Sunday, January 18, 2009
Defining the term, is there a need?
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.
Is social computing a term for the technologies or for the act of using those technologies? The definition above seems to describe a noun where I see it as more of a verb. The way I interpret it is: social computing is an umbrella term used to describe the act of using the myriad technologies and virtual spaces that allow users to create, describe and share content. I also believe, for the most part, the term social computing and others term like it: social software, social networks, online community and Web 2.0 are all unnecessary. After all if there was truly a need for such a term wouldn’t one have been decided on by society by now. There is a term for wikis and blogs because one is needed. I believe that the ways people can “socially compute” are so different that a term to describe all of them, which may give the impression they are similar in some way, is wrong and unnecessary. Having a personal blog is vastly different than a band’s myspace profile or a wiki used at work. The only thing they have in common is they involve people interacting (social) on a computer (computing). Perhaps some believe that this one thing in common (interacting on a computer) is so influential that all the technologies can be compared and contrasted; that they are in the same species. I mildly disagree. Perhaps the same genus, but I think MUDs are a different species that a wiki used at work to explain the procedures to open the library.
The majority of our readings focused on one particular vehicle people use to “socially compute”. The exception is the article Sociology and, of and in Web 2.0: Some Initial Considerations which did give an outline of different technologies used.
It seems an article that tries to incorporate all the different technologies of social computing spends more time on attempting to define the term than on an actual examination of the technologies. However, I do believe there are similarities between some social computing technologies (like blogging and social networking) and that perspective and knowledge can be gained from comparing them.
The articles that focused on blogs I found particularly interesting as I myself have a personal blog. It is for family and friends primarily. It was a revelation to me that many bloggers “want readers but they did not necessarily want to hear a lot from those readers.” (p. 227) I never thought about this approach of blogging at arms length. I had to examine my own thoughts on readers commenting on my blog. I have always felt that I welcomed it and I liked it when readers did comment. However I have not received any negative comments, perhaps I would feel different if I were to receive a negative comment and would I allow it to be shown on the blog?, probably not.
In this class I am interested in exploring the different motivations people have for creating an online presence. I am also interested in the differences between interacting online and offline.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You made some good points in this blog. I had some similar thinking around those lines. If we really need a new terminology, it should at least describe something truly "new", not just a simple extrapolation. For my preferred definition, you can read my arguments on my blog - dni-ics691.blogspot.com
ReplyDeleteI somewhat agree with what you said, Molly, when you commented that a blog is different from a MySpace profile or a wiki. However, in my opinion, I see at least one characteristic of blogs, MUDs, wikis, etc. that tie all of these technologies together: it is a way for people to express themselves. For wikis, it could be mostly information that they're trying to get through; for MUDs, their emotions; and for blogs, a combination of the two. I think this characteristic complements or supports another statement that you made, that these technologies involve people interacting with each other using a computer.
ReplyDeleteI like your focus on the act of interaction through social technologies. I think one of the key differences among blogs, wikis and MUDs is the degree of control the participant has over the interactions. A blogger can block or delete comments, but MUD participants interact through the rules of the game or site, while wiki contributors often overwrite one another's contributions, absent a benevolent and all-knowing moderator.
ReplyDeleteI guess that creating terms like social computing fulfills societies’ need to categorize things in general. For instance, taxonomy… I believe that these terms were created, as you also mentioned in your post, to help compare and contrast these technologies in writing articles and giving lectures on social computing.
ReplyDeleteAs you and others who replied to your post indicated, the technologies mentioned in the session 1 readings are quite different. Because they are different, I had some difficulties with trying to relate them to each other in my definition.
I also found that bloggers wanting readers rather than feedback interesting because I thought that bloggers mainly wanted feedback to their thoughts and ideas. Although, this is the first time that I have been involved in blogging.
As mentioned in your last paragraph, I too am interested in the “differences between interacting online and offline”. As an ALN student I find it difficult to interact with others online because of the asynchronous nature of “online” communication.
I found it interesting when you stated that blog writers want readers, but do not necessarily want to hear from them.
ReplyDeleteOver the years, I have followed many blogging gimics, which were focused on selling advertising or making money online. It has been my perception that those individuals who write/create blogs for the specific purpose of making money or creating some form of cash flow, do want responses to their blogs. Of course these individuals do not want negative responses and most likely edit them out in order to maintain the hype that surrounds their blog.
I agree with you about the Web 2.0. It does have some similarities with other social software. At least, they are all using World Wide Web technology. It seems Web 2.0 trying to provide more functionality of the web. It allows users to do more than just retrieve information.
ReplyDeleteI had never really thought about the definition but your emphasis on social networking as an act makes perfect sense (especially if the name deveoped as a result of use).
ReplyDeleteI like the idea of blogging as keeping families and friends connected. I can understand that a lot more than blogging to strangers and I suspect that the environment is a great deal different than that of strangers communicating. But, I have to confess that I don't really understand why people create blogs instead of e-mailing each other.
Thanks to everyone for their comments as well as their own postings. All the discussions have been quite interesting and I look forward to the coming weeks as we explore together these new technologies and ways of interacting, and their unique impact on our lives.
ReplyDelete