IAMS: tools for accessing social media.
You can put forward to the world any identity you wish - an option you cannot do so easily in the real world.
"The Web doesn't forget" - search engines cache content so deleting, for example, a tweet will not remove it from public view - it can take many, many years for something to not be found again..
One identity can have multiple user accounts so how do we manage this? Perhaps a more fundamental question one first needs to consider is do you want to manage having multiple accounts?
Many ways - write them down (bad), Use same user name and password, "password vault" (either fingerprint activated or protected by a strong pass phrase), or online service (mashedlife)
OpenID
Authentication through one site which allows others to verify you. This allows you to have multiple online identities. Question to ponder: is this a useful tool or simply bizarrely complicated?
Should Wikipedia be used to back up an academic argument? There is still much debate on this topic. On the one hand, more studies are beginning to show that Wikipedia is equally, or more, accurate than a good encyclopedia. Some of these studies are not reported in second-rate publications (see this one in Nature, for instance. Actually, you should check out the controversy over this-RATHER amusing). Of course, much comment is subjective yet it must be granted the foundational editing principles of Wikipedia mean it is able to keep up with developments much more rapidly than traditionally published encyclopediae can. Yet, a lot of traditional academics also move slowly; the ivory tower was built to last. So, much of the ill-feeling towards Wikipedia within academia can be more correctly termed prejucdice. We must also note that Wikipedia itself warns there could be problems with uncritical use of information contained within it. However, for some research - particularly those in the social sciences - Wikipedia may be the best source of information. What I feel the reason most academics have a problem with citations from Wikipedia is that it promotes sloppy research. Indeed, one should never use any singular source as a foundation for an argument and this is something students may not quite realise - particularly students at lower levels. This argument can be summed up as follows: use Wikipedia but do not use it exclusively.
For information from the University of Otago Library about using Wikipedia download their brochure Why Not Wikipedia.
Showing posts with label identity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label identity. Show all posts
13.1.10
Social Capital - Erika Pearson (Class 6)
Virtual Communities, Tie Theory, and Social Capital
Virtual communication - communicating through a medium other than verbal language.
Virtual Community
(Rheingold)
Aggregate of agents - you cannot be a community of one.
In public - anyone may join. This may be nuanced so you may need to log in or not.
Share a code - common form of semiotic system. Jargon, hash-tags, language.
Time - it takes a long time for community to be formed.
Emotional investment - "You are not a community until you have a funeral."
Rhizomic - a messy series of over-lapping connections in a non-ordered system.
Social Capital
"The processes between people which establish networks, norms and social trust and facilitate co-ordination and co-operation for mutual benefit" Eva Cox (1992).
Usually takes place in horizontal bands of reciprocity - same status.
1960s-Bowling leagues, knitting circles etc.
Social capital exists only where there is a social connection-there does not need to be a physical connection.
Good will is "nebulous entity" but fulfills the requirements of sufficient human feeling in Rheingold's conception of communities.
Markers of Social Capital
Castle (2002) - is SC simply a neat metaphor that posits a logically comprehended, and comprehendable, ground (social capital) for a vague process (what actually happens). In social capital systems, horizontal social and power relations allow social capital to flow freely.
Few explicit rules or controls - the community is self-controlling partially because there is high trust within the community that members will behave appropriately.
Ingrouping and Outgrouping. We have high good will for those who are within our ingroup and this reduces the greater distance from this ingroup your connection is. However, the dynamic nature of community means that it is possible - and usually desirable - for members of the outgroup to become members of the ingroup.
Obligation towards reciprocity - you pay the SC back to the person from whom you got it or forward to someone else within community. This reciprocity keeps the social capital "sloshing" around the community so there is a desire to see the community flourish.
Tendency toward gift economies - the currency of communities usually runs on thoughts like: "I'll help you so you may help me in the future" Note that this seems counter to the expected reciprocity yet the gift economy, whilst expecting reciprocity, functions on expectations only.
Physical networks can expand to the limits to the technology. But can communities do the same? No, up to 150 connections is the max network a person can sustain.This critical number is limited by our time, social empathy, and attention. Which means social capital is a scarce resource-there are limits to how much can be put in or taken out of the system. Virtual networks tend to get a smaller chunk of the pie because they are not networks one can simply be active in - their technological mediation means one needs to go to a special place to be involved in the community. Although the hand-held devices are reducing this barrier to participation.
Social Capital thinks of "friendship" in terms of ties: strong, weak (friends who have the potential to be strong), and latent. Hence: "Burden of history in your inner circle" (Ze Frank)
Strong and Weak Ties
Strong: those with whom we have high emotional reciprocity.
Differentiated along four criteria. Time: usually take a long and regular period of time. Emotional intensity. Mutual confidence (trust), and reciprocity. So, strong ties are long, intensive, trusting, and reciprocal. Strong ties tend to come with more similarity between people i.e. the stronger the tie, the higher the similarity between the nodes, the stronger the connection. It is these ties who re-inforce who you are.
Although weak ties take less input, they are still a conduit of social capital so make the scarce resource (social capital) go further. These weaker ties require more governance but the overlap of weak-tie networks can provide new conduits of social capital through a bridging tie. One is most likely to find a new job from your weak-tie network. These bridging ties can also provide variety since they introduce you to new people who can, potentially, become strong ties.
Virtual Identity and Group Communication
How we communicate changes depending on whom we communicate with and with whom we think we are adjacent to in the network. Work backwards: look at communication to understand social position. Our code relies on trust: the other will understand the strong tie and the denotation. If we can identify the person from their interactions on the network does it follow that we can shape certain types of community by fostering certain types of utterances?
Social capital is not an unproblematic concept.
Tie theory looks at the micro level - the small-scale connections between people.
Communities are dynamic and there is a feedback system between members of the community and the individuals which constitute that community.
Virtual communication - communicating through a medium other than verbal language.
Virtual Community
(Rheingold)
Aggregate of agents - you cannot be a community of one.
In public - anyone may join. This may be nuanced so you may need to log in or not.
Share a code - common form of semiotic system. Jargon, hash-tags, language.
Time - it takes a long time for community to be formed.
Emotional investment - "You are not a community until you have a funeral."
Rhizomic - a messy series of over-lapping connections in a non-ordered system.
Social Capital
"The processes between people which establish networks, norms and social trust and facilitate co-ordination and co-operation for mutual benefit" Eva Cox (1992).
Usually takes place in horizontal bands of reciprocity - same status.
1960s-Bowling leagues, knitting circles etc.
Social capital exists only where there is a social connection-there does not need to be a physical connection.
Good will is "nebulous entity" but fulfills the requirements of sufficient human feeling in Rheingold's conception of communities.
Do you need social capital to form a community or is social capital an output of community?
Markers of Social Capital
Castle (2002) - is SC simply a neat metaphor that posits a logically comprehended, and comprehendable, ground (social capital) for a vague process (what actually happens). In social capital systems, horizontal social and power relations allow social capital to flow freely.
Few explicit rules or controls - the community is self-controlling partially because there is high trust within the community that members will behave appropriately.
Ingrouping and Outgrouping. We have high good will for those who are within our ingroup and this reduces the greater distance from this ingroup your connection is. However, the dynamic nature of community means that it is possible - and usually desirable - for members of the outgroup to become members of the ingroup.
Obligation towards reciprocity - you pay the SC back to the person from whom you got it or forward to someone else within community. This reciprocity keeps the social capital "sloshing" around the community so there is a desire to see the community flourish.
Tendency toward gift economies - the currency of communities usually runs on thoughts like: "I'll help you so you may help me in the future" Note that this seems counter to the expected reciprocity yet the gift economy, whilst expecting reciprocity, functions on expectations only.
Physical networks can expand to the limits to the technology. But can communities do the same? No, up to 150 connections is the max network a person can sustain.This critical number is limited by our time, social empathy, and attention. Which means social capital is a scarce resource-there are limits to how much can be put in or taken out of the system. Virtual networks tend to get a smaller chunk of the pie because they are not networks one can simply be active in - their technological mediation means one needs to go to a special place to be involved in the community. Although the hand-held devices are reducing this barrier to participation.
Social Capital thinks of "friendship" in terms of ties: strong, weak (friends who have the potential to be strong), and latent. Hence: "Burden of history in your inner circle" (Ze Frank)
Strong and Weak Ties
Strong: those with whom we have high emotional reciprocity.
Differentiated along four criteria. Time: usually take a long and regular period of time. Emotional intensity. Mutual confidence (trust), and reciprocity. So, strong ties are long, intensive, trusting, and reciprocal. Strong ties tend to come with more similarity between people i.e. the stronger the tie, the higher the similarity between the nodes, the stronger the connection. It is these ties who re-inforce who you are.
Although weak ties take less input, they are still a conduit of social capital so make the scarce resource (social capital) go further. These weaker ties require more governance but the overlap of weak-tie networks can provide new conduits of social capital through a bridging tie. One is most likely to find a new job from your weak-tie network. These bridging ties can also provide variety since they introduce you to new people who can, potentially, become strong ties.
Virtual Identity and Group Communication
How we communicate changes depending on whom we communicate with and with whom we think we are adjacent to in the network. Work backwards: look at communication to understand social position. Our code relies on trust: the other will understand the strong tie and the denotation. If we can identify the person from their interactions on the network does it follow that we can shape certain types of community by fostering certain types of utterances?
Social capital is not an unproblematic concept.
Tie theory looks at the micro level - the small-scale connections between people.
Communities are dynamic and there is a feedback system between members of the community and the individuals which constitute that community.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)