Talk:Social network aggregation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Systems This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles about the idea of systems. If you would like to help, you can edit this article or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating within Systems.

Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on April 9, 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Notability

Social Network Aggregation is a new trend in the Social Network Services Space. In Oct 2007 Social Thing got funded for $ 300 K as noted by Mashable. There are over 25 startups working in this area such as Spokeo, 8Hands, Profilefly. What is "not notable" about it? Is it the new author who is not notable because s/he is not "well known" in the existing network or a personal bias? Please give clear hard data to defend your point or suggest changes that will help the article remain. Thanks

Please follow the guidelines in building a WikiPedia article. Igor Berger (talk) 08:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at this Wikipedia:Article Igor Berger (talk) 08:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Igor here - I had prodded it for similar reasons and the article really doesn't make any sense. It's a mix between a NN Neogolism, a company advertisement and external link article. I support deletion. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 08:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Igor I have used your suggestion and the article is now at User:Ujwaltickoo/Social Network Aggregation I hope that other contributors will help edit and improve the article. As far as Spawn Man's opinions about the article "not making sense" -- its his personal perspective. To the criticism that it is a company advertisement -- I have used text from my own blog -- giving Wikipedia the rights over the text I typed. If some other user can bring the same set of ideas from other source -- good! I am not interested in a pesonal ad or fight with a person but contributing an article which is important and I have given supporting data. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ujwaltickoo (talk • contribs) 09:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Do not worry, he did not mean it. That is how things marked here. And I kknow what you are talking about because I hang out with Andy Beard. Just work on the article and it should be okay. Igor Berger (talk) 09:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Lol, at least we know it's from a blog - I'll sleep easy tonight... ;) I was saying it didn't make sense to me and yes, it does sound like and advertisement with the "Why Social Network Aggregation?" shtick. As you said, my opinions are my own... No intention meant to be insulting - sorry if I came across that way. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Looks much better, guess a few people came around to fix it. Take a look what Andy Beard and IZEA have to say about this! And do not forget the aggregators like Bloglines.com, Mybloglog.com, and Technorati.com and a few others. This could be built into a real article. Igor Berger (talk) 23:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Folks, many Wikifolks hate blogs as sources -- there is a norm against it. They wouldn't know that Mashable is widely read. (I don't know about the "Biz" one.) So I suggest that you try to find some non-blogs sources about this, before someone else (certainly not me) proposes this article for deletion. A real danger. And I would put in Slashdot (not a blog) along with the "Biz" reference, as /. did cover the aggregation story. Bellagio99 (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Are there any reliable sources that can verify this is a notable phenomenon or business sector. Otherwise, this just seems like an essay describing some random phenomenon, that some people woudl like to aggregate their social networks. 128.36.147.198 (talk) 14:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC) The whole "Why social network aggregation?" needs to go. Apparently Barry Wellman has a theory, and apparently users have mulitple social networking sites. so what. there's no verifiable information stating that this is why "social netowrk aggregation" exists. this is all conjecture and original research making some kind of connection ebtween these data points and the subject of this "article" 128.36.147.198 (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That's why it's up for deletion. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:30, 9 Apr 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moved from the article

I've moved the section below from the article in case anyone wants to rewrite it. --Pixelface (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, that section is a bit problematic and needs careful rewrite not to have it WP:OR and WP:SYN Igor Berger (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
the whole thing has a lot of OR and SYN issues. especially the blogs used as sources. If they are removed what is left? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Work Networks and ICTs

Have read at this and see what can be brought to this article. This is from Barry Wellman's article's page. What he is saying are the reasons for social network agregation. It is like the same reason that we are editors on Wikipedia. The need to socialize and share knowledge with others. Igor Berger (talk) 23:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

And the information is despersed on different networks so we need to integrate it, by using ICQ etc., Igor Berger (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Wellman's initial project ("Cavecat" which morphed into "Telepresence") was in collaboration with Ronald Baecker, Caroline Haythornthwaite, Marilyn Mantei, Gale Moore, and Janet Salaff. This effort in the early 1990s was done before the advent of the Internet, to use networked PCs for videoconferencing and computer supported collaborative work (CSCW).[1] Caroline Haythornthwaite (for her dissertation and other works) and Wellman analyzed why computer scientists connect with each other -- online and offline. They discovered that friendships as well as collaborative work were prime movers of connectivity at work.[2].

Wellman and Anabel Quan-Haase also studied whether such computer-supported work teams were supporting networked organizations, in which bureaucratic structure and physical proximity did not matter. Their research in one high-tech American organization -- heavily dependent on instant messaging and e-mail -- showed that the supposed ICT-driven transformation of work to networked organizations was only partially fulfilled in practice. The organizational constraints of departmental organization (including power) and physical proximity continued to play important roles. There were strong norms in the organization for when different communication media were used, with face-to-face contact intertwined with online contact. [3]

[edit] Why social network aggregation?

The need for users to be a member of not just one but multiple social networks can be understood through Barry Wellman's concept of networked individualism.[4][5] A Pew Internet report, "The Strength of Internet Ties" explains networked individualism well.[6]

Rather than relying on a single community for social capital, individuals often must actively seek out a variety of appropriate people and resources for different situations establishing social solidarity[7]

  1. ^ Marilyn Mantei, Ronald Baecker, William Buxton, Thomas Milligan, Abigail Sellen and Barry Wellman. "Experiences in the Use of a Media Space." 1992. Pp 372-78 in Groupware: Software for Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, edited by David Marca and Geoffrey Bock. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press, 1992, pp. 372-78. Caroline Haythornthwaite and Barry Wellman, “Work, Friendship and Media Use for Information Exchange in a Networked Organization.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science 49, 12 (Oct., 1998): 1101-1114.
  2. ^ Caroline Haythornthwaite and Barry Wellman, “Work, Friendship and Media Use for Information Exchange in a Networked Organization.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science 49, 12 (Oct., 1998): 1101-1114. Caroline Haythornthwaite, Barry Wellman and Laura Garton, “Work and Community Via Computer-Mediated Communication.” Pp. 199-226 in Psychology and the Internet: Intrapersonal, Interpersonal and Transpersonal Implications, edited by Jayne Gackenbach. San Diego: Academic Press, 1998.
  3. ^ Anabel Quan-Haase and Barry Wellman. “Hyperconnected Net Work: Computer-Mediated Community in a High-Tech Organization.” Pp. 281-333 in The Firm as a Collaborative Community: Reconstructing Trust in the Knowledge Economy, edited by Charles Heckscher and Paul Adler. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006; Anabel Quan-Haase and Barry Wellman, “From the Computerization Movement to Computerization: A Case Study of a Community of Practice.” In Computerization Movements and Technology Diffusion: From Mainframes to Ubiquitous Computing, edited by Ken Kraemer and Margaret Elliott. Medford, NJ: Information Today, 2007.
  4. ^ Barry Wellman's concept of networked individualism: RecherchePolitique.gc.ca website.
  5. ^ Barry Wellman. 2001. The Persistence and Transformation of Community: From Neighbourhood Groups to Social Networks. Report to the Law Commission of Canada.
  6. ^ The Strength of Internet Ties: PewInternet.org website.
  7. ^ Social integration approaches and issues

However, Wellman's research shows that multiple membership goes back to at least 1968, well before the development of the Internet.[1]