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.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
