"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. "
Mmmm, it's difficult to challenge the definition when it fits so well. It's like challenging E=Mc2...Uhhhh (cricket noises emanating softly in the background. )
The term social computing relates to:
Online communities: is the perfect example of social computing. Bloggers create a personal space where they can create and share content with a community. Readers have a chance to respond and exchange ideas.
Social networks: "SNSs are primarily organized around people, not interests. social network sites are structured as personal networks, with the individual at the center of their own community."
Web 2.0 : allows users to create and change text and information content openly.
My definition of Social Computing:
Social computing- to actively participate and create a network of one's own making.
Comments to the articles:
Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship
"While SNSs are often designed to be widely accessible, many attract homogeneous populations initially so it is not uncommon to find groups using sites to segregate themselves by nationality, age, educational level, or other factors that typically segment society (Hargittai, this issue), even if that was not the intention of the designers. "
What struck me about this was the humanness that gets translated through the use of technology. No matter if we are in real life or virtual life, we are always looking for ways to categorize and find identity.
Web 2.0 Cultural Downfall:
I had a greater response to web 2.0. Much of the article was about the fear of people abandoning reliable resources and only subscribing to social networks for information. That's a little too broad and a tab ridiculous.
There is no need for this all or nothing thinking. Credible resources have their place and Web 2.0 has it's own purpose and value to bring to the table as well.
"Keen responded that editors and peer reviews make sure that only the most reliable and highest-quality science is published under a journal's good name."
This format can actually keep new ideas at bay. New ideas that may not be accepted into the journal because it does not fit the paradigm or support previous articles. I had an Anthropology professor spend a good portion of the lecture lamenting about his rejected article. The article was rejected and he was told to look at previous articles that differed from his opinion. Poor chum.
Keen contends that all “old media” are in danger of being replaced by widespread social networking sites where “ignorance meets egoism meets bad taste meets mob rule.” He fears we may replace trustworthy old media products with the “digital narcissism” of blogs, YouTube, and MySpace.
Too all or nothing thinking…I believe people know the difference when reading info from myspace and do not take it as professional advice.
Blogging as Social Activity, or, Would You Let 900 Million People Read Your Diary?
This article compared blogs to diaries. It was found that bloggers enjoyed having an audience. Knowing that people are reading motivated bloggers to continue to write. People write blogs to influence others with ideas, possiblities for interaction and personal growth through the blog, stay connected, think things through by writing it out. I liked how they compared blogs to diaries, but differentiated by saying that "blogs are more like radio shows..." Very true and well put…more like a sharing and update for your audience rather than delving into deep personal thoughts.
Hopefully I'll have more to say as we progress and learn more...anybody still hear the cricket noises??
Indeed, peer review or any other information filtering system lessens the breadth of ideas by definition. It's great to have alternative, direct modes of publication like blogs, and few would disagree that both structures are important. But what load does that put on an information seeker?
ReplyDeleteDefinitely, if a person wanted to know, for instance, the cure for/symptoms of the common cold, that person should never (in reality, he or she probably would, though) turn to Wikipedia for answers. The purpose of journals, professional magazines, and other scholarly work, in my opinion, is for reference since they have been scrutinized by many different experts, and these materials should be used instead. On the other hand, he or she could use Wikipedia only as a quick reference guide in this situation; that person should then follow up by going to the references cited as well (these references should be professional, scholarly work, though, and if there are no references, he or she should either disregard the information or take it with a very huge grain of salt). Thus, I agree with you when you say credible sources and Web 2.0 each have their own purpose and place: perhaps someone could say something new on a Web 2.0 application, and then science could run with that idea. However, going back to the common cold example, if such a thing were never allowed in cyberspace, would society ever find a cure for this disease? (Probably we would, but I think the information would most likely come from some expert and won't come any sooner.)
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with BJ that it is up to the seeker to verify information from sources that aren't necessarily trustworthy. In fact, each of the structures (expert publications and more direct publications) depend on the other. We could not trust anything on the internet if it could not be verified and expert content would not be distributed very well.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, not verifying the source is something that most, if not all, inexperienced computer users do. I don't know how many times teachers/professors have beaten into our heads that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. I fear that they do this because some people still cite it as a source in their papers. Something like a Firefox plugin that determines the "reliability" of a page would be interesting for these users. Perhaps this is a project idea, where the reliability of a page can be rated by other users of the plugin.
Hi Alanna!
ReplyDeleteYour point regarding reliability was one that Lajenna and I also touched on and is an important item for consideration. I think it is up to the individual to do the work to ensure that the information they are looking at is reliable. You can always find material that agrees with what you are saying but is it from Joe the plumber or a scholarly journal?
I definitely agree that there are those members of society that will mistake the incoherent ramblings of some neurotic, self proclaimed guru as the absolute truth. My hope is that the majority of the educated populace can discern the difference between the drivel and the truth but I am not as sure as you about that. In order to avoid the pitfalls of the internet, I think it’s important to use a variety of sources and media to find information like newspapers, television and radio.
I agree that information seekers are becoming more aware of potential distortion of facts on the web, and some users are taking matters into their own hands to verify the reliability of information. And now the use of filtering systems like Firefox plugin (as keokilee mentions) and Turnitin.com is becoming integral to our social computing experiences, whether to determine the quality of information on a web page or detect plagiarism. It would be interesting to look at how educators in higher education have rated the effectiveness of plagiarism detection tools.
ReplyDeleteI have not heard of the filtering systems mentioned in the comments (Firefox plug-in or Turnitin.com). Wouldn't a Firefox plug-in using ratings have the same limitations as Wikipedia if both are based on the collective knowledge of users and not experts? Wikipedia is not to be used as a reliable source but it can be helpful to find further information. A lot of Wikipedia articles have links to scholarly articles and websites.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad I'm not the only one who picked up on the weaknesses of Keen's arguments. I haven't read his book, but from a video debate he participated in at Oxford, I get a real sense that he's got some interesting opinions on social networking, but hasn't done much in the way of research to support his opinions to turn them into arguments. I have a low opinion of Keen's opinions and don't entirely trust his judgements - they're a little to general and fly in the face of current research.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with everyone about Keen's arguments being unnecessarily one-sided and 'all or nothing.' Web 2.0 does put an increasing burden on the information user to determine quality from the vast amount of info on the Internet. In terms of blogs and SNS's, it's difficult to determine the credentials of the sources when online identity is so easy to manipulate. Your post also got me thinking about the motivations of bloggers in general. Is it that we all want our own little stage where we are the center of attention and can speak our minds, uninterrupted, to whoever wants to listen? I don't know about you, but that seems scary to me. Perhaps that's why I've avoided blogging until now.
ReplyDelete