and how should I make the argument that we use narratives to understand our lives and construct our identities, and that often these narratives build on cultural templates/norms that define what is important?

The paper’s in Google docs and the link above lets you be a collaborator. I’d appreciate it if you simply add comments (using the INSERT –> comment tool or using a different text colour) at relevant places in the text – or write a comment here, or whatever.


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

7 thoughts on “please: give me feedback!

  1. Margrethe Aas Johnsen

    Hello

    I have had a quick read through your paper (thanks for letting us see it!), and although I don’t have many thoughts on your questions, specifically, I think you’re presenting interesting examples, and covering a large area of social media theory.

    Basically, all I want to do is say thank you for letting me read it. I’m currently writing my BA-thesis on social media (more specifically blogging, and then LiveJournal as personal journal on display) and its role as a literacy practice. I’ve found several interesting points, and references, that I hope I can include in my own paper? Do you know when and where your paper will be published?

  2. Jill Walker Rettberg

    I’m glad you found it useful! Of course you can use references in your own paper. My paper will be published in a special issue of The European Journal of Communication later this year – I think they said December was likely. I’m sure it will change a lot before it’s publsihed, though. Good luck with your thesis!

  3. Margrethe Aas Johnsen

    Thanks, Jill 🙂 I’ll just add your paper as “not published”.

  4. David Brake

    Putting up your paper as a Google doc is an interesting idea – how are you planning to credit those who contribute when you produce the final piece? Is there some point in the editing where people would get “promoted” to co-authorship? I might try this method myself sometime…

  5. Christian Katzenbach

    Concerning the aspect that “we use narratives to understand our lives and construct our identities”, Jenny SundÈn’s point that, in order to exist online, we must write ourselves into being, came instantly to my mind. Just browsed your paper and couldn’t find, maybe that helps. danah boyd extended it in an First-Monday-Article “Friends, Friendsters, and Top 8: Writing community into being on social network sites” (http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1418/1336).

    (Jenny SundÈn, 2003. Material Virtualities: Approaching Online Textual Embodiment. New York: Peter Lang.)

  6. Jill Walker Rettberg

    David, I realised when looking at all the people who’d visited and/or left feedback that I’m going to have to credit people in the acknowledgements of the paper. I do have everyone’s google account names, some of which easily convert to real names – I assume I can email others and get their real name (or however they’d like to be credited?) there. I’m not sure about converting to co-authorship – that’s an interesting thought. At this point certainly nobody’s contributed to that extent but it’d be possible, wouldn’t it?

    Oh, I’ve read Jenny SundÈn, thanks, I’ll revisit her piece.

  7. Margrethe Aas Johnsen

    Hello again,

    I’m trying to share a document the same way as you have done here, on Google Docs, with limited success. How did you get Google to create a link that invites anyone who clicks it?

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

Academics in Norway: Sign this petition asking for research-based discussions of how to use AI in universities

I just signed a petition calling for Norwegian universities to use research expertise on AI when deciding how to implement it, rather than having decisions be made mostly administratively. ,  If you are a researcher in Norway, please read it and sign it if you agree – and share with anyone else who might be interested. The petition was written by three researchers at UiT: Maria Danielsen (a philosopher who completed her PhD in 2025 on AI and ethics, including discussions of art and working life), Knut Ørke (Norwegian as a second language), and Holger Pötzsch (a professor of media studies with many years of research on digital media, video games, disruption, and working life, among other topics).  This is not about preventing researchers from exploring AI methods in their research. It is about not uncritically accepting the hype that everyone must use AI everywhere without critical reflection. It is about not introducing Copilot as the default option in word processors, or training PhD candidates to believe they will fall behind if they do not use AI when writing articles, without proper academic discussion. Changes like these should be knowledge-based and discussed academically, not merely decided administratively, because they alter the epistemological foundations of research. Maria wrote to me a couple of months ago because she had read my opinion piece in Aftenposten in which I called for a strong brake on the use of language models in knowledge work. She was part of a committee tasked with developing UiT’s AI strategy and was concerned because there was so much hype and so few members of the committee with actual expertise in AI. I fully support the petition. There are probably some good uses for AI in research, but the uncritical, hype-driven insistence that we must simply adopt it everywhere is highly risky. There are many researchers in Norway with strong expertise in AI, language, ethics, working life, and culture. We must make use of this expertise. This is also partly about respect for research in the humanities, social sciences, psychology, and law. Introducing AI at universities and university colleges is not merely a technical issue, and perhaps not even primarily a technical one. It concerns much more: philosophy of science, methodological reflection, epistemology, writing, publishing, the working environment, and more. […]

screenshot of Grammarly - main text in the middle, names of experts on the left with reccomendations and on the right more info about the expert review feature
AI and algorithmic culture Teaching

Grammarly generated fake expert reviews “by” real scholars

Grammarly is a full on AI plagiarism machine now, generating text, citations (often irrelevant), “humanizing” the text to avoid AI checkers and so on. If you’re an author or scholar, they also have been impersonating and offering “feedback” in your name. Until yesterday, when they discontinued the Expert Review feature due to a class action lawsuit. Here are screenshots of how it worked.