“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.”
I agree with the definition in that social computing is a broad term that encompasses various types of technologies and that it deals with information. However, I feel that there is much more beyond just technologies, virtual spaces, and communities.
Although “Social Computing” makes me think of using a computer to communicate, it doesn’t necessarily mean that a computer is the only type of technology that can be used. Some mobile phones (not including my crappy one) have the capability of sending emails and surfing the internet. I think social computing will expand to different types of hardware in the future, many of which don’t exist yet.
One of the important aspects of social computing that is missing from the above definition is that social computing evolves to create more complicated social interactions over time. For example the term Web 2.0 refers to dynamic , socially interactive online communities that differ from their 1.0 counterparts because of their increased richness and complexity. Rather than being the domain of “computer geeks and web designers”, the more user friendly interface of web 2.0 sites allow for many more people to contribute.
Based on the readings and the above definition I came up with this rather long definition of Social computing.
Social computing refers to the usage of technologies and virtual spaces to allow users to create, digest, describe and share information. It also refers to the interactions within the online communities that are generated as result of various types of social software. Through social computing, users find themselves engaged in relationships with dynamics that reflect yet differ from face to face relationships. Social computing also includes the usage of the internet to form and develop relationships with people who share a common goal or interest, also known as social networking. Social computing also increases in usability and effectiveness over time, allowing more different types of users to participate increasingly dynamic interactions. This allows for a more democratic exchange of ideas but also can lead to decline in content quality.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
SNSs like Facebook and MySpace have become so popular that, to me, it seems like people who use them are consumed by them. I mean, rather than "giving Jeff a call," one could instead write on his Wall (on Facebook) for the whole world to see--I think the private message system is seldom used, in my opinion, except for more personal matters, and I think this example could change the relationships that people have with each other that pre-existed their usage of a SNS. I can also relate to what you say about social computing expanding to other technologies besides computers; I see a lot of people these days, mostly high school and college females, pull out their phones and text their friends/boyfriends/siblings constantly. I think this observation indeed backs up my statement about how social computing has changed people's lives, how people communicate with each other--in my opinion, texting is not personal, unlike talking on the phone. Alas, my fear is that if more and more people communicate in this way, one day, we may no longer need to be able to communicate face-to-face; in the near future, we may be able to communicate with each other using hologram technology, for instance. I would like to know what you think about this possible consequence.
ReplyDeleteTexting really isn't personal, as it is more difficult to convey emotions through plain text (hence why it is so hard to detect sarcasm on the internet at times). I think that people are attracted to texting because you get what you want to say out quickly and you can move on to something else while waiting for a response (which is sometimes more texting).
ReplyDeleteCommunication via hologram or video isn't that bad of a future, as it is still face to face. If we just sat in our homes and did that all the time, that would definitely be a cause for concern. I think we do have this desire for human companionship though, so we will not get to that level of physical isolation.
There might be a way to get around physical isolation if you want to simulate human physical companionship:
ReplyDeleteTeledildonics
Messages to other people on facebook, myspace and other sources are interesting when they are placed in public view like in a comment section or a wall. On the one hand, there is usually a main intended audience member (like the author of the blog) but since other people can view it that offers an additional social dynamic.
I too had concerns with the seeming incomplete definition as listed by Dr Gazan. The whole idea just seemed too huge to fit into those few sentences. I think you gave it some good boundaries to start with, keeping in mind Moore’s law, the bandwidth scaling law, and Metcalfe’s law that state computing power increases exponentially. So the only thing we can be sure of (besides death and taxes) is that the computing technology will change and along with it—the things we use it for.
ReplyDeleteI was born in 1964—pause for math calculations—to think back on how the world has changed in 44 years is sometimes overwhelming. I learned computations in the 70s—back when we they still used IBM cards. I’m still struggling with the idea of all that information floating around in a virtual space.
You made a great point about the world of computing once being considered a haven for the geeks of the world. Isn’t it interesting how that has changed to include the hippest of the hip?
Stacy, I didn't think about the changes in programming when I posted this, but I can't imagine what it would be like to use punched cards (I hope this doesn't make you feel too old). I wonder though, if advancement in technology redefines who is cool. I still feel like people involved in online communities value or at least tolerate more geeky, and tech savy people.
ReplyDelete