Maybe I’m not as smart as the rest of you who’ve posted so far; because I certainly did not understand everything the author was saying (some of his lingo made my brain hurt!). However, I’m pretty sure I picked up on some of his main points and the overall theme. It’s obvious that he sees great potential for all the modern networking advancements. I think he sees it like everyone has access to their own personal Gutenberg press, which is massively democratic. Now, instead of only a handful of elite controlling information, the whole connected world can bounce it around and add to it, as they see fit.
It’s safe to say we all know about the “big dogs” of social networking, and that most of us use at least one of them. Also, some of you mentioned how there are many specialized social networks as well (to cater to individual interests). What interested me the most, were the possibilities Benkler implied. That book had a copyright of 2006, if I’m not mistaken. He hinted at what social networking could do for areas like science and medicine (p. 14). I think we’re seeing some of that potential unfold, but even after four years, I don’t think we’ve even scratched the surface. For example, some people share their medical experiences on various medical sites, like maybe the WebMD forums. Imagine if researchers were successful at getting more data collection apps on to sites like Facebook? So far, the majority of what I’ve seen is only collecting data about people’s dating interests, or consumer habits (bleh). It might be hard to convince your average Facebook user to contribute more beneficial data, but just imagine if there was even a small degree of success. So many people use these sites. With that size of survey group, researchers would have a goldmine.
The author said that one reason this new information sharing system works so well is that there will always be at least some people who want to create, or be part of something (p. 6). From time to time, I’ll find myself caught up in contributing to somewhat random things. “Wow, I just spent two hours uploading instructions on how to run DOSbox.”
For me personally, I prefer the message board style social networking (forums). You don’t have to put up with as much of the vanity and self-centeredness of places like Facebook, and you can get down to business. People will be more willing to answer your questions if they see you’re contributing answers as well.
I feel the same way. Not as smart and dont understand some of what the author is saying! I hate that feeling, so your not alone!
ReplyDeleteHe was difficult to read, I thought so because of how you almost had to peel back the layers and read between the lines of what he was saying.
ReplyDeleteI noticed you mentioned the possibilities available to researchers, reaching a larger audiences and the like. I currently work at a marketing research firm (here on campus) and, while I'm no expert, I do know a little about that in particular.
Researchers do reach out to people via the web for various other things, but they target their audience carefully, which is important. I think the reason we mostly see consumer habits and dating preferences on sites like Facebook is because those are fairly universal where as, say, medical data or the like is only applicable to those it affects, and if you just throw the questions out to the mass public who knows if you are getting accurate data...
Glad to hear I'm not the only one who thought it was a little "wordy".
ReplyDeleteKatelin, that makes sense, regarding the mass public. I guess what I meant was to have readily accessible data collections apps for people who have (or have had) a particular illness (so not everyone would have to participate). Think of all the pointless apps people use......"My favorite Disney character," ect. I'm sure someone with a disease might be willing to click on something like "Cancer survivors: Share your story, help find a cure." Like you said, some of the data may be bad, but overall I think it would help researchers (especially with diseases and conditions we know little about).