10. Social Ties: Networking Together - Revision history

BerkmanSysop: Reverted edits by Norden (Talk) to last version by Mushon

2010-02-23T16:22:03Z

Reverted edits by Norden (Talk) to last version by Mushon

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:22, 23 February 2010
Line 5:		Line 5:
	* [http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks_Chapter_10.pdf Full text (PDF)]		* [http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks_Chapter_10.pdf Full text (PDF)]
	* [[Sentence-sliced Text Chapter 10\|Full text, sentence-sliced (wiki)]]		* [[Sentence-sliced Text Chapter 10\|Full text, sentence-sliced (wiki)]]
	* [[http://linux-mm.org/navigation_menu?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=hi-2 Full text]]
	* [[http://wiki.apache.org/cassandra/denise?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=hi-3 Full text]]

	==Summary of the chapter==		==Summary of the chapter==

Norden: /* Content */

2009-12-10T14:25:13Z

Content

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:25, 10 December 2009
Line 5:		Line 5:
	* [http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks_Chapter_10.pdf Full text (PDF)]		* [http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks_Chapter_10.pdf Full text (PDF)]
	* [[Sentence-sliced Text Chapter 10\|Full text, sentence-sliced (wiki)]]		* [[Sentence-sliced Text Chapter 10\|Full text, sentence-sliced (wiki)]]
			* [[http://linux-mm.org/navigation_menu?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=hi-2 Full text]]
			* [[http://wiki.apache.org/cassandra/denise?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=hi-3 Full text]]

	==Summary of the chapter==		==Summary of the chapter==

Mushon: /* The Magic of Wikis? */

2007-04-25T18:52:31Z

The Magic of Wikis?

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:52, 25 April 2007
Line 70:		Line 70:
	[http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia] has been the star example of many scholars of collaborative technologies on the internet and the new forms of communication and regulation that have resulted from them. Benkler analyzes this Wiki-based community in detail, demonstrating the potential of peer production to produce what some may consider the world's most comprehensive encyclopedia. Wikipedia, however, possesses several characteristics that have lead to its success. First, it strives to achieve a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NPOV Neutral Point of View (NPOV)]. As an encyclopedia, its goal is to be informative in a neutral fashion, as opposed to facilitating disputes between various parties on contentious issues. Such a goal, however, will not always pan out, as Wikipedia has seen. There have been numerous articles on the website that have been locked due to what some term "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_wars edit wars]," or people from various factions that have continually edited and re-edited entries from various sides of a controversial issue. As a result of such scenarios, the Wikipedia admins have chosen to lock particular entries from any further edits for a period of time. (Examples in the past include the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush George W. Bush entry] and the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falun_Gong Falun Gong entry]. See Wikipedia's current list of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protected_pages protected pages] for a full list of current pages.)		[http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia] has been the star example of many scholars of collaborative technologies on the internet and the new forms of communication and regulation that have resulted from them. Benkler analyzes this Wiki-based community in detail, demonstrating the potential of peer production to produce what some may consider the world's most comprehensive encyclopedia. Wikipedia, however, possesses several characteristics that have lead to its success. First, it strives to achieve a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NPOV Neutral Point of View (NPOV)]. As an encyclopedia, its goal is to be informative in a neutral fashion, as opposed to facilitating disputes between various parties on contentious issues. Such a goal, however, will not always pan out, as Wikipedia has seen. There have been numerous articles on the website that have been locked due to what some term "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_wars edit wars]," or people from various factions that have continually edited and re-edited entries from various sides of a controversial issue. As a result of such scenarios, the Wikipedia admins have chosen to lock particular entries from any further edits for a period of time. (Examples in the past include the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush George W. Bush entry] and the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falun_Gong Falun Gong entry]. See Wikipedia's current list of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protected_pages protected pages] for a full list of current pages.)

	Furthermore, a successful wiki community requires grassroots efforts on the part of individual uses that form the "group" that Shirky refers to. A wiki alone does not spur on a community in and of itself--wikis are a technology that can greatly enable and facilitate collaborative editing, but the technology alone cannot and will not produce the editors. Wikipedia works the way it does precisely because of the dedicated fleet of editors and administrators that keep particular articles on watch--and revert vandalous edits within minutes or even seconds. To assume that merely by the installation of [http://www.mediawiki.org MediaWiki] (or other wiki-based software), such a group would emerge, would be quite naive. Indeed this was the sentiment when the LA Times attempted to "wikify" its newspapers' editorials in a short-lived experiment. In June 2005, the [http://www.latimes.com LA Times] opened up its editorial page to users from across the web and allowed them to modify what was written in what they termed "wikitorials." First, as editorials, these articles were clearly not striving for a NPOV. As we have ~~sen~~ in the case of Wikipedia, without such a goal toward NPOV, edit wars between people on various sides of a controversial topic can quickly ignite. Further, there was no grassroots community surrounding this wiki--instead, it was just open to anyone to edit, and vandalize. As a result, there were no dedicated admins as in the case of Wikipedia who would quickly revert any vandalized posts within minutes. Spammers and jokers alike were able to easily change the pages into something they found potentially lucrative or just plain funny. While there were several honest contributors to the project, it was [http://news.com.com/L.A.+Times+shuts+reader-editorial+Web+site/2100-1023_3-5754202.html cancelled within days] [http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-wiki-splash,0,1349109.story primiarily due to problems of vandalization]. Clearly, the LA Times in embarking on this endeavor did not consider the potential prerequisites for a successful wiki-based project and community, but instead assumed in a way that a Wiki would produce magical results. There have been other efforts of questionable success to create a wiki-based project without the sufficient community, such as Lawrence Lessig's [http://codebook.jot.com Code v.2 project], where readers were solicited to update his seminal 1999 book. To date, however, the effort has seemed to have not have been entirely successful in the number of edits made (granted, updating a book is no small feat), although perhaps the [http://codebook.jot.com/WikiHome/CourseMaterial assigning of various law school courses to edit the project] has given it a push in the right direction.		Furthermore, a successful wiki community requires grassroots efforts on the part of individual uses that form the "group" that Shirky refers to. A wiki alone does not spur on a community in and of itself--wikis are a technology that can greatly enable and facilitate collaborative editing, but the technology alone cannot and will not produce the editors. Wikipedia works the way it does precisely because of the dedicated fleet of editors and administrators that keep particular articles on watch--and revert vandalous edits within minutes or even seconds. To assume that merely by the installation of [http://www.mediawiki.org MediaWiki] (or other wiki-based software), such a group would emerge, would be quite naive. Indeed this was the sentiment when the LA Times attempted to "wikify" its newspapers' editorials in a short-lived experiment. In June 2005, the [http://www.latimes.com LA Times] opened up its editorial page to users from across the web and allowed them to modify what was written in what they termed "wikitorials." First, as editorials, these articles were clearly not striving for a NPOV. As we have seen in the case of Wikipedia, without such a goal toward NPOV, edit wars between people on various sides of a controversial topic can quickly ignite. Further, there was no grassroots community surrounding this wiki--instead, it was just open to anyone to edit, and vandalize. As a result, there were no dedicated admins as in the case of Wikipedia who would quickly revert any vandalized posts within minutes. Spammers and jokers alike were able to easily change the pages into something they found potentially lucrative or just plain funny. While there were several honest contributors to the project, it was [http://news.com.com/L.A.+Times+shuts+reader-editorial+Web+site/2100-1023_3-5754202.html cancelled within days] [http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-wiki-splash,0,1349109.story primiarily due to problems of vandalization]. Clearly, the LA Times in embarking on this endeavor did not consider the potential prerequisites for a successful wiki-based project and community, but instead assumed in a way that a Wiki would produce magical results. There have been other efforts of questionable success to create a wiki-based project without the sufficient community, such as Lawrence Lessig's [http://codebook.jot.com Code v.2 project], where readers were solicited to update his seminal 1999 book. To date, however, the effort has seemed to have not have been entirely successful in the number of edits made (granted, updating a book is no small feat), although perhaps the [http://codebook.jot.com/WikiHome/CourseMaterial assigning of various law school courses to edit the project] has given it a push in the right direction.

	When communities are pre-determined, such as university courses, student activities, or collaborative writing and editing endeavors such as journals, wikis can prove to be effective tools for realtime collaboration. At the same time, such wikis may be password protected, and may not seek to allow the public at large to edit, unlike Wikipedia. Further, when a public wiki seeks to present various points of views, such a non-NPOV stance may prove problematic when it comes to the collaborative writing aspect of wikis. When I do not agree with someone's comments, I may post a comment on the respective entry's "talk" page, but at the same time, it is entirely possible that the original author and I may not come to any kind of consensus. What, then, should one do in that case?		When communities are pre-determined, such as university courses, student activities, or collaborative writing and editing endeavors such as journals, wikis can prove to be effective tools for realtime collaboration. At the same time, such wikis may be password protected, and may not seek to allow the public at large to edit, unlike Wikipedia. Further, when a public wiki seeks to present various points of views, such a non-NPOV stance may prove problematic when it comes to the collaborative writing aspect of wikis. When I do not agree with someone's comments, I may post a comment on the respective entry's "talk" page, but at the same time, it is entirely possible that the original author and I may not come to any kind of consensus. What, then, should one do in that case?

	Perhaps the hardest part about wiki collaboration is attempting to balance various viewpoints and still coming up with a valid, coherent response. As such, I invite people to [[10._Social_Ties:_Networking_Together&action=edit&section=17\|edit this entry]] in order to provide further, group-based insights on [[Download_PDFs_of_the_book\|The Wealth of Networks]]. While wiki does not equal magic, it does, given the right circumstances, provide a platform for the expression of the power of community and peer-based production.		Perhaps the hardest part about wiki collaboration is attempting to balance various viewpoints and still coming up with a valid, coherent response. As such, I invite people to [[10._Social_Ties:_Networking_Together&action=edit&section=17\|edit this entry]] in order to provide further, group-based insights on [[Download_PDFs_of_the_book\|The Wealth of Networks]]. While wiki does not equal magic, it does, given the right circumstances, provide a platform for the expression of the power of community and peer-based production.

Imres: adding sentence-sliced text

2006-12-22T10:03:19Z

adding sentence-sliced text

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:03, 22 December 2006
Line 1:		Line 1:
	===[http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks_Chapter_10.pdf ~~Download the full chapter here~~]~~===~~		[[Table Of Contents]]

			== Content ==

			* [http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks_Chapter_10.pdf Full text (PDF)]
			* [[Sentence-sliced Text Chapter 10\|Full text, sentence-sliced (wiki)]]

	==Summary of the chapter==		==Summary of the chapter==

Emstark: /* The Magic of Wikis? */

2006-05-01T19:30:01Z

The Magic of Wikis?

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:30, 1 May 2006
Line 59:		Line 59:
	===The Magic of Wikis?===		===The Magic of Wikis?===

	Wiki does not equal magic. This collaborative technology that enables users to easily and quickly edit what others have written in an online format without any complex technical skills has, according to some, taken the Net by storm. Benkler in his [http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks_Chapter_10.pdf chapter on Social Networks] refers to "social software" as "software whose design characteristic is that it treats genuine social phenomena as different from one-to-one or one-to-many communications." (373) According to [http://www.shirky.com Clay Shirky], who first defined the term, at least from the perspective of the software designer, the user of the social software is the group, not the individual. (373)		Wiki does not equal magic. This collaborative technology that enables users to easily and quickly edit what others have written in an online format without any complex technical skills has, according to some, taken the Net by storm. Benkler in his [http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks_Chapter_10.pdf chapter on Social Networks] refers to "social software" as "software whose design characteristic is that it treats genuine social phenomena as different from one-to-one or one-to-many communications" (373). According to [http://www.shirky.com Clay Shirky], who first defined the term, at least from the perspective of the software designer, the user of the social software is the group, not the individual (373).

	While Benkler rightly elaborates on various aspects of wikis (in the context of Wikipedia) that may foster group participation and what he terms "stickiness," (in the form of requiring user log-ins to complete various tasks as well as giving different users different capabilities), Wiki communities clearly require just that: a dedicated community that is committed to working on a particular project.		While Benkler rightly elaborates on various aspects of wikis (in the context of Wikipedia) that may foster group participation and what he terms "stickiness," (in the form of requiring user log-ins to complete various tasks as well as giving different users different capabilities), Wiki communities clearly require just that: a dedicated community that is committed to working on a particular project.

Emstark: /* The Magic of Wikis? */

2006-05-01T19:05:10Z

The Magic of Wikis?

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:05, 1 May 2006
Line 69:		Line 69:
	When communities are pre-determined, such as university courses, student activities, or collaborative writing and editing endeavors such as journals, wikis can prove to be effective tools for realtime collaboration. At the same time, such wikis may be password protected, and may not seek to allow the public at large to edit, unlike Wikipedia. Further, when a public wiki seeks to present various points of views, such a non-NPOV stance may prove problematic when it comes to the collaborative writing aspect of wikis. When I do not agree with someone's comments, I may post a comment on the respective entry's "talk" page, but at the same time, it is entirely possible that the original author and I may not come to any kind of consensus. What, then, should one do in that case?		When communities are pre-determined, such as university courses, student activities, or collaborative writing and editing endeavors such as journals, wikis can prove to be effective tools for realtime collaboration. At the same time, such wikis may be password protected, and may not seek to allow the public at large to edit, unlike Wikipedia. Further, when a public wiki seeks to present various points of views, such a non-NPOV stance may prove problematic when it comes to the collaborative writing aspect of wikis. When I do not agree with someone's comments, I may post a comment on the respective entry's "talk" page, but at the same time, it is entirely possible that the original author and I may not come to any kind of consensus. What, then, should one do in that case?

	Perhaps the hardest part about wiki collaboration is attempting to balance various viewpoints and still coming up with a valid, coherent response. As such, I invite people to [~~http://www.benkler.org/wealth_of_networks/index.php?title=~~10._Social_Ties:_Networking_Together&action=edit&section=17 edit this entry] in order to provide further, group-based insights on [~~http://www.benkler.org/wealth_of_networks/index.php/~~Download_PDFs_of_the_book The Wealth of Networks]. While wiki does not equal magic, it does, given the right circumstances, provide a platform for the expression of the power of community and peer-based production.		Perhaps the hardest part about wiki collaboration is attempting to balance various viewpoints and still coming up with a valid, coherent response. As such, I invite people to [[10._Social_Ties:_Networking_Together&action=edit&section=17\|edit this entry]] in order to provide further, group-based insights on [[Download_PDFs_of_the_book\|The Wealth of Networks]]. While wiki does not equal magic, it does, given the right circumstances, provide a platform for the expression of the power of community and peer-based production.

Emstark: /* Key Concepts */

2006-05-01T19:03:35Z

Key Concepts

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:03, 1 May 2006
Line 57:		Line 57:

	==Key Concepts==		==Key Concepts==
			===The Magic of Wikis?===

			Wiki does not equal magic. This collaborative technology that enables users to easily and quickly edit what others have written in an online format without any complex technical skills has, according to some, taken the Net by storm. Benkler in his [http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks_Chapter_10.pdf chapter on Social Networks] refers to "social software" as "software whose design characteristic is that it treats genuine social phenomena as different from one-to-one or one-to-many communications." (373) According to [http://www.shirky.com Clay Shirky], who first defined the term, at least from the perspective of the software designer, the user of the social software is the group, not the individual. (373)

			While Benkler rightly elaborates on various aspects of wikis (in the context of Wikipedia) that may foster group participation and what he terms "stickiness," (in the form of requiring user log-ins to complete various tasks as well as giving different users different capabilities), Wiki communities clearly require just that: a dedicated community that is committed to working on a particular project.

			[http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia] has been the star example of many scholars of collaborative technologies on the internet and the new forms of communication and regulation that have resulted from them. Benkler analyzes this Wiki-based community in detail, demonstrating the potential of peer production to produce what some may consider the world's most comprehensive encyclopedia. Wikipedia, however, possesses several characteristics that have lead to its success. First, it strives to achieve a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NPOV Neutral Point of View (NPOV)]. As an encyclopedia, its goal is to be informative in a neutral fashion, as opposed to facilitating disputes between various parties on contentious issues. Such a goal, however, will not always pan out, as Wikipedia has seen. There have been numerous articles on the website that have been locked due to what some term "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_wars edit wars]," or people from various factions that have continually edited and re-edited entries from various sides of a controversial issue. As a result of such scenarios, the Wikipedia admins have chosen to lock particular entries from any further edits for a period of time. (Examples in the past include the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush George W. Bush entry] and the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falun_Gong Falun Gong entry]. See Wikipedia's current list of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protected_pages protected pages] for a full list of current pages.)

			Furthermore, a successful wiki community requires grassroots efforts on the part of individual uses that form the "group" that Shirky refers to. A wiki alone does not spur on a community in and of itself--wikis are a technology that can greatly enable and facilitate collaborative editing, but the technology alone cannot and will not produce the editors. Wikipedia works the way it does precisely because of the dedicated fleet of editors and administrators that keep particular articles on watch--and revert vandalous edits within minutes or even seconds. To assume that merely by the installation of [http://www.mediawiki.org MediaWiki] (or other wiki-based software), such a group would emerge, would be quite naive. Indeed this was the sentiment when the LA Times attempted to "wikify" its newspapers' editorials in a short-lived experiment. In June 2005, the [http://www.latimes.com LA Times] opened up its editorial page to users from across the web and allowed them to modify what was written in what they termed "wikitorials." First, as editorials, these articles were clearly not striving for a NPOV. As we have sen in the case of Wikipedia, without such a goal toward NPOV, edit wars between people on various sides of a controversial topic can quickly ignite. Further, there was no grassroots community surrounding this wiki--instead, it was just open to anyone to edit, and vandalize. As a result, there were no dedicated admins as in the case of Wikipedia who would quickly revert any vandalized posts within minutes. Spammers and jokers alike were able to easily change the pages into something they found potentially lucrative or just plain funny. While there were several honest contributors to the project, it was [http://news.com.com/L.A.+Times+shuts+reader-editorial+Web+site/2100-1023_3-5754202.html cancelled within days] [http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-wiki-splash,0,1349109.story primiarily due to problems of vandalization]. Clearly, the LA Times in embarking on this endeavor did not consider the potential prerequisites for a successful wiki-based project and community, but instead assumed in a way that a Wiki would produce magical results. There have been other efforts of questionable success to create a wiki-based project without the sufficient community, such as Lawrence Lessig's [http://codebook.jot.com Code v.2 project], where readers were solicited to update his seminal 1999 book. To date, however, the effort has seemed to have not have been entirely successful in the number of edits made (granted, updating a book is no small feat), although perhaps the [http://codebook.jot.com/WikiHome/CourseMaterial assigning of various law school courses to edit the project] has given it a push in the right direction.

			When communities are pre-determined, such as university courses, student activities, or collaborative writing and editing endeavors such as journals, wikis can prove to be effective tools for realtime collaboration. At the same time, such wikis may be password protected, and may not seek to allow the public at large to edit, unlike Wikipedia. Further, when a public wiki seeks to present various points of views, such a non-NPOV stance may prove problematic when it comes to the collaborative writing aspect of wikis. When I do not agree with someone's comments, I may post a comment on the respective entry's "talk" page, but at the same time, it is entirely possible that the original author and I may not come to any kind of consensus. What, then, should one do in that case?

			Perhaps the hardest part about wiki collaboration is attempting to balance various viewpoints and still coming up with a valid, coherent response. As such, I invite people to [http://www.benkler.org/wealth_of_networks/index.php?title=10._Social_Ties:_Networking_Together&action=edit&section=17 edit this entry] in order to provide further, group-based insights on [http://www.benkler.org/wealth_of_networks/index.php/Download_PDFs_of_the_book The Wealth of Networks]. While wiki does not equal magic, it does, given the right circumstances, provide a platform for the expression of the power of community and peer-based production.

Emstark at 06:00, 1 May 2006

2006-05-01T06:00:22Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:00, 1 May 2006
Line 19:		Line 19:
	In his chapter “Social Ties: Networking Together,” Benkler aims to answer fundamental questions about how the Internet is changing patterns of social interaction and organization. He takes on the overly optimistic views about the Internet—“Oh my god the Internet bringing us all closer together in every way!”—and the overly pessimistic ones—“We’re all just alienated from one another, spending all our time absorbed in screens.” The result is a set of impressively balanced, well-reasoned conclusions that claim that the Internet is enabling better, “thicker” relationships with people we already knew while simultaneously expanding the possibilities to manage better loose or weak relationships (357).		In his chapter “Social Ties: Networking Together,” Benkler aims to answer fundamental questions about how the Internet is changing patterns of social interaction and organization. He takes on the overly optimistic views about the Internet—“Oh my god the Internet bringing us all closer together in every way!”—and the overly pessimistic ones—“We’re all just alienated from one another, spending all our time absorbed in screens.” The result is a set of impressively balanced, well-reasoned conclusions that claim that the Internet is enabling better, “thicker” relationships with people we already knew while simultaneously expanding the possibilities to manage better loose or weak relationships (357).

	Unfortunately for his work, the timing of Benkler’s writing—early to mid-2005—meant that he just missed the boom of the newest wave of so-called “social networking” sites. Bekler's sole allusion to such sites is in a reference to [http://www.zephoria.org Danah Boyd]'s work on the development of weak social ties in the first-wave network [http://www.friendster.com Friendster]. The two most popular social networks that exist today—-[http://www.myspace.com MySpace] and [http://www.facebook.com Facebook]—-are nowhere to be seen. Interestingly, sites such as [http://www.facebook.com Facebook] and [http://www.orkut.com Orkut] (hugely [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/10/technology/10orkut.html?ex=1302321600&en=81a68673b731539d&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss popular in Brazil]) now address some of the concerns reported in Boyd's study on Friendster, such as the lack of ability to better define one's relationship on the site. Orkut allows gradation of friendship (although some users still only put "friend" or "good friend) while Facebook allows users to more specifically define their relations with the individual (i.e. "I took EC101 with this person" or "I dated this person.") Thus, the glaring absence of such second wave social networking sites from the text is unfortunate, not only because of their incredible cultural prominence and relevance to the chapter’s subject material, but also because the social behavior that occurs on these sites clearly reinforces Benkler’s own conclusions.		Unfortunately for his work, the timing of Benkler’s writing—early to mid-2005—meant that he just missed the boom of the newest wave of so-called “social networking” sites. Bekler's sole allusion to such sites is in a reference to [http://www.zephoria.org Danah Boyd]'s work on the development of weak social ties in the first-wave network [http://www.friendster.com Friendster]. The two most popular social networks that exist today—-[http://www.myspace.com MySpace] and [http://www.facebook.com Facebook]—-are nowhere to be seen. Interestingly, sites such as [http://www.facebook.com Facebook] and [http://www.orkut.com Orkut] (hugely [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/10/technology/10orkut.html?ex=1302321600&en=81a68673b731539d&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss popular in Brazil]) now address some of the concerns reported in [http://www.danah.org/papers/CHI2004Friendster.pdf Boyd's study on Friendster], such as the lack of ability to better define one's relationship on the site. Orkut allows gradation of friendship (although some users still only put "friend" or "good friend) while Facebook allows users to more specifically define their relations with the individual (i.e. "I took EC101 with this person" or "I dated this person.") Thus, the glaring absence of such second wave social networking sites from the text is unfortunate, not only because of their incredible cultural prominence and relevance to the chapter’s subject material, but also because the social behavior that occurs on these sites clearly reinforces Benkler’s own conclusions.

	[http://www.myspace.com MySpace] and [http://www.facebook.com Facebook] don’t share much in common beyond their fundamental structure: a user pieces together a personal profile and then makes connections with others who have done the same. The two sites differ drastically, however, in terms of user capabilities and the size of the resulting network. MySpace is an open network with over 30 million unique monthly users that includes colors, streaming music, and blogs. Users have the capability to customize their "space" by using html, CSS, and by adding images, video, and audio. In a certain sense, it is a "free-for-all" type of situation, which can sometimes result in users taking it to the extreme (i.e. [http://www.myspace.com/ffrreedd profiles specifically designed to crash your browser ].) Facebook, on the other hand, has standardized user contributions to more easily present information and enable searches. Roughly a third the size of MySpace, Facebook is a collection of mini-networks at colleges, high schools, and now corporations that is focused less on self-expression and more on efficient information exchange. In both instances, users are spending around 15 minutes surfing the site a day, making MySpace the second most popular site on the Internet in terms of traffic and Facebook the seventh.		[http://www.myspace.com MySpace] and [http://www.facebook.com Facebook] don’t share much in common beyond their fundamental structure: a user pieces together a personal profile and then makes connections with others who have done the same. The two sites differ drastically, however, in terms of user capabilities and the size of the resulting network. MySpace is an open network with over 30 million unique monthly users that includes colors, streaming music, and blogs. Users have the capability to customize their "space" by using html, CSS, and by adding images, video, and audio. In a certain sense, it is a "free-for-all" type of situation, which can sometimes result in users taking it to the extreme (i.e. [http://www.myspace.com/ffrreedd profiles specifically designed to crash your browser ].) Facebook, on the other hand, has standardized user contributions to more easily present information and enable searches. Roughly a third the size of MySpace, Facebook is a collection of mini-networks at colleges, high schools, and now corporations that is focused less on self-expression and more on efficient information exchange. In both instances, users are spending around 15 minutes surfing the site a day, making MySpace the second most popular site on the Internet in terms of traffic and Facebook the seventh.

Emstark at 05:54, 1 May 2006

2006-05-01T05:54:56Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:54, 1 May 2006
Line 19:		Line 19:
	In his chapter “Social Ties: Networking Together,” Benkler aims to answer fundamental questions about how the Internet is changing patterns of social interaction and organization. He takes on the overly optimistic views about the Internet—“Oh my god the Internet bringing us all closer together in every way!”—and the overly pessimistic ones—“We’re all just alienated from one another, spending all our time absorbed in screens.” The result is a set of impressively balanced, well-reasoned conclusions that claim that the Internet is enabling better, “thicker” relationships with people we already knew while simultaneously expanding the possibilities to manage better loose or weak relationships (357).		In his chapter “Social Ties: Networking Together,” Benkler aims to answer fundamental questions about how the Internet is changing patterns of social interaction and organization. He takes on the overly optimistic views about the Internet—“Oh my god the Internet bringing us all closer together in every way!”—and the overly pessimistic ones—“We’re all just alienated from one another, spending all our time absorbed in screens.” The result is a set of impressively balanced, well-reasoned conclusions that claim that the Internet is enabling better, “thicker” relationships with people we already knew while simultaneously expanding the possibilities to manage better loose or weak relationships (357).

	Unfortunately for his work, the timing of Benkler’s writing—early to mid-2005—meant that he just missed the boom of the newest wave of so-called “social networking” sites. Bekler's sole allusion to such sites is in a reference to ~~another researcher’s~~ work on the development of weak social ties in the first-wave network [http://www.friendster.com Friendster]. The two most popular social networks that exist today—-[http://www.myspace.com MySpace] and [http://www.facebook.com Facebook]—-are nowhere to be seen. ~~Their~~ glaring absence from the text is unfortunate, not only because of their incredible cultural prominence and relevance to the chapter’s subject material, but also because the social behavior that occurs on ~~both~~ sites clearly reinforces Benkler’s own conclusions.		Unfortunately for his work, the timing of Benkler’s writing—early to mid-2005—meant that he just missed the boom of the newest wave of so-called “social networking” sites. Bekler's sole allusion to such sites is in a reference to [http://www.zephoria.org Danah Boyd]'s work on the development of weak social ties in the first-wave network [http://www.friendster.com Friendster]. The two most popular social networks that exist today—-[http://www.myspace.com MySpace] and [http://www.facebook.com Facebook]—-are nowhere to be seen. Interestingly, sites such as [http://www.facebook.com Facebook] and [http://www.orkut.com Orkut] (hugely [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/10/technology/10orkut.html?ex=1302321600&en=81a68673b731539d&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss popular in Brazil]) now address some of the concerns reported in Boyd's study on Friendster, such as the lack of ability to better define one's relationship on the site. Orkut allows gradation of friendship (although some users still only put "friend" or "good friend) while Facebook allows users to more specifically define their relations with the individual (i.e. "I took EC101 with this person" or "I dated this person.") Thus, the glaring absence of such second wave social networking sites from the text is unfortunate, not only because of their incredible cultural prominence and relevance to the chapter’s subject material, but also because the social behavior that occurs on these sites clearly reinforces Benkler’s own conclusions.

	[http://www.myspace.com MySpace] and [http://www.facebook.com Facebook] don’t share much in common beyond their fundamental structure: a user pieces together a personal profile and then makes connections with others who have done the same. The two sites differ drastically, however, in terms of user capabilities and the size of the resulting network. MySpace is an open network with over 30 million unique monthly users that includes colors, streaming music, and blogs. Users have the capability to customize their "space" by using html, CSS, and by adding images, video, and audio. In a certain sense, it is a "free-for-all" type of situation, which can sometimes result in users taking it to the extreme (i.e. [http://www.myspace.com/ffrreedd profiles specifically designed to crash your browser ].) Facebook, on the other hand, has standardized user contributions to more easily present information and enable searches. Roughly a third the size of MySpace, Facebook is a collection of mini-networks at colleges, high schools, and now corporations that is focused less on self-expression and more on efficient information exchange. In both instances, users are spending around 15 minutes surfing the site a day, making MySpace the second most popular site on the Internet in terms of traffic and Facebook the seventh.		[http://www.myspace.com MySpace] and [http://www.facebook.com Facebook] don’t share much in common beyond their fundamental structure: a user pieces together a personal profile and then makes connections with others who have done the same. The two sites differ drastically, however, in terms of user capabilities and the size of the resulting network. MySpace is an open network with over 30 million unique monthly users that includes colors, streaming music, and blogs. Users have the capability to customize their "space" by using html, CSS, and by adding images, video, and audio. In a certain sense, it is a "free-for-all" type of situation, which can sometimes result in users taking it to the extreme (i.e. [http://www.myspace.com/ffrreedd profiles specifically designed to crash your browser ].) Facebook, on the other hand, has standardized user contributions to more easily present information and enable searches. Roughly a third the size of MySpace, Facebook is a collection of mini-networks at colleges, high schools, and now corporations that is focused less on self-expression and more on efficient information exchange. In both instances, users are spending around 15 minutes surfing the site a day, making MySpace the second most popular site on the Internet in terms of traffic and Facebook the seventh.

Emstark: /* The Problems of Instant Messaging */

2006-05-01T03:07:31Z

The Problems of Instant Messaging

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:07, 1 May 2006
Line 38:		Line 38:

	====The Problems of Instant Messaging====		====The Problems of Instant Messaging====
	Professor Benkler makes some great points about social networking on the Internet, but ~~I think~~ there are lingering questions about how effective Internet social networks can be as an extension of real-life connections. In particular, ~~I think~~ the use of instant messaging (IM) raises some concerns about the quality of those social connections.		Professor Benkler makes some great points about social networking on the Internet, but there are lingering questions about how effective Internet social networks can be as an extension of real-life connections. In particular, the use of instant messaging (IM) raises some concerns about the quality of those social connections.

	It seems fair to consider “buddy-lists,” utilized by instant messaging programs, as a perfect example of Professor Benkler’s idea of a more networked individual. In the book, Professor Benkler mentions a [http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Instantmessage_Report.pdf Pew study] on the use of instant messaging. While ~~Professor~~ Benkler mentions the study’s assessment of the number of Americans using instant messaging -- 53 million -- the study provides plenty of other reasons to believe that instant messaging represents an extension of terrestrial contacts.		It seems fair to consider “buddy-lists,” utilized by instant messaging programs, as a perfect example of Professor Benkler’s idea of a more networked individual. In the book, Professor Benkler mentions a [http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Instantmessage_Report.pdf Pew study] on the use of instant messaging. While Benkler mentions the study’s assessment of the number of Americans using instant messaging -- 53 million -- the study provides plenty of other reasons to believe that instant messaging represents an extension of terrestrial contacts.

	The first reason to believe that instant messaging reflects an extension of an individual’s social network is how the buddy list is maintained. According to the study, people add contacts at a faster rate than they remove them. For example, 22% of IM users add people to their buddy lists every few months. In the same time frame, only 9% of IM users remove contacts. In addition, 44% of users say they never remove anyone from their lists. These statistics suggest that the buddy list grows as people’s social networks expand and do not reflect only their current set of frequent contacts. Thus, it is more reasonable to think of buddy lists as a social network than the speed-dial settings on a land-line phone.		The first reason to believe that instant messaging reflects an extension of an individual’s social network is how the buddy list is maintained. According to the study, people add contacts at a faster rate than they remove them. For example, 22% of IM users add people to their buddy lists every few months. In the same time frame, only 9% of IM users remove contacts. In addition, 44% of users say they never remove anyone from their lists. (Interestingly, the AOL instant messenging protocol used to have a maximum number of buddies--200--poentially resulting in those with large buddy lists having to remove old contacts to add new ones. They have since removed this limit.) These statistics suggest that the buddy list grows as people’s social networks expand and do not reflect only their current set of frequent contacts. Thus, it is more reasonable to think of buddy lists as a social network than the speed-dial settings on a land-line phone.

	The second reason to believe that instant messaging reflects an extension of a social network is that instant messaging has become a form of self-expression. As the study notes, 34% of users create profiles that are accessible to other users – these are viewable to those not on their buddy list. Profiles can contain contact information, personal information, inspirational or funny quotes, and links. This suggests that users expect other users to look at their profile and use both the messaging and profiles to keep track of contacts.		The second reason to believe that instant messaging reflects an extension of a social network is that instant messaging has become a form of self-expression. As the study notes, 34% of users create profiles that are accessible to other users – these are viewable to those not on their buddy list. Profiles can contain contact information, personal information, inspirational or funny quotes, and links. This suggests that users expect other users to look at their profile and use both the messaging and profiles to keep track of contacts.

	So ~~Professor~~ Benkler appears to be correct when he suggests that instant messaging should be considered an important part of the arsenal of tools available for social networking. There is little reason to believe that it replaces face-to-face human interaction. Instead, it would appear to be an extension of terrestrial social networks – particularly for maintaining connections with peers in geographically diverse locations.		So Benkler appears to be correct when he suggests that instant messaging should be considered an important part of the arsenal of tools available for social networking. There is little reason to believe, though, that it replaces face-to-face human interaction. Instead, it would appear to be an extension of terrestrial social networks – particularly for maintaining connections with peers in geographically diverse locations. At the same time, however, it has become a prime mode of communication for a generation that spends far more time on the Internet than it does in front of a TV, and that communicates primarily via cell phones, e-mail, and IM.

	That said, there are concerns about the quality of the communications expressed through the medium of instant messaging. In fact, these same concerns apply to e-mails and text messaging, as well as to the more collaborative and community forms of networked communications such as blogs and wikis. The concern is that even when these technologies are used merely to supplement face-to-face and phone communication, these tools can lead to misunderstandings and anger.		That said, there are concerns about the quality of the communications expressed through the medium of instant messaging. In fact, these same concerns apply to e-mails and cell phone text messaging, as well as to the more collaborative and community forms of networked communications such as blogs and wikis. The concern is that even when these technologies are used merely to supplement face-to-face and phone communication, these tools can lead to misunderstandings and anger.

	This danger was made apparent in a recent study published in the [http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb06/egos.html Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.] In the study conducted by Nicholas Epley of the University of Chicago and Justin Kruger of New York ~~university~~, they determined that the tone of e-mails is misunderstood almost 50% of the time. The senders of e-mails were quite confident that their messages would be understood, but they were often ~~wrong~~. In comparison, when users vocally communicated their message the recipient was much more likely to understand it. The problem appears to be deeply rooted: “people aren't that good at imagining how a message might be understood from another person's perspective.” ''See'' [http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70179-0.html?tw=rss.index Stephen Leahy, ''Wired Magazine'', The Secret Cause of Flame Wars, Feb. 13, 2006.]		This danger was made apparent in a recent study published in the [http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb06/egos.html Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.] In the study conducted by Nicholas Epley of the University of Chicago and Justin Kruger of New York University, they determined that the tone of e-mails is misunderstood almost 50% of the time. The senders of e-mails were quite confident that their messages would be understood, but they were often incorrect in their assumptions. In comparison, when users vocally communicated their message, the recipient was much more likely to understand it. The problem appears to be deeply rooted: “people aren't that good at imagining how a message might be understood from another person's perspective.” ''See'' [http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70179-0.html?tw=rss.index Stephen Leahy, ''Wired Magazine'', The Secret Cause of Flame Wars, Feb. 13, 2006.]

	There are anecdotal reasons for believing ~~this~~ can be quite a problem. A Google search on instant messaging misunderstandings leads to websites such as [http://www.du.edu/~smartin9/DMS/danielle.html this one by Danielle Weintraub,] which lists “laws” for instant messaging. The first law states: “What you write is rarely read the way you would have said it in person, especially when you're trying to be funny.” The site then goes on to recommend ~~and~~ one should never fight with a significant other via-instant messaging. While only anecdotal, this site, and the others like it, suggest that that the tools of social networking have dangers. Even worse, the scientific studies suggest that we are largely ignorant of these dangers.		There are anecdotal reasons for believing that miscommunication in instant messenging and email can be quite a problem. A Google search on instant messaging misunderstandings leads to websites such as [http://www.du.edu/~smartin9/DMS/danielle.html this one by Danielle Weintraub,] which lists “laws” for instant messaging. The first law states: “What you write is rarely read the way you would have said it in person, especially when you're trying to be funny.” The site then goes on to recommend that one should never fight with a significant other via instant messaging. While only anecdotal, this site, and the others like it, suggest that that the tools of social networking have dangers. Even worse, the scientific studies suggest that we are largely ignorant of these dangers.

	This concern is not just applicable to instant messaging or e-mail, but also to the collaborative tools of wikis and ~~blogs~~. It does not mean, that instant messaging, e-mail~~, blogs~~, and ~~wikis~~ cannot be used to improve networking. However, it does suggest that if these tools are to become as important as ~~Professor~~ Benkler suggests, ~~that~~ more thought should be given to how we can use these tools to convey the full meaning of our writing. Any text-based statement (both old media and new: newspaper, magazine, book, blog, wiki, etc.) suffers from this weakness, but where the communication takes on a more personal and direct tone, as happens in many posts, instant messages, e-mails, and text messages, capturing the full range of human emotion becomes more important. Capturing that range is ~~probably~~ necessary for the Internet to become a stronger extension of terrestrial networks.		This concern is not just applicable to instant messaging or e-mail, but also to the collaborative tools of wikis, blogs, and social networking sites. It does not mean, though, that instant messaging, e-mail, and other collaborative technologies cannot be used to improve networking. However, it does suggest that if these tools are to become as important as Benkler suggests, more thought should be given to how we can use these tools to convey the full meaning of our writing. Any text-based statement (both old media and new: newspaper, magazine, book, blog, wiki, etc.) suffers from this weakness, but where the communication takes on a more personal and direct tone, as happens in many posts, instant messages, e-mails, and text messages, capturing the full range of human emotion becomes more important. Capturing that range is likely necessary for the Internet to become a stronger extension of terrestrial networks.

	==Key Concepts==		==Key Concepts==