Thursday, July 18, 2013

Wk 3- Online Communities -A Very Small World

When reading the Shirky chapters this week, one thought resonated, six degrees of separation.  This premise that we are somehow all interconnected and the more exposed to the world you are then grants you more exposure in social realms was really neat to read about.  The book spoke of recluses and how their circle would be relatively smaller of network.  This thought that girl next door vs. online vs. Facebook cousins vs. Meetups for kayaking, all in one fell swoop all had an underlying tie, I found fascinating.  On p. 215 Shirky mentions "that Small World networks have two characteristics that, when balanced properly, let messages move through the network effectively." This is what makes online classes so effective as you are one group for one singled out cause, and in the same vein makes a lot of what's on Facebook so ineffective, it almost seems as the number least involved in an activity lends that activity more credit.  For example a following of an art page of some of the top artists in the world and their opinions which may be a harsher critique of one's work may harbor less of a following than perhaps a free lance artist still in his undergrad program making judgement calls on works of art.  Not to say that the novice may not be right, however, his following may exhibit more tweets shall we say, as popularity plays a role in this sense in this type of fervor.  A college student's social network also may be more expansive than that a of an art museum genius, who does indeed share  a "small world" with like-minded individuals most likely.      

2 comments:

  1. I don't know about Facebook being ineffective. Facebook is designed around loosely connecting mass numbers of people allowing them to keep up with each other on a superficial basis. I think what you are trying (correct me if I am wrong)to say with the a small group of people are more effective and efficient in generating useful content. That might be true if the group is tightly knit and motivated to produce useful projects. However, that is certainly not the case of most small groups. Most small groups online die. Those that don't either remain small because they are either closed or cater to a niche audience and are held up by the hard work of a small amount of people. The alternative is that they blow up, become massive, and without proper direction loose individual efficacy. Large unregulated groups of people online have a tendency to say many things and do so poorly.

    If it's not clear yet that I am agreeing with you I hope me saying so helps. About Facebook thought, I don't think they care how deep peoples online interactions are so long as they are having them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Casey, this is my favorite line from your post: "Facebook is designed around loosely connecting mass numbers of people allowing them to keep up with each other on a superficial basis." I couldn't agree more. That's exactly what I was getting at and you summed it up in one sentence for me, thanks! (O: You are right, yes, I don't think it is cared about how deep the conversations/interactions are on Facebook just that indeed people are interacting, agreed too that small online communities often die and that it is all about the number of followers for online groups to thrive. I just meant Facebook was ineffective in terms of formal education means, Facebook is extremely effective in informal communication and from time to time can be a great tool for information gathering in an informal education setting.

    ReplyDelete