I have been spending a bit of time during evenings reading up on social network theory. I really haven’t even begun to dig and yet I have found some good nuggets. Have I mentioned that I love WikiPedia? Most of the following little snippets are from WikiPedia.
Size Matters
“The shape of a social network helps determine a network’s usefulness to its individuals. Smaller, tighter networks can be less useful to their members than networks with lots of loose connections (weak ties) to individuals outside the main network. More open networks, with many weak ties and social connections, are more likely to introduce new ideas and opportunities to their members than closed networks with many redundant ties. In other words, a group of friends who only do things with each other already share the same knowledge and opportunities. A group of individuals with connections to other social worlds is likely to have access to a wider range of information. It is better for individual success to have connections to a variety of networks rather than many connections within a single network. Similarly, individuals can exercise influence or act as brokers within their social networks by bridging two networks that are not directly linked (called filling structural holes).”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_network
Google’s Efforts to Socialize their Platform
“Google indeed looks like a company with a focus on social networking these days, but we must understand that a social network is only as good as the number of users that will join.”
Comment on a blog about Google’s efforts to socialize their platform
Community is community…
Today, virtual community or online community is used for a variety of social groups interacting via the Internet. It does not necessarily mean that there is a strong bond among the members, although Rheingold mentions that virtual communities form “when people carry on public discussions long enough, with sufficient human feeling, to form webs of personal relationships” [1]. An email distribution list may have hundreds of members and the communication which takes place may be merely informational (questions and answers are posted), but members may remain relative strangers and the membership turnover rate could be high. This is in line with the liberal use of the term community.
Virtual communities may synthesize Web 2.0 technologies with the community, and therefore have been described as Community 2.0, although strong community bonds have been forged online since the early days of USENET. Virtual communities depend upon social interaction and exchange between users online. This emphasizes the reciprocity element of the unwritten social contract between community members. Web 2.0 is essentially characterized by virtual communities such as Flickr, Facebook, and Del.icio.us.”
What is web 2.0?
Web 2.0 is essentially characterized by virtual communities such as Flickr, Facebook, and Del.icio.us.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_community
Lifecycle of an online community member
A membership life cycle for online communities was proposed by Amy Jo Kim (2000). It states that members of virtual communities begin their life in a community as visitors, or lurkers. After breaking through a barrier, people become novices and participate in community life. After contributing for a sustained period of time they become regulars. If they break through another barrier they become leaders, and once they have contributed to the community for some time they become elders. This life cycle can be applied to many virtual communities, most obviously to bulletin boards, but also to blogs and wiki-based communities like Wikipedia.
Blogged with Flock
