Towards a Social Science of Web 2.0 (VII): Community 2.0

Matthew Row
Meervisage – A community based annotation tool

Semantic = meaning.
Ontology: Formal specification of concepts and relatinos between those concepts
Semantic web: Annotating web resources with semantic metadata using a predefined explicit ontology. Machine understandable information

The social web is not (yet) semantic

  • Cannot share anotations
  • Cannot audit and edit annotations socially
  • Lack of functionalities

Annotation requirements

  • Shared
  • Reviewed and edited
  • Collaborative
  • Stored centrally
  • Contain semantic data
  • Provide a communication layer
  • Resolved to content within a page
  • Anotation tools: Annotea, Piggy Bank, KIM

  • Ontologies preferred to folksonomies
  • Genenrate metadata when browsing web
  • Automatic an manual
  • Data-centric

Web 2.0 applications: Flickr, YouTube, del.icio.us

  • Folksomonies preferred to ontologies
  • Metadata when browsing
  • Manual
  • User-centric

Meervisage

  • Allows annotations to be shared with a social network
  • Annotations can be reviewed and edited by members of the same social network
  • Annotations stored on a central remote annotation store
  • Annotations contain semantic metadata (RDF)
  • Is a Facebook application, displaying annotations for groups
  • Allows sharing annotations with multiple social networks
  • Dynamic altering of semantic metadata
  • Unable to share annotations publicly, no formal ontology

Daniel Trottier
Lateral Surveillance and Social Networking Sites: The case of Facebook

Approach to Social Networks Surveillance

  • Ubiquitous Computing: shift from mainframe to desktop to ubiquitous computing; banality and everyday life, pervasive engagement, not restricted to particular setting; ubiquity requires invisibility, Negroponte’s “Intelligent Agent”
  • Ubiquitous Networking: links and interactions between (many) applications
  • Ubiquitous Surveillance: Big Brother?, the Panopticon?… towards an ICT-oriented definition of surveillance: collection, analysis, classification and sorting, control.

Facebook and ubiquitous computing: focus on ease of use (interface), and on engagement.

Facebook and ubiquitous networking: related to lots of other apps… and growing.

Facebook and ubiquitous surveillance: pervassive and passive surveillance.

Facebook and lateral surveillance: surveillance performed by individuals, not institutions. Democratization of surveillance. Users as watchers and watched.

Invisible devices, visible users.

My reflections
  • Democratization of surveillance? Where’s the line that separates citizenship enforcement of the law from witch hunt? Dan Trottier states that the problem can also be that those two perspective can actually blur and take one for the other and vice versa.

Charlene Croft
Which Web 2.0? – Why Context Matters

Which Web 2.0? Facebook, MySpace, and why context matters (PDF)

Hype of computer mediated communication

  • vast and asynchronous networks linkages
  • ability to anonymously or publicly interact and contribute to the public discourse
  • shift from one-to-one to many-to-many information dissemination

At some point of time, virtual networks/relationships have no more been a “side part of life”, complementary to “real” (offline) life, but the center of debate, entertainment, participation, interaction, etc.

  • levels of trust and reciproticy in online contexts will largely be dependent on the virtual community where the interaction takes place
  • Internet use is not a uniform activity, Wellman
  • the how and where virtual interaction takes place matters

Profile differences and technical specifications

  • Identity representation differences
  • Differences in user’s site perceptions (privacy)
  • Differences in Types of activities

Towards a Social Science of Web 2.0 related posts (2007)

If you need to cite this article in a formal way (i.e. for bibliographical purposes) I dare suggest:

Peña-López, I. (2007) “Towards a Social Science of Web 2.0 (VII): Community 2.0” In ICTlogy, #48, September 2007. Barcelona: ICTlogy.
Retrieved month dd, yyyy from http://ictlogy.net/review/?p=621

Previous post: Towards a Social Science of Web 2.0 (VI): Andrew Keen: The Cult of the Amateur

Next post: Towards a Social Science of Web 2.0 (VIII): Research 2.0 (II)

RSS feed RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Your comment: