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.
The term "computing" in social computing is problematic because it indicates that the users are only using computers, which they may not be. The introduction of the iPhone in US has brought a "do-it-all" phone trend that started much earlier in Asia; individuals can upload photos to Flickr, videos to YouTube or type replies to blogs using their phones or other personal digital assistants. While yes, these objects technically are computers or the vague "technologies" of the definition, the term "social computing" itself is misleading as our computers get smaller and smaller, and fall into the "phone" category.
Speaking of the social in social computing - just who are the "users"? Tenopir expresses fear over an anarchist information world, where we never know who we're talking to or what their expertise really is. Dibbell confirms the problem in the tale of Mr. Bungle: the Lambda MOO thinks there is one person behind that keyboard, but it is truly a number of undergraduates, turning serious online community matters into offline fun in their character's behavior. Users tend to behave with a semblance of how they behave in real life on Facebook and MySpace if they use their real name, whereas on other Web 2.0 applications they may act differently or engage in activities they would not tell their real life contacts about under a pseudonym.
We think that just because a blog or a content sharing site can be social, that it is social. Nardi, Schiano, and Gumbrecht found that most informants used their blogs to keep in touch with family, friends, fellow academics or the odd visitor, but a few had half-private or all private blogs. Herring's data indicates that most blogs do not receive comments, marking a lack of social interactivity and making it very much like the radio analogy mentioned in Nardi, Schiano, and Gumbrecht, where a few dictate the information and a very select few are able to respond. Today LiveJournal - which I count as a hybrid blogging-social networking service, even if Herring does not - has a "private" function - you can make your entire blog only accessible by you if you wish. You can add games, notes, and photos on Facebook that are only accessible by you as well.
In terms of other phrases that may be conflated with social computing - Web 2.0, social software, social networks, and social computing all share aspects in common. Beer and Burrows defines Web 2.0 as a "cluster of new applications and related online cultures". The term tends to define web applications that rose during and after the more popular social networks. Social networks where people post profiles of themselves and friend other people (example: Facebook). Social networking is relatively new, and as boyd and Ellison point out has an offline component as friending generally occurs between users who already know each other offline. Social networking shares other aspects of Web 2.0 as lately, at least Facebook and MySpace have added video and/or photo sharing components and MySpace allows aspiring musicians to stream their songs. Boyd and Ellison claim that last.fm, YouTube, and flickr have become social network sites due to their friending capabilities, but I would disagree as the three of the sites' primary capabilities are still related to content (music, videos, and photos), not friending or profiles, and are instead a hybrid content-presentation/social networking site. Second Life is often included inside the Web 2.0 umbrella, although it is a standalone program and not browser-based at all other than links to places in Second Life.
Social software, a new term to me, seems to be analogous to social computing and indicates a place where users exchange or create any sort of information, including social networking. It includes Massively Online Multiplayer RPGs, or MMORPGS, such as World of Warcraft and many others.
Social computing and social software are a somewhat older phenomenon than Web 2.0, as pre-Web 2.0 users were already chatting on message boards, over IRC, over AIM, downloading content over Napster and Audiogalaxy, roleplaying on MOOs and MUDs and creating personal webpages before that. Certainly, the group of new contenders such as YouTube and Facebook have thrown Web 2.0 into real life, with such examples as Barack Obama's change.gov with videos, and forums and the online Rickrolling phenomenon reversing with a live surprise Rick Astley at the Macy's Day parade. Truly, of all these terms, social computing is the umbrella term - but its name exclusion of mobile phones and other small digital assistants is troubling, as that seems to be an area where social computing is expanding.
My revised definition of social computing would therefore be:
Social computing is a term for technologies (including mobile devices) and virtual spaces that allow users to create, describe and/or share content, and for the communities that sometimes arise or already exist around such content.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
When you asked, "just who are the 'users'?" you brought up two very important points.
ReplyDelete1) It seems to me, after watching TV shows like "To Catch a Predator," that people tend to forget that sometimes, whoever they talk to on the Web--through SNSs, for instance--are not the people they say they are. In the show that I mentioned, youths especially are targeted by sexual predators, mainly through instant messaging programs like AIM or MSN Messenger. This problem can be rectified, however, by educating everyone who use the Internet about its dangers, that there are people out there who use SNSs or other Web 2.0 software for malicious activities: initially, these people may seem friendly and nice--their profiles not having an ounce of anything out of the ordinary--but once they gained a person's trust and/or meet that person face-to-face, the consequences could be life-changing.
2) Hiding behind anonymity in cyberspace is not always a bad thing. I agree with your observations, that people tend to act differently online if they have pseudonyms than they would in real life or on SNSs. In my opinion, one reason why people act this way online is that it gives them a chance to be free; it gives them a chance to express their true feelings about something controversial so that they won't be ridiculed in real life or have their reputations scarred; and it also gives them a chance to vent about something that is bugging them that would otherwise cause unnecessary, negative consequences if they were to do it using their real names or in real life.
I think these two points are important consequences of social computing--in particular, using the Internet for communication.
I would say it is not "computer falls into phone category", it is the opposite, the phone becomes so powerful it falls into computer category. T-Mobile will charge you less on data if you are using a phone-first (T-mobile jargon) device. G1 and iPhone are not phone-first devices according to T-mobile because phones are considered secondary.
ReplyDeleteHi Manda,
ReplyDeleteYour site was helpful to me in several ways, and I wanted to first thank you for setting it up in the way that you did. One of the helpful features is the links to the sites that you talk about. I'm unfamiliar with many of them and was able to use your links to learn more about them - which also helped me understand your commentary. Also, I've always been ... something - too busy, too involved with work or family or friends, caught up in the details of the day, etc... to explore computer applications beyond simple e-mail and word processing programs. Since I'm taking this class I decided to jump in and experience it a little more fully so I used your link to set up a Facebook account. Thanks again.
Your posting interested me with the idea that hand held devices such as phones are part of the hardware that can be considered computers and should be included in the term social computing. DNI, your response that some devices are so powerful that they are considered computers rather than phones totally makes sense.
Manda, when you brought up computer software like Warcraft, I remembered that when my boys were young they wanted to spend hours behind the computer playing this game. My husband and I limited their time each day and insisted that they do something else with family or friends. We were worried that they would become anti-social. At that time, we didn't consider playing on-line games as a social activity. One of the generational issues occurring now is the change in definition of social activities - the idea that you don't need to physically meet someone face to face to develop a meaningful relationship is a new one for many people.
Very nice to bring up the sense of a hybrid social site--with such easy linkage of content hosted from any site, most SNS's exist on a continuum of blog-focused, social-network-focused, recommendation-focused or any number of other dimensions. To address one of your earlier points, the core attraction of online interaction may be that you don't have to be constrained by the limitations and expectations of your real life identity, and this isn't always a shield for online predators. Ask anyone who's signed up to an SNS with their real name, then received friend requests and unwanted inquiries from long-lost people they'd much prefer never to have heard from again...
ReplyDeleteTo BJ: And guess who goes around the web with a pseudonym sometimes? --I'm not doing anything bad, just things that are silly or media-related and I don't want to disturb a Google search of my name. (I have a pretty common name on the mainland anyway, so half the hits aren't me to begin with.) And, of course, I have the standard social networking site profiles with the "real" me. In truth, the real me is somewhere in between the two.
ReplyDeleteDNI: Theoretically they're all computers, if we go back to the original definition...I think phones will have more and more of an impact, but there's still the social barrier of cost. I want an iPhone, but I can't pay for it. :)
Denise: Glad to help. Some of my good friends have been taken in by that Warcraft thing....
Good point to bring up cell phones and social computing. Mixi is big in Japan, and apparently its cell phone application, mixiモバイル, is outdoing its PC counterpart in terms of number of page views. Check out a company report from 2008, page 16. Orange=page views through cell phone. Peach=page views through personal computer.
ReplyDelete