Category Archives: social software

those who can’t remember the past…

Scott Rosenberg reminds us that social software is just a repeat and those who can’t remember the past…

He virtually scratches his head over the venture money pouring into Friendster and other social software and reminds us that there should only be two groups that are in love with this movement: technologists and anthropologists.

This made me smile. Of *course* i love this domain right now. Effectively, i’m a pseudo-technologist and a pseudo-anthropologist so together that makes a whole fascination, right?

codifying relationships

Liz is pondering the issues around explicitly codifying relationships and i couldn’t agree more with her musings. In a state of confusion about how to label people, we often just give up. This isn’t just something that happens online. How often do i try to express my relationship to someone and get all confused. One word certainly doesn’t clarify those complications, but i still find myself making up a closest approximation, but not one that i would write down in stone. Also, given the rich relationships that i have with people, i often adjust my description of my relationship with a person depending on the audience.

Let me flesh this out with some examples. The most obvious is the newly dating couple who hasn’t really determined what their relationship is. So, what’s the likelihood that one is to exuberantly tell her best friend about her new girlfriend? Probably high – there’s a bit of bragging enthusiasm / want of support. What’s the probability of her telling her mom about her new girlfriend? Probably low – she doesn’t want to have to deal with the yes, mom, another one.. no this one’s different conversation. Same relationship but with problems codifying it.

Also, codification assumes that our terms are consistent and imply the same thing. Does friend mean the same thing to everyone? Certainly not. I have quite a few friends who i’ve learned that “friend” means anyone that they’ve met. Some codes have a definite meaning, but the implications are not given. For example, she is my mom. Well, in my case, my mom and i are pretty good friends, engage with each other for advice, etc. My mom is also my friend, but the ‘mom’ label trumps the friend label. Yet, the implications of a mother/daughter relationship are not consistent and thus one cannot assume much by simply hearing that relationship.

Liz is also dead-on when she asks what the point of codification is when we have that model internally anyhow. For most people, there is none. What’s the value? Doesn’t it cause more social trauma than it does any good? Don’t get me wrong – i’m constantly explicitly codifying information, but i don’t think that this is normal behavior. [I am, afterall, an academic whose eccentricity is just part of the process.]

Finally, i appreciate Liz’s pointers to my commentary on sex and self-monitoring. Marginalized populations are constantly trying to account for how they are being perceived, if they are getting information across as intended and adjusting what they say accordingly. They don’t have the privilege to just be whoever whenever whereever. They must determine the appropriate information at the appropriate time. Sex is just one axis in which this plays a part. The most blatant example for people is around gay identity. If you’re gay and you lack the privilege of class (overeducation counts here), what’s the likelihood that you will pronounce your sexual preference as you go for a job? Is this deception or simply trying to be unclear about your identity for your own protection? Self-monitoring. You determine the social situation and adjust accordingly. That same person is not going to hide his identity when he’s at a gay bar.

defending wikis

Wikis seem to becoming more and more popular. Or perhaps i’m just spending too much time entrenched in the philosophy of the social software folks. In any case, i was trying to discuss them with a friend of mine and we both have our concerns about them. Not being able to defend them and unaware of where to go for a really good and trusted defense, i decided to write to two gurus whose views fascinate me. But i’d also love to hear perspectives from anyone foolish enough to stumble on this site. Here’s what i wrote:

So, i’d love to hear your arguments of why wikis are the latest greatest social software (or pointers to folks who can defend this vantage point).

Particular issues that we’re struggling with and trying to figure out how to process…

1) History means more than persistence. When we’re collaborating offline, we leave lots of traces of our use, of our presences, etc. What is the value in a no-trace environment like wikis? How is this an advantage?

2) Social kudos often motivate people to participate. Being recognized for their voice. More importantly, it motivates folks to be more articulate, more conscientious, etc. How is it an advantage to not have voices attached with text? What is gained and lost?

3) In collaboration where everyone is motivated to “do right”, there’s little motivation to sabatage others’ efforts. But if you’ve ever seen teenagers collaborate, dear me oh my. Can we say that it is an exercise in cruelness to force collaboration on teens in middle school? How are stuctures built so as to discourage malicious intentions?

4) In collaborations, there is often a lot of rituals of getting to know one another, particularly if there is not a history of past relations. How do wikis support unknown colleagues to get involved?