Tuesday, November 28, 2006 

Probably no more posts till after finals but I'll leave you with a gem.

The Find Satoshi project claims that it is testing the notion that social networks comprise small world networks (although this has been done in a much more scientific manner by sociologist Duncan Watts). Here is the community that started this mess, Perplexcity, a role playing, puzzle community. In order to solve the puzzle of Satoshi they are attempting to harness the collective resources of internet users via a viral campaign. You can read about the development of this project here.

The main problem with this "project" is that it fails to provide an explanation of how the network links are tracked. Hence, what this really amounts to is a world wide "Where's Waldo?". It's an internet stunt and has little scientific value, but it is an interesting curiosity concerning how online communities collaborate to meet a goal.

Labels:

Saturday, November 25, 2006 

Is the World of Warcraft becoming staid? Chris Dalen at Slate thinks that the repetitive nature of the game eventually leads the game to lose its initial novelty. He notes:
The real point of Warcraft is to interact with the other players—to socialize in
the chat channels, team up for quests, and run each other down on the
battlefields. Teamwork and competition do make the game much more fun, but everybody’s stuck in the same grind. With little at stake, your quests feel less like Frodo and Sam’s trip to Mordor than a night shift at Hardee’s.

What is particularly interesting are the solutions that he proposes. Noting the social aspects of internet gaming, he concludes that bolstering the community elements of the game environments would be a step in the right directions. For example, he argues that allowing players to create personal profiles, giving them more freedom to personalize their avatars, and creating private spaces would increase player’s involvement in the games.

Online profiles and distinctive, distinguishable avatars are a step in the right direction towards the creation of interpersonal ties online. If an online environment hinders individuals ability to develop unique impressions of individuals, deindividuation occurs and players become interchangeable based upon relatively few criteria. If a player has a certain level and stats he is acceptable to play with. In contrast, introducing profiles and unique avatars encourages players to develop relationships with other players. Rather than playing with interchangeable parties and teammates one finds oneself playing with friends.

I’m not suggesting that personal relationships do not form in Massively Mulitplayer Online Games (recently a couple wed after meeting online). They obviously do. However, these relationships would be facilitated by the types of changes Dalen is proposing.

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, November 22, 2006 

While museums have long rented out specialized handsets to take the place of live guides, mobile phones may supplant them as the preferred device for museum goers. Already it is not uncommon to see museum goers using their mobile phones to take pictures of displays and art work, audio tours that you dial up on your phone may become more and more common. Although using mobile phones for audio tours is nothing new, I find that most people I mention this to are unaware of this potential mobile phone usage.

Furthermore, the flexibility offered by mobile phones allow these audio tours to be used in untraditional ways. For example, rather than just touring a museum mobile phones allow individuals to explore a city, such as the constitutional walking tour of philidelphia, or to go on a nature walk in Portland, Oregon. Best of all at the end of the tour you just hang up with no device to return!

I've heard of other devices, such as the ipod, that also have audio tours designed for them. I think these tours have much less potential due to the limited interactivity that they offer. "If you know you party's extension you can enter it now. If you do not, please select from the following options..." Thats right. The same technology that is the bane of our existance by forcing us to interact with computerized receptionists can also be used for something a little more fun.

Labels: , ,

Monday, November 20, 2006 

I just want us to question our assumptions. I think there are three major questions here:

1, Who has the right to legislate the internet?
2. Is China being singled out?
3. Is censorship of information good or bad?

The first two questions deal with matters of policy, while the third is evaluative. The internet obviously requires some legislation to protect copyright, children, and personal information. The frontier metaphor that dominated the World Wide Web is applicable here. Eventually laws and codes had to be instituted in the Wild West to control the violence and anarchy that existed in the absence of such things. The question in my mind is not whether we need laws but who has the right to determine internet legislation. Laws differ from country to country so that what is illegal in one place is legal in another. What makes the most sense is that countries have the right to govern internet usage within their borders. Therefore, I feel China is within its rights as a sovereign nation to make legislation and policy decisions that effect its citizens.

China is not alone in internet censorship. Most notably many Middle Eastern nations provide far reaching censorship of sexual content on the web. Again, these policies and laws are a reflection of the dominant Muslim culture of the region. Does the United States have a right to demand that they introduce internet pornography to their culture in the name of free speech? China seems to have been singled out for political reasons, both due to its high international profile and because its rapid urbanization stands in stark contrast to the conservative national policies the country holds.

I think the third question is a bit stickier and one with which most American’s have a problem. Censorship from an American perspective is bad. Our society is rooted in the value of free speech to the point that it is explicitly addressed in our constitution. I would not like to have my words censored or to have access to information restricted. However, I acknowledge that free speech has not been the historical norm and that our modern society is the exception rather than the rule. I value my free speech but I have a hard time imposing my value system on another culture.

Labels: , ,

 

I’m going to say something controversial. I know, I know. The internet is for free speech. It is the last remnant of the American sixties counterculture. It’s about self-expression and information sharing. So why do I think it’s being blown out of proportion that the Chinese can’t access the same web content as Americans?

CNN.com is running an article on Chinese access to Wikipedia.

Wikipedia blocked again in China BEIJING, China (AP) — The easing of a ban on the popular online encyclopedia in China was short-lived. Barely a week after Wikipedia viewers were able to access the Web site – after a year-long ban — they reported Friday that it was blocked again in several parts of China. Web surfers and free-speech advocates had earlier welcomed the apparent lifting of a ban on the English and Chinese versions of the site that provides free information written and edited by its users, although skeptics had voiced fears the end of the ban would be temporary.

So, you might say, why isn’t this a bad thing?

First, despite the belief that China stifles discourse online there are vibrant web communities. Internet bulletin boards are popular forms of communication at Chinese universities creating the potential to networked communities. It’s my understanding that these university communities have considerable freedom to address topics that interest them. Additionally, many of my Chinese acquaintances here in the United States use blogs to keep in touch with their network of dispersed friends and family.

Second, I’m not sure it matters that much to the average Chinese. When I was leaving for China one of my initial concerns was that I wouldn’t be able to access internet utilities that I use in the United States. When I spoke to professor Jian Wang about this he assured me that it would be a non-issue. However, when I got to China I found many of my favorite sites inaccessible and Google was crippled. This frustrated me but didn’t seem to bother the Chinese. Why? The web adapts. A majority of the content currently online is in English but that simple fact may make it inaccessible to most Chinese. Rather than relying on American web sites China has many which are homegrown, such as Baidu, which allow them to accomplish the same tasks.

Articles such s the one on CNN assume that China is trying to restrict the exchange of information. However, Wikipedia really isn’t an encyclopedia, it’s a community that exchanges information. The real issue at hand is not whether a government has the right to stifle free speech but whether they have the right to legislate cyberspace. I think they do. Creating codes of conduct and accountability in cyberspace is a good thing and serves to strengthen the community. Furthermore, when this legislation is enacted it will reflect the values of the societies that put them in place. We don’t have to look to China to see this. For example, American internet legislation protects copyright and prevents child abuse. The American government has a right to create these laws just as the Chinese have a right to legislate their citizens use of cyberspace.

In conclusion, blocking Wikipedia probably isn’t as earth shattering as journalists would like you to believe. Chinese communities are thriving and as China continues their rapid industrialization will probably become more prolific. When American journalists complain about policy decisions of the Chinese government they are imposing American values on a foreign country.

Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, November 15, 2006 

Just like everything organic or that takes on a life of its own, at some point your online community is going to die. In his book Design for Community, Powazek provides five reasons why communities end and how to handle breaking the news to it’s members. I’ve Googled “shutting down online communities” and here are few of my most interesting results.

Netscapes Professional Connections

Netscape’s “Professional Connections” community was mentioned by Powazek as being the paradigm case of fouling up a shutting down an online community. Without telling the participants AOL, the new owners of Netscape, shut down the community because they saw it as competition to themselves.

Second Life Forums

Several asynchronous forums that supported the online environment Second Life were shut down with mixed reactions from the users. Some applauded the move as bold and needed given conduct in the forums, while many others bemoaned the loss of a channel which facilitated commerce and interaction in the game itself.

Rural Gay
An online community for gay cowboys that existed years before Brokeback Mountain was brought to America’s consciousness. The site provides an intriguing answer to how socially isolated homosexuals might find social support (or potential dates…the sites dead now and it had a membership fee so I have little idea of the content) in rural and likely conservative areas of the United States.

Orkut

In the wake of controversies concerning its business practices in China, Google shut down some communities on the Brazilian social networking site Orkut that advocated violence against government officials. The site was also said to be used to facilitate drug deals.

Labels:

Tuesday, November 14, 2006 

The Social Psychological Mechanisms of Online Community Design

Both the internet and bookstores are replete with advice concerning how virtual communities should be designed. However, most of the material focuses on specific social practices, design elements, and tools that a web developers have in their arsenal for building environments that encourage participation in online communities. Although this information is undoubtedly valuable to those attempting to create an online community, it is neccesary that designers develop a more complete understanding of the social psychological processes that underlie online community development in order to most effectively choose software conducive to the communities purposes and to establish productive patterns of interaction in their community. While a complete analysis of common advice for creating virtual communities is beyond the scope of this paper, it is important to explore the social psychological phenomena which provide a foundation for some of the most prevalent practices in building, maintaining, and evaluating online communities.

Building Online Community

When building a virtual community it is one must draw a distinction between the community itself and the space it inhabits. Traditionally, communities were defined as tightly knit networks of interpersonal ties that were primarily confined to a bounded geographic area (Wellman, 2001). The development of more effective transportation and, subsequently, telecommunications has led progressively to communities of networked individualism. These communities are not tied to particular physical places but, rather, are grounded in the network of personal relationships between individuals who may or may not be geographically collocated. Conceiving of community as a social network is useful when determining a starting point for building a virtual community because it implies that the community is distinct from the space it inhabits. That is, communities grow organically through interpersonal relationships; they are not built. Therefore, an emphasis on site design can be misplaced when creating an online space for community if the designer does not consider the ways in which users desire to interact with one another and the motivations for which they use the site.

There are a number of key considerations when creating an online community. First, it is important to assess community members’ needs and the tasks which users would like to accomplish in the community through interacting with the anticipated community members. This analysis suggests not only the type of software but design elements as well (Preece, 2000). For example, while there are many motivations for community members to join an online community, one extremely common one is information seeking (Ridings & Gefen, 2004). Indeed, one element of the early online community the WELL that fascinated Rheingold (1993) was the community’s ability to provide him quickly with the information that he needed. Therefore, it follows that if interviews and focus groups of potential community members reveal that they desire to share information, software selection and site design can be chosen so as to assist them by augmenting search capabilities, providing organization for user knowledge contributions, and providing links to external content that is relevant to community members (Ridings & Gefen, 2004). Additionally, under these conditions software, such as a bulletin board system, might be chosen that would allow information to persist on the site overtime as opposed to chat which allows only fleeting discussions.

Software selection should not occur in isolation but proceed in parallel with social planning. For example, a community’s whose function is to provide information to its members may want to establish guidelines concerning the correct way to post a request for a particular fact. Providing well thought out rules and expectations based upon the community’s needs, expressed using consistent language and tone, can be especially important to establishing a community’s culture. Social Identity Deindividuation theory posits that the absence of nonverbal cues when communicating via CMC forces participants to rely on contextual cues in the text to determine appropriate behavior and group norms (Walther & Parks, 2002). Furthermore, participants often over attribute similarity as a result of minimal cues thus creating social attraction to the group. Powazek (2002) notes that the “tone of the content you give your users is replicated and amplified a thousand times in the response it generates” (pg. 20). This is because the developer, in both content and design, often provides some of the most visible social cues to the participants about the community that inhabits the site. Therefore, establishing a friendly and helpful tone from the beginning likely can reduce flaming and hostile interaction on the site.

Another example of social planning rooted in the community’s needs is the determinination of whether it is desirable to set barriers to community participation (Preece, 2000). The appropriate level of barriers that community members must overcome in order to participate should be based upon the nature of the community. For example, a group that provides social support for geographically isolated homosexual teens might want to have a relatively high barrier to participation in order to discourage offensive comments and harassment. In contrast, a site that focuses on mountain biking may find only a very low barrier is neccesary. In all cases, however, care must be taken that barriers remain somewhat permeable and are not set so high as to discourage new participants. Often a high percentage of online community participants are lurkers who rarely contribute to discussion (Preece, 2000). While some may view these members as undesirable, benefiting from the community without giving back, they actually play an important role in the development of the community. Movement between levels of involvement in the community often occurs as interests shift and new topics emerge leading core members to take on less central roles while peripheral members become more involved in the communitu’s life (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002).

After prototypes for a website are designed they should be tested by the community to provide feedback regarding usability and the extent to which the system meets the community’s needs. Participant design, an iterative process of testing and redesigning that involves the end user, should be used to refine the system and correct any existing problems. Technological design shapes not only human behavior but also the social context in which it is embedded (Harrison & Zappen, 2003). Moreover, this relationship is reflexive with human behavior and culture in turn shaping technological design. Therefore, when engaging in design, it is important to consider the social consequences of one’s choices. Specifically, Harrison and Zappen (2003) argue that web developers must engage phronetic research, research that is value laden, which asks not only about the desirability of where design choices might be leading us but also whose values are represented within the design.

Finally, a developer should invite engaging and diverse participants to help build a critical mass for the community. Diversity of online communities has historically been a problem because they are primarily communities of interest in which individuals seek others similar to themselves (Baym, 1998). This lack of diversity in online communities presents a particular problem for fledgling communities because research shows that homogenous groups of similar others may run out of things to talk about (Ling, Beenen, Ludford, Wang, Chang, Li, Cosley, Frankowski, Terveen, Rashid, Resnick, & Kraut, 2005). Furthermore, individuals are more likely to make contributions to a community when they believe that their contribution will be unique. One solution is to actively recruit diverse individuals that will enrich the community with varying viewpoints. Another potential solution would be to actively engage participants by presenting specific topics that stretch the scope of the community. This could provide participants with the opportunity to discover realms of opinion in which they might differ.

In short, when building a community it is important to first assess the community’s needs and desires and then carefully select software and develop social mechanisms conducive to productive interaction. Furthermore, given the relationship between technological design and human behavior, the consequences of such choices must be considered along with the values that they reflect. Finally, a diverse community, with the unique contributions each member can provide, results in greater participation.

Maintaining Online Community

Creating an online community, however, goes beyond simply designing a space in which community members interact. Numerous problems can arise in online communities necessitating the development of a culture that discourages “flaming” and social mechanisms for the community to police itself. Kiesler, Siegel, and McGuire (1984) define flaming as “the practice of expressing oneself more strongly on the computer than one would in other communication settings” (pg. 1130). They argue that messages online provide minimal cues and are depersonalized resulting in deindividuation, which is the process of losing social-awareness resulting in a lack of evaluating one’s actions. Ultimately, this can lead to uninhibited verbal behavior such as cursing, insulting others, and hostile comments.

Although early findings showed that aggressive, uninhibited behavior was more common in computer-mediated groups than face-to-face groups, there are several things that an online community can do to discourage flaming, uninhibited verbal attacks and abuse. First, flaming may be prevented by encouraging the development of interpersonal relationships based upon in-depth knowledge of other participants. These interpersonal relationships can counteract flaming, which is rooted in deindividuation and the depersonalization of others as a result of reduced social cues. While the reduced social cues of computer-mediated communication (CMC) inhibit relationship development, they do not prevent it. Walther (1992) noted that early CMC experiments provided individuals with artificial time limits that restricted the number of messages computer-mediated participants could exchange compared to face-to-face participants. Subsequent experimentation showed that, given enough time, computer-mediated participants’ levels of impression formation could approach that of face-to-face participants (Walther, 1993). Higher levels of impression development result in individuated participants, reducing the potential for deindividuation and flaming within an online community. The implications are that mature communities, where tightly knit social networks of interpersonal relationships have had time to form, may be more resistant to flaming than communities in the early phases of development.

There may be an optimal community size with respect to using interpersonal relationships for the prevention of flaming. Human beings only maintain relationships with roughly 1,000 individuals with whom they know well enough to converse (Wellman, 2001). Should very large communities find it impossible to promote interpersonal relationships among all members, they might attempt to establish a social identity and associated norms in order to discourage flaming. Although on the surface social identity deindividuation theory seems to conflict with interpersonal perspectives of relationship development online, it is possible for these to operate in tandem. For example, a participant might first relate to another individual on the basis of their shared social identity. However, as time passes and personal, individuating information is exchanged they may begin to relate on an interpersonal level. This progression highlights the need for backend messaging systems within communities that can provide semi-public or private spaces for social interaction (Wenger et al., 2002). In short, a community might find it self particularly strengthened when it creates a social identity that discourages flaming and places mechanisms within the community to allow for the development of interpersonal relationships

While anonymity in online communities can be useful for providing honest, open communication, because some participants will inevitably use it to disrupt the community it can also be a disaster. The solution is to create a system that encourages community participants to behave responsibly by tying their virtual identities to their real world identities. Warrant is the concept of connecting the self-presentation to the self. Online communities may have difficulty establishing warrant because the greater the extent to which a community allows for anonymity, the greater the opportunity is for individuals to self-present unrealistic identities (Walther & Parks, 2002). Communities should encourage their participants to present warranting information to encourage accurate self-presentations and to prompt others to behave in an appropriate manner. Warranting information is information which can be confirmed and is difficult or impossible for the person to whom it refers to manipulate (Walther & Parks, 2002). Examples of information that provide partial warrant are real names, directory information, and access to an individual’s face-to-face network. Therefore, online communities can move toward tying the real world to the virtual world by requiring new community members to create publicly viewable profiles.

Another good policy for online communities is to design them in such a way that the community can police itself. However, this does not mean deputizing certain community members to oversee others. Indeed, creating stiff hierarchies with consolidated power is not only detrimental to community development but it can also be an invitation for the abuse of power. For example, Wikipedia has been critizied for providing a cadre of administrators with so much power that they can effectively determine who has a right to use the site and the manner in which it should be used (Wikimedia, 2006). Community, when rooted in the concept of communitas, is an egalitarian experience in which participants find themselves in a liminal state where power differentials between participants are minimized. Creating a hierarchy serves to hamper expressiveness and impede the emotional connection experienced by participants. Therefore, web developers should carefully consider the mechanisms for self-policing that they put in place. A good strategy is to distribute community power as widely as possible among responsible community members. This policy has been successfully employed by many websites, the prototypical case being Slashdot.net. Slashdot community members are asked to occasionally moderate a maximum of five comments (Powazek, 2002). These moderators are themselves rated by meta-moderators who determine whether the comment moderations were fair. A study of this rotating power system suggests that the system works well, with most moderations being judged as fair, and that “rebel” moderators were uncommon (Lampe & Resnick, 2004). Therefore, a system of distributed power can truly reflect the values of the community.

In short, interpersonal relationships discourage flaming because participants know the person on the other side of the screen as a real person. Furthermore, interpersonal relationships can work in parallel with social identity to prevent hostile interactions online. Ideally, interpersonal ties that create both accountability and understanding should be encouraged to the full extent possible. Beyond that, designers should attempt to create a system with distributed power that encourages equality and egalitarian interaction.

Evaluating Online Community

Although there is a generally accepted lay concept of community, in academic literature the concept is multilayered and, at times, not well understood. I0n a study of the emergence of online community in usenet groups, Baym (1998) proposes a number of dimensions along which a community may be potentially measured. Specifically, Baym posits that community development can be distinguished by linguistic innovation, relationship development, and the existence of group norms. Baym holds that every group develops unique forms of expression. These can include new words, phrases, and acronyms as well as special types of jokes and stories. Furthermore, groups sometimes codify these linguistic innovations in documents that serve to inform and initiate new community members. Codification of knowledge and meanings owned by the group is not unique to online communities. Indeed, “one of the primary tasks of a community of practice is to establish this common baseline and standardize what is well understood so that people can focus their creative energies on the more advanced issues” (Wegner et al., 2002, pg. 11). Thus, the level of community development can be measured by conducting a content analysis of text the community creates for linguistic innovations. Additionally, the analysis of the level of knowledge codification can inform scholars of the stage of community development.

Baym (1998) also notes that community development is tied to the development of interpersonal relationships between its members. Although some early research suggested that creating interpersonal relationships via CMC would be difficult, if not impossible, research since the mid-1990’s has found a wealth of evidence suggesting that relationships not only form in online communities but flourish. Parks and Floyd (1996) found that 60.7 % of participants of a usenet group reported at least one interpersonal relationship. Furthermore, relationships formed online progressed to other media with 35.3% of these participants communicating via the telephone, 28.34% using the postal service, and a 33.3% eventually meeting face-to-face. Therefore, one method of measuring online relationship development is the number of media through which a particular relationship progresses.

However, noting the number of media through which a relationship progresses may not be the best method for defining online relationship development. This approach tacitly assumes that relationship development is tied to movement through progressively richer media, ultimately placing a premium on face-to-face interaction. However, many relationships considered quite intimate by their participants may never progress to another medium. A more inclusive and, possibly, more accurate way of measuring relationship development is to consider the amount and content of self-disclosure. Altman and Taylor (1973) proposed social penetration theory which measured relationship development by the breadth and depth of self-disclosure. Social penetration theory represents information about an individual as a series of concentric spheres. The perimeter of the sphere represents the breadth of self-disclosure and each successive sphere represents the depth of self-disclosure. Breadth of self-disclosure refers to the number of topics addressed during interaction, while depth of self-disclosure refers to a self-disclosures level of intimacy reached by a dyad. Relational development is usually characterized by greater breadth on relatively non-intimate topics with more limited forays into intimate spheres. Relationship development in online communities could be operationalized by the both the depth and breadth of self-disclosures because relationships in online environments are based solely on the verbal exchange of messages..

Finally, community development may be determined by the existence of behavioral norms, tacit rules understood by community members. Users reinforce these norms by providing social sanctions against those who violate them. Often these sanctions involve “shaming people into compliance by drawing attention to their violations” (Baym, 1998, pg. 61). Norms may be assessed by engaging in participant observation within the community and codifying apparent norms. Participant observation would be ideal because norms may operate below the level of consciousness and not be apparent until they are violated. However, participant observation may not be neccesary in those communities in which software allows text to persist in the system; simply analyzing past interactions may be enough to determine group norms.

Site developers should remember that “virtual” communities and the online spaces they inhabit are not synonymous. When creating online spaces for communities, site developers should remember to assess the needs and desires of a community and incorporate this information into the final design. Furthermore, web developers have a moral obligation to reflect on the consequences of their design, considering the values it promotes and whether this will lead the community in a desirable direction. Designers can allow the community some self-determination by designing sites so that the community polices itself, thereby determining appropriate content. They can also promote egalitarian exchange by eliminating power hierarchies that might serve to stifle participation and distributing power broadly among participants. Most important, web developers must remember that community is rooted in the interpersonal bonds created between participants. If design does not nurture the growth of these bonds the result is a bedlam of fighting or, worse, an empty community space.

Works Cited:

(2006, October 6th). Quitting wikipedia and wanted you to know why. Retrieved November 13, 2006, from Wikimedia mailing lists Web site: http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-October/054949.htm

Altman, I., & Taylor, D. (1973). Social penetration: the development of interpersonal
relationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Wilson, Inc..

Baym, N. (1998). The emergence of on-line community. In S. Jones (Ed.), Cybersociety 2.0 (pp. 35-68). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer mediated communication. American Psyschologist, 39(10), 1123-1134.

Lampe, C & Resnik, P. (2004). Slash(dot) and burn: distributed moderation in a large online conversation space. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, p.543-550, April 24-29, 2004, Vienna, Austria.

Ling, K., Beenen, G., Ludford, P., Wang, X., Chang, K., Li, X., Cosley, D., Frankowski, D., Terveen, L., Rashid, A. M., Resnick, P., and Kraut, R. (2005). Using social psychology to motivate contributions to online communities. JCMC, 10(4), Retrieved November, 4th 2006, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue4/ling.html

Parks, M. R., & Floyd, K. (1996). Making friends in cyberspace. Journal of
Communication, 46(1), 80-97.

Powazek, D. (2002). Design for community. Indianapolis, IN: New Riders.

Preece, J. (2000). Online communities: Designing usability, supporting sociability. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. New York, NY: HarperPerrenial.

Ridings, C. & Gefen, D. (2004). Virtual community attraction:Why people hang out online. JCMC 10(1), Retrieved November, 4th 2006, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue1/ridings_gefen.html

Walther, J.B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19, 52-90.

Walther, J.B. (1993). Impression development in computer-mediated interaction. Human Communication Research, 20, 473-501.

Walther, J. B., & Parks, M. R. (2002). Cues filtered out, cues filtered in: Computer-mediated communication and relationships. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (3rd ed., pp. 529-563). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Wellman, B. (2001). Physical place and cyber place: the rise of personalized networks. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 25(2), 227-252

Wenger , E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.


Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, November 07, 2006 

Last spring I posted about Mydeathspace.com, a web site that tracks the profiles of deceased myspace users. I though it was interesting that social networking profiles were being adapted to online memorials giving friends and family a place to come online and mourn. However, at the time mydeathspace was having problems with community members making offensive and demeaning remarks about the dead.

According to the New York Times, Mydeathspace has made some significant changes to the community design in an effort to cull inappropriate comments. First, they have made it essential that members who desire to post must register. This creates a formal barrier to participation that may discourage casual visitors from making hurtful comments. Another important feature of the site is “Report to Moderator” link on every post which allows site members a hand in policing the community themselves.

Unfortunately, there are several flaws in the site as well. Although the main page asks visitors to be respectful of the deceased and rule postings ask for discussions of particular deaths to refer to individuals by name, senior moderators and administrators break their own guidelines with same thread by making crude remarks about an unspecified woman’s death. Until mydeathspaces administrators can behave in way a that sets a positive tone and fosters true compassion for others, they may never be acknowledged as a legitimate memorial site by the loved ones of those commemorated there.

Monday, November 06, 2006 


I really doubt that Microsoft has started a new viral advertizing campaign on the Purdue campus but I found this chalk advertisement for the new Internet Explorer in the center of the mall on the sidewalk. Go figure. Internet Explorer 7 has been a long time coming...(hint: Check the post date.)

Saturday, November 04, 2006 

Building a learning community is tough. Follow our classes progress here as we propose and build a community for Purdue students.

About me

  • Who: Scott Sanders
  • When: 8-22-1981
  • Scott Sanders is a PhD student at the University of Southern California in the Annenberg School of Communication. His research interests lie in how people use communication technologies to maintain and support interpersonal relationships.

View My Stats

Don't step down, Miss Julie. Listen to me--no one would believe that you stepped down of your own accord; people always say that one falls down. -- Jean, Miss Julie.