About Netlor
Not surprisingly, there is a wealth of information on the subject of modern urban legends and the sudden surge of e-mail hoaxes and netlore. From the seemingly harmless chain letters to macabre post-September 11 terrorist threats, this digital underbelly thrives on the power of deception, the lightning-fast pace of telecommunications, and the inevitable gullibility of the American public. To combat this human-driven virus of the online world, alert common citizens have set up veritable databases detailing the comings and goings (and the unavoidable return) of aforementioned to filter the hoaxes, rumors, urban legends, myths, pranks, threats, warnings, chain letters, and practical jokes into two simple categories: True or false (and the occasional “not sure”).
The inherent paradox that exists when researching whether a rumor is true or false is, how can one be certain that the answer given is any more credible than the rumor itself? After searching through various search engines, a few major sites consistently arose. One site, entitled, Urban Legends and Folklore [http://urbanlegends.about.com/mbody.htm], is vast and thorough in not only Netlore, but all forms of urban legends and myths. All of such are categorized in topics from college to holidays to even ghost stories and then alphabetized with a search tool as well. The site is extraordinarily easy to navigate despite the vast amounts of information. An analysis of credibility on Netlore is always sticky, as mentioned before. The site is maintained by David Emery, whose information and history is readily available throughout the site. He identifies himself as an individual; a writer and “avid chronicler of urban folklore, with special emphasis on the lore and folk life of the Internet.” Emery cites his educational and employment background for some credibility. Still, the information posted is still as credible as the rumors it intends to debunk. Using the Miller Internet Data Integrity Scale, the information posted is neither from a government entity, nor university or special interest group. Still, Emery’s entire premise is based upon the concept of accuracy and truth. His objectivity is evident in his responses to the thousands of rumors that exist. And, in cases where applicable, Emery backs up his findings which official comments from the company, organization, or governmental entity the potential hoax involves.
For instance, in 2001 a virus hoax found widespread circulation on the claim that a bogus program called “SULFNBK.EXE” could be in your computer. Alert computer users were instructed to search their hard drive for this “virus” and delete it if found. The truth is that all computers with a Window 98 OS contain this file that allows it to restore long file names if the file names become corrupted. Though Emery had this information, he gave his response weight by including links to anti-virus software companies, news articles from credible newspapers, and other hoax experts that concur with Emery’s findings.
On the other side of the trail, there is Jeff Richard’s Virus and Netlore page [www.hoaxinfo.com]. Richards’ site by itself is less impressive— as are his credits. He admits, “I don't really claim to be an expert on computer viruses, but I can smell a legend coming a mile away!” Naturally, this gives a significant less amount of integrity to his content. For example, in response to the widespread e-mail claiming that French philosopher Nostradamus predicted the terrorist attacks on September 11, Richards explains why the claim is false in the same manner that Emery did, with one exception. Richards gives no reference to any other document, quote, site, or article that may back up his response. In a field and topic that is sometimes so arbitrary that universities and government agencies simply have no need to respond to, the individual web entrepreneur has more control. But with this control comes the responsibility to seek and confirm the truth.
In searching Academic Universe, Lexis Nexis, and various newspaper archives, a string of related articles come up stretching from the Boston Globe and Washington Post to even the Sunday Mail in Sydney and The Statesman in India. All articles point to the consequences of and the occasional humor in e-mail hoaxes. It would seem, due to the sudden surge of related articles that the events of September 11 acted as a mild catalyst to bring this issue to the forefront. The once humorous or ridiculous adaptations of netlore have taken on a more staid tenor. Some are columnists’ commentary on the use of hoaxes and pranks in such fragile times. Others marvel at the wonder at Americans ability to make light of such tragic circumstances. But all have one commonality. It appears that among all the stories and chain letters and petitions we may receive in our Inbox, the story will not make the 5 o’clock news unless it has the power manifest itself into the “real world.” In other words, if an e-mail can motivate one person (and perhaps a couple thousand others) to act in a way beyond the scope of clicking the “Forward” button, it becomes newsworthy.
The true power of the Internet is the information contained within. It would unrealistic that such a colossal entity would not be without the occasional cynic and misanthropist. Netlore and the legends that follow is a mere outlet for such users. Just as some search for truth in advertising, truth in politics, or truth in journalism, such quests will continue as new technologies are developed and cultivated.