WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1
Week 14
Apr. 24th: Community Structure and Dynamics
Wellman, Barry and Milena Gulia. 1999. “Net Surfers Don’t Ride Alone: Virtual Communities as Communities.” Chapter 7 in Communities in Cyberspace, Kollock and Smith, eds.
Smith, Marc. 1999. “Invisible Crowds in Cyberspace: Measuring and Mapping the USENET.” Chapter 8 in Communities in Cyberspace, Kollock and Smith, eds.
Apr. 26th: Social Order and Control
Cowan, Ruth S. 1997. “Communication Technologies and Social Control.” in A Social History of American Technology: Oxford University Press.
Reid, Elizabeth. 1999. “Hierarchy and Power: Social Control in Cyberspace.” Chapter 5 in Communities in Cyberspace, Kollock and Smith, eds.
January 2nd, 2007posted by:
WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1
11 Comments
1. yliu | April 21st, 2007 at 10:08 pm
From the Wellman paper: “We suspect that as online communication becomes widely used and routinely accepted, the current fascination with it will decline sharply.”
I think that neatly sums up my view of the “debate” about virtual communities. As Fischer’s historical account of the telephone shows, one will always find luddites railing against the newest technology, exaggerating legitimate concerns into dire world-ending predictions.
Wellman et al make a number of well-reasoned refutations of the most often raised criticisms. The observation that persons in virtual communities have “greater tendency to base feelings of closeness on the basis of shared interests” is astute. From purely anecdotal experience, virtual communities tend to form around a special interest. As in the example with Usenet, or web forums in the modern net, people come together for a particular topic (passion for C in comp.lang.c, obscure knowledge in “General Questions” in the SDMB, etc.), and from there forms a community. That community may expand to cover other topics, but its formation was originally driven by some purpose. As interests wax and wane, so does the community. Some interests are long and persistent, so those communities last. Some interests are ephemeral, and so those communities disband and evaporate over time (discussion boards for cancelled TV shows, etc)
As the authors note, online experiences are generally low-bandwidth. Much of what we perceive tends to be transmitted only through the text of posts, chats, etc. that there is more “egalitarianism”, in some sense, is a direct result of this. Lacking any cues as to physical or social attributes of those we interact with, the only way to align ourselves homophilously (is that even a word) is through homogeneity of interests (and perhaps, to a lesser extent, via the “personality” of the person as shown by his “voice” in writing). Do virtual communities promote egalitarianism? Only in so far as identities are fluid and physical attributes are difficult to ascertain. As avatar-based virtual communities are on the rise, it might be interesting to see whether the same social phenomena play out for people interacting with other peoples’ virtual avatars. Do people prefer others’ with similar avatars (for some definition of similar?) in a virtual avatar-based community? Or are common interests still the most effective predictor for “feelings of closeness”?
The Reid paper was interesting. I’ve also committed an absurd number of hours in two particular adventure-based MUDs (only made Wizard in one of ‘em though), as well as playing in many others, back in the days of my ill-spent youth. It’s interesting to see it all laid out in the impassive language of a social sciences study.
There is far more cooperation in adventure MUDs than most tend to give credit for. There are always clans or guilds, even if that particular MUD didn’t natively support clan systems (people formed them outside the channels of the MUD and then put tags in their names to indicate affliliation). Taking down a big mob almost always required a group, whether formed ad-hoc, or with real-life friends (with whom you made prior appointments by phone so they’d all be online at the same time, and having already negotiated loot distribution).
Certainly, in some, PK rules (and the subsequent corpse-looting) were so lax that it became a Darwinian dystopia, where you’re bound to get murdered and robbed of everything you own. But you had a lot of choice in which MUD you’re going to be playing in (and there were literally thousands of MUDs running in its heyday). Rational self-interest made most players move on to MUDs with levels of rules and prohibitions that they’re comfortable with.
April 21st, 2007 at 10:08 pm |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 12. n8agrin | April 22nd, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Wellman and Gulia ask seven questions of the role of virtual communities and their impact on members’ lives, and though they admit to often arguing the part of the pundit through ‘…assertion and anecdote’, I’m inclined to agree with them. The notion that the Network depersonalizes and breaks real world social ties, marginalizing one’s social interactions to a ‘glowing screen’ seems unlikely. Often critics of computer mediated communication fail to recognize the potential social benefits a network can provide.
One particular benefit, which I find most interesting, is the notion that as people use networked communication to interact, they can stay at home to complete the same tasks. The notion that these ‘…eyes on the street that are the foundation of neighboring’ which suggests putting people back in their homes might encourage them to interact more with their surroundings could have profound effects not just on social interaction of people around their homes, but also on their local environment.
Giving a means for people to complete ordinary tasks from their home eliminates the need to travel, effectively reducing that person’s energy consumption. It also encourages people to be more vested in their home location, allowing them more time to become aware of environmental issues that affect their area, and species that coexist around them. As Wellman, Gulia and others note, this sort of information can easily be disseminated throughout the community using networked communication tools.
By participating in this discussion, regardless of how general or specific, authoritative or amateur, science researchers might be able to pose questions on environmental changes and impact. Yet another example of ‘leveraging crowd wisdom’ (for better or worse, a debate for another day), this sort of data might be the bases for biodiversity information, or to study the impact of global warming (through new species identification in previously colder climates).
It’s difficult to understand how much more data might be available for these sorts of studies if the Network could provide it. Current biology research often takes years of careful observation or at the very least months of digging through historical logs of temperature measurements and species identification. But the Network can change that, and it does so elegantly, in a method that is flexible and capable of expanding into future domains. What’s more, its format allows for local and disparate communities to develop providing users the opportunity to learn and share more about their world. It seems as though this is more than just wishful thinking, and it would be interesting to study how people relate to their natural world through or because of networked connections.
The perfect example I can think of is Ken-ichi, who uses flickr to communicate with other nature enthusiasts through the sharing of photos and stories of organism sightings. This sort of data, a biproduct of social interaction, is completely relevant to a biologist interested in when a particular organism was last seen at a certain location.
April 22nd, 2007 at 10:47 pm |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 13. Ken-ichi | April 23rd, 2007 at 11:28 pm
I appreciate Wellman and Gulias’ emphasis on the integration of online and physical communities. That is, very few online communities exist in a vacuum. All their participants are active in intersecting physical communities, and in many cases, online participants actually interact with other online participants in the physical world. In my personal experience, my most meaningful online interactions are almost always with people I met first in the physical world (tempted to say “real world,” of course, but to paraphrase Rheingold, the Net is no less real than anywhere else). I have had occasional interactions with random visitors to my blog over the years, and I have participated in newsgroups and bulletin boards, but usually the online communities I return to are the ones populated by people I know in meatspace. Like, say, the iSchool backchannel, iSchool mailing lists, or localoaf.
That said, this is not the case on Flickr. As Nate mentioned, I communicate with several other nature lovers on Flickr who share my predilection for spineless creatures, most of whom I’ve never met in the physical world. A lot of this has to do with shared interest, but interestingly, I feel much more engaged on Flickr than on similar groups on LiveJournal, like the entomology and mycology groups. This could be due to the more specialist uses of Flickr streams vs. LJ blogs. If I find a Flickr stream with a whole lot of moth pictures, I can be pretty sure that’s what this person is into. LJ blogs tend to have more mixed subject matter, including personal diaries in which I have no interest. It could also be that Flickr provides both the semantic receptivity of photos and the declarative structure of tags, allowing users to provide information signals that are both more engaging and more concise than a blog post might be (of course, it also provides for more narrative textual data in the description). For instance, looking at a Flickr photo of a pretty flower, I can immediately put myself in the photographer’s shoes without having to decode their text, while at the same time experiencing and interpreting the photo in my own way. A Flickr photo of a flower tagged with the scientific name tells me this is probably my kind of nerd.
April 23rd, 2007 at 11:28 pm |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 14. karenhsu | April 26th, 2007 at 1:48 am
The revolution of communications technology has inevitably brought on the issue of social control. Cowan’s chapter offers an interesting look into the history and evolution of electronic communication technologies, beginning from the invention of the wireless telegraphy all the way to the formation of the electronic superhighway.
Cowan writes as part of his conclusion that “on the whole, the government, whether through antitrust proceedings or the regulations of the Federal Communications Commission or the granting of military procurement contracts, has acted to weaken the hands of those who have wanted to monopolize the media.” Clearly, history has exemplified this. I can’t help but think about the social control issues of communications technology at present. This perspective on the role of the government appear to be consistent with the views of those opposing network neutrality in the great debate, as they argue in favor of the free market approach and believe that any abuse of the system can be resolved after-the-fact through anti-trust legislation. On the other hand, proponents of net neutrality argue for the preservation of Internet standards, consumer choice, and believe that without it, competition and innovation (of content) will be stifled. In any case, this debate is largely one about social control, and whether or not telecommunications and cable firms should be allowed to discriminate against content by providing a tiered service.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:48 am |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 15. zgillen | April 26th, 2007 at 10:14 am
After reading “Hierarchy and Power”, it seemed as though even virtual worlds exhibit many of the social norms experienced in the real word. Rationally speaking, this would have to be the case. Everyone experiencing and interacting in a MUD has at least some understanding, communication and connection to the ‘real-world’. However, I wonder if the social norms in MUD will evolve along the same lines as social norms exhibited in everyday life. There are certain barriers that superficially seem to prevent this from happening. For example, the case of complete anonymity when logging into a MUD session enables people to escape from inhibitions. This was demonstrated in the extremes by intimacy and violence between virtual characters that remain anonymous in real life. Besides these fundamental differences between realities, it’s my contention that virtual worlds strive to achieve these social norms we have adopted.
Also, it would be interesting to see how punishment evolves overtime. In the case of JennyMUSH where several characters were virtually raped, the attacker was finally silenced by the gods and figuratively ‘burned at the stake’ by the victims. These types of punishments appear rather medieval and I wonder if this will change as time progresses in the MUD domains. Perhaps this form of punishment in the MUD environment, because of the textual nature on which it is based, has already achieved its highest form of evolution. Maybe the continuation of these types of online games, such as second life, will further evolve in the sense of crime and punishment. Will there be police and laws imposed in second life? Will people be entitled to a fair trial? It would make sense that in order to control an online population some sort of rules must be enacted. I’m just curious as to the evolution of punishment in regards to these virtual crimes.
April 26th, 2007 at 10:14 am |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 16. daniela | April 28th, 2007 at 11:58 am
Misconceptions about the social uses of information technology abound, and I appreciate Wellman’s attempt at clarifying several of these points through his logical, FAQ-style essay. In particular, I find it important to call attention to the critical link between online and offline social communication, wherein behaviors online cannot be understood in a vacuum, devoid of external “physical” or “real world” offline influences.
As Yiming pointed out, I was also inspired by Wellman’s characterization of what I call technology’s schiki-miki phenomenon: wide adoption of a technology followed by a decline in its allure. We often overlook the capricious nature of our locus of attention. Initial attraction to the newness, unknown or viscerally appealing qualities may overtime decline, allowing the more functional elements to take precedence. I have the sense that attention to the function comes after the form in my own experience, especially involving information technology. I may be attracted to a new social networking site, mobile search application, or the new iPhone but my understanding and appreciation of the technology changes over time. Initially I may be excited by the experience it suggests by its physical form. Maybe I originally buy the iPhone because of its slick aesthetics, and promise of a suite of simple, useful applications to successfully organize my life. But after some time I may find the iPhone useful for distinct tasks (such as updating my calendar) and not so useful for other tasks (such as setting an alarm). Since I have no ability to predict what actual use the technology will have, nor the inclination to do so, the application’s initial appeal may be unconsciously based on my previous experiences with other similar applications, shaped primarily by its form. As Wellman points out, the functionality the telephone provided, long-distance communication with weak and strong ties, resembles forms of communication supported by the letter. I’m curious if the concepts of form and function can be used to describe our attractions to and understandings of new technologies in this way.
275a April 28th, 2007 at 11:58 am |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 17. eunkyoung | April 28th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
On Wellman
“… defining community in terms of space - neighborhoods - to defining it in terms of social networks.” (pp.169)
How well should we know each other if we want to describe a relationship pretty “intimate”? The word “community” has been probably first used as to describe a group of people who know each other in a physical world, like families, peers in a classroom, neighbors, or people who go to the same church. However, thesedays, we think we are intimate with people who visit our blogs everyday, or people whose blogs we visit everyday even if we don’t “know” them in a real world. Does this mean that our relationship with “real-life” community has been weaker?… or the meaning of “community” has placed great emphasis upon “online” than “real-life”?
I totally agree with Wellman’s argument that “people do not neatly divide their worlds into two discrete sets: people seen in-person and people contacted online.” In general, we can say iSchool students community is far more strongly tied than say, Maczoo(macbook user community) because we basically meet and take classes together, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that the other way can’t be true. Both real-life & online community can be a rich informative source (depending on the subject), and we consider someone who visit our blog everyday and leave a thoughful comment as a friend even if we don’t know the real name. “Community ties connect offline as well as online”, and whether it is online or real-life community, it answers as for the different purposes and situations.
April 28th, 2007 at 12:42 pm |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 18. elisa | April 29th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
The ‘historical view’ is always interesting, both to notice how debates we think are brand new have in fact their roots in the past (Smith’s description of the percentages of contributors to parasites in Usenets can be used word-by-word and percentage-by-percentage to describe the Usenets of today, and no doubt those of tomorrow; I wonder if these percentages don’t mirror exactly the percentages of writers-to-readers in the old, pre-everybody is an author times), and to track the evolution of some authors’ philosophy through the years (Smith 1999: “data that maps the activities of thousands of individuals around the world raise serious issues about privacy, property, and the responsibilities of researchers to the members of the online groups they study”. Smith 2006: “Privacy? Yeah, I remember, it was nice when it existed”). And yes, we are relieved to hear that it’s been proved scientifically that communities can exist online, and belonging to such a community doesn’t, in general, mean that one doesn’t relate anymore to one’s flesh-and-bone communities.
Crankiness aside (it’s finals time, after all), the most interesting aspect of the readings for me was realizing once more how hard it is to balance a ‘it’s a completely new phenomenon’ attitude with a ‘it’s the same as it’s always been’ attitude. Do we conclude that the internet is just a new tool to replicate old behaviors, or that the internet is changing these behaviors? Or maybe old behaviors that are expressed through a new tool become new behaviors? Is the individuals’ sense of agency that Judd mentioned last week shaped by the tools used? I haven’t made a lot of progress in sorting these questions out, but at least some of the readings have helped clarifying the questions. It’s a start, and I think I’m maintaining my sense of agency…
One last comment, on the Wellman/Gulia article. I was quite taken aback by the phrase “To address this issue, we can only be like Slouka and Barlow and provide anecdotes, rather than more persuasive evidence from controlled experiments, detailed ethnographies, or systematic surveys.” (p174). I only hope that this is meant as a way to prevent methodology criticisms, rather than an expression of a real belief in the fact that anectodes that are not backed by “scientific” evidence are not really a good tool to understand the social reality around us. I mean, are they dismissing the value of, for example, literature to understand ourselves and our world, because it’s not based on systematic surveys?
April 29th, 2007 at 9:09 pm |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 19. jilblu | April 29th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
In “Virtual communities as communities”, Wellman and Gulia ask, “Are strong, intimate ties possible online?”
My friend Cynthia has been unemployed for some time now. She has used her time off to become an avid user of Flickr; she admits to being addicted. Within 6 months, she has uploaded thousands of beautiful photos (she heavily edits and definitely does not upload every photo she takes) and has a total of 153 contacts. Recently, she proudly reported that her photos had more than 2500 views within a single weekend.
When I asked Cynthia whether or not she thought strong, intimate ties were possible online, she answered “Definitely.” Some of Cynthia’s Flickr contacts are people she knows offline, but most of them are people she’s never met who like her photos, and vice versa. Cynthia spends at least an hour a day looking at her contacts’ photos and commenting on them, and responding to comments people have made on her photos.
With the back-and-forth of viewing and commenting, Cynthia has become friends with several of her contacts, including a young woman from England. Through some events organized by Flickr, Cynthia has met some of her contacts in person. Though they were initially online friends only, their relationships have evolved offline as well; they regularly meet to go “photowalking.”
Cynthia is currently dating someone she met through Flickr. She loves his photographs.
Wellman and Gulia don’t really discuss the possibility of strong online ties moving offline and then becoming even stronger.
April 29th, 2007 at 10:30 pm |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 110. bindiya | April 30th, 2007 at 12:27 am
In today’s internet age, where most people are stuck behind their laptop screens, it is not surprising that virtual ties are being considered comparable to real world relationships. People don’t have time to meet up with friends, or even keep in touch via the telephone. It has become a trend of sorts to reach out to other people in parallel with doing work on computers. Not only making new friends, but even communicating with old contacts virtually is something which has become very common. I would say from personal experience that although the dynamics are different and building trust is more difficult, it is possible to have strong in virtual communities.
April 30th, 2007 at 12:27 am |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 111. cvolz | May 1st, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Bah, meant to write this last Friday but I got distracted with all the other school stuff that needs doing. Also, I was really, really hung over. But that is neither here nor there.
The comparison between various electrnoic communications to both the telephone was interesting. While some people definitely get a bit too immersed in their online lives for most people it is just another tool for staying in touch with friends and family.
I do wonder, however, if it’s getting easier and easier to ignore people you don’t like. Put another way, are we enabling choosiness with regards to our friends? If you can, relatively easily, stay in touch with friends in LA, Seattle, Portland, Denver, Florida, San Jose, Santa Clara, Berkeley, and San Francisco (just looking at where my friends are who are currently logged in to an IM program) then does that make it easier to not have to form new friends immediately around you?
I bring this up because there has been much talk about how the internet (etc) creates an echo chamber where people’s existing beliefts and attitudes tend to get reinforced because there is a community that actively engages in it and dissenting viewpoints go elsewhere.
I wonder if we’re starting to do the same things with relationships?
May 1st, 2007 at 4:20 pm |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1Trackback this post