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)
Sunday, January 18, 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)
