Session 7: Rule Breaking

Official Documents
As stated in the readings by Grimes et al (2008), it is unlikely to have all four of the governing documents--Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, Software License Agreements, and Community Standards--within a given network. xAble makes available the Terms and Conditions (TaC), Privacy Policy and the Help and FAQs.

• The TAC outlines the rules of engagement, including how the site should be used, what the site will not tolerate, and legalities (this is similar to the description given by Grimes et al for the Software License Agreements, although as explained by Grimes et al, "there is no universally accepted naming scheme" (9) for these documents).
  
• The Privacy Policy is straightforward, stating how the site intends to manage the information revealed by the user and who has access to private information.
  
• The Help and FAQs is unfortunately not as helpful as one would hope. While it does give a helpful overview of the purpose and functionality of xAble, it does not go into detail about how to use the site. This also does not cover community standards, including how and what to post, but it does offer suggestions about how to invite friends. (One attempt by a user to request a "how to" file for the system on the forum was met with agreement from a single user. The request did not take, and no file has been created since the posting.)

Breaking the Rules
Scenario 1: Spam (of course)
As with most Social Networks, spamming is not tolerated. xAble's TAC states that any user who "transmits or posts any unsolicited or unauthorized advertising, "spam," junk mail, "chain letters," "pyramid schemes," etc." will not be tolerated. xAble also reserves the right to terminate on these grounds. However, within the past week, the forum has been inundated with spam messages selling all sorts of products (see Figure 1).


Solution 1:
It may be most helpful for the spam to be completely ignored. Kollock and Smith (1996) offer a suggestion to implement a control mechanism where other users don't restrict deviant behavior, but instead only discourage it by ignoring or expressing irritation (12). While this can be helpful, it is not always the most plausible way to deal with the situation. The xAble forums offer a count for the times the post is viewed. This may be motivation enough for spammers to continue posting and negate any affects of informal sanctions.

For this instance, I suggest it would be most helpful to instate network authority to delete or ban the user. The authorities could start by deleting the content, and if it persists, then the offending user could be terminated. This is considered "graduated punishments ranign from insignificant fines all the way to banishment" (Kollock and Smith, 1996, 12). The spammers are not contributors aside from the product they are selling. These free-riders are destructive to the forum because of the sea of posts they've created. Members now have to wade through the spam to find the real content, which is sometimes more effort than is necessary. This could cause a destructive effect for forum use.

Scenario 2: Profanity
In the search for violations of the official rules, I quickly discovered that most of the rule breaking had to do with sex and obscenity. For instance, the network allows browsing of photos that members post. After a few brief clicks, I found two instances where explicit material was captured. xAble does not allow nudity or obscene gestures. Although the nudity is borderline, it still seems to be enough to question the rules (see Figure 2).


Solution 2:
Perhaps the best solution to dealing with these issues is the inception of oversight. xAble already makes use of a rating system for each post, blog, photo, video, or audio. It would be an easy transition to allow a type of peer moderation. For instance, a user could down rate the photo above which would affect their "X" rank, a ranking system much like Answerbag, but less effective. Another solution would be to install a moderating feature where the user could easily report the offense to the authority. Peer oversight is an effective means of ensuring quality. If the users know they can be rated and the photo be taken down, they are less likely to be motivated to post in the first place (Cosley et al, 2005).

Scenario 3: Sex
xAble describes explicit sex as "any material that depicts, in actual or simulated form, or explicitly describes, in a predominantly sexual context, human genitalia, any act of sexual intercourse, any act of sadism or masochism, or any other erotic subject directly related to the foregoing." As such, a feature video that is posted in the top slot on the video page should be determined inappropriate and in violation of the sites rules (see Figure 3). The video was created by a user, Professir X, who is a professed rapper that communicates his life as a disabled person. The video starts innocently enough, with Professir X picking up on a woman. Throughout the video, the woman proceeds to unbutton her shirt (and I guess I should say that she is gifted in this area), grind on Professor X, take a bath (yes, she's naked, but no, you don't see anything explicit), and make out in lingerie with Professir X. Does that sound innocent to you?


Solution 3:
Surprisingly enough, Professor X is a major contributor to xAble. He keeps a blog that catalogs relevant issues with his disability, offers encouragement to other users, and promotes advocacy for the disabled. The majority of his content is not explicit, and he can be seen as a valuable community member. The course of action, therefore, should not be to terminate his account.

I suggest the site offer an outlet for this type of video that allows members to view the content but is not explicitly on the video page. For example, YouTube makes use of the "18 and above" rating system. Users over 18 must register with the site to be able to view a video with explicit content. I suggest that xAble also make use of this format for videos, since members 13 and above are able to view all material. If the video section continues to grow, this may become more and more of an issue. Also, Professir X finds real value in the material he produces. It may be beneficial to redesign the profile page to allow explicit videos to be viewed only from his profile and not in the main video library. This is a means of appeasing the user while also protecting the rules of the network. As Gazan (2007) stated, "Rouge users in online communities can be viewed not simply as destructive miscreants but as individuals with emotional needs that information systems might be better designed to address" (7). Designing the system differently would promote interaction, appease users, and address violations.

Lesser Rule Breaking
As a side note, I skimmed over the forums, and found no infringements of any sort. It seemed that the text representation of members was absolutely clean. If fact, one user commented on the fact that he did not want to break the rules in order to post an article that had an expletive in the link. xAble does not allow profanity of any kind, and the user considered membership more valuable than throwing it away to post a link (See Figure 4).


It was somewhat surprising to note the strict abidance of the law within the forum. When I searched through other formats, there was many more instances of violations. Although the actual account of the termination could not be accounted for, one user blogged about his experience with violating the laws. Professir X felt that he was unjustly banned from the site after promoting his new CD. The music professed his account of living with a disability. He felt that the network offered an outlet for his CD to be supported, but the network saw this as unlawful advertisement (See Figure 5).


Overall, it seems that the rules on the site are generally effective. It was difficult to find infractions of any kind. It would be helpful, however, to have an additional resource that explained the types of acceptable posts and what is expected of the user. I would like to see more of an outline of the community itself. I appreciate the quote offered by Madison (2006) concerning the significance of the law: "the role of the law, then, is to judge the extent to which it should allow [content] to happen" (189). I can't imagine a network functioning without a set of rules, or for that matter, a set of users functioning without deciding to make up rules.

Session 6: Online Identities with xAble

xAble is a community dedicated to enabling members to develop new perspectives on living with disabilities whil sharing experiences and information to promote change. As such, xAble attracts a user base primarily of people with disabilities as well as care givers and family members influenced by a person with disabilities. The community supports positive thinking and encouragement to other users through profiles, forums, and groups. Online identities for members are developed through the inclusion of assessment and conventional signals, discussed later in this post. Members develop online identities through creating strong ties by contributing to profile pages and discussions, which are filtered throught the concept of coping with disabilities. As stated by Liu (2007), "the taste norms of the class should greatly shape its members' tastes" (5).

Donath (2007) suggests that social cues are the building blocks of trust within an online community. Because online communities lack the capabilities to gather information about other users through face to face interactions, like facial expressions or character observations, reliance is placed on "consumption patterns, or the statements they make on their profiles in order to infer these qualities" (3). The following User Scenarios provide insight into the development of online identities through interaction and building of trust:

User Scenario #1: Finding a Friend

Joining xAble is a good way to meet people dealing in some way with disabilities. For instance, Taylor is married to a man with a physical impairment. She works tirelessly as his caregiver and loves him dearly, but she feels that she needs support from other women going through the same issues of caring for the disabled. Taylor decides to join xAble, and browses through groups to look for users with similar interests. She stumbles on Life Club, a group dedicated to sharing knowledge and experiences in the disability community. By joining the group, she can now read through the discussion posts and she finds that one person in particular stands out as having great and meaningful comments. By clicking on the user's profile picture, Taylor brings up Ahleah's profile. Taylor discovers that Ahleah also is a young married woman who takes care of her disabled husband. She also finds that she can read information about her husband's disability, view the profiles of her friends, and view photos of Ahleah volunteering at advocacy meetings. Friends have left comments about Ahleah's outstanding character, she has top rating scores on the site, and is the host for several groups on xAble. Taylor decides to add Ahleah as a friend based on the signals gathered, and her need for companionship as well as support through joining the group is now met.

User Scenario #2: Discussion Forum

xAble is also a means for asking difficult questions to users who understand the issues with disabilities. Miriam is a 32 year old user with a neurological disorder. She has worked for a company for nearly 5 years, but the company has failed to make accommodations for her disability. If the company does not comply, Mariam's safety is at risk. She is now considering suing the company, but she does not know how to go about it. Mariam decided to log into her account on xAble and go to the forum. She quickly ads a new topic to the general questions forum that is already set up. Mariam explains her situation, asks for advice on the situation as well as any tips on good disability lawyers. The question is posted in the forum. Two users browsing through the forum notice Mariam's plea, and respond with websites to check out about the Americans with Disabilities Act compliance, pointers for gathering information to use in the process, and support for action. Mariam is satisfied because she gathered helpful tips as well as validation from her peers.

Online Identities in xAble
xAble relies primarily on profiles and posting patterns of members to infer trust statements. For instance, assessment signals are valuable in this community and take the form of personal photos of the member. If a user can see another member with a physical impairment or debilitating disease, it immediately builds trust because it would take great lengths to fake a disability. Members are also far more likely to trust other users if similar life situations are shared. Trust is also developed through conventional signals, like the profiles on xAble. The profiles are far more detailed than many other online communities. Members post answers to personal and medical questions about their disability, which gives great insight into the member's character and persona. Scenario 1, for example, allowed Taylor to see the vital statistics, like age, hieght, and disability, while also veiwing more in depth information, like preferences, pasions, and struggles in Ahleah's profile (see Figure). Ploderer et al (2008) suggests that "low degrees of anonyity and high transparency are critical facors for the formation of relationships among strangers on passion-centric social network sites" (341). The information Ahleah revealed about herself offered Taylor the oppotunity to quickly form a relationship.

Members use these trust signals to build an online identity. In Scenario 1, Ahleah has constructed an identity that resonates with the disability community. Because Ahleah does not have a disability, the profile is directed toward the care of her husband who has muscular distrophy. With the option to view the profiles of her friends, or even simply her husband, signals her trustworthiness and signifies her social context (Donath, 2007). Having friends on the network validates the claims she makes in her profile. This is also made evident by the display of groups in which she participates. Group identification is a form of displaying prestige, as Ahleah signified her solidarity with the group through the tailoring of her profile (Liu, 2007). She presents her character with the photos, self-descriptions, comments on discussion boards, and comments from friends (see Figure).


Another way xAble builds online identities is through consistent and constant participation in forums and clubs. Discussion is a major component of xAble as the primary support for interaction. In Scenario 2, Mariam built her online profile by posting a personal plea for help. Behind the scenes, Mariam has also joined several clubs, participated in several discussions posted by other users, and established the same profile allowances as describe in Scenario 1. This enhances her online identity because she has made an effort to create "strong ties" within the community. The more she shares and the more she communicates, the more her profile is believable (Donath, 2007). Other users are able to familiarize themselves with Mariam because she has made efforts to share her experiences, thus building her online presence and identity performance. Creating her own discussion based on personal struggles signifies her level of commitment and furthers the development of her identity to the other community members (see Figure).


It should be pointed out that Mariam has produced discriminating information about her employer in a public posting. This is considered signaling imperviousness, where the benefits to gaining information as well as status within the community outweighs the risk of revealing defamatory information (Danoth, 2007). Perhaps Mariam posted the plea for help with her employer because she truly needed tips on finding a lawyer. I suggest it was to identify with a major issue presented in the forums: ADA compliance. Because much of the post is dedicated to her concerns and complaints, and because of the responses given from other members, it seems that Mariam likely used this platform to establish herself as a capable person with a disability. xAble dedicates itself to this theme. This actually increases the reliability of her online identity because of the nature of the revealed information.

Like several other online communities developed out of "passion-centric" situations, in this case disabilities, xAble developed a set of values and moral codes (Ploderer et al, 2008). Although members create individual identities, they all follow an underlying code of conduct which promotes acceptance and non-discrimination in every word typed. Online identities are created with this in mind, as members value the support given through such an open minded community. The offline experiences of the members is what promotes the community itself. Ploderer et all (2008) suggests "in the absense of offline ties that share or support these habits, social network sites can help to alleviate the isolation and foster offline behaviors" (341). xAble members develop online personas that garner support from their peers that enables them a measure of encouragment for continuing to be active in their offline lives.

Notes:
xAble: http://xable.com/index.php
View Ahleah's complete profile here: http://xable.com/profiles/ahleah
View the complete discussion forum for Mariam here: http://xable.com/index.php?page=forum&section=topic&top_id=100018

Session 5: Peer Production in Online vs. In Person Formats

Over the past few semesters, I have participated in quite a few group projects. Typically we have about 4-6 members, and over the course of a few weeks, we put together a research paper or presentation. The single most frustrating aspect of group work is trying to get everybody in sync with schedules, goals, and communication. We've tried everything from meeting in person to sending attachments via e-mail. Because we all lead lives that are so diverse, it's difficult to make group work productive in the 30 minutes we might see each other after class.

This semester, I stumbled into a fairly recent tool created by Google. Google Documents allows group members to create a document, much like Microsoft word applications, that can be shared between 200 collaborators and edited by 10 people at any given time (See Figure: Google Doc home). This opens up an interesting opportunity for compiling group work. Although not a social network in the traditional sense, I suggest that Google Docs fits the profile for our topic this week concerning peer production on a much more simplistic level.


Strengths and Weaknesses
This model of peer production was an interesting counter to traditional formats. Because we had to depend on the online document for creating this project, more emphasis was placed on negotiating acceptable contributions, norms for timeliness and quality of information, and constructing positive criticism--all elements of HWPP (Haythornthwaite, 4). It revealed and supported a a couple major strengths and weaknesses presented in the readings.

Online peer production's strength lies in the freedom to contribute based on schedule and expertise of the user. Members can contribute at any time of the day, with any contribution they see fit. Because the availability of the project is increased while the project sections can be broken into smaller increments, barriers to contribution are lowered. Haythornthwaite suggests that "the larger the granules the more is required of each contributor, the smaller the set of agents who wil be willing and able to take a crack at the work" (5). This seems to be true for traditional formats as well. Face-to-face meetings tend to be brutally long, and group members often have nothing to say about a particular point in the project. This leads to disinterest and lack of motivation for contribution. If too much is covered in one setting, group members are burdened by the scope of the project. It does not play into each member's strengths. Timing is also an issue, as it it difficult to schedule meetings that last more than 1 hour at a time.

Because online formats allow users to contribute at their own pace, at any time of the day, members are more likely to contribute quality work. Also, members can focus on areas of the project that play most into their expertise. This increases motivation and endurance for completing the project. When members don't have to take on too much of the project, the entry barriers lower and the project gets done more efficiently. Google Docs allowed each member of my group to participate on their own schedules. Members would leave comments and make edits according to the information they could provide (See Figure: comments made on the Google doc at two different times). This saved time an effort because members did not need to work face-to-face or carve out significant time to work on the project together. Our work was done more efficiently because members contributed when they had the mind and means to participate.


However, this also leads to a particular weakness for online formats of peer production. As stated by Duguid, "With granularity set so low, individual contributions need have no overview of the piece, no awareness of where it begins and ends, and how it gets from one to the other, and no sense of obligation to the overall balance" (14). Because of the trend for making social networks personalized, individual preference and bias gets in the way of developing a quality product. For instance, as our group made edits to the Google Doc, I noticed a strong discord for the flow and voice of the article. There was instances where two of us would be editing the same section, making sentences completely incoherent.

This issue would not happen with traditional offline collaboration. Because the group discusses the information that is needed within the project, there is a much broader understanding of the overall goal. There is balance within the document because each group member shapes and molds ideas together before even putting it to paper. Two conflicting ideas can be worked out and discussed, where with online formats, users can edit or revise without regard. Users also tend to edit sections of the project that play into their specific knowledge base. This leads to the widening of gaps between project points, primarily because communication and understanding is limited.

This suggests some trouble with the idea that "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow," as stated by Duguid as Linus's Law. While this may be true for software issues that prevent or delay contribution, this law of quality does not cover the issue of having "too many cooks in the kitchen." As with Wikipedia, "small changes in one part of the article make unnoticed trouble for other parts" (Duguid, 12). While it's true that the best information likely comes from many sources, it is difficult to manage the way the information is included. Too many contributors make for unsupported edits.

Graham's Law is slightly more efficient in this circumstance: quality that comes when "the good stuff spreads, and the bad gets ignored" (Duguid, 3). This law was pivotal for our Google Docs project. Because we had multiple members adding information on a consistent and periodic basis, there was an ongoing need for filtering (See Figure: View of other member editing at the same time; edits made by two people on the same sentence). Some members wanted to use bullet points while the assignment required well-written sentences. Some members used the document to add notes and links for further research, while others used it to finalize sections of the project. There was fragmented sentences, and complete paragraphs. I found myself continually deleting, revising, and repositioning text throughout the document to unify the overall document. Eventually it came together, but there was consistent discord for the emphasis and goals of the project.


My suggestion for improving this weakness in the online format would be to increase communication between contributors. Google Docs does not allow the chat function within the document as you edit. However, our group felt like we needed to discuss some edits that were being made, so we opened up another window for Google chat while we edited. We were then able to ask questions, play with terms, and share focus (See Figure: chat with group member concerning project).


Conclusion
It seems that peer production would benefit most from a collaboration of the elements above. Group work needs to have the communication that is available from face-to-face encounters, as well as the freedom to work according to busy schedules and knowledge base. Group work would be unlimited in the scope of members, expertise, and goals with the availability and convenience offered through online components. However, without the opportunities to communicate, peer production will be limited.

Session 4: Role/Capitol/Trust

Social Capitol
The main concept for the readings this week was social capitol. Ellison et al (2007) defines social capitol as "the sum of the resources, actual or virtual, that accrue to an individual or a group by virtue of possessing a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition" (3). The range of connections that can be made through online formats are frequently more beneficial to the user that many offline contacts. There are two types of social capitol, including bridging, "weak ties" that expand the breadth and worldview of the user, or bonding, "strong tied" connections that support the user emotionally (Williams, 4). The bridging effect increases in online environments primarily because of the low entry and exit boundaries. Users make connections with people they wouldn't otherwise in real life (Williams, 17). By expanding the connections made through online networks, the user has a wider scope of access to diverse information and opportunities.

Interesting to note, most users join social networks to maintain offline relationships, despite the benefits to networking with weak ties (Ellison, 12). Users also attempt to solidify offline relationships that would otherwise be temporal and superficial, which links them to further opportunities later on (Ellison, 14). It can also be a means for building social capitol with out the cost of interaction that takes place in offline formats. Social networks provide a security measure for those less likely to make connections or exert themselves into a crowd. (Does this also promote isolationism to an extent? Does it affect the abilities of young people to effectively interact and adapt to offline social situations?)

Williams (2006) states that by using social capitol, a user gets more of it (2). However, I suggest that the development of social capitol would not grow or succeed without social roles and trust.

Social Roles
Gleave et al. (2009) describes social roles as "recognized, accepted, and used to accomplish pragmatic interaction goals in a community" which "operate both sources of constraint and resources for action" (1). Learning the rules of interaction are developed primarily around the contributions of members. For instance,"social roles are often inherently defined in relational terms; a role only exists in relation to others who are likewise enacting social roles" (Gleave et al, 9). This leads me to question whether we create roles in order to facilitate control of our surroundings. Do roles help us assimilate to a new online culture?

Although Gleave et al. (2009) used the social structure of Usenet to describe different roles of interaction, it seems appropriate for several social networks. Usenet roles are broken into three separate characteristics: Answer People, Discussion Person, and Discussion Catalyst (Gleave et al, 6). Answer people respond to multiple questions, providing most of the content generated, while a Discussion Person contributes high content, but it is more focused on keeping a string of conversation going with multiple people. A Discussion Catalyst makes interesting and pointed comments that facilitate long threads of conversation. These three roles make up the environment to several question/answer formats of social networks.

It can be inferred that social roles can play into the development of trust as well. For instance, an expert is far more likely to be trusted than a laymen. Eryilmaz et al (2009) describe this element as the "authority" of a user, which stems from the desire for the most accurate and well informed responses.

Trust Mechanisms
A key component of developing trust within a social network is the presence of "trust statements," the declaration of one user's opinion concerning the worth and interest in another (Paolo, 53). There are different contexts to trust, which should be discovered and noted in the initial stages of interaction within a social network. For instance, some networks build trust through reliable product reviews, ability to be a good friend, or even interesting posts (Paolo, 55).

Timeliness can also be a factor in determining trust. If a social network is especially dependent on current proceedings, like an emergency or news environment, the user is more likely to trust (and search for) new information. Erylizmaz et al (2009) states "users trusted a piece of information more when it received more updates since there would be corroborative evidence" (8). Timeliness contributes to minimizing the risk of internalizing false information for the user.

It should be noted that the quality of a post or response can also be determined by the "number of edits (rigor) and the total number of unique editors (diversity)" (Erylizmaz et al, 4). Although this is primarily the way Wikipedia develops quality articles, I suggest that this is relevant for other social networks. Questions or post that get more attention are usually more trusted. For instance, in Goodreads.com, reviews of books that users uprate are sifted to the top of the page. This information becomes more and more trusted as it gains more attention.

Examples of Trust Mechanisms
In order to practically apply the concepts mentioned above, I joined a couple social networks that used different modes of trust. I should first mention that this proved to be somewhat difficult because most of the social networks I joined ended up having several of the same trust mechanisms. I will conclude this section with a specific example of site that has different means to develop trust, but that I did not join because of the cost of interaction.

Experience Project (http://www.experienceproject.com/index.php)
This social network is based on users sharing and connecting through experiences. The primary means of interaction is through joining groups that have similar interests, for instance "I love to cook" or "I can't believe I'm a grandmother," and then writing stories (like mini-blogs) about your experience.

Trust is developed through a couple different mechanisms. First, users interact based on their own preferences and opinions. They have no reason to interact with other users that have interests outside their own. This builds trust primarily because of the centralized themes of interaction. Users trust themselves the most, so why not trust others that have the same ideals (Allen et al, 1)? As a support to this concept, users can comment on whether the stories made them feel happy, sad, surprised, etc. to further develop groups with the same interests (see Figure).

Secondly, users are given point scales to both disseminate to peers as well as to gain social capitol. Experience Project is unique because it makes use of a "gift shop", where the user can gain points by interacting on the site and then use the point to buy gifts for other users. This is an interesting motivation for interaction. Gifts are also a status symbol, so the more gifts you have on your profile, the more likely you are to have built trust with other users. Roles are also built through interaction (much like Answerbag) because the EP team gives you trophies for each level of interaction you complete.

One interesting way of building trust is actually anonymity. As mentioned before, users interact based on experience. There is a section in Experience Project that allows you to make "confessions," which can be left completely anonymous. You are encouraged to let all your secrets out. People can leave comments and support. If you appreciate their comments, you can make an additional contact and add them to your "circle" of friends.

I'd also like to note one additional form of building trust. I submitted a story to the group "I want to lose weight" and titled it "Dark Sexy Jeans." This is actually a blog I wrote a couple years back, and it just describes my motivation for exercising. When I posted it, it came up with a "18+" adult rating (see Figure)! I was shocked. There is absolutely no adult content in the blog--but it has "sexy" in the title. This actually helps to build trust in the site because it filters content for those who do not want to be inundated with questionable content.


It would be helpful if users could see who uprated the posts, and who considers the post "happy" or "sad." This could develop friendships based on similar interests. To be honest, the use of trophies and gifting is not as well developed as it could be. For instance, giving gifts to others is not rewarded. If the user could gain status or additional access to some aspect of the site, it would motivate higher contributions and collaboration (Allen et al, 3). The incentive for use is not as concentrated as with Answerbag or other social networks. EP almost has too much going on at once, which lowers trust because the user cannot grasp full control of all of the elements of the network.

Goodreads (http://www.goodreads.com/)
Goodreads is a social network that is based on comparing, reviewing, and sharing books. Users can form book clubs and groups based on favorite readings as well as rate and review favorite books. The focus is on finding reading materials that may be of interest.

Trust is built on simple principles. While friends can be made based on reviewing profiles and finding similar tastes in books, it is not the primary focus. Users write reviews, make recommendations, and select ratings from 1 to 5. Other users can "make informed opinions about the product in order to decide about [reading] it or not" (Paolo, 60). This is an essential function of a social network based on opinions. User achieve trust based on giving points to reviews. Reviews that are appreciated by many users move to the top of the page. Users can either uprate or make comments (see Figure).

All contributions are tracked and displayed on the profile. The more contributions you make, the more trust is built. For instance, Graham is now considered the #24 best reviewer of books within Goodreads. This status builds trust because other users voted him into his position (see Figure). On a brief side note, trust is also built by adding friends as comparing books in their library. Other users can build trust based on friends of friends (Paolo, 61).


This trust mechanism would be especially helpful if users could follow a person's reviews. The only option for subscribing to a user's interaction is by adding them as a friend. I attempted to add a few people as friends, but they have to approve your friendship (much like Facebook), and if they don't have any connection to you, they can easily refuse. To find them, you have to keep track by searching for their profile. In other words, there is no easy way to subscribe superficially, which inhibits the spreading of trust.

Other Trust Mechanisms
Just really brief (because I know I'm running long), I wanted to point out another social network with a specific trust mechanisms. Meezoog.com is a dating/relationship social network that is exclusive in its membership. The only way to join is to be invited (much like Okurt), which builds trust because everyone you meet has some degree of connection. Meezoog actually has a social proximity meeter to indicate how closely connected you are (see Figure). It is based on the principle that you will not have to meet strangers and you are likely to have something in common. The trust statement is based on personal recommendation. Has anyone joined this site? Can you comment it's success?

Final Thoughts

I've had some trouble deciding on a final topic. However, because I work in Special Education, I've been considering researching the effect of social networking on families with disabilities.
The question came out of our Session 2 readings concerning motivation for interaction and social companionship.

Question: What are the possibilities for using social networks to enhance emotional support and access to resources for those who have disabilities as well as their families? Do social networks provide the emotional support for special needs that otherwise would not be provided offline?

Methods: Researching scholarly articles, such as "Families with disabled children: Stress and social networks in three samples", as well as other resources. Also, I will collect evidence from interaction based social networks geared toward special needs communities. I will likely start researching with a special needs network call "One Place" (http://www.oneplaceforspecialneeds.com/). Interviews are also a possibility.

Session 3: AnswerBag and Motivation for Online Communities

Key Findings from the Readings
Before joining Answerbag.com, I had to form a strategy for interaction. The readings gave a strong basis for the motivations for users to get involved in online communities, which developed ideas for enhancing the experience with Answerbag (AB). I took away a couple of main points that were repeatedly stressed in the articles:

• Ridings and Gefen emphasized that the motivation for joining online communities was (1) to find information and (2) to find social support and relationships.
  
• Users participate because of common interests, personal feelings, and daily experience (Java et al, 6).
  

Along those lines, experience can be enhanced with the knowledge of computer systems, which Schrock describes as computer self-efficacy (6), as well as the ability to self-disclose. Extroverts are more likely to participate because of the shift in social networks from text based to media rich formats. Because the trend for social networks now depends on exposure and visability, introverts are not as comfortable with participation (Schrock, 7). Schrock emphasizes that the colaboration between media makes the social networking system more popular because users can get a range of information in one format.

Although the Java et al. article was primarily about Twitter and other microblogging systems, it seems that AnswerBag also functions on some of the same principles. Microblogging has a few dominate reasons for participating: status updates, conversations, sharing information, and reporting news. Users typically either predominatly contribute information or take away information, and sometimes the user functions as both depending on the community (Java et al, 6).

Strategy for Interaction
Based on the findings above, I decided to try a couple of different techniques. I developed a set of questions that appealed to the different purposes for use. For example:

1. What's the draw to American Idol? (Cross-media information and participation)
2. What are some creative ways to get out of debt? (Information sharing)
3. How do you avoid gossip at work? (Experience sharing)

I also created a few questions based from lurking the community. I noticed that a large portion of the questions are "philosophical" or commentaries on social life. A link to all questions can be found on my profile here: http://www.answerbag.com/profile/static/qa/questions/864789

In an attempt to generate a unique question that would also garner interaction, I decided to survey a controversial issue. This would inspire debate and allow users to draw from their unique experiences, which was researched as one of the major draws to join online communities. My attempts at asking light-hearted questions (How do I get a bird out of my house? What makes a good office plant? How do you avoid gossip at work?) did not get frutiful contributions. I noticed that the more serious questions (Particularly, Do you avoid special needs children/adults? Why?) attracted more attention, possibly because people could draw on self-disclosure and gain user support for their experiences. Hence the decision for my final question: Would you report a rape if the rapist is someone you know?

Results and Thoughts about Interaction
For the purpose of this post, I'm going to use the above question as the best example for interaction. This post gained 24 answer posts and 46 rating points. The question can be viewed here: http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/1274660

Perhaps part of the reason AB is so successful is the fact that users are required to post unique or original questions. This likely motivates users to contribute primarily because they are required to produce new content. Ling et al stated:

"If [users] believe that their contributions are redundant with those that others in the group can provide, then there is little reason to contribute, because their contributions have little likelihood of influencing the group" (4).

I also noticed that questions and answers received ratings from annonymous users, which suggests that their sentiments were already expressed. This also appeals to the introvert as well as the extrovert, because the interaction is largely text based, but also leaves room for vreative profiles and visability. The posts are also a form of expressing personality, gaining popularity, and even broadcasting experiences (like with a microblog) in the form of a question or comment.

Along those lines, the ratings system was fairly motivating. My whole goal was to reach the 40 points count for the question, but I got absorbed in the question during the process. While the conversation and comments were interesting and kept me involved, the ratings gave me reason to continue posting questions. Tedjamulia et al suggests that "non-monetary rewards like social recognition can be extremely powerful incentives" (8), which includes compliments and recognition. The points system on AB is an efficient way of letting users know they are appreciated. Users are more likely to continue contributing and develop new content if they feel accepted and praised for their efforts to support the community information pool.

As a counter point to this system, do the points seem more controlling than informative (Tedjamulia et al, 6)? The contributions seem superficial when it's obvious that the user is participating for points. In light of the trend/competition to get as many friends as possible on Facebook, and sometimes even pay strangers to be-friend you, doesn't the points system seem to run along the same lines? Especially with the recent acknowledgment of a user reaching level 100, was this user motivated intrinsically or extrinsically? (Some of the questions on this user's profile seemed cookie-cutter to generate points...)

The use of participation levels, with the graphic ribbons, are helpful, since most individuals work well and participate more regularly when given a goal to reach (Ling et al, 19). AB also offers small rewards, like additional rating points to give out or level badges, but these aren't as motivating as trying to get more points on a question.

Ridings and Gefen stated that "virtual communities must have compelling conent, and that they might fail if they do not have good standards for this content" (4). However, I suggest that the content of these online communities don't necessarily need to be compelling, it just needs to be interaction. For instance, I found that the majority of answers and comments to questions on AB were attempts to be humorous, crude, or flippant. Questions were often answered in jest, no matter how serious or trivial the question may be. One answer to my most popular question ended with the user apologizing for the attempt at humor (see Figure 1). If people are just looking for entertainment, socializing, and friendship, the content is not as important as the interaction that takes place. Another development out of this question was the bond of emotional support between users. Because this questions was controversial and troublesome in nature, I noticed that users were more apt to share personal stories and offer condolences. This could stem from the idea that users contribute when they feel they have something unique to offer (Ling et al, 4)--personal experience tops the original factor. For instance, one user admitted to not reporting her rapist, although she thought she would. (I've worked with rape victims before and also shared that I've had second thoughts about reporting. This comment cited sympathy from the answers and comments that followed from other users. Because this was a social experiment, I decided not to reveal that I was not the victim, but allow the conversation to flow as if I were.) Ridings and Gefen found in their research that this is a typical experience in online communities. Social support is a primary influence for getting involved, with some users joining to "support others going through a rough time" and "to let others know that I have gone through it too" (12). My experience confirmed this research (see Figure 2).It was helpful to view the online community from the eyes of a opportunist, with the suggestions from Ridings and Geffen. It is beneficial to the design commuinty interaction after the idea that people are not only looking for information, but also for interaction (17). The content will support itself as long as the community can interact around it. AB does a good job of supporting this principle. Ridings and Geffen suggest that the virtual community have advanced search capabilities, links to non-member-generated material, user profiles, the ability to search profiles for activity, and use of experts in a particular field (17)--all of which AB facilitates.

It was also telling that the questions with the most interaction was also one that produced conversations from people who have had personal experience with the topic. The postings from women who have experienced rape, or others who know victims of rape, confirms the findings in the readings that people draw together because of common interests and the need for support. The questions that asked for personal experience or opinion were overwhelmingly more popular. It seemed to be understood that if you ask the question, than you've experienced the situation yourself. Users reacted with natural support for the issue raised. It immeadiatly formed a small community within the boundaries of the question. Did anyone else notice this?

I also noticed that if I commented on the answers of other users, they were more likely to continue the thread of conversation in other areas of the post. The more comments I made, the more people were drawn to the question and motivated to comment. Visibility is based on frequent participation. I should say that I did end up answering my own question (despite Gazan's warning not to "game the system"), because I felt that the comment would enhance the fruitful contributions. I found that people quickly uprated my answer and the conversation entered a deeper level of communication. Once I started getting to the heart of the issue, I found that other people were more comfortable with sharing their experiences (it built trust).

Overall, the experience was positive. I found myself motivated to keep asking questions just to see if I'd get an answer. The most difficult part was trying to find a question that was not already asked with the added pressure of gaining high ratings. My focus was more on asking a great question than making a great comment. My next attempts with interaction will be to see what kind of comments can gain high ratings.

Session 2: Social Aspects Reactions

Reactions to the Readings

Galston seems to have pinpointed the draw for Internet communities as opposed to geographical communities. We want to express our individual preferences while still quenching our thirst for human companionship. Part of the appeal for entering a online community is the level of commitment--which is minimal--to the other users. We can foster relationships and stay connected on our own time, in our own format, and by our own standards. Social networks like Facebook are appealing to me because I can see what is happening with distant friends without actually having to break the communication barrier of awkward silences and false promises of commitments (as horrible as that sounds). Out of this, we form a sense of community. We belong on our own terms.

Galston makes an important point that the Internet tends to foster a reduced sense of voice, lack of authority, and a fleeting obligation to community. However, an example given in the Weeks article refutes this argument. The mother who twittered about smothering her toddler did not go unnoticed. Readers engaged in concern over the morality of the threat with outspoken voices, signifying a overall non-complacency and development of appropriate conduct. Readers also appealed to authority, requesting intervention by police to ensure the child's safety. The mother even acknowledged the presence of a "big sister" who determined the content of the blogs. And finally, this overwhelmingly presents the obligation of Internet users to one another. Weeks counters Galston's argument by stating that "people will respond to people who sound like they're in trouble--online or off. That's just normal human behavior" (3). If Galston is correct in stating that communities are developed not out of common interest, but out of obligation to one another, then this response to the mother's blog is exemplary of community.

However, it does seem important to point out that the miscommunication between the blogging mother and her readership comes from a lack of nonverbal and situational cues. Galston suggests that we rely heavily on these cues to understand motivation and identity. Along those lines, one of the greatest attractions to Internet communities is the ability to fabricate false identities (8). Big suggests that identities are shaped and re-adjusted according to interaction and "personalities and trimmed and shaped like hedges..." (4). We don't ever have to reveal our shortcomings, our personality defects, our secrets. This even opens up the possibility of exposure of these issues without consequence due to the possible annonymous nature of social networks, in other words, "private misbehavior becomes public exhibitionism" (Rosen, 8). Is it possible to ever have a real community without knowing the true identity of common users? Also, does alternate identities support low boundaries to entry and exit from communities?

LaRose, Eastin, and Gregg suggest that the relationships we form on the Internet can be equally as rewarding as real world connections. Although I agree that Internet relationships "develop less interdependence, understanding, and commitment" than their offline counterparts, the dynamic of Internet relationships can be refreshing and supportive of fast paced lifestyles. For instance, I was out of contact with my 4 college roommates for about 2 years once I graduated college. I was newly married, moved across the ocean, and had a new job. There was no time, an more importantly, no energy to try and connect with my once best friends. However, once I joined Facebook, I could reestablish contact, let them know what's going on with me, and read about their life changes. A few words here and there keep our relationship going without the extra stress that can come from a forgotten phone call or missed opportunity. The feelings of guilt for not putting more effort into keeping a distant relationship and the longing to still engage in sharing our lives (signifying depression), dissipated when I found Internet connection with my roommates. Albrechtslund confirms this sentiment by acknowledging:

"Participatory surveillance is a way of maintaining friendships by checking up on information other people share. Such a friendship may seem shallow, but it is a convenient way of keeping in touch with a large circle of friends, which can be more difficult to handle offline without updated personal information--untold and unasked" (8).

Although I realize we probably won't be pouring out our hearts, social networking with my extended circle of friends keeps up the basics needs for connection. I'd even go so far to suggest that perhaps this distant social connection through an Internet medium keeps us from having to say goodbye.

It seems that the benefits to social networking also outweighs the negative impact of possible surveillance dangers. The convenience of having information about my friends and relatives and in turn being available to them via the Internet is more of a priority than privacy. Albrechtslund argues the significance of having more of a participatory surveillance, where the user is passive as well as active in contributing ideas and subjectivity (8). Empowering people to have social purpose is the draw and reward of social networking. The need to express views and have liberty to contribute creatively is telling of the changing technology and times. I suggest that the key is balance. In other words, putting your views and creativity to public use while also protecting the valuable private information for protection. Is this even possible? Can we participate effectively without compromising our identities?

One last thing before diving into an online community, I find it hard to believe that friendships on social networks are strictly superficial. Rosen argues, "because friendship depends on mutual revelations that are concealed from the rest of the world, it can only flourish within the boundaries of privacy; the idea of public friendship is an oxymoron" (9). Internet relationships can be formulated in the same way as real world friendships. We have the same opportunity for private conversation, participation in experiences, building trust and sharing in mutual interests. The difference is the format. The term "friend" is loosely used in social networks to link people together, but the boundaries and relational interactions are the same.

Online Community Participation

As the intensely goal-oriented person that I am, I was especially interested in joining 43things.com to analyze the online community aspects. This community, as stated in our readings "encourages people to share their personal goals" (Rosen, 3). Users are encouraged to develop lists of life goals--like "take piano lessons" and "visit Costa Rica"--which connects them to other users with the same goals. You can write blogs, "cheer" other users, and comment on posts. The draw to this community is gaining support for accomplishing your aspirations while also helping others to reach their own.

In my participation, I attempted to answer my questions concerning the development of community. Can we keep identities hidden without compromising community? Are the boundaries lowered for entering and exiting? Also, does this community satisfy a need for social interaction?

Joining with a pseudonym was easy enough--no personal information is revealed in the profile. Because the community was goal oriented, I chose to write very general goals that I thought would identify with several users. These goals were applicable to me, but not as personal. I also posted blogs about the goals, cheered other users, and commented on other user's blogs. I immediately noticed that the interaction on the site was largely personal and self-motivated. Users were intensely positive and supportive in comments. Personal blogs explained frustration and issues reaching the goal, but also overwhelmingly positive. I noticed that my own comments started mirroring others.

Unfortunately, it seems that the entire site must be self motivated. You have the option to select the RSS feed for other users, but you don't actually select people to be your friend. Being up front with your identity is not important because people are not as concerned with who you are as what you are working toward. Because of this, motivation to stay within the online community is fairly low. If you neglect your goals, there is nothing to keep you coming back aside from comments on your own writings. Community is developed around mutual interests, but ties are minimal. This relates to Rosen's statement that individuals are able to compartmentalize and parcel out parts of their personalities (8). All of the 43things users are focused on one thing: goals. I should also note, that this online community also supports LaRose, Eastin, and Gregg's idea that there is a lack of interdependence, understanding and commitment, which can be preferable for accountability's sake. We don't have to answer to anyone if we fail our goals.

However, I found myself uniquely motivated to reach my own goals. It was particularly empowering to be able to take hold of my goals and give tips to others about how I accomplished their goals. I also found posts from other users particularly helpful. Comments on questions I posted in my blog were encouraging and exciting to read. For instance, I wrote a goal about losing weight and the frustrations that come from not receiving confirmation for goals reached by real community members. I posed this question particularly because of the contrast between real compliments and virtual compliments. Do they serve the same purpose? While is was not as satisfying as when someone in real life says "you look skinny," it was still helpful to have even a few words of encouragement from some distant user.

My comments and cheers on other user's posts have not been completely reciprocated. Over the course of the next few months, it will be interesting to see how the interaction changes. I'm curious to see who will respond to my posts and comments. Having only a couple days to participate is decidedly not long enough to know the intricacies of this environment.

Session 1: Reactions and Comments

Quick thoughts:
There is a quick quote I'd like to point out from the readings. I found it extremely significant that Social Network sites tend to form similarly minded communities. In the article, "Social Network Sites," Boyd and Ellison quote:

"While SNSs are often designed to be widely accessible, many attract homogeneous populations initially, so it is not uncommon to find groups using sites to segregate themselves by nationality, age, educational level, or other factors that typically segment society..."

Did this stand out to anyone else? Is this necessarily a good thing? It seems that this may create individual blocks of knowledge instead of the collaboration the designers try to promote.

"Be-logs"
Two articles, "Bridging the Gap" and "Blogging as a Social Activity," were fascinating reads, primarily because it was all a little too familiar. Both articles overwhelmingly suggested that the majority of blogs out there focused on the journal/diary function. This is not surprising. I found myself entertained by the familiarity of creating a blog under the pretenses outlined in the articles.

For instance, both articles stressed the idea of blogging as a method for the release of emotional tension. In other words, people write in order to think things through. What an idea! How many times have I found myself staring down a computer screen with my fingers blazing away at the keys just to get the thoughts out of my head? I am a serial blogger: this is my 5th blog (the other 4 were journal/diary style). I tend to want to contribute posts when I get depressed, creative, bored, or even stressed. Along with the research subjects in these articles, I am thrilled that someone may actually be interested (and continue to be interested) in what I have to say.

Blogging is an interesting concept. In my "communication studies" days as an undergrad, we were told the best way to keep a conversation going was to get the person to talk about themselves. Perhaps blogging plays on this premise that we all really just want to hear ourselves talk? Maybe its the idea that we want our lives--our stories--to have some greater significance to the community around us. The impact one mundane detail of a post may have on a single reader gives us purpose.

Significance
Social computing gives us unlimited potential to impact our world. We like the idea of contributing to wikis, posting comments, and tagging sites because it gives the average person value, democracy, and potential. Carol Tenipor, in "Web 2.0: Our Cultural Downfall?", presents the generally pessimistic view of Andrew Keen's distaste for user created knowledge. He (along with certain LIS faculty members) stresses the emerging disregard for expert advice that Web 2.0 tends to ignore. While this is not only valid, and also begs for the degrading of knowledge, it seems that this environment is satisfying the average user. Could it be that we just want to feel important? Are we just bored with being entertained and need a new focus? Are we simply playing into the convenience catastrophe, or do we really have something to say?