Belated post, did not realize initial post hadn't posted until sometime later and focused on final project instead...
Our final project focuses on Facebook as the primary SNS of concern. Facebook governance is stated in two primary pages with additional information linked to these pages: the Terms of Service page, entitled Statements of Rights and Responsibilities, and the Privacy Policy which includes Facebook's Principles, Privacy Policy, and information about safe use and the information they collect. Unfortunately for this post, my Friends and I are law-abiding citizens of Facebook and I was unable to identify any obvious infringements other than that I gave my password to my boyfriend to login to my account while I couldn't type easily due to aggravation of old hand injuries. I trust him and I changed the password as soon as I could type again.
I did, however, learn that Facebook was engaging its users in creating updated governance documents. They had spent several months collecting user input and creating new documents considering that input and put the resulting documents and the original documents to a vote among all Facebook users. See the Facebook Site Governance page for details. I found this particularly interesting since we just read an article, "Obfuscatocracy: A stakeholder analysis of governing documents for virtual worlds," which explicitly suggests that sites involve the users in the creation of governing documents to ensure that needs of all parties are considered. It also shows that the Facebook shows signs of being self-aware as described in Gazan's "When Online Communities Become Self-Aware." The redrafting of the governing documents was begun because of the questions and complaints Facebook received, the new drafts were created with user input, and the final results put to a vote among the users. I would also suggest that Facebook contains numerous micro-communities, each group or circle of Friends, and that many of these micro-communities are also self-aware in that they create their own norms...for instance my circle of church friends abides by certain norms while my network of former co-workers abide by a completely different set. It can be difficult to balance these, as what is acceptable to one group may be considered offensive in another.
Having studied the various laws and legislative attempts to control online content or access to it, I found Michael Madison's "Social Software, Groups, and Governance" to be extremely interesting, though I am not certain I understood it all. It is clear that as new technologies appear and the use of technology changes so quickly, legal governance will almost certainly be far behind the times. Take the MySpace suicide case for instance...external law has not caught up with the social nature of the internet and the case had to be tried under violation of the exisiting terms of service: she was accused of creating a false identity. Creators of these sites cannot anticipate every way in which the site may be used. You'll find that many updated Terms of Service, including the new Facebook Statement of Rights and Responsibilities does include a clear "malicious use" clause which will have to suffice until external law can catch up. Finding the line between external and internal, formal and informal governance is, and will continue to be, a challenge as we move forward with an ever-changing online landscape.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Monday, April 6, 2009
Social Computing Session 6: Online Identity and Interaction
I apologize for the late post...I lost internet connectivity this weekend and had to wait until it got fixed.
For my final project I am working with J.Mastin to identify perceptions of privacy among teen and college age SNS users. Because of our familiarity with and the use of Facebook, we have chosen this as our primary site of study.
What is online identity?
Online identity is the combination of the persona a user creates and maintains in the online environment and the actions and interactions that support, enhance, or contradict that persona.
Use Scenario One: "Finding Friends"
Like many sites, Facebook uses the term Friend to describe any and all contacts a user has approved. This term is highly subjective and ambiguous in the immense and open online environment. Profiles are searchable by name, email, "networks," or affiliations like school or work. The system may also suggest potential Friends based on these elements or if you share Friends with other users.
User A joins Facebook and sets up a profile. Now User A would like to find friends. One option is the Search for People Function:
Once User A has identified a possible friend they initiate contact by choosing to add User B as a friend. The system sends out an email to User B asking that the Friendship be confirmed:
Once the Friendship has been confirmed Users A and B will be able to view each other's profiles, receive Status update information, and communicate via chat, Wall Posts, or the Facebook private messaging system.
Use Scenario Two: "Identifying depth of relationships"
The use of the ambiguous term Friend for all connected users creates some confusion around the depth of given relationships between users. Knowing the depth of connections between users can help one assess each other's real online identities...the people you most closely associate with and the ways in which you associate (use of language, tone, consistency of association) can indicate real interests, personality traits, and be important in protecting one's privacy. It can also, more simply, help identify people one may want to befriend, based on the type of relationships they support with other individual users.
One indicator of the depth of the relationship between users is the use of the public comment options. Users can comment on their Friends' Status or Activities. The following shot identifies a comment thread around a user's relationship status (mine...). If one looks at the language, frequency and consistency of posts by individuals to my Status and Activity information one can make some educated guesses regarding the depth and types of relationships between myself and these other users.
Assessing the relationships Friends have with each other and with others gives a user some feedback regarding relationships and what type of information one may want to publish in this semi-private forum. Unless the privacy settings are set for Friends only, information is viewable by people a user may not have any knowledge of. This is a huge privacy issue and there is plenty of information that a user may not wish to post so as to protect his or her online identity and privacy.
Analysis and Reading Connections:
It is useful and important to know who one's fellow users are associating with in an SNS like Facebook, and to know the nature of those interactions. Security settings can support privacy by limiting access to only approved Friends...however if a user has a desire to network, than they must allow more open access. In this instance, knowing ones Friends (and those who want to be one's Friends), and something about the relationships they support with other users can be critical in protecting one's online persona and privacy. As usual, I found some of our readings far more applicable but most were quite interesting.
In "The Social Affordance of the Internet for Networked Individualism" the authors are concerned with societal change "away from groups and towards networked individualism." (Wellman 2003, 3) Attention is a commodity as people trend towards moving through multiple communities that they choose to participate in, a concept also discussed in the Huberman article. In Use Scenario Two, the more attention a user receives from other users may be an indicator of the depth of the relationship between users. Take it a little farther with the discussion of the Huberman article and the reciprocal nature of relationships is also an assessable indicator of the depth of relationships. Judith Donath's article talks about how Friend lists can provide social context, though the ambiguous nature of the term Friend may make this complicated to assess.
In terms of our final project it may be interesting to know how teen and college age SNS users assess their friends and their relationships with other users and whether or not they consider these relationships when they consider online privacy.
For my final project I am working with J.Mastin to identify perceptions of privacy among teen and college age SNS users. Because of our familiarity with and the use of Facebook, we have chosen this as our primary site of study.
What is online identity?
Online identity is the combination of the persona a user creates and maintains in the online environment and the actions and interactions that support, enhance, or contradict that persona.
Use Scenario One: "Finding Friends"
Like many sites, Facebook uses the term Friend to describe any and all contacts a user has approved. This term is highly subjective and ambiguous in the immense and open online environment. Profiles are searchable by name, email, "networks," or affiliations like school or work. The system may also suggest potential Friends based on these elements or if you share Friends with other users.
User A joins Facebook and sets up a profile. Now User A would like to find friends. One option is the Search for People Function:
Once User A has identified a possible friend they initiate contact by choosing to add User B as a friend. The system sends out an email to User B asking that the Friendship be confirmed:
Once the Friendship has been confirmed Users A and B will be able to view each other's profiles, receive Status update information, and communicate via chat, Wall Posts, or the Facebook private messaging system.Use Scenario Two: "Identifying depth of relationships"
The use of the ambiguous term Friend for all connected users creates some confusion around the depth of given relationships between users. Knowing the depth of connections between users can help one assess each other's real online identities...the people you most closely associate with and the ways in which you associate (use of language, tone, consistency of association) can indicate real interests, personality traits, and be important in protecting one's privacy. It can also, more simply, help identify people one may want to befriend, based on the type of relationships they support with other individual users.
One indicator of the depth of the relationship between users is the use of the public comment options. Users can comment on their Friends' Status or Activities. The following shot identifies a comment thread around a user's relationship status (mine...). If one looks at the language, frequency and consistency of posts by individuals to my Status and Activity information one can make some educated guesses regarding the depth and types of relationships between myself and these other users.
Assessing the relationships Friends have with each other and with others gives a user some feedback regarding relationships and what type of information one may want to publish in this semi-private forum. Unless the privacy settings are set for Friends only, information is viewable by people a user may not have any knowledge of. This is a huge privacy issue and there is plenty of information that a user may not wish to post so as to protect his or her online identity and privacy.
Analysis and Reading Connections:
It is useful and important to know who one's fellow users are associating with in an SNS like Facebook, and to know the nature of those interactions. Security settings can support privacy by limiting access to only approved Friends...however if a user has a desire to network, than they must allow more open access. In this instance, knowing ones Friends (and those who want to be one's Friends), and something about the relationships they support with other users can be critical in protecting one's online persona and privacy. As usual, I found some of our readings far more applicable but most were quite interesting.
In "The Social Affordance of the Internet for Networked Individualism" the authors are concerned with societal change "away from groups and towards networked individualism." (Wellman 2003, 3) Attention is a commodity as people trend towards moving through multiple communities that they choose to participate in, a concept also discussed in the Huberman article. In Use Scenario Two, the more attention a user receives from other users may be an indicator of the depth of the relationship between users. Take it a little farther with the discussion of the Huberman article and the reciprocal nature of relationships is also an assessable indicator of the depth of relationships. Judith Donath's article talks about how Friend lists can provide social context, though the ambiguous nature of the term Friend may make this complicated to assess.
In terms of our final project it may be interesting to know how teen and college age SNS users assess their friends and their relationships with other users and whether or not they consider these relationships when they consider online privacy.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Social Computing Session 4: Social knowledge production and services
Online social recommendation systems vs. real world advice seeking
For a project for another class I have been locating materials about Geogiana, the Duchess of Devonshire. Before I complete the project I wanted to know what others thought about some of the items I have located. To that end, and for exemplars for this posting, I visited Amazon.com and BN.com to check out the customer reviews of The Duchess by Amanda Foreman. See the screenshots above. Amazon.com had more reviews available than BN.com though many of them were more like plot synopses or vague "liked it," "loved it," or "hated it" type commentary. There were a few that I found helpful with well-written, thoughful discussions with accurate spelling. I found the Detailed Ratings on BN.com very helpful because they really fleshed out what elements specifically the reviewer rated highly or poorly. Unfortunately there was only one rating/review to work with there. Amazon.com does include a tagging feature that may prove helpful as I continue to look for additional materials.
I found the article Social Annotations in Digital Library Collections particularly relevant in this case as the ratings and reviews function as a history of others responses to and interests in the text. While they are not page or even chapter specific, these recommendations can help a user decide whether or not an item is relevant and/or worthwhile for whatever purpose. Also, both Amazon and BN offer "people who bought this also bought" features that may prove helpful in finding additional related materials. Kristina Lerman's article about filtering also applies to some degree...BN.com provides both collaborative and social filtering elements for users of MyB&N. Unfortunately, my research in this area has been very recent and the system is designed to filter based on my overall use and therefore has not provided any additional recommendations for me. We'll see how long it takes the system to catch up with my new interest...if it does at all.
The trust issues discussed in previous sessions came to the fore while I was looking for reviews...how does one determine whether or not a review is trustworthy? This is especially true when one is looking for research materials.
So, in comparison, and also in search of a review I can trust, I spoke with a writer friend who recently began researching Georgiana for her book. I've known her for years and trust her ability to critically analyze material. Her comments about this book were in line with some of the reviews available online, but since I know her, her background, and her abilities I am more inclined to view her review and reviews that are similar more favorably. I also emailed an old history professor whose research included the era of Georgiana, though I have not received any details back yet.
Overall, I found this week's readings varied and interesting. I am particularly excited aboutthe potential future of libraries as they continue to adapt to mobile communications and the changing social needs and ideas. If our library database incorporated "annotations," or reviews by registered users, tagging, or other social computing and knowledge-sharing elements I would be ecstatic! I personally find research rather lonely and sometimes do not trust my own analysis...having a social history in this environment would make for more interesting research. At the moment, one can accomplish some connection by using bibliographic references, who has used what in what context and when...but the speed and variety allowed by the elements discussed in this week's readings allow for many more connections and discussions. As always, quality is a concern when allowing ratings, reviews, tagging, and other "unregulated" social elements, but if the system incorporated elements of social capital allowing these elements and the users themselves to be rated and reviewed, then perhaps the quality and trustworthiness could be analyzed with some degree of reliability.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Session 4 Citations
Allen, Stuart M., Gualtiero Colombo, Roger M. Whitaker (2009). Forming Social Networks of Trust to Incentivize Cooperation. Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Waikoloa, HI, 5-8 January 2009.
Ellison, N.B., C. Steinfield and C. Lampe (2007). The Benefits of Facebook "Friends:" Social Capital and College Students' Use of Online Social Network Sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4). http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue4/ellison.html
Eryilmaz, Evren, Mitch Cochran and Sumonta Kasemvilas (2009). Establishing Trust Management in an Open Source Collaborative Information Repository: An Emergency Response Information System Case Study. Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Waikoloa, HI, 5-8 January 2009.
Gleave, Eric, Howard T. Welser, Thomas M. Lento and Marc A. Smith (2009). A Conceptual and Operational Definition of ‘Social Role’ in Online Community. Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Waikoloa, HI, 5-8 January 2009.
Massa, Paolo (2006). A Survey of Trust Use and Modeling in Current Real Systems. Trust in E-services: Technologies, Practices and Challenges. Idea Group. http://www.gnuband.org/files/papers/survey_of_trust_use_and_modeling_in_current_real_systems_paolo_massa.pdf
Williams, D. (2006). On and Off the 'Net: Scales for Social Capital in an Online Era. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2), article 11. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue2/williams.html
Ellison, N.B., C. Steinfield and C. Lampe (2007). The Benefits of Facebook "Friends:" Social Capital and College Students' Use of Online Social Network Sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4). http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue4/ellison.html
Eryilmaz, Evren, Mitch Cochran and Sumonta Kasemvilas (2009). Establishing Trust Management in an Open Source Collaborative Information Repository: An Emergency Response Information System Case Study. Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Waikoloa, HI, 5-8 January 2009.
Gleave, Eric, Howard T. Welser, Thomas M. Lento and Marc A. Smith (2009). A Conceptual and Operational Definition of ‘Social Role’ in Online Community. Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Waikoloa, HI, 5-8 January 2009.
Massa, Paolo (2006). A Survey of Trust Use and Modeling in Current Real Systems. Trust in E-services: Technologies, Practices and Challenges. Idea Group. http://www.gnuband.org/files/papers/survey_of_trust_use_and_modeling_in_current_real_systems_paolo_massa.pdf
Williams, D. (2006). On and Off the 'Net: Scales for Social Capital in an Online Era. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2), article 11. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue2/williams.html
Social Computing Session 4: Social Role, Capital, and Trust
There was a lot of material in these readings...to discuss I will be comparing and contrasting features from the two sites I chose, Citizendium (http://en.citizendium.org), hereafter refered to as CZ, and Care2 (http://www.care2.com).
The first concept discussed in our readings is that of "social role," in A Conceptual and Operational Definition of 'Social Role' in Online Community. People play many roles in their lives, different roles for different environments, situations, purposes. I found the discussion of structure and culture very interesting in this reading. There are roles that cross cultures, that are identifiable wherever one goes. I found the idea of roles in the online community intriguing as I hadn't really thought about roles online much as I base most of my social conceptions on real world interactions. I did find, however, that some sites have very clearly defined roles, while in others the structure is less identifiable. Take CZ as an example of the former. CZ is a reference site similar to the well known Wikipedia. One notable difference is that CZ requires that members be approved before they can begin to contribute to the site rather than being an end-user and the site has three very clearly defined roles. The authors are the majority of registered users, and are the people responsible for proposing and creating content. Editors are authority figures responsible for maintaining consistency and performing other editorial functions on the work of the authors. There is a second authoritarian role in CZ, the Constabulary (see screenshot above). These individuals oversee site policies and are a behavioral rather then editorial authority. In Care2, roles are less well-defined and more social-based, though one can proclaim one's activist status in terms such as "rabid" or "casual" in one's profile. One would assume that ones's actions would then need to back up that proclamation if one expects to gain and maintain social capital on the site.
Social capital...this concept is fascinating in that I found it astonishing that this could be measured to any satisfying degree. Color me surprised. I also found that the article, On and Off the 'Net: Scales for Social Capital in an Online Era, did a good job of identifying the positive and negative perspectives and also in labeling "bridging" and "bonding" as distinct types of social capital. It seems to me that both CZ and Care2 are both primarily involved in "bridging" in that they bring together people from all over to contribute and communicate about a particular topic or interest. Care2 offers some "bonding" characteristics in that I know my use of the site was instigated a little over a year ago in support of a petition put together by friends. There is also a singles area, where the site may act in part as a dating service, I don't know for sure because I am not registered with the singles area, but the description seems to indicate that it is a place to meet people whose values mesh, possibly leading to romantic relationships.
Trust is a big deal to me, especially when online, so I found these readings extremely valuable. Paolo Massa defines trust as "the explicit opinion expressed by a user about another user regarding the perceived quality of a certain characteristic of this user." The emergency management article didn't quite strike a chord for me, but the third trust related article, Forming Social Networks of Trust to Incentivize Cooperation certainly did. In particular I found the idea of reputation satisfying. CZ clearly attempts to build trust with it's users from the get-go, by insisting that producers of content use their real names and be approved by the site before they can contribute. The use of real names draws a clear connection between reputation in the virtual world and the real world. CZ also has clear avenues of enforcement of value and behavior in it's two authoritarian roles, the Editors and Constables. Care2 has multiple incentive mechanisms to build trust and reputation. These include "green stars," "butterflies," "testimonials," and "golden notes." These are all incentives posted to one's profile, either by fellow individual users (green stars, testimonials), the community (golden notes), or the site itself (butterflies - a record of one's activity on the site). The user and community generated incentives have clear social capital and trust worth, indicating that others in the community recognize and approve of a particular user. The butterflies, as automatically generated records of one's actions in particular areas within the site, are a true representation of a user's actions. Interestingly, the stars and butterflies are recorded in total permanently, but the icons actually "disappear" from a profile after a month. I found this an ingenious device for driving continued participation! By collecting stars and butterflies, testimonials and golden notes, a Care2 user has several incentive based tools to stay active and build a reputation on the site.
Overall I found this session enlightening and may include concepts discussed here in the final project. I am particularly interested in young (teen/college age) users and their perceptions of privacy and trust in their use of online resources.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Session 3 Citations
Java, Akshay, Xiaodan Song, Tim Finin and Belle Tseng (2007). Why We Twitter: Understanding the Microblogging Effect in User Intentions and Communities. Joint 9th WEBKDD and 1st SNA-KDD Workshop, 12 August 2007, San Jose, California.
http://workshops.socialnetworkanalysis.info/websnakdd2007/papers/submission_21.pdf
Ling, K., G. Beenen, P. Ludford, X. Wang, K. Chang, X. Li, D. Cosley, D. Frankowski, L. Terveen, A.M. Rashid, P. Resnick and R. Kraut (2005). Using Social Psychology to Motivate Contributions to Online Communities. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(4), article 10. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue4/ling.html
Ridings, Catherine and David Gefen (2004). Virtual Community Attraction: Why People Hang Out Online. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 10(1). http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue1/ridings_gefen.html
Schrock, Andrew (2009). Examining Social Media Usage: Technology Clusters and Social Network Site Membership. First Monday 14(1). http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2242/2066
Tedjamulia, Steven J.J., David R. Olsen, Douglas L. Dean, Conan C. Albrecht (2005). Motivating Content Contributions to Online Communities: Toward a More Comprehensive Theory. Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
http://workshops.socialnetworkanalysis.info/websnakdd2007/papers/submission_21.pdf
Ling, K., G. Beenen, P. Ludford, X. Wang, K. Chang, X. Li, D. Cosley, D. Frankowski, L. Terveen, A.M. Rashid, P. Resnick and R. Kraut (2005). Using Social Psychology to Motivate Contributions to Online Communities. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(4), article 10. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue4/ling.html
Ridings, Catherine and David Gefen (2004). Virtual Community Attraction: Why People Hang Out Online. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 10(1). http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue1/ridings_gefen.html
Schrock, Andrew (2009). Examining Social Media Usage: Technology Clusters and Social Network Site Membership. First Monday 14(1). http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2242/2066
Tedjamulia, Steven J.J., David R. Olsen, Douglas L. Dean, Conan C. Albrecht (2005). Motivating Content Contributions to Online Communities: Toward a More Comprehensive Theory. Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
Social Computing Session 3: Motivating content contributions
See AnswerBag profile: http://www.answerbag.com/profile/?id=866449
Assignment Results:
I found this session’s readings and exercise to be enlightening, and highly enjoyable. I think I lurked a little too long on Answerbag before jumping in, as I didn’t quite meet two of the four elements of our assignment. I did receive 14 answers to my first question, “How many years between siblings do you think is ideal?” and the question earned 29 points as of this writing. I also received 6 comments, though not on any one answer. The most on one answer was 3 comments, received due to the conversational nature of the comments between myself and the asker, Designer4theking. My second highest question rating was 25 for “How long did you know your s/o before you held hands? hugged? kissed?” Overall, I found the experience to be fun and engaging. One experienced member, keithold is cooler now, welcomed me to the community when I answered his question, “What is the herb belladonna also known as?”
Strategy:
In the beginning I lurked for awhile. I found it very difficult to get started until I decided to just be myself…the pseudonym, Limetree, is simply what my first name means. I just couldn’t seem to get involved unless the questions I asked and/or responded to were meaningful to me, or to someone I had developed a connection with like Designer4theking. At first I had a hard time coming up with a question that I thought might be considered interesting for myself and also to others. I think in retrospect I might have started by answering questions, before formulating my own. Unfortunately I fell into a consumer mentality, both because of the drive to complete the assignment as well as the need to consume content that was relevant and interesting to me personally, so my initial actions were to ask questions, to make people come to me. My initial question was fairly successful in a short period of time, a circumstance that drove me to become more participatory as I rated answers and responded to answers that were particularly interesting.
After asking and responding to several types of questions, my next step was to lower my guard a bit…okay, actually a lot. I found a question from Designer4theking, who had previously responded well to my question “How long did you know your s/o before you held hands? hugged? kissed?” She asked, “Can you describe your childhood? Any great experiences?” To answer, I posted a poem I wrote a few years ago about my childhood. To do so was a huge risk for me, as I consider myself a closet poet and rarely share my work openly. This answer provoked a conversation between myself and Designer4theking via comments. As with the welcome from keithold is cooler now, I was pleasantly surprised by the friendliness of the encounter.
In relation to the readings:
I find the question “Why?” to be very interesting…why do people want to hang out online? What is it about the online experience that is so attractive to so many? Until this class and moving very far from home, my online presence was minimal. I know the answer to my “why?” I joined Facebook to maintain relationships with friends and family at home, Skype to talk to them via webcam, and everything else as prompted by this class. A couple of the readings, and Virtual Community Attraction: Why People Hang Out Online in particular, address one of the reasons it is so important to understand the motivation to engage socially online. Virtual communities have “enormous information and revenue increasing potential.” (Ridings & Gefen, 2004) My participation on MyB&N has a lot of potential for the company, so much so that B&N just sent out a notice to prompt me to rate and review some items I recently purchased in an effort to make me feel that my contribution will be unique and will benefit the community. (See Hypotheses 1 & 4 in Using Social Pyschology to Motivate Contributions to Online Communities)
I found the paper, Motivating Content Contributions to Online Communities particularly intriguing. By dividing users into four groups, 2 types of lurkers and 2 types of contributors, I was better able to place myself and my own use in the general scheme of things. The discussion of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation was important to me as I used AnswerBag. Once I found the experience “inherently interesting or enjoyable,” I was much more willing and eager to be involved and to contribute actively. Trust was important, especially when I posted my poem. The accountability factor also impacted my use, knowing that questions and answers are monitored and the monitoring enforced was important throughout all stages of the assignment. The goals concept was harder for me, as I got caught up in the novelty of the experience and the social experience, rather than remaining focused on the external goals imposed by the assignment. Consider the findings in the article Using Social Pyschology to Motivate Contributions to Online Communities for Hypothesis 6, “Members who are assigned challenging specific numeric goals will rate more than members assigned non-specific do-your-best goals.” I found that the specific numeric goals of the assignment were an initial driving factor for me, but that the social connection and feeling positive about my interactions with the community became much more important for me, so much so that I lost sight of those initial challenges.
Assignment Results:
I found this session’s readings and exercise to be enlightening, and highly enjoyable. I think I lurked a little too long on Answerbag before jumping in, as I didn’t quite meet two of the four elements of our assignment. I did receive 14 answers to my first question, “How many years between siblings do you think is ideal?” and the question earned 29 points as of this writing. I also received 6 comments, though not on any one answer. The most on one answer was 3 comments, received due to the conversational nature of the comments between myself and the asker, Designer4theking. My second highest question rating was 25 for “How long did you know your s/o before you held hands? hugged? kissed?” Overall, I found the experience to be fun and engaging. One experienced member, keithold is cooler now, welcomed me to the community when I answered his question, “What is the herb belladonna also known as?”
Strategy:
In the beginning I lurked for awhile. I found it very difficult to get started until I decided to just be myself…the pseudonym, Limetree, is simply what my first name means. I just couldn’t seem to get involved unless the questions I asked and/or responded to were meaningful to me, or to someone I had developed a connection with like Designer4theking. At first I had a hard time coming up with a question that I thought might be considered interesting for myself and also to others. I think in retrospect I might have started by answering questions, before formulating my own. Unfortunately I fell into a consumer mentality, both because of the drive to complete the assignment as well as the need to consume content that was relevant and interesting to me personally, so my initial actions were to ask questions, to make people come to me. My initial question was fairly successful in a short period of time, a circumstance that drove me to become more participatory as I rated answers and responded to answers that were particularly interesting.
After asking and responding to several types of questions, my next step was to lower my guard a bit…okay, actually a lot. I found a question from Designer4theking, who had previously responded well to my question “How long did you know your s/o before you held hands? hugged? kissed?” She asked, “Can you describe your childhood? Any great experiences?” To answer, I posted a poem I wrote a few years ago about my childhood. To do so was a huge risk for me, as I consider myself a closet poet and rarely share my work openly. This answer provoked a conversation between myself and Designer4theking via comments. As with the welcome from keithold is cooler now, I was pleasantly surprised by the friendliness of the encounter.
In relation to the readings:
I find the question “Why?” to be very interesting…why do people want to hang out online? What is it about the online experience that is so attractive to so many? Until this class and moving very far from home, my online presence was minimal. I know the answer to my “why?” I joined Facebook to maintain relationships with friends and family at home, Skype to talk to them via webcam, and everything else as prompted by this class. A couple of the readings, and Virtual Community Attraction: Why People Hang Out Online in particular, address one of the reasons it is so important to understand the motivation to engage socially online. Virtual communities have “enormous information and revenue increasing potential.” (Ridings & Gefen, 2004) My participation on MyB&N has a lot of potential for the company, so much so that B&N just sent out a notice to prompt me to rate and review some items I recently purchased in an effort to make me feel that my contribution will be unique and will benefit the community. (See Hypotheses 1 & 4 in Using Social Pyschology to Motivate Contributions to Online Communities)
I found the paper, Motivating Content Contributions to Online Communities particularly intriguing. By dividing users into four groups, 2 types of lurkers and 2 types of contributors, I was better able to place myself and my own use in the general scheme of things. The discussion of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation was important to me as I used AnswerBag. Once I found the experience “inherently interesting or enjoyable,” I was much more willing and eager to be involved and to contribute actively. Trust was important, especially when I posted my poem. The accountability factor also impacted my use, knowing that questions and answers are monitored and the monitoring enforced was important throughout all stages of the assignment. The goals concept was harder for me, as I got caught up in the novelty of the experience and the social experience, rather than remaining focused on the external goals imposed by the assignment. Consider the findings in the article Using Social Pyschology to Motivate Contributions to Online Communities for Hypothesis 6, “Members who are assigned challenging specific numeric goals will rate more than members assigned non-specific do-your-best goals.” I found that the specific numeric goals of the assignment were an initial driving factor for me, but that the social connection and feeling positive about my interactions with the community became much more important for me, so much so that I lost sight of those initial challenges.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Citations for Session 2 Readings
Albrechtslund, Anders (2008). Online Social Networking as Participatory Surveillance. First Monday 13(3). http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2142/1949
Bigge, Ryan (2006). The Cost of (Anti-) Social Networks: Identity, Agency and Neo-Luddites" First Monday 11(12). http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1421/1339
Galston, William A. (1999). Does the Internet Strengthen Community? In Elaine Ciulla Kamarck and Joseph S. Nye, Jr. (eds.), Democracy.com? Governance in a Networked World. Hollis, NH: Hollis Publishing Co.
http://www.puaf.umd.edu/IPPP/fall1999/internet_community.htm
Hague, Umair (2006). Usefulness and The Banality of Business. (Bubblegeneration Strategy Lab blog post). http://www.bubblegeneration.com/2006/03/usefulness-and-banality-of-business.cfm
LaRose, R., M.S. Eastin and J. Gregg (2001). Reformulating the Internet Paradox: Social Cognitive Explanations of Internet Use and Depression. Journal of Online Behavior 1(2). http://www.behavior.net/JOB/v1n2/paradox.html
Rosen, Christine (2007). Virtual Friendship and the New Narcissism. The New Atlantis 17, 15-31. http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/virtual-friendship-and-the-new-narcissism
Weeks, Linton (2009). Social Responsibility and the Web: A Drama Unfolds. 8 January 2009. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99094257
Bigge, Ryan (2006). The Cost of (Anti-) Social Networks: Identity, Agency and Neo-Luddites" First Monday 11(12). http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1421/1339
Galston, William A. (1999). Does the Internet Strengthen Community? In Elaine Ciulla Kamarck and Joseph S. Nye, Jr. (eds.), Democracy.com? Governance in a Networked World. Hollis, NH: Hollis Publishing Co.
http://www.puaf.umd.edu/IPPP/fall1999/internet_community.htm
Hague, Umair (2006). Usefulness and The Banality of Business. (Bubblegeneration Strategy Lab blog post). http://www.bubblegeneration.com/2006/03/usefulness-and-banality-of-business.cfm
LaRose, R., M.S. Eastin and J. Gregg (2001). Reformulating the Internet Paradox: Social Cognitive Explanations of Internet Use and Depression. Journal of Online Behavior 1(2). http://www.behavior.net/JOB/v1n2/paradox.html
Rosen, Christine (2007). Virtual Friendship and the New Narcissism. The New Atlantis 17, 15-31. http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/virtual-friendship-and-the-new-narcissism
Weeks, Linton (2009). Social Responsibility and the Web: A Drama Unfolds. 8 January 2009. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99094257
Social Computing Session 2: Social Aspects of Social Computing Reading Response and User Experience
There are several common threads discussed in this session's readings. That the internet is often thought of and defined by physical plane space or place-based terminology is intriguing. The ability to bridge the distances intrinsic to the physical plane is part of what makes SNSs and other elements of social computing so appealing to many. In "Does the Internet Strengthen Community," William Galston states that "...computer-mediated communication can be understood as raising to a higher power the kinds of non-place-based relationships and associations that have existed for centuries in industrialized societies." LaRose et al clearly found, at least in college students, that the social aspects of computing could mitigate signs of depression by providing access to the RL communities that they may have left behind. This is reflective of points made in our Session 1 readings and again in the article "Reformulating the Internet Paradox," that the online social environment is frequently used to supplement and enhance real world relationships and existing social structures.
The Galston article tries to define community, and in so doing determines that there is a sort of easy in, easy out element to "voluntary communities" that might cause users to simply "exit," or leave an online space rather than "voice" their concerns, issues, etc. He describes this scenario as risking our ability to learn to use and grow our voices, especially politically. In another article, Ryan Bigge shows how much effort and time a user might put into their online "space." I believe that the amount of time and effort invested in a particular "space" might make some reluctant to simply up and leave, and in fact, make them fight to hold that space. For example, in "Social Responsibility and The Web: A Drama Unfolds," when her Tweet has RL consequences, Thordora continues to Tweet and seems to express anger that "her" online space might be patrolled by "big sister." There is also an example of "exit" here as Feelslikehome chose to "unfollow" Thordora...though she does express her reason with "voice."
These examples also address the concept of surveillance within online communities. I think it is clear that the Weeks article shows internal surveillance between members of an online community. It also shows that this online internal surveillance can impact RL experiences. The Bigge article discusses what I consider to be a kind of self-surveillance that he refers to as "digital gardening." In "Virtual Friendship and the New Narcissim," Christina Rosen compares the ability to create oneself online to painted self-portraits, a very intriguing possibility, and, I think, one of the most seductive elements of social computing. However, in "Online Social Networking as Participatory Surveillance, Anders Albrechtslund shows us just how ephemeral the ability to control our self-portraits or our "spaces" really is. He notes that, online, friendships really can last forever because the information shared is typically stored someplace outside our own immediate control. Even if it were within ones own control, once something is shared, there is no knowing who has linked or copied or printed it in some other space, physical or virtual, in or out of context. Does anyone remember that old fable about King Midas and his donkey ears? (go here for a refresher: http://www.readprint.com/chapter-925/Thomas-Bulfinch)
There was so much in these readings! I thoroughly enjoyed them and the arguments raised. I caught myself wondering about the differences between the experience on an open SNS with little or no special interest focus and the experience in a more exclusive environment like a special interest site. I already have a Facebook page in my own name. Though I have only been on for a little over a week, I already find myself trying to be very self-contained and practicing my own self-surveillance. Some of my "Friends" are family, some are from church, some from a former place of work, and still others people I knew in high school. The information I would wish to allow these different groups access to is very different, so I cannot use this forum to post anything I might not want any one of these people, or anyone that might "friend" me, to see. It is great because I can feel close to those among my family and good friends who are also on Facebook while I am so far from home, but there is also a limiting element, at least for me.
To compare, I took advantage of a new feature at BN.com called My B&N. Here one can create an account with a profile and avatar and enter into functions within Barnes & Noble community where "It's All About You". Go to http://www.barnesandnoble.com/my-bn/ for an introduction to the program. My B&N does have a privacy option that does allow one to keep one's Profile and everything attached for Private viewing only. This provides a certain measure of control in that the only viewer would be oneself, and, of course, the company's "Just for you" advertising software. And the Library feature alone is one I would enjoy privately. When one opens one's profile to public viewing, one can still choose to post reviews anonymously. I haven't had an opportunity to join a book discussion, but I have posted a review and followed links to other people's profiles. The organization, specialization, and, yes, ego-centric focus of the feature make making friends harder, but that's not really the purpose of the site. The purpose is to have an easy point of entry into the activities of the Barnes & Noble community where people comment on and discuss books, music, and film. I suppose it would be possible to come away with actual "friends" if one participated in enough discussions and posted one's contact info in one's About Me. For the purposes of this class and because I want, and feel comfortable enough, to try the more public features of the site I have marked my profile as public. Here is the link to my public profile: http://my.barnesandnoble.com/Limetree-profile/?showVisitorView=1
The Galston article tries to define community, and in so doing determines that there is a sort of easy in, easy out element to "voluntary communities" that might cause users to simply "exit," or leave an online space rather than "voice" their concerns, issues, etc. He describes this scenario as risking our ability to learn to use and grow our voices, especially politically. In another article, Ryan Bigge shows how much effort and time a user might put into their online "space." I believe that the amount of time and effort invested in a particular "space" might make some reluctant to simply up and leave, and in fact, make them fight to hold that space. For example, in "Social Responsibility and The Web: A Drama Unfolds," when her Tweet has RL consequences, Thordora continues to Tweet and seems to express anger that "her" online space might be patrolled by "big sister." There is also an example of "exit" here as Feelslikehome chose to "unfollow" Thordora...though she does express her reason with "voice."
These examples also address the concept of surveillance within online communities. I think it is clear that the Weeks article shows internal surveillance between members of an online community. It also shows that this online internal surveillance can impact RL experiences. The Bigge article discusses what I consider to be a kind of self-surveillance that he refers to as "digital gardening." In "Virtual Friendship and the New Narcissim," Christina Rosen compares the ability to create oneself online to painted self-portraits, a very intriguing possibility, and, I think, one of the most seductive elements of social computing. However, in "Online Social Networking as Participatory Surveillance, Anders Albrechtslund shows us just how ephemeral the ability to control our self-portraits or our "spaces" really is. He notes that, online, friendships really can last forever because the information shared is typically stored someplace outside our own immediate control. Even if it were within ones own control, once something is shared, there is no knowing who has linked or copied or printed it in some other space, physical or virtual, in or out of context. Does anyone remember that old fable about King Midas and his donkey ears? (go here for a refresher: http://www.readprint.com/chapter-925/Thomas-Bulfinch)
There was so much in these readings! I thoroughly enjoyed them and the arguments raised. I caught myself wondering about the differences between the experience on an open SNS with little or no special interest focus and the experience in a more exclusive environment like a special interest site. I already have a Facebook page in my own name. Though I have only been on for a little over a week, I already find myself trying to be very self-contained and practicing my own self-surveillance. Some of my "Friends" are family, some are from church, some from a former place of work, and still others people I knew in high school. The information I would wish to allow these different groups access to is very different, so I cannot use this forum to post anything I might not want any one of these people, or anyone that might "friend" me, to see. It is great because I can feel close to those among my family and good friends who are also on Facebook while I am so far from home, but there is also a limiting element, at least for me.
To compare, I took advantage of a new feature at BN.com called My B&N. Here one can create an account with a profile and avatar and enter into functions within Barnes & Noble community where "It's All About You". Go to http://www.barnesandnoble.com/my-bn/ for an introduction to the program. My B&N does have a privacy option that does allow one to keep one's Profile and everything attached for Private viewing only. This provides a certain measure of control in that the only viewer would be oneself, and, of course, the company's "Just for you" advertising software. And the Library feature alone is one I would enjoy privately. When one opens one's profile to public viewing, one can still choose to post reviews anonymously. I haven't had an opportunity to join a book discussion, but I have posted a review and followed links to other people's profiles. The organization, specialization, and, yes, ego-centric focus of the feature make making friends harder, but that's not really the purpose of the site. The purpose is to have an easy point of entry into the activities of the Barnes & Noble community where people comment on and discuss books, music, and film. I suppose it would be possible to come away with actual "friends" if one participated in enough discussions and posted one's contact info in one's About Me. For the purposes of this class and because I want, and feel comfortable enough, to try the more public features of the site I have marked my profile as public. Here is the link to my public profile: http://my.barnesandnoble.com/Limetree-profile/?showVisitorView=1
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Citations for Session 1 Readings
Beer, David and Roger Burrows (2007). Sociology and, of and in Web 2.0: Some Initial Considerations. Sociological Research Online 12(5). http://www.socresonline.org.uk/12/5/17.html (accessed January 16, 2009)
boyd, d.m., and N.B. Ellison (2007). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), article 11. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html (accessed January 16, 2009)
Dibbell, Julian (1998; revised). A Rape in Cyberspace: How an Evil Clown, a Haitian Trickster Spirit, Two Wizards, and a Cast of Dozens Turned a Database Into a Society. The Village Voice, 23 December 1993. http://juliandibbell.com/texts/bungle.html (accessed January 16, 2009)
Herring, Susan C., Lois Ann Scheidt, Sabrina Bonus and Elijah Wright (2004). Bridging the Gap: A Genre Analysis of Weblogs. Proceedings of the 37th Hawai'i International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-37).
Nardi, Bonnie A., Diane Schiano and Michelle Gumbrecht (2004). Blogging as Social Activity, or, Would You Let 900 Million People Read Your Diary? CSCW'04, November 6-10, 2004, Chicago, Illinois.
Tenopir, Carol (2007). Web 2.0: Our Cultural Downfall? Library Journal, 12/15/2007. http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6510681.html?industryid=47130 (accessed January 16, 2009)
boyd, d.m., and N.B. Ellison (2007). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), article 11. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html (accessed January 16, 2009)
Dibbell, Julian (1998; revised). A Rape in Cyberspace: How an Evil Clown, a Haitian Trickster Spirit, Two Wizards, and a Cast of Dozens Turned a Database Into a Society. The Village Voice, 23 December 1993. http://juliandibbell.com/texts/bungle.html (accessed January 16, 2009)
Herring, Susan C., Lois Ann Scheidt, Sabrina Bonus and Elijah Wright (2004). Bridging the Gap: A Genre Analysis of Weblogs. Proceedings of the 37th Hawai'i International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-37).
Nardi, Bonnie A., Diane Schiano and Michelle Gumbrecht (2004). Blogging as Social Activity, or, Would You Let 900 Million People Read Your Diary? CSCW'04, November 6-10, 2004, Chicago, Illinois.
Tenopir, Carol (2007). Web 2.0: Our Cultural Downfall? Library Journal, 12/15/2007. http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6510681.html?industryid=47130 (accessed January 16, 2009)
Social Computing Session 1: Define Social Computing & Reading Response
"Social computing is an umbrella term for technologies and virtual spaces that allow users to create, describe, and share content and for the communities that arise around them" - Professor Gazan
Challenge: after completing our reading I believe that social computing is the above, and more. I find the impact of RL on the online environment and vice versa fascinating. Social computing is a tool that allows users to support exisiting offline social networks, as mentioned in the articles "Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship" and "Blogging as Social Activity, or, Would You Let 900 Million People Read Your Diary." (Which, incidentally, I most emphatically would not!) Social computing is also a tool for expanding one's social network by providing access to other people one would most likely never have had an opportunity to meet offline until the Internet became more than a place to find information, but a place to find and interact with people. This is addressed to varying degrees in each reading.
A little introduction to my perspective: this class is my second deliberate foray into "social computing." The first, as I mention a little later, was within a localized "intranet" designed to support an existing offline community. My sisters, however, are relatively active social computers, using AIM, MySpace, Facebook, and other online and mobile forums to enhance and expand their social networks. They are eight and twelve years younger than I. I am also among the last of my own peer group to really get in on the online social ride.
The concept of the Internet as a social environment as opposed to a repository of information leads to the dilemmas discussed in "Online Databases - Web 2.0: Our Cultural Downfall?" I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Keen in that the social aspects of computing can create a potentially devastating failure of the Internet as a place to find reliable, trustworthy, and accurate information. My youngest sister and her peers are only fifteen and sixteen and yet they are already utterly cynical when it comes to finding information online.
That cynicism is, in fact, one of my reasons for continuing my education with an MLIS program. I think it is vital that we learn to identify good sources, to distinguish between the trustworthy content and the untrustworhty, and that we teach others to do so. Our readings "Blogging as Social Activity," "Bridging the Gap," and Sociology and, of and in Web 2.0" all indicate that there are some really exciting elements to sharing information online. K-logs, while shown to be a relatively low percentage in the sample researched in "Bridging the Gap," are great forums for sharing ideas and knowledge in and among businesses and institutions. In my position with a large health care organization we used a blog to link everyone in the organization in a fast-paced energetic and ultimately highly useful discussion surrounding the need for and developement of an electronic health record. The blog allowed the IS team, leadership, clinicians, consultants, and support staff to communicate, with ideas and suggestions coming from some surprising directions. Wikis, too, are great places for knowledge to be shared and revised, especially in areas that are growing and changing too quickly for conventional information sharing methods to effectively keep up. Several of our readings lamented the existence of this time lag.
My biggest fears regarding the online social reality are identified in the Library Journal article by Carol Tenopir and in "A Rape in Cyberspace." In the first article the writer shows that there are multiple instances of organizations and individuals deliberately manipulating online perceptions to further their own agendas. The second exposes the problems with effectively preventing and/or punishing an individual or group who uses an online persona to cause harm. This is also illustrated with the recent MySpace Suicide case. How do we classify online misrepresentation and abuse? The line between RL and VR can be thin, and for some it is non-existent. How can we possibly predict how someone will react to a VR situation as an RL person? How do we identify the truth among the real? The information, feelings, and opinions posted in the online social environment are all real. They may not be true, but they are real.
In conclusion, I cannot yet verbalize my own definition of social computing but will continue to think on it. I think the thumbnail definition provided by Professor Gazan is excellent, and sufficient for the most part, but I'd like to put in something about the relationship between online and offline social interactions and how they are linked and impacted by social computing. Our need to communicate with existing offline networks and to reach out to the world at large is facilitated by the online environment. Humans are, after all, physical and social creatures.
LTH 01/18/2009
Challenge: after completing our reading I believe that social computing is the above, and more. I find the impact of RL on the online environment and vice versa fascinating. Social computing is a tool that allows users to support exisiting offline social networks, as mentioned in the articles "Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship" and "Blogging as Social Activity, or, Would You Let 900 Million People Read Your Diary." (Which, incidentally, I most emphatically would not!) Social computing is also a tool for expanding one's social network by providing access to other people one would most likely never have had an opportunity to meet offline until the Internet became more than a place to find information, but a place to find and interact with people. This is addressed to varying degrees in each reading.
A little introduction to my perspective: this class is my second deliberate foray into "social computing." The first, as I mention a little later, was within a localized "intranet" designed to support an existing offline community. My sisters, however, are relatively active social computers, using AIM, MySpace, Facebook, and other online and mobile forums to enhance and expand their social networks. They are eight and twelve years younger than I. I am also among the last of my own peer group to really get in on the online social ride.
The concept of the Internet as a social environment as opposed to a repository of information leads to the dilemmas discussed in "Online Databases - Web 2.0: Our Cultural Downfall?" I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Keen in that the social aspects of computing can create a potentially devastating failure of the Internet as a place to find reliable, trustworthy, and accurate information. My youngest sister and her peers are only fifteen and sixteen and yet they are already utterly cynical when it comes to finding information online.
That cynicism is, in fact, one of my reasons for continuing my education with an MLIS program. I think it is vital that we learn to identify good sources, to distinguish between the trustworthy content and the untrustworhty, and that we teach others to do so. Our readings "Blogging as Social Activity," "Bridging the Gap," and Sociology and, of and in Web 2.0" all indicate that there are some really exciting elements to sharing information online. K-logs, while shown to be a relatively low percentage in the sample researched in "Bridging the Gap," are great forums for sharing ideas and knowledge in and among businesses and institutions. In my position with a large health care organization we used a blog to link everyone in the organization in a fast-paced energetic and ultimately highly useful discussion surrounding the need for and developement of an electronic health record. The blog allowed the IS team, leadership, clinicians, consultants, and support staff to communicate, with ideas and suggestions coming from some surprising directions. Wikis, too, are great places for knowledge to be shared and revised, especially in areas that are growing and changing too quickly for conventional information sharing methods to effectively keep up. Several of our readings lamented the existence of this time lag.
My biggest fears regarding the online social reality are identified in the Library Journal article by Carol Tenopir and in "A Rape in Cyberspace." In the first article the writer shows that there are multiple instances of organizations and individuals deliberately manipulating online perceptions to further their own agendas. The second exposes the problems with effectively preventing and/or punishing an individual or group who uses an online persona to cause harm. This is also illustrated with the recent MySpace Suicide case. How do we classify online misrepresentation and abuse? The line between RL and VR can be thin, and for some it is non-existent. How can we possibly predict how someone will react to a VR situation as an RL person? How do we identify the truth among the real? The information, feelings, and opinions posted in the online social environment are all real. They may not be true, but they are real.
In conclusion, I cannot yet verbalize my own definition of social computing but will continue to think on it. I think the thumbnail definition provided by Professor Gazan is excellent, and sufficient for the most part, but I'd like to put in something about the relationship between online and offline social interactions and how they are linked and impacted by social computing. Our need to communicate with existing offline networks and to reach out to the world at large is facilitated by the online environment. Humans are, after all, physical and social creatures.
LTH 01/18/2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
