Student: Thomas Harder
Instructor: Prof. Richard Gazan
Course: ICS 691 – Social Computing
Assignment 1:
The first sentence of the syllabus contains my thumbnail definition of social computing: 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. Challenge this definition by making reference to the Session 1 readings. How does the term relate to others, such as social software, social networks, online community and Web 2.0? Conclude by crafting your own definition of social computing, and how it relates to topics you hope to explore in this course.
Introduction
The term Social Computing is a composite term that is created from two terms and should therefore have some characteristics of the original terms. A review of the Merriam-Webster’s dictionary online, social has several meanings that closely deal the interaction of an individual with other individuals or groups. The term computing is a transitive form of the word computer; thus computing has to do with using the computer. Therefore put together the term should have something to do with using the computer to enhance social activities. And indeed the given thumbnail definition of social computing has elements of both these terms however it also lacks something.
Social
The term Social has to do with people coming together with other people, making a connection. This connection can between one’s peers, friends and family or it can be with complete strangers or other types of acquaintances. Sites that provide this type of service are called social network sites or social networking sites. Sites that allow strangers to meet are typically thought of as social networking sites. Social network sites however, are typically used by friends and family to communicate with each other. Some social network sites include Facebook, Friendster, and MySpace. These relatively new online spaces offer several advantages such as allow the users to create and post text, pictures, movies, and other rich and new content, allowing the user to communicate with many people in one place, relatively fast and reliably with low cost. The new features provided by these sites indicate their embracement of the Web 2.0 concepts. The term Web 2.0 is used to describe the changes in the use of WWW technologies and design that aim to enhance the creativity, communications, secure information sharing, collaboration and functionality of the web (Wikipedia 2008). Originally, under Web 1.0, these types of sites used more simplistic pages designed to be static and read, and not responded to. Under the newer Web 2.0 the concepts these sites can be contributed to by the readers with posts, making them dynamic and making them collective contributions by the original author and his/her readers. Applications that allow users to interact and share data are also known collectively as social software. Thus purely relation based sites such as Facebook or more business oriented sites such as Amazon and eBay can both be categorized as social software.
Computing
The term “computing” implies the meaning that the interaction takes place using modern computer equipment, protocols and technologies. Common types of social software include weblogs, email, instant messaging, social network services, wikis, tagging and social bookmarking. Many of these social software applications use technologies, or similar technologies, existed in Web 1.0. But it is the integration of many of these technologies, often in the same application, that allows users to interact and create content that allows them to be called a Web 2.0 application in concept. Additionally, the Web 2.0 concepts allow the designers of an application to view the web as the interface to the application and therefore any type of hardware that could possibly connect to the application is likely to be used for accessing the application, and needs to be considered in the design of the software. This encourages the designers to think beyond the standard PC as the tool a consumer/producer may use.
Social Computing
Social Computing is therefore using computers, computer networks, software and the associated technology to interact with other users. So part of the given thumbnail definition is true. What is missing is the concept of the purpose of the site and how individuals should interact on a site. A purely social site allows users to interact with each other as they normally would. This means as friends, family, acquaintances, in a non business setting. Therefore while it is possible for users to post their thoughts, at Amazon about the quality of a 3rd party vendor, this posting would not be thought of as a social interaction. However, the action of the same user posting the same thought at his blog for his friends to read would be considered a social interaction. So, while the technology is the same, the purpose is different and the relationships between the poster and the reader are different. The need for and consequences of social interaction is highlighted in the case of Mr. Bungle. It was Mr. Bungles’ highly antisocial behavior which caused the LambdaMOO to create a form of regulation which prior to Mr. Bungles’ actions was unnecessary. The social interactions between individuals in the LambdaMOO had been self regulating and apparently friendly.
Summary
In conclusion it is obvious that there is no black and white definition of a Social Computing application or technology. There are elements of Social Computing in many web applications that are meant mainly for business and marketing; for example a posting or comment about a book. And there are elements of business and marketing in accepted Social Website such as a bands site on MySpace. The same in more obviously true of the hardware used for facilitate the social or business activities. Consequently, a new definition of Social Computing could be – “a term for a general area of computer science that has to do with the behavioral interactions between people in a computerized environment.”
References
Social Computing – Wikipedia (2008)
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
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://www.juliandibbell.com/texts/bungle.html
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
Tenopir, Carol (2007). Web 2.0: Our Cultural Downfall? Library Journal, 12/15/2007. http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6510681.html?industryid=47130
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.
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).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I liked your "different" approach to the assignment. I would not have thought to take it apart and analyze so closely (and I do like my literal definitions of terms).
ReplyDeleteI do wonder, though if your social computing definition would normally fall under the auspices of computer science only, maybe an interdisciplinary mix with sociology? It has already appeared as a topic in Sociology (as evidenced by the Sociology and Web 2.0 reading).
Hi Tom,
ReplyDeleteI decided to post a comment about your blog because I'm impressed with the professionalism of it - I like that you organized it with subheadings that made each section easy to read and I also appreciate that you added the reference section. I've already decided to make these changes in my blog submission next time.
As far as the content of your blog, your ideas were thought provoking for me. The addition of the purpose of the site to the thumbnail definition and the behavioral expectations of how individuals should interact on a site got me thinking about broad and narrow definitions of the term "social" and how that applies to our interactions online and off. For myself, I think a broader definition applies, where any interaction involving another person would be considered "social". In my viewpoint then, I would consider things such as reading a blog entry a social interaction, just a reading a fiction book could be considered a social interaction with the author of the book. In both of these cases, the author of the text may have a minor impact on me or a life-changing impact, but what would be missing in a more narrow definition of ther term "social" would be the reciprocity of the social exchange. Is one way communication social?
Denise,
ReplyDeleteThanks for taking the time to read my assignment! Thank you for the positive comments! My thoughts were geared towards two-way communication, because that is generally what I engage in, so I will have to give thought to one way communication being social. Initially I would think so. If I said something or emailed somebody something and they didn't respond, that in itself could be construed as a comment. Although, I would suggest that I might be misreading or misconstruing the response.
Let me echo other commenters' praise about the structure of your post, and also suggest that while you're on the right track with your definition of social computing, you introduce some intriguing ideas then stop a bit short. The extent to which users not only create the content, but also negotiate the rules of a given site or community is key. The Web 2.0 definition you got from Wikipedia includes but severely understates the collaborative aspects of these sites. They are created collaboratively--imagine Facebook with no profiles--and while users work within the affordances of any site, they can and do push back, and negotiate their own rules for interaction--how and when to friend somebody, when to tag, how to present yourself, and so on.
ReplyDeleteProf. Gazan,
ReplyDeleteThank you for the comments! As I started this weeks reading, I figured I was on the right track, however, I had purposely understated the rules of interaction on a site, as I believe these are likely to be govered by an individuals views on what is and is not appropriate behaviour, what the sites administrators (if they have any) believe is appropriate behavour, the level of experience the poster had with online interactions, and the tools availble to interact on any given application. In retrospect however, these items are probably more important to the social side of social software.
Like those above me have mentioned your post has a professional look and is nicely structured. And like Dave K. I question the specific mention of computer science. I believe other fields of study have examined the subject.
ReplyDeleteI also find it interesting that you include the word interaction. Reading our fellow students blog posts a lot of other students believe interaction to be a key component of social computing. I’m not quite sure I agree completely; there are arguments on why interaction is not necessary to be a part of the community. (I’m referring to the lurker arguments on tomjenni’s blog) In truth we could argue endlessly about what is or is not social computing. We are all pretty close in our definitions and we have all thought about it so that’s the point really. I’m more interested in examining the motivations and effects of social computing than a definition.
After reading your posts, I started to think about how online governance could possibly affect user behavior and vice versa (yes, it looks like our readings for session 2 touch on these issues). Some web users might feel reluctant (if not discouraged) to participate in social network sites that are administered by complex rules and instructions. They might feel technologically challenged to comprehend these rules and behave properly according to the given code of conduct. It seems that one type of community that arises from social computing is a community of users who are not only motivated but proficient in IT language/jargon. (I don’t believe Boyd and Ellison fully addressed this when they highlighted different types of social network sites.)
ReplyDeleteThe way you explore the social computing definition impressed me a lot. I always think computing is related with algorithm, clustering or pattern design before. It seems your social computing definition, also most of definitions in our class, emphasize more on its sociological side.
ReplyDelete