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
Sunday, February 1, 2009
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)
