session 1, week 1

The first sentence of the syllabus contains my thumbnail definition of social computing: 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. Challenge this definition by making reference to the Session 1 readings. How does the term relate to others, such as social software, social networks, online community and Web 2.0? Conclude by crafting your own definition of social computing, and how it relates to topics you hope to explore in this course.


Boyd and Ellison give a good overview of the history of “social network sites” (SNSs) and trace the evolution of SNSs, from Friendster to MySpace. According to the authors, social network sites are, first and foremost, “web-based services.” They allow users to experience three types of services: 1) “construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system”; 2) “articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection”; and 3) “view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system.” Building on this definition, the authors discuss in some depth how and to what extent information is and can be shared in major SNSs. What they illuminate is that “sharing,” as practiced in SNSs tends to take place among “homogenous populations,” who often form “segregated” groups based on age, gender, educational level, ethnicity, nationality, and so forth.

The publication date (1993) of Dibbell’s piece first caught my attention. Although my memory is not serving well in recalling how prevalent computers and virtual reality (VR) sites, in particular, were in 1993, it is safe to say that technological innovations between then and now have certainly made computers and VR sites far more relevant to our daily lives. Yet, what this article explores – ethics in the world of virtual reality – is still very current today. Dibbell documents the Bungle Affair, a serial rape case in an online community called LambdaMOO, and how this incident stirred a series of interactive and participatory debates among users as to what legal measures, as if this was in real life, should be taken to penalize Mr. Bungle.

Beer and Burrows examine the genealogy of Web 2.0, which is defined as “a device to refer to a cluster of new applications and related online cultures.” In addition, Web 2.0 typically possesses “a conceptual unity only to the extent that it is possible to decipher some significant socio-technical characteristics that they have in common.” This article was informative and accessible for a social networking novice like me, as it outlines concisely various ways in which Web 2.0 are put into practice (e.g. social networking sites, blogging, wikipedia, operating software).

Nardi et al and Herring et al both focus on blogs; “blogging” and “weblogs,” respectively, to use their terms. The two articles examine blogs from two different angles. Nardi et al discuss the extent of interactivity in blogging, which is quite limited because of the “asymmetrical” relationship between bloggers and readers (227). As far as their research outcome is concerned, while select bloggers were fairly unconcerned about issues of privacy (they wouldn’t mind sharing), readers were more indifferent to what bloggers post. So there is a gap in the level of commitment and interest between bloggers. Herring et al are interested in classifying “weblogs” (or blogs), which are defined specifically as “frequently modified webpages in which dated entries are listed in reverse chronological sequence” (1).

I found Tenopir’s piece particularly thought-provoking. She discusses how the spread of social networking and Web 2.0 could potentially undermine the quality of professional research and scholarship. She fears that even professional researchers are beginning to act amateurish and turn to, if not completely, open-access, online resources (online databases, in particular).

With myriad quick, easy, online references at researchers’ disposal, what makes professional research professional? What we learn in the web (via Web 2.0) and in books, for instance, are different from one another, and if so, how do they relate to one another? These are questions I am interested in exploring in this course and in my research.

Having gone through these readings, I still find the suggested working definition of social computing quite fitting – that it 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.” But what technologies and virtual spaces do we find under the umbrella of social computing? Building on the readings, we can perhaps elaborate this definition a little by adding specifics. For instance, social-computing technologies are commonly related to Web 2.0, and virtual spaces can be textual, audio-visual, and hybrid of both.

These basic conceptions of social networking prepare us for further exploration: e.g. how social networking operates, how its content is constructed (building on what sources of information, or can we know about sources?) etc. These observations certainly will help navigate my inquiry into the interplay and interface, if any, between online, web-based research and conventional, bookish equivalent.