Last week I asked on Twitter what kind of tweets are annoying readers. I recapped the responses (in Finnsh) into the seven deadly sins.

1) Platitudes and old stories
2) Bursts of robo-tweets
3) Facebook links
4) One-to-one discussions in public
5) “Chatting with” celebrities
6) Links to articles behind paywalls
7) Cryptic tweets

Twitter offers space for a wide range of actors and communication styles. There’s not much need for an official moderator or extensive guidelines, and I’m not trying to raise the threshold for participating. I do think it’s worth looking at how people communicate, and these annoyances from my survey simply point out some of Twitter’s irksome patterns. Later I will highlight some of the best kinds of tweets, which a couple of studies have already examined.

In my language critique course last fall, during the session where I give feedback to the participants, one student in response asked me what was good in his story. His question made me wonder why feedback always focuses on areas that need improvement, even if the work is generally well written. This reflection got a boost from Kimmo Svinhufvud’s dissertationpublished in November. It deals with the interaction that happens as part of guiding a master’s thesis at the Helsinki University. According to Svinhufvud, feedback on written work includes questions, praise, and especially problem-solution feedback, in which the critic highlights a problem and then offers a solution. In this framework the person receiving the feedback can easily interpret questions and even positive comments as corrections in disguise. In education we promote sandwich feedback, in which the critical center is enclosed by a positive beginning and ending. Svinhufvud criticizes the model, because it trivializes praise and turns it into a pro forma opening. Positive feedback should instead have its own place in the feedback, and positive comments should be as detailed and analytical as critical ones. After the student comment I made a point of including a place for positive comments in my feedback classes; Svinhufvud’s dissertation gave me a reason to expand it.

Jeff Borden strongly advocated for active learning at this year’s Educa. As evidence, he described a survey of 16 000 students who were asked about their favorite courses. The respondents almost unanimously cited those courses that required critical thinking, creativity, and problem-solving. Borden also surprised the audience by saying that critical thinking is more likely with a cafeteria-like noise level around 65 to 80 decibels, while a lecture hall with 35 decibels is not as good for brain activation. Discussion is an excellent learning method; that’s why study circles were considered as cheating in university some years ago, but now they are obligatory. If you need an environment that does not in any way support learning, Borden said, choose a classroom. Borden’s views were supported convincingly by MIT’s research which amused the Educa audience: it shows that student attention is lower while listening to lectures than while sleeping.

Just before Christmas, Iphone-gate broke out in the Finnish social media. Kielikello magazine, published by the Institute for the Languages of Finland, gave the spelling rule for this product in Finnish: either Iphone or I-phone, to comply with earlier recommendations related to company names. Steve Jobs, who was strict with details, would not have been happy with this recommendation, and neither were other Apple enthusiasts. The problem, however, arises from the fact that product and company names nowadays are often deliberately created contrary to general spelling rules. Name selection is based on attraction and visual image, not on the needs of writers. Still, the names are used in many contexts, and it is not practical for writers to have to consult the corporate brand guidelines to check out the mysterious spellings cooked up by admen. The problem is especially familiar to Finnish translators because companies like IKEA often dictate that the product and company names must not be inflected—changed to comply with the rules of grammar. That’s fine in English and similar, non-inflected languages, but does not fit into Finnish, in which the relationships between words are expressed with spelling changes that reflect cases. Should language users bow down to any whim of an entrepreneur?

Advent was brightened by a Helsingin Sanomat article on Wikipedia. The reliability of the English Wikipedia has been evaluated several times, but the Finnish version has not been studied in the same way. The Helsingin Sanomat chose 134 articles and gave them to experts for evaluation; there were 96 evaluators from eight Finnish universities. Experts considered, for example, the accuracy and neutrality of the articles on a scale of 1–5. 70% of the articles received a grade of good or excellent in accuracy. According to this evaluation, most articles were written with a neutral point of view, but there were shortcomings with regard to citing sources. Wikipedia writers are often accused of failing to include sources, and readers are accused of uncritical adoption, but these problems are common in other non-fiction as well. After all, people who consult Wikipedia articles have a healthy skepticism, but the same text appearing inside the right covers is considered true beyond doubt. In fact, Wikipedia users are effectively learning critical literacy, because they can see how knowledge is produced. Is it time to improve the Wikipedia articles on your own field? It would be a good Christmas gift for all of us.

On its website, the Finnish Broadcasting Company YLE asked its readers to make suggestions for the word of the year. The proposals went onto a shortlist from which readers could vote for their favorite. The selection of the word of the year for the English language has always been fun in my opinion. Among those weighing in: the Oxford Dictionaries chose selfie, and Merriam-Webster‘s decided on science. The American Dialect Society will vote on its word at the end of the year. These choices are interesting, because they are made by dictionary professionals and the selection is justified by frequency or number of look-ups. The Finnish word was chosen by a couple of thousand readers from random proposals, and in my opinion it is not typical for this point in time but rather the beginning of the 2000s. But why should I criticize a playful poll? Because the real issue is broader. No groundwork was done; no time devoted to research. Instead, opinions in a quick poll are reported by three channels, all sponsored by tax money. Once again, the media choose not to report reality but to create their own.

The Online Educa Berlin 2013 took place during stormy weather but in a relaxed atmosphere. The themes were the same as last year’s: massive open online courses were examined from different perspectives. Are MOOCs working? How are they funded? What should be taken into account in the course design? Should massive open courses and small closed ones be connected to each other? The advantage of MOOCs are that education is open to all regardless of location or wealth. Learning increases as in-groups become global and communication becomes multilateral. One of the biggest problems is the large number of drop-outs: typically, out of each thousand participants in a MOOC, only a few complete the course. I have participated in some MOOCs, and my goal has never been to get a certificate but to follow the discussion—this has proved to be a common approach to participation. Many people are building their professional skills in a self-directed way, without pressure or desire to accumulate credits, and MOOCs may, therefore, be particularly suitable for university graduates. The highlight of Educa once again was the Thursday night debate in which mass course opponents and supporters faced off. Almost unanimously, the audience voted the mass course to the next round.

Is it acceptable to promote your own stuff in social media? Cities and corporations are doing it, and individuals as well. Journos advertise their stories, consultants their slides, bloggers their posts, authors their new books. Does this suit readers, or does it irritate them? I asked about this on Twitter last Friday and got answers from some twenty active tweeters. The most common view was that you can do this one time, such as to tell people about a new article, and you can repeat the mention if the topic comes up again. A few respondents did advocate zero tolerance; a few would allow multiple repetitions. Language that’s straight-out advertising seems to lower tolerance, while an informative tone increases it. The best option is, of course, when someone else recommends your story, or retweets your message—but not if it’s always the same minion faithfully chirping ”Great story, @celebrity, @buyer, @critic.” We don’t need unbending rules here, but it’s worth talking about the way we’re perceived. Each tweeter chooses his own standards and also the people whose tweets appear in his stream. However, the author should keep in mind that what he sees as informing, others are more likely to see as advertising.

I have three Twitter accounts, of which the most popular is Kielipoliisi (”Language Police”). It has over 5,700 followers, while following 596. I’d like to find other interesting people to follow, especially if their comments have these characteristics: 1) The tweets relate to the person’s work or area of expertise. 2) They should be shared regularly, but not constantly—dozens of tweets per day would be too much to cope with. 3) Insightful language is always a plus. What kind of tweeters do I not want to follow? 1) Those who blab about TV shows, pass along tired jokes, or talk only about their own output. 2) Celebrity tweets, celebrity news, and retweets of the same. 3) Virtual brown-nosing. In the Savon Sanomat newspaper Jouko Juutilainen wrote on Friday that “Tuomas Enbuske and Alexander Stubb are taking up all the space in Finnish Twitter; there’s already enough of their gabble in the other media.” To me, this is a strange comment. The tweet stream you see is made up of voices that you chose to follow. Do you have suggestions of people who belong in my stream?

Tuija Aalto’s book ”How to be Open” includes an interview with Jouko Jokinen, the editor-in-chief of Aamulehti. Jokinen states that “an e-mail is not protected by the secrecy of correspondence if it’s not considered an original work.” He’s using a term from European law, and this concept of secrecy came up in my recent training sessions. Writers expressed displeasure that their messages have been forwarded without permission. I opened a discussion on this issue last week on Twitter, and in the first reply received a link to Vesa Linja-aho’s blog post. Linja-aho wrote that a recipient is allowed to forward or publish an e-mail, as long as it’s not revealing company secrets or violating privacy. According to Linja-aho, the notion that you can forbid any republishing stems from people who misunderstand what secrecy of correspondence is meant to protect: Alan cannot read a message sent by Matt to Erin without permission, but Erin herself is free to do with the message whatever she wants—including sending it to Alan. IT-author Petteri Järvinen agrees and points out that copyright law prevents sharing of a message only if it meets the characteristics of an original work. Marko Forss of the Finnish police says you need to verify each time that the message you forward does not contain information about private life. Even on bulletin boards, according to Järvinen, it’s possible to republish without breaking the law. In an interview quoted in “How to be Open”, Jokinen explains that he changed his approach to e-mail when one of his messages was published without his permission. It’s good for all of us to keep in mind that somebody can lawfully publish our private emails.