Flame vs No Flame
Contents |
[edit] Definition
Flaming, according to the American Heritage Dictionary, is "an insulting criticism or remark meant to incite anger, as on a computer network."
Flaming is very common on the web, virtually on any forums or websites that allows comments such as YouTube.
To compare Flaming and No Flaming, one must see the benefits and harms of Flaming.
[edit] Uses and Applications
Flaming can be quite useful, as it can literally spark creativity, stirring up discussions and discarding barriers such as politeness and etiquette, allowing an individual to channel a larger amount of information and opinions.
In addition, flaming at times gives the recipient of the criticisms a reality-check, however harsh the comments may be. For example, a YouTube user completely oblivious to the cultural trends may initially get flamed, but will realize soon enough that his or her actions were wrong. One of the first times the concept of "flaming" has been seen in the mass-media was on American Idol, where the judges at times gave harsh but accurate criticisms to the contestants, particularly Simon Cowell. What is interesting to know was that the flaming that spread throughout the community was so popular, that in fact, a contestant known as William Hung that initially was flamed, became popular after his reasonable response, his realization that his singing voice was indeed unbearable.
[edit] Abuses
Flaming, however, can be abused. The most common form of abusive flaming is when the flamer diverts the discussion at hand to another topic, usually one that places the original topic in bad light.
[edit] Conclusion
Flaming, taken to be a strong but accurate response, is beneficial to online communities. However, flaming that distracts a discussion from the main topic at hand, especially when the flame is inaccurate, causes much harm to distribution of information.
