Session 3

(1)

Online communities experience many degrees of success and failure.  Some quickly flare up and grow exponentially, then burn out and disappear just as fast.  Others start up and never really take off in terms of the number of members, yet the community persists for years, alive and well.  Then, there are the ones that strike the perfect balance of attaining both growth and sustainability.  The readings this week attempted to make sense of the logical reasons behind why some online communities succeed and why others fail.

Ridings and Gefen found that people join an online community for many different reasons.  While the most prominent reason for joining was to exchange information, others joined for reasons such as friendship, social support, or recreation.   Regardless of the reason, people joined an online community because it inspired a "sense of belonging," where people could commune and interact with one another toward a shared purpose.  Schrock had his own perspective regarding social networking communities, where people's online actions were an extension of their offline personality.  Ling et. al. found that people contributed more when their opinions differed from one another than if they were all in agreement, and that users seemed to be more motivated to participate when the reward for participation was self-fulfilling, rather than an external reward.  Tedjamulia et. al. professed the importance of lurkers, who make up the majority of an online community's user base.  The qualities that retain lurkers, such as credibility, searchability, and ease-of-use, are ones that ensure the continued success of the community.  In addition, once the lurker becomes comfortable in the community, the lurker may progress to becoming a participant or a contributor, improving the sustainability of the online community.  Finally, Java et. al. analyzed the topic of microblogging and its uses.

Of the topics discussed within these readings, there were two that positively stood out.  The first was the idea that friendships and connections can develop through shared experiences.  Ridings and Gefen discussed the idea that, while people may join a community with the primary intention to exchange information, the interactions that users have with one another can grow to become something more.  The second is the idea that lurkers are important for a successful community.  I can't begin to count the number of communities that I "participated" in as a lurker, sometimes, for years.  During which, I suppose I was sort of a leech, taking in information and really not giving anything back in return.  However, in concordance with Ridings and Gefen's idea that lurkers may think of members of the community as friends, so did I.  Even as a lurker, I couldn't help but notice the personalities of individual users, and over time, I felt as if I actually knew them.  After getting comfortable with being part of the community, I transitioned into a contributing member fairly seamlessly, where I was able to jump in and it was as if I was always there.  Thanks to the experience I gained while lurking, how I participated made it seem as if I was a regular, even if my physical presence was only recently established.  In some cases, I became friends with people in the community, and extended our friendship beyond the borders of the initial meeting place, where I chat with them on Facebook or play video games online with them on a regular basis.  I feel as if I could meet them and hang out with them in person, I would (but since I live in Hawaii and they don't, that idea is out of the question).

It was difficult to find something that I really disagreed with, as I found most of the theory the authors gave to be reasonable.  If anything, I disagreed with the methodology that Ling et. al. used in experiment three.  I felt that the intrinsic and extrinsic variables they used did not accurately represent significant intrinsic and extrinsic properties and as such, the test was not relevant, even if the data.  The statements they used for both are statements that I expect to see in spam mail, as, at least to me, it presents itself as having no significance to the content of the message.  In my opinion, their intrinsic motivator of 'fun' is generic and essentially non-descriptive, and the statement itself causes me to think about if rating movies really is fun (to which, my answer is no, which makes me ask, why do other people think it is fun) rather than motivate me to actually rate movies.  Their extrinsic value, to me, asks for me to do a lot of work for the chance that it pays off and recommends something I actually would like to see.  My experience with recommendations is that, if the recommendations are not on a case-by-case basis (such as how Amazon.com gives related purchases on each item page), unless you do a thorough job of sorting recommendations, you will get a lot of junk for your efforts.  The cost of my time and effort to rate movies does not clearly translate into a benefit for me, as I may actually gain nothing due to faulty recommendations.  As there is no clear benefit, it does not feel as it is truly an extrinsic benefit.

(2)

For my observations, I used AVS (Audio-Visual Science), a place where audiophiles and videophiles (or aspiring audiophiles/videophiles) discuss audio and video electronics.  I've known about this website for a while (due to several of the websites I visit hotlinking to it) but I've never really looked at it before.  For my survey, I used the 'New Posts' feature to get a "random sample" of posts from different categories.  Posts must have been posted between 1/1/11 and 2/11/11 (as the forum is fairly fast moving, threads can accumulate posts rather quickly).

What modes of participation are there?

- post content

- reply to posts

- create and/or vote in polls

- send private message/e-mail

- add user to contacts (one-sided)

- add user to friends (mutual)

- add user to ignore list

- create/edit profile

- subscribe to RSS feed

- subscribe to forum/thread

- report post

- join social group

- give/receive reputation to users

- rate thread

- give tags to threads

How is participation encouraged?

- User's post count displayed under the username to indicate how active they have been

- Official product representatives contribute and facilitate discussion (Link)

- Users are generally friendly and accommodating toward one another Link)

- Forum is heavily sub-categorized, allowing easy access to the desired area (Link)

- Debate threads with polls posted on hot topics by the administrators (Link)

What types of content draw the most responses?

- Questions/Advice Requests: 30 threads/735 replies

- Hardware Information/Announcements: 11 threads/3692 replies

- General Technology Discussion: 3 threads/273 replies

- Selling/Buying: 2 threads/41 replies

- General Technology News: 2 threads/28 replies

In my "random sample," the most prevalent discussion topic was requests for advice and troubleshooting questions.  To me, advice and questions being the most common topic was unsurprising, as from my experience, most of the time I hear technology being discussed is because there is a problem with it.  In addition, many of the users requesting advice joined the community recently and/or had a low post count (as seen here, here, here, and here). This result supports Ridings and Gefen's finding that the most common reason for joining an online community  is to exchange information.  These posters also support Tedjamulia's claim that lurkers contribute by asking questions that trigger discussion (link).  One thing that I did find interesting was the post disparity between this thread and this one.  While both topics were posted at around the same time frame, the latter thread has over seven times the amount of posts as the former thread.  The disparity between the number of posts seems to be the result of the presence of an official product representative fielding questions, contributing information that may be exclusive and otherwise unavailable from other sources (except from this particular community).  By fielding questions, the product representative may have stimulated extra discussion that may not have taken place had he not answered questions posed early in the thread.  The last thing I found interesting was how many of the posts were dedicated toward questions and advice and hardware information and announcements.  I anticipated these two topics would be most represented, but did not expect them to consist of nearly the entire sample size.  My theory on this occurrence can potentially be explained by (a) as my data sample consisted of only recent threads, it would exclude many of the popular topics and general discussion threads (as they most likely would have been created before 2011), (b) questions/advice topics are generally highly active until they have been answered, and as I took my data from the 'new posts' thread, a higher than average ratio of question/advice to other threads may have been present, and/or (c) a recent technology show may have taken place, which would cause an increase in both questions/advice (due to people comparing old technology to new technology) and hardware information/announcements (due to new hardware discussion taking place).  I do know that the Tokyo Consumer Electronics Show took place in January (which some threads referred to technology revealed there), but am uncertain of whether any other shows have occurred since then.

Session 2

Reading the articles for the week lead to me thinking and rethinking about my stance on the various aspects of social networking, which has long been set in stone.  Of them, one question was most prevalent: Is there a separate distinction between a person's online and offline actions, and should a person's actions online carry the same consequences as those same actions offline?

Galston discussed the distinction between traditional communities and communities on the Internet, and stated that, although the two are not interchangeable, Internet communities are what society has, and that society must adopt the idea of Internet communities as an acceptable evolution of the community term.  Bigge expressed a similar idea, that becoming a participant of social networking (a type of Internet community) is not an option for someone to consider, but an inevitability.  He quotes a Harvard graduate using the terms "resisting" and "holding out" when describing people who aren't on Facebook, as if they are having to fight to remain a Facebook virgin.  For me, the penchant was the same; I refused to create a Facebook account because I held on to the belief that there was no need for one, rejecting all potential benefits associated with it out of stubbornness.  I was very much "holding out," finally succumbing to creating one due to peer pressure.  Although the reason I give for making an account is that I was tired of making excuses for why I didn't have one, the true reason is more in-line with Rosen's belief, that by not having one, some of the richness in social interaction is lost.  It has helped me to keep in touch with friends that I rarely see otherwise, as well as discover things about them that I otherwise would not have known.  However, other than a sparse collection of impersonal information, I tend not to say much publicly on Facebook, for fear that what I say will have far reaching consequences down the road.

My fears are personified in Weeks' article, where a woman who publicly vented her thoughts learned that there were consequences to her actions.  Although she may not have meant it (and said as such afterward), there were some people who certainly thought she was serious and took steps accordingly.  Her story makes me thoughtful of how our words online can have far-reaching implications, some of which we may not anticipate at the time of our writing.  I can't begin to count the number of times that I've started to post something on Facebook, only to retract it shortly thereafter after thinking of all the ways it could be misconstrued.  Rosen writes about how the simple action of changing a relationship status in Facebook unnerved a woman as to how abrupt and impersonal it was.  Recently, I witnessed a similar experience, where a friend changed his relationship status and all sorts of chaos followed.  As I was privy to some of the details surrounding it, I had a unique perspective while watching it unfold, as I saw people write as if they had no idea what was going on, while others with a deeper understanding that I did expressed approval.  It was amazing how much one line of text caused so much upheaval and confusion (somewhat amusingly, the status switched back less than 24 hours later, most likely evoking feelings of confusion or dismay, depending on the person).  Albrechtslund states that information online is archived forever, whether for good or bad.  Once something has been posted online, it is out of the poster's hands as to how people will interpret it or what they will do with it.

This brings me to my unanswered question: Is there a separate distinction between a person's online and offline actions, and should a person's actions online carry the same consequences as those same actions offline?  Even the simplest of actions taken online can create far reaching waves throughout the community, as I illustrated above.  In a severe case, if a person seemingly threatens someone with murder online, should the situation be treated offline as if it is a real death threat and have the police act accordingly?  Or might it be considered that the person is speaking in jest, the joking tone lost in the emotionless zone of the Internet?  If a person makes a depressing statement, is he or she possibly suicidal, or simply stating something cynical in a matter-of-fact way?  Offline, the intent of the speaker can be inferred from the tone and mannerisms of his or her speech, but online, words can be interpreted any number of ways.  While it's easy to say things must be taken on a case-by-case basis, saying that solves nothing and is essentially equivalent to someone bending the rules to his or her own desire whenever he or she wants.  While there is no easy answer to this question, nor may there be a right answer, it is something that should be thought about.

Session 1

The shooting of Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and the 19 other people injured or killed on Jan 8, 2011, is being reported with many references to the role of social media, in terms of what motivated the tragedy and people's reactions to it. Find one of these references (include a link) and analyze, evaluate and apply what you feel are relevant concepts from at least four of the six required Session 1 readings to the role of social media in this story. You may post links to more than one news story to illustrate concepts from different readings if you like, but be sure your post is substantive enough to demonstrate your understanding of the relevant concepts from the papers you cite. Conclude by providing a brief definition of social computing, and comment on its potential power as a motivating force for positive and negative social phenomena. 

I didn't follow this story as it was developing (I caught the initial breaking news, then got sidetracked and didn't follow up on it), so I missed out on all of the real-time discussion that took place as details about the event slowly made their way out to the public.  By the time I started researching about the details of what happened, I had to sort through dozens of news stories presenting incomplete facets or abbreviated descriptions of the story, as, like with all news, the information had progressed enough to be treated as common knowledge, but had yet to grow old enough for only the most relevant news articles to survive.  As such, after reading a few articles that gave incomplete or abbreviated pictures of the event, I mulled over my options on how to proceed, then decided to use everyone's favorite (un)reliable source, Wikipedia, to get a baseline view on the events that transpired.

While reading the Wikipedia article about Jared Loughner (in addition to the related pages about Gabrielle Giffords and the shooting event), I couldn't help but think about how the information I was currently viewing was exactly the type that Tenopir had expressed concern about in her article, Online Databases-Web 2.0: Our Cultural Downfall?  While it is generally known that Wikipedia is editable by anyone and can often contain false information, people still refer to it as a convenient amalgamated source for personal research (as I did).  As such, her concern about people growing to rely upon the unreliable products of the social media over traditional expert sources is a legitimate one.  In addition, one of the byproducts of the rise of social media is that news reporters are not just competing with one another, but also with dozens, perhaps hundreds or even thousands of amateur reporters, to be the first one with the latest information.  This can lead to embarrassing miscues in the race to be first, such as the early report by National Public Radio (and others) that stated that Gabrielle Giffords was dead, when she wasn't.  While there can be advantages to allowing anyone to be a source of news, as more information is never bad, it is never a good thing when false information is treated as truth.

While reading all of the information about Loughner (cross-referencing Wikipedia links with more reliable sources), they all paint a unified picture of a steady descent from normalcy into psychosis.  (The New York Times portrays a fairly detailed timeline of the events in his life, found here.)  Throughout the information, it is evident that he was clearly disturbed, as many of his ideas could be described as inhumane and outlandish.  A question that can be asked is, why was nothing done about this obviously disturbed man beforehand?  By reading Dibble's article, A Rape in Cyberspace, a possible explanation can be found.  In this story, several people are harassed by a user who performs actions which, if they occurred in the real world, would be met with public disproval and harsh punishment.  However, in the virtual world, people see things differently.  While some people felt that the virtual crime should be treated as harshly as it would be in the real world, others felt that a person's actions online were of minor significance and people should regard such crimes with indifference, as the person obviously was doing it simply to gain attention.  In the article, Blogging as Social Activity, or, Would You Let 900 Million People Read Your Diary? by Gumbrecht, Nardi, and Schiano, they interview bloggers that specifically state that they write for the attention, and some further elaborated by stating that, if their writings weren't being read, then it wasn't worth writing at all.  In our current society, it seems as if it is hard to distinguish between someone doing something in order to gain attention, and someone who truly is disturbed and needs help. 

Social computing is the area in which people interact with one another in a personal way.  Referring to Beer and Burrows article, Sociology and, of and in Web 2.0: Some Initial Considerations, they can do this through social networking (Facebook), wikis (Wikipedia), blogs (Blogger), and tagging (short descriptions of photos, posts, etc.).  As is the case with anything, people reveal themselves through their actions and words.   As the structure of actions in social computing mirror actions in real life, the same positive and negative consequences that result from real life actions can occur in similar magnitude from actions taken online.  The primary difference between the two is the scale of interaction.