The definition given in the syllabus states that social computing is the “technologies and virtual spaces that allow users to create, describe and share content.” Based on the session 1 readings, my impression of social computing is that these technologies and virtual spaces allow individuals to publicly share content, usually personal thoughts and ideas, as a means of interacting with others.
The “Social Network Sites” article defines a social network site as a web-based service allowing individuals to create a profile, a list of “friends”, and a means by which others can view this list of “friends” to create new connections. The article indicates that the profile is a personally customized interface used to create and maintain social relationships. The profile is used as a means of publicly interacting with others rather than to simply create, describe, and share content.
> “Profiles are unique pages where one can “type oneself into being”.”
> “Some sites allow users to enhance their profiles by adding multimedia content or modifying their profile’s look and feel.”
> “The Friends list contains links to each Friend’s profile, enabling viewers to traverse the network graph by clicking through the Friends lists.
The article emphasizes the fact that the SNS is not meant to “meet strangers”, but is meant to “support pre-existing social relations”, and to make “social networks” public over the Internet.
The multi-dimensional dimension or MUD uses a persona to interact with others, and the second reading looks into the social implications, specifically moral issues, that arise with using a persona. The MUD described in the second reading does not quite fit into the definition stated in the course syllabus, because “users do not create, describe and share content”. The MUD described in the second reading lacks the sharing of personal thoughts and ideas with other individuals. However, individuals publicly interact with others in a virtual space.
The “Sociology and, of and in Web 2.0” article defines Web 2.0 as web-based services that “emphasize online collaboration and sharing among users.” The article expands the definition by stating that “information moves from the private device out into the network allowing for it to be accessed from a range of mobile and desktop interfaces at anytime and from anywhere.” According to this definition, Web 2.0 allows users to publicly share content among users. By focusing on four Web 2.0 examples, wikis, folksonomies, mashups, and social networking sites, three Web 2.0 “issues” requiring social interaction were illustrated.
> “Users are involved in processes of production and consumption as they generation and browse online content, as they tag and blog, post and share.”
> Private information is “posted to the public domain”, becoming open and accessible to anyone with access to the Internet
> A rhetoric of ‘democratisation’ where there is a “new collaborative, participatory or open culture, where anyone can get involved and everyone has the potential to be seen or heard.”
The three issues indicate that Web 2.0 affords for social computing where users openly collaborate and share content by publicly posting private information and viewing public content posted by others.
The Tenopir Web 2.0 article indicates that Web 2.0 is a source open to the public that allows anyone to participate in the creation of publicly accessible content. The article discusses the dangers of this open participation were the reliability of the content becomes questionable. This article supports the idea of Web 2.0 being a type of social computing where anyone is publicly allowed to contribute to publicly accessible content.
Both articles on Blogging indicated that Blogs are ways in which individuals created posts meant to be publicly viewed. The “Blogging as Social Activity…” article states that “blogs are more like radio shows than they are like diaries.” Blogs are written for an audience where authors changed content in “response to audience feedback or calibrated what they said very carefully.” The “Bridging the Gap” article mentions that blogs allow individuals to “self-express publicly” and “experience social interaction while giving them control over the community space.” According to both articles, blogs make affordances for social computing by allowing individuals to create public content meant to be read by an audience.
Considering the definition of social computing given in the syllabus and after reading the session 1 articles, my definition would include the idea of sharing content publicly. All articles includes a notion of posting content publicly where the SNS allows users to make their social networks (profiles) visible on the Internet, MUDs allow users to interact with others using a persona, Web 2.0 allows users to share content publicly through posts using a second generation of web-based services, and blogs allow users to broadcast personal thoughts and ideas to an online audience. I would define social computing as a means in which individuals publicly create and share content, consisting of personal thoughts and ideas, with others using web-based applications. I specified web-based applications because all of the technologies mentioned in the session 1 readings are web-based.
I hope to explore the ways in which technology may encourage collaboration among groups of people. There are many technologies available that allow for collaboration, but many individuals are reluctant to use these technologies.
