Friday, April 17, 2009
Hey, completely off-topic, but I just caught this news article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8003799.stm and it made me stop to wonder what would happen if all of us just stopped buying music for a week or two or a month. (And by all of us, I mean the larger collective - the internet communities, not just our class community...) Sure we'd suffer.... but it might drive home the point that the music industry needs to review its business model. Just a thought....
Monday, March 16, 2009
Session five reading response
Es tut mir leid - Kurzer Schreiben!
This weeks readings focus on three issues:
Do community contributions to social networks self-regulate to follow standards of quality?
How much regulation is needed to ensure quality and how do social networks encourage it?
How do libraries fit into this picture?
The idea of a social networking community (SNC) coming together to create something has been philosophically linked to the opensource software movement. Duguid rightly points out the flaws of this linkage, and highlights the need for some kind of quality and control to be imposed over the product of the SNC. Hayworththwaite (?) analyses how this quality regulation can be achieved through either a lightweight or heavyweight scheme. Geisler and Burns found that in a lightweight scheme (Youtube’s tagging system) a huge diversity of tags were created by the SNC. Lerman’s study showed that poor regulation of a SNC can lead to the tyranny of the minority, suggesting that in the case of at least some SNC a greater degree of regulation may be needed in order to assure some kind of democracy. Leibenluft again returns us to the issue of quality by highlighting the success and failure of Yahoo! Answers. This SNC succeeds in that the questions asked here would be difficult to efficiently research in a web browser or at a library. However, their failure is that many of the answers are incorrect or misleading, and this poor standard of quality is a serious issue for this site. By comparison, SNC’s such as Wikipedia, which have a stronger regulatory system, have higher quality information, but cover less material. At the core of this issue is the concern about accurate information on the one hand, and the need of SNC members to interact with information. SNC members are not content to passively learn, they want to actively engage with information to create knowledge. This desire is easily harnessed and can generate significant content, but some authority needs to regulate the enterprise. Traditionally, libraries have stepped into the role of an information authority. What is the place of libraries within this model, and how can they engage SNC members?
Gazan and Dempsey both get at the place of the library within this scheme. Gazan argues that digital libraries need to regard their users as both “information consumers” and “information generators.” Dempsey recognizes that libraries can play a critical role within the digital information age, but is at a loss as to where to position these institutions so that they can have maximum impact.
This weeks readings focus on three issues:
Do community contributions to social networks self-regulate to follow standards of quality?
How much regulation is needed to ensure quality and how do social networks encourage it?
How do libraries fit into this picture?
The idea of a social networking community (SNC) coming together to create something has been philosophically linked to the opensource software movement. Duguid rightly points out the flaws of this linkage, and highlights the need for some kind of quality and control to be imposed over the product of the SNC. Hayworththwaite (?) analyses how this quality regulation can be achieved through either a lightweight or heavyweight scheme. Geisler and Burns found that in a lightweight scheme (Youtube’s tagging system) a huge diversity of tags were created by the SNC. Lerman’s study showed that poor regulation of a SNC can lead to the tyranny of the minority, suggesting that in the case of at least some SNC a greater degree of regulation may be needed in order to assure some kind of democracy. Leibenluft again returns us to the issue of quality by highlighting the success and failure of Yahoo! Answers. This SNC succeeds in that the questions asked here would be difficult to efficiently research in a web browser or at a library. However, their failure is that many of the answers are incorrect or misleading, and this poor standard of quality is a serious issue for this site. By comparison, SNC’s such as Wikipedia, which have a stronger regulatory system, have higher quality information, but cover less material. At the core of this issue is the concern about accurate information on the one hand, and the need of SNC members to interact with information. SNC members are not content to passively learn, they want to actively engage with information to create knowledge. This desire is easily harnessed and can generate significant content, but some authority needs to regulate the enterprise. Traditionally, libraries have stepped into the role of an information authority. What is the place of libraries within this model, and how can they engage SNC members?
Gazan and Dempsey both get at the place of the library within this scheme. Gazan argues that digital libraries need to regard their users as both “information consumers” and “information generators.” Dempsey recognizes that libraries can play a critical role within the digital information age, but is at a loss as to where to position these institutions so that they can have maximum impact.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Resurgence of the Albanian Plague Demon
Hey guys, I'm letting the team down this week. Whatever plague I've had off and on since December has chosen this weekend to return and I've been running a fever since Friday. Be leery of Albanian Witches - they hex hard!
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Session 3: answerbag analysis
Missions accomplished:
1. Top-rated question accumulated 41 points.
2. 21 responses to a single question.
3. Technically it’s not a mission, but I achieved level 5 (contributor) and I feel this deserves some recognition.
Strategy:
I utilized two separate online personas in order to test different aspects of various theories. Dolores was a 30-something, semi-maternal and caring new community member. Tina was a 19 year old college student who was very outspoken and opinionated. Dolores was used to test the strength of community norms, as well as to evaluate social support mechanisms. Tina was used to evaluate community participation, narcissism and the effect of immersion into the community.
My analysis of the relationship page revealed a very detailed breakdown of relationship types, as well as high volumes of questions and answers. What I immediately noticed was that there was an emotional component to the types of questions that had the highest point value. This community seemed to be formed around concrete links. Members rallied to support an individual who felt lonely, to offer dating advice, etc. The largest clusters were around controversy, abuse, and the very profound question “Can you describe your father in one word?” (1,600+ answers in just 17 hours!) Having established that emotion / affective response would be a critical component of this forum I focused my questions relationships.
Results:
Dolores (top question / answer returns)
DQ1. Shaking a child is still an acceptable form of discipline, right? (9 responses, -12 points)
DQ2. Do you remember your first kiss? (3 responses, 5 points)
DQ3. Should I propose to my boyfriend on Valentine’s Day? (6 responses, 18 points)
DR1. Response to “Name something orange - be creative” - Construction workers wearing high visibility shirts. (19 points)
Tina (top question / answer returns)
TQ1. Can you describe your relationship with your mother in one word? (21 responses, 41 points)
TQ2. What did you get for Valentine’s Day? (17 responses, 32 points)
TQ3. What’s the worst Valentine’s gift? (Rejected as duplicate, 40 points)
TR1. Response to “How will O.J. Simpson be remembered, as a great football player or a criminal?” - Who’s O.J. Simpson? (11 points)
Analysis:
DQ1: This was an interesting question to pose because it revealed an immediate communal moral standard - there was outcry against this behavior, and a death threat.
DQ2: With this question I was experimenting with the role of emotional connection in motivating a response. Ages ago a friend of mine pointed out that she could still remember her first kiss and that it was a defining moment of her life. For that reason I opted to start with this question. The responses were inconclusive.
DQ3: The majority of the questions that Dolores asked struck dead ends, with either a lack of interest or a lack of input from the community. This question was the exception, possibly because there was more information about Dolores provided in the question (that she had a boyfriend, they had been involved for some time, and that she was nervous about proposing). The responses indicate a level of social support, but not necessarily friendship. The responders offered encouragement, and suggested that breaking a gender role could be acceptable.
DR1: It’s not clear if humor or originality were what prompted this response’s high ranking. In general, posts which were very humorous or very helpful were awarded the highest point values.
In general, the deeper Tina was immersed into the community - that is, the more fleshed out and “real” she was in her questions and answers - the higher her response rates.
TQ1: I remarked earlier on the question about summarizing your father in a single word. I attempted this type of a question by asking if “you can summarize your relationship with your mother in one word?” This question was an appeal to individual narcissism. My theory was that the thing people would most want to talk about was themselves. This question was also used to evaluate community participation. The answers given here reflected a degree of trust in the questioner, a sense of extroversion, and a willingness to self-efface. The answers were a combination of deeply personal and humorous (deflective). That some of the answers were evasive is provocative, because it indicates a sense of reluctance in response, but a sense of obligation to respond. This conclusion immediately produces a couple of different scenarios: that community members felt compelled to answer, even while not wanting to share all of their feelings, or that lurkers were attempting to participate but were unsure of their reception. Further study of this phenomenon is recommended.
TQ2: This was a second appeal to narcissism, but the responses were much more casual and open. This is not surprising because the level of information being asked for is at a much more superficial level than the previous question.
TQ3: “What’s the worst valentine’s day present ever?” was posed as a question to garner humorous responses. This question snagged 40 points before it was rejected for being a duplicate. The responses to this question were humorous, but could also disturbing.
TR1: This response was briefly the top-rated response for humor value, but has since slipped to a lower ranking because it was less insightful than other answers offered.
I was having flashbacks to Ling et al while attempting to motivate responses to my posts and questions, because while I had several theoretical models to utilize I could not get consistency in question responses or answer comments. Commenting on user responses did not increase the total number of responses. Not commenting on the user responses did not seem to affect the total number of responses, or the number of points awarded. Awarding points also did not seem to influence participation one way or the other.
I look forward to reviewing the posts I have made over the next two days and seeing if any further conclusions can be drawn or if the last two objectives can be met for this exercise.
1. Top-rated question accumulated 41 points.
2. 21 responses to a single question.
3. Technically it’s not a mission, but I achieved level 5 (contributor) and I feel this deserves some recognition.
Strategy:
I utilized two separate online personas in order to test different aspects of various theories. Dolores was a 30-something, semi-maternal and caring new community member. Tina was a 19 year old college student who was very outspoken and opinionated. Dolores was used to test the strength of community norms, as well as to evaluate social support mechanisms. Tina was used to evaluate community participation, narcissism and the effect of immersion into the community.
My analysis of the relationship page revealed a very detailed breakdown of relationship types, as well as high volumes of questions and answers. What I immediately noticed was that there was an emotional component to the types of questions that had the highest point value. This community seemed to be formed around concrete links. Members rallied to support an individual who felt lonely, to offer dating advice, etc. The largest clusters were around controversy, abuse, and the very profound question “Can you describe your father in one word?” (1,600+ answers in just 17 hours!) Having established that emotion / affective response would be a critical component of this forum I focused my questions relationships.
Results:
Dolores (top question / answer returns)
DQ1. Shaking a child is still an acceptable form of discipline, right? (9 responses, -12 points)
DQ2. Do you remember your first kiss? (3 responses, 5 points)
DQ3. Should I propose to my boyfriend on Valentine’s Day? (6 responses, 18 points)
DR1. Response to “Name something orange - be creative” - Construction workers wearing high visibility shirts. (19 points)
Tina (top question / answer returns)
TQ1. Can you describe your relationship with your mother in one word? (21 responses, 41 points)
TQ2. What did you get for Valentine’s Day? (17 responses, 32 points)
TQ3. What’s the worst Valentine’s gift? (Rejected as duplicate, 40 points)
TR1. Response to “How will O.J. Simpson be remembered, as a great football player or a criminal?” - Who’s O.J. Simpson? (11 points)
Analysis:
DQ1: This was an interesting question to pose because it revealed an immediate communal moral standard - there was outcry against this behavior, and a death threat.
DQ2: With this question I was experimenting with the role of emotional connection in motivating a response. Ages ago a friend of mine pointed out that she could still remember her first kiss and that it was a defining moment of her life. For that reason I opted to start with this question. The responses were inconclusive.
DQ3: The majority of the questions that Dolores asked struck dead ends, with either a lack of interest or a lack of input from the community. This question was the exception, possibly because there was more information about Dolores provided in the question (that she had a boyfriend, they had been involved for some time, and that she was nervous about proposing). The responses indicate a level of social support, but not necessarily friendship. The responders offered encouragement, and suggested that breaking a gender role could be acceptable.
DR1: It’s not clear if humor or originality were what prompted this response’s high ranking. In general, posts which were very humorous or very helpful were awarded the highest point values.
In general, the deeper Tina was immersed into the community - that is, the more fleshed out and “real” she was in her questions and answers - the higher her response rates.
TQ1: I remarked earlier on the question about summarizing your father in a single word. I attempted this type of a question by asking if “you can summarize your relationship with your mother in one word?” This question was an appeal to individual narcissism. My theory was that the thing people would most want to talk about was themselves. This question was also used to evaluate community participation. The answers given here reflected a degree of trust in the questioner, a sense of extroversion, and a willingness to self-efface. The answers were a combination of deeply personal and humorous (deflective). That some of the answers were evasive is provocative, because it indicates a sense of reluctance in response, but a sense of obligation to respond. This conclusion immediately produces a couple of different scenarios: that community members felt compelled to answer, even while not wanting to share all of their feelings, or that lurkers were attempting to participate but were unsure of their reception. Further study of this phenomenon is recommended.
TQ2: This was a second appeal to narcissism, but the responses were much more casual and open. This is not surprising because the level of information being asked for is at a much more superficial level than the previous question.
TQ3: “What’s the worst valentine’s day present ever?” was posed as a question to garner humorous responses. This question snagged 40 points before it was rejected for being a duplicate. The responses to this question were humorous, but could also disturbing.
TR1: This response was briefly the top-rated response for humor value, but has since slipped to a lower ranking because it was less insightful than other answers offered.
I was having flashbacks to Ling et al while attempting to motivate responses to my posts and questions, because while I had several theoretical models to utilize I could not get consistency in question responses or answer comments. Commenting on user responses did not increase the total number of responses. Not commenting on the user responses did not seem to affect the total number of responses, or the number of points awarded. Awarding points also did not seem to influence participation one way or the other.
I look forward to reviewing the posts I have made over the next two days and seeing if any further conclusions can be drawn or if the last two objectives can be met for this exercise.
Session 3: literature review
Ridings and Gefen’s article was thought provoking. They identified several motivators for joining an online community. The primary motivator was information exchange, with secondary motivators of social support (a method for self-identity or self-evaluation) and friendship (which provides benefits beyond social support and information exchange). I see strong connections between Maslow’s hierarchy and this article. In order for an individual to fully participate in an online community they must meet and achieve several levels of pre-requisites. These pre-requisites range from basic physiological comfort (ability to connect to the internet, comfort in physical space) and culminating in self-actualization, or realization of self-identity. This model may begin to explain why some individuals participate fully in online communities while others do not.
I’m not certain that I agree with Ling et al’s application of social theory to virtual community participation. I agree with the application of social theory to RL communities, and I believe that online communities (OCs) share many aspects with RL communities because we lay RL social schemes over the online experience. However, I remain unconvinced that “social loafing” is at the root of user under-contribution. I feel that this is a very simplistic model which fails to allow for the complexity of human interaction.
Schrock identified the interplay between extroversion, self-disclosure, computer anxiety and self-efficacy as a model for exploring participation with SNSs. This is an interesting model, and proved valuable in assessing answerbag.com, but I have some reservations about his final research findings. Schrock found that girls are particularly active in SNS settings, and linked this to a combination of higher self-disclosure and extroversion levels. I wonder if these findings reflect preconceptions about gender stereotypes?
Tedjamulia does an excellent job of synthesizing the above arguments. In sum: there are several factors which influence whether or not a person participates in OC’s, and there are several ways of encouraging this participation.
I’m not certain that I agree with Ling et al’s application of social theory to virtual community participation. I agree with the application of social theory to RL communities, and I believe that online communities (OCs) share many aspects with RL communities because we lay RL social schemes over the online experience. However, I remain unconvinced that “social loafing” is at the root of user under-contribution. I feel that this is a very simplistic model which fails to allow for the complexity of human interaction.
Schrock identified the interplay between extroversion, self-disclosure, computer anxiety and self-efficacy as a model for exploring participation with SNSs. This is an interesting model, and proved valuable in assessing answerbag.com, but I have some reservations about his final research findings. Schrock found that girls are particularly active in SNS settings, and linked this to a combination of higher self-disclosure and extroversion levels. I wonder if these findings reflect preconceptions about gender stereotypes?
Tedjamulia does an excellent job of synthesizing the above arguments. In sum: there are several factors which influence whether or not a person participates in OC’s, and there are several ways of encouraging this participation.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Exploring the panopticon
Overall this week I had issues with the readings. Galston’s discussion of community was interesting, but it was limited to American conceptualizations of community. For me, this fundamentally undermines his arguments because they are aimed at what is essentially an international community space. However, Galston does contribute two important aspects to the discussion of online community. First, he justifies this concept of a virtual space, such as the MUD we read about two weeks ago, as a community space because the experience is real for the participant. Galston brings up an interesting question in his discussion of “place based” communities: are communities restricted to a physical space, or can they extend to a virtual space? My experiences in disCourse, Geocities, Facebook, Toytown and other online communities suggest that the virtual space can enhance physical place communities (in the case of Facebook and DisCourse) and create communities within virtual spaces (in the case of Geocities and Toytown).
Linton Weeks is arguing that Twitter is an online community, complete with all of the unpredictable behavior of members of a regular community. However, he brings up on interesting point: there is an added degree of narcissism within the virtual space - users can say anything (even the most inane comments) as a form of personal venting or ranting, but they don’t always recognize that these comments will be responded to. We see a new form of “crying wolf” developing on the internet. This is complicated by the “flat nature of text,” and its poor ability to communicate emotion and intent. The webcast suicide is an interesting case study, because it brings to light the idea of egging someone on to commit suicide. Are the eggers responding in such a way because they themselves don’t know how to respond to the situation and are attempting to diffuse the situation? Or are they so affected by what Susan Sontag described in “Regarding the Pain of Others” as a distancing through a virtual intermediary that they are unable to distinguish real violence from virtual or simulated violence?
I had issues with LaRose et al because the article is over ten years old. I immediately discount the relevance of this article because of its age - if this was still a true issue I’d expect that there would be more recent research. The article explores the notion that the internet causes depression. It’s an interesting idea, but really nothing is empirical so nothing can be shown to be conclusive. Ultimately the researchers came to the same conclusion which I did: If you’re the type of person to have superficial relationships in real life, then you may have these online. If you’re also the type of person to feel incredibly hurt that you have only superficial relationships and this leads to depression in real life, then this may also affect you in a virtual space. This was thought provoking, however. If the brain uses the same paths when communicating in the real world and when communicating in a virtual space - we have the same thoughts, the same thought processes- are our brains able to distinguish a difference between “real” and “virtual” when communicating?
While I appreciated Albrechtslund’s work to open a new dialogue on a non-hierarchical definition of surveillance, I’m not convinced that Albrechtslund isn’t just describing the internalized panopticon. He does have an important point about voluntary participation and surveillance in an online community. However, there is also an important point that he does not bring up which is that different communities have internalized different panopticons, that is, different communities have different social norms and thus will have different levels of what is private and what can be volunteered. Defining these boundaries is further obscured by the online community which is defining itself under completely different social norms.
Rosen describes the fundamental questions that all of these readings are asking. What are the results of the internet? What are the consequences of social networking and constant connectivity? How will this affect community in the real world and in the virtual environment?
The answer is: No one knows. But people have lots of ideas, positive and negative. And people have done research! Unfortunately, a lot of the results are contradictory, and ultimately it’s just way too soon to tell what’s going to happen.
Seriously, there are two readings that I absolutely don’t get. Bigge is one of them. I think he’s a post-modernist, and he’s really excited about “making strange.” Unfortunately, all he managed to do for me was make incomprehensible. I don’t see his argument, I don’t see his point, and I don’t see the strange.
Also, I just don’t get economics, economics majors, economics pHd’s, or economic theory. I think Umair is arguing that bloggers don’t litter the attention commons, they destroy the attention commons through mass-media which shares a space with all other media. I really want to understand this article, but I cannot link this article to anyone except Bigge, who also confounded me. I’m going to go with a deeply profound “??” for this article.
Lingering questions:
1. Bigge and Umair: What?
2. Have we all internalized the panopticon? That is, how do social norms mitigate or interact with our participation in online communities?
Linton Weeks is arguing that Twitter is an online community, complete with all of the unpredictable behavior of members of a regular community. However, he brings up on interesting point: there is an added degree of narcissism within the virtual space - users can say anything (even the most inane comments) as a form of personal venting or ranting, but they don’t always recognize that these comments will be responded to. We see a new form of “crying wolf” developing on the internet. This is complicated by the “flat nature of text,” and its poor ability to communicate emotion and intent. The webcast suicide is an interesting case study, because it brings to light the idea of egging someone on to commit suicide. Are the eggers responding in such a way because they themselves don’t know how to respond to the situation and are attempting to diffuse the situation? Or are they so affected by what Susan Sontag described in “Regarding the Pain of Others” as a distancing through a virtual intermediary that they are unable to distinguish real violence from virtual or simulated violence?
I had issues with LaRose et al because the article is over ten years old. I immediately discount the relevance of this article because of its age - if this was still a true issue I’d expect that there would be more recent research. The article explores the notion that the internet causes depression. It’s an interesting idea, but really nothing is empirical so nothing can be shown to be conclusive. Ultimately the researchers came to the same conclusion which I did: If you’re the type of person to have superficial relationships in real life, then you may have these online. If you’re also the type of person to feel incredibly hurt that you have only superficial relationships and this leads to depression in real life, then this may also affect you in a virtual space. This was thought provoking, however. If the brain uses the same paths when communicating in the real world and when communicating in a virtual space - we have the same thoughts, the same thought processes- are our brains able to distinguish a difference between “real” and “virtual” when communicating?
While I appreciated Albrechtslund’s work to open a new dialogue on a non-hierarchical definition of surveillance, I’m not convinced that Albrechtslund isn’t just describing the internalized panopticon. He does have an important point about voluntary participation and surveillance in an online community. However, there is also an important point that he does not bring up which is that different communities have internalized different panopticons, that is, different communities have different social norms and thus will have different levels of what is private and what can be volunteered. Defining these boundaries is further obscured by the online community which is defining itself under completely different social norms.
Rosen describes the fundamental questions that all of these readings are asking. What are the results of the internet? What are the consequences of social networking and constant connectivity? How will this affect community in the real world and in the virtual environment?
The answer is: No one knows. But people have lots of ideas, positive and negative. And people have done research! Unfortunately, a lot of the results are contradictory, and ultimately it’s just way too soon to tell what’s going to happen.
Seriously, there are two readings that I absolutely don’t get. Bigge is one of them. I think he’s a post-modernist, and he’s really excited about “making strange.” Unfortunately, all he managed to do for me was make incomprehensible. I don’t see his argument, I don’t see his point, and I don’t see the strange.
Also, I just don’t get economics, economics majors, economics pHd’s, or economic theory. I think Umair is arguing that bloggers don’t litter the attention commons, they destroy the attention commons through mass-media which shares a space with all other media. I really want to understand this article, but I cannot link this article to anyone except Bigge, who also confounded me. I’m going to go with a deeply profound “??” for this article.
Lingering questions:
1. Bigge and Umair: What?
2. Have we all internalized the panopticon? That is, how do social norms mitigate or interact with our participation in online communities?
Monday, January 19, 2009
Workshop on Information Credibility
After the discussions of trust and the internet I posted last night, this workshop announcement showed up in my inbox today.
Third Workshop on Information Credibility on the Web (WICOW 2009)
Workshop description: (from the website)
"As computers and computer networks become more common, a huge amount of information, such as that found in Web documents, has been accumulated and circulated. Such information gives many people a framework for organizing their private and professional lives. However, in general, the quality control of Web content is insufficient due to low publishing barriers. In result there is a lot of mistaken or unreliable information on the Web that can have detrimental effects on users. This situation calls for technology that would facilitate judging the trustworthiness of content and the quality and accuracy of the information that users encounter on the Web."
The conference will be held in Madrid, Spain on April 20, 2009.
Conference website: http://www.dl.kuis.kyoto-u.ac.jp/wicow3/
Third Workshop on Information Credibility on the Web (WICOW 2009)
Workshop description: (from the website)
"As computers and computer networks become more common, a huge amount of information, such as that found in Web documents, has been accumulated and circulated. Such information gives many people a framework for organizing their private and professional lives. However, in general, the quality control of Web content is insufficient due to low publishing barriers. In result there is a lot of mistaken or unreliable information on the Web that can have detrimental effects on users. This situation calls for technology that would facilitate judging the trustworthiness of content and the quality and accuracy of the information that users encounter on the Web."
The conference will be held in Madrid, Spain on April 20, 2009.
Conference website: http://www.dl.kuis.kyoto-u.ac.jp/wicow3/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)