Skip to main content

Home/ (HBSN) How to Build a Social Network/ Group items tagged *trust

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Kurt Laitner

Attacked from Within || kuro5hin.org - 0 views

  • German sociologist Ferdinand Tönnies first investigated the difference between 'community' and 'society' (respectively, Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft). Small groups can exist in a sense of organic community, not requiring formal rules because a sense of common mores or norms unite them. Personal relationships can be cultivated and are quite strong, and there is little need for external enforcement. John Allen's quaint description of early Usenet illustrates Tönnies' idea of community. Larger groups find community hard to sustain. Individual interest rules behavior rather than common mores. Society, as opposed to community, is based on explicit rules that require enforcement. Society possesses greater flexibility and potentially more capability, but individuals are subject to greater anomie and anti-social behavior. Internal factional conflicts occur more frequently, despite the greater modularity of individuals' function in society.
  • Society scales easily because users are interchangeable, community scales with difficulty because relationships and identity are not interchangeable.
  • we run into two opposing conceptions of identity: persistent identity and anonymity.
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • The political science terms for what Shirky is trying to say are 'asset specificity' and 'selective incentives.' Users need to earn non-portable assets on an individual basis as a reward for constructive contributions to the community.
  • Dupe accounts, much like the shady accounting practices that allowed Enron to shift all its losses onto the balance sheets of fictive subsidiary corporations, allow the user's principal account to retain any specific incentives for constructive behavior while shifting all of the negative moderation and other penalties off onto the dupes.
  •  
    Some absolutely brilliant bits in here - especially ambient communities, I riff off of this that everyone starts anon themselves and to everyone else, interaction quality causes the 'other identity' to begin to crystallize and be symbolically represented, and that this 'other' need not be mapped to a natural person, this gets really very very interesting at this point so I go away and think - wildcat, your thoughts?
Wildcat2030 wildcat

Building Web Reputation Systems: The Blog: On Karma: Top-line Lessons on User Reputatio... - 2 views

  •  
    "On Karma: Top-line Lessons on User Reputation Design In Building Web Reputation Systems, we appropriate the term karma to mean a user reputation in an online service. As you might expect, karma is discussed heavily throughout the more than 300 pages. During the final editing process, it became clear that a simple summary of the main points would be helpful to those looking for guidance. It seemed that our first post in over a month (congratulations on the new delivery, Bryce!) should be something big and useful... This post covers the following top-line points about designing karma systems, drawn from our book and other blog posts: * Karma is user reputation within a context * Karma is useful for building trust between users, and between a user and the site * Karma can be an incentive for participation and contributions * Karma is contextual and has limited utility globally. [A chessmaster is not a good eBay Seller] * Karma comes in several flavors - Participation, Quality and Robust (combined) * Karma should be complex and the result of indirect evaluations, and the formulation is often opaque * Personal karma is displayed only to the owner, and is good for measuring progress * Corporate karma is used by the site operator to find the very best and very worst users * Public karma is displayed to other users, which is what makes it the hardest to get right * Public karma should be used sparingly - it is hard to understand, isn't expected, and is easily confused with content ratings * Negative public karma should be avoided all together. In karma-math -1 is not the same magnitude as +1, and information loss is too expensive. * Public karma often encourages competitive behavior in users, which may not be compatible with their motivations. This is most easily seen with leaderboards, but can happen any time karma scores are prominently displayed. [i.e.: Twitter follower count] "
Kurt Laitner

Identity and Authorization - 3 views

note that many feel this should be a third party provided feature, at the very least it should have a layer of indirection between it and the remainder of the system

Wildcat2030 wildcat

Why POiU? Why now? « POiU - 11 views

  •  
    "POiU is being created because the world is changing. The recent expansion of social media platforms shrank our world and broadened people's ability to communicate and connect regardless of physical location, cultural or even linguistic barriers. In addition to immense opportunities, we face significant challenges as a community. If not addressed and decisively tackled, these challenges could jeopardize the quality of life and even our very existence as an evolving human civilization. There are warning signs already: the widespread economic and financial instability, unclear energy future, uncontrollable environmental changes and growing gaps and failures to deliver adequate food, water, healthcare, education, and other resources and services that support society wellbeing and development. These warning signs could lead to acute and systemic crises resulting in general misery and destruction. Our best chance at overcoming this outcome is to utilize the tools we have today to tap into the collective wisdom and together select the best solutions and together put them into action. History teaches us that war has been the way in which countries could achieve total coordination to pull out of massive economical crises. But today, social networks present an alternative, allowing total coordination of the masses. This is a tool that, for the first time in our evolution, offers a constructive way to unlock the power of our collective mind and unite us under a common purpose of finding answers to our current challenges. Our future is at stake. Focusing on the opportunities and solutions, POiU will capitalize on the power of social networking to enable positive change. Together, we are building a fully functioning online society with governance and commerce, fostering a personal sense of place and belonging. This effort is empowered by POiU's launch of a collaborative platform that aims to become one component of the new coordinating system we need. The answers to our cha
  • ...3 more comments...
  •  
    Wildcat - are you a participant? Do you know any of the folks participating in POiU? I'm interested; what I see (in about 30 minutes) verifies the way I see the world going! Your other thoughts?
  •  
    no, actually I just came across this few days ago and still trying to understand the idea.. that we need a new coordinating system is beyond dispute, however if Poiu has anything of value to add to the debate I am not sure, will do some more research..
  •  
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Exchange_Trading_Systems does look like the general idea. I do think that the world is entering a period of 'collectivity' but it's not formed in any place that's far enough along to know what to do with it except to 'volunteer' at this point.
  •  
    ok... this is eerily like what we were describing yesterday in: http://message.diigo.com/message/so-i-will-now-try-a-bit-of-blogging-my-aunt-observed-today-that-social-networking-is-the-21st-cen-723705 Also, they say it is a country. VERY interesting. Kinda reminds me of Mr Lee's Greater Hong Kong franchises in Neal Stephenson's "Snowcrash" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_Crash Of course by the time set in the story private countries are physical and not only virtual.
fishead ...*∞º˙

Social Media Secrets and Resources Revealed - ReadWriteStart - 1 views

  • Have Rules, But Trust People:
  • Creativity and Personality Trump Big Budget
  • Listen, Listen, Listen
Kurt Laitner

Booki - 1 views

  • spark a fork or split
    • Kurt Laitner
       
      which is why every socnet needs this fundamental affordance
  • Reputation
  • Trust
  • ...10 more annotations...
  • Influence
  • persistent avatars, user names or real names
  • aptitude
  • commitment
  • length of time
  • number of edits effected
  • greater power over the technical tools that co-ordinate the system
  • vouching
  • sponsors
  • Debian physical encounters between developers are used to sign each others' encryption keys
Kurt Laitner

Booki - 1 views

  • The announcement of Google Wave is probably the most ambitious vision for a decentralized collaborative protocol coming from Silicon Valley
    • Kurt Laitner
       
      how is this not proprietary? because google promises not to be evil? because of dataliberation? that google wants the pipe to flow through their building?
  • Almost all of the current so called Web 2.0 platforms have been built on a centralized control model, locking their users to be dependent on a commercial tool.
  • an understanding that a lot of money can be made from web platforms based on user production.
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • These new platforms use a pleasant social terminology in an attempt to attract more users. But this polite palette of social interactions misses some of the key features that the pioneering systems were not afraid to use. For example, while most social networks only support binary relationships, Slashcode (the software that runs Slashdot.org, a pioneer of many features wrongly credited to "Web 2.0") included a relationship model that defined friends, enemies, enemies-of-friends, etc. The reputation system on the Advogato publishing tool supported a fairly sophisticated trust metric, while most of the more contemporary blog platforms support none.
  • "The networked information economy improves the practical capacities of individuals along three dimensions: (1) it improves their capacity to do more for and by themselves; (2) it enhances their capacity to do more in loose commonality with others, without being constrained to organize their relationship through a price system or in traditional hierarchical models of social and economic organization; and (3) it improves the capacity of individuals to do more in formal organizations that operate outside the market sphere.
François Dongier

Anatomy of a Large-Scale Social Search Engine - 2 views

shared by François Dongier on 04 Feb 10 - Cached
    • François Dongier
       
      Not sure I agree with this. In the Village paradigm, authority (reputation) remains important. Village paradigm extends (doesn't replace) the Library paradigm
  • We demonstrate that there is a large class of subjective questions — especially longer, contextualized requests for recommendations or advice — which are better served by social search than by web search. And our key finding is that whereas in the Library paradigm, users trust information depending upon the authority of its author, in the Village paradigm, trust comes from our sense of intimacy and connection with the person we are getting an answer from.
  •  
    I think they are referring more to the kind of question. A query like "who is the oldest living American president?" is best suited for a Library paradigm, whereas a question like "is the current president of the US doing a good job in repairing the economy?" is really more of a village paradigm. I most likely will 'trust' the library answer on the first one, but will probably become en-snarled in endless debate with my Village on the second. The point is I think, that more and more, people are asking questions that the traditional library of knowledge cannot effectively answer, even with functional semantics in place. Long live The Village. Now, who IS Number 6?
Jack Logan

NeuroSky - Experience the MindSet - 4 views

  •  
    Check this out - Click on "See How it Works!" - Moving object with your mind!
  •  
    I wouldn't mind if a trusted friend invested the $200 and told me what the software is worth. I did some work on EEG brainmaps in the early 90's and I'm ready to accept that things have evolved since then. But one electrode on the forehead seems very little (we used like 24 of them). On the other hand, visualisation tools have certainly evolved a lot and maybe it does compensate the signal weakness. But it's very easy to make nice-looking visualisations with random noise. So, I'm skeptical, but interested in the topic and will consider if someone tries it and recommends me to buy one.
  •  
    oh come on you can put it on the mantle beside the xray vision glasses
Jack Logan

Jack (4) - Google Wave - 34 views

  •  
    Ya'll come and give us your opinion.
  • ...11 more comments...
  •  
    Sorry, can't get into that wave again... Other than that; I have the impression that Wave speed has been improving greatly in the last days. It's getting almost usable now, even on large waves.
  •  
    Try now, François!
  •  
    thks Jack
  •  
    Thanks Jack!! For everyone, I have added new questions and some clarification sub-questions. Check back periodically to see/contribute to this document growing. Anyone who can't get in, please contact me: underbrain.industries@googlewave.com into your Wave contacts. I will add you to the poll wave. Or if you are connected with someone who is in, they can add you. I am attempting to flesh this survey out with more functionality, please add any questions that you think will add to the discussion. Peace!
  •  
    Continuing great job with this GWave, Frank. Come all and join in and tell all your preferences. The last junket of age is your preferences! lol And, ... I still have mine, ... for the moment. So, ... come on over before I lose some of mine ... lol
  •  
    Morning Jack!! On the subject of the survey's map, I made it public for easy access, and we have new flag from a new participant named Barney Lerten, in Bend, Oregon.....anybody know him??? Part of the little difficulties with Wave right now...public is public. Ah well....
  •  
    Morning Frank! Kurt and I talked a few days ago about this - he was concerned about locking things down at this point. I don't know Barney. Kurt?
  •  
    Never heard of Barney before either. He was invited to the wave by "Public". As you say, Frank, public is public.
  •  
    It's a concern I share. That's why i move the stuff to Wave. we need a list of eceryone in the groups Wave IDs
  •  
    For my 2 sense...don't use Wave--set a private group here or somewhere else, that doesn't have the public/private issues of wave. the problem with wave is there is no central management--anyone can add anyone else to the wave, and pretty soon, ALL your content is visible. I suggest something a little bit more locked down, unless you want to be truly open-source, in which case, take Bent's lead, and move your discussions to codeshare.
  •  
    hey fish!! the only issue is that I was dumb and made something public. we have the same issues on Diigo. We just need a Wave group that includes all the interested people.
  •  
    Agree with Frank. There is no use in letting Barney tell us where he lives, if we want to use the map gadget to choose a good place for a meatspace meeting. So this particular wave, given its intent, should have been restricted to the group. In many cases, I think it could be harmless to open a wave to the public: the crowd can contribute good things, we all know that... But I still think that, by default, wave access should be restricted to group members. It would maximize the sharing of relatively private or "sensitive" information within the group. It would also help keeping the discussions on topic (side-tracking is very easy in all forum discussions and the more people you have in the conversation the more side-tracking you get). Now of course anyone in the group can invite anyone, even "Public" into the wave: just like anyone who has access to a private document can copy it and paste it on a blog or any public place.
  •  
    Yes F1 (Francois, I will be F2)!! i think we can use the wave structures to keep things private and the fact that any of us can add anyone can be moderated by convention and the trust we have begun to build with each other. plus the reinforcement from the system, in that we all can see who has added whom. Plus the ability to delete participants will come along eventually. Thanks F1!!!
Kurt Laitner

Flickr Photo Download: Starnet Architecture - 2 views

shared by Kurt Laitner on 21 Jan 10 - Cached
frank smith liked it
    • Kurt Laitner
       
      *net architecture, rough draft, comments welcome - go to the full page to see stuff off right side
  •  
    Server server model - not thin client - server Content is on owned server - published out with privacy and pay wrapper When you want to you can 'sell' content to services - you still control it they get it by call out Ajax left behind at presentation service We build reference front end Own the means of production ie a server Tyrant would make it illegal for anyone to own a server (printing press) On the welcome page we can redirect new users for ISP and personal server host, take cut Just collect all the producers together and tell them they can own and control evthg they publish, period, then publishing services will come running Take a vig on the pay wrapper /kdl
  • ...2 more comments...
  •  
    anyone?
  •  
    so post chat with Frank, some clarifications: server server model, doesn't imply server must be outside the laptop on your desk, but it is highly recommended, as the server has the following qualities 1) always on (ppl can't see your content, anywhere, if it isn't, and you do want that cash register to be ticking) 2) in fully redundant environment 3) replication/sync to your local box (DR, B/R) 4) network attached with server isp account (ie fixed ip) of course there is nothing wrong with having the server in your basement, but you have to provide all of that yourself. if you don't trust the ability to clear your server remotely or the physical security of your colo, then you may have to host in your basement, next to your safe full of gold.
  •  
    note that all elements of this model (structure (relations and aspects), content, presentations) have a privacy and value exchange wrapper on them and can be 'bought and sold' using a value exchange model, this may be everything from rick/frank/twain agreeing to exchange content for content straight up to a start up firm valuing all aspects of contribution to the start up, including things like commitment, deliverables, ip, validation, ideas etc.
  •  
    safe of gold...gold is for suckers!! i have a safe full of CHOCOLATE!!!! Serious though, i see the structure and i am becoming more enamored with the concept.
Kurt Laitner

grouping function on people - 1 views

friend lists, should have public and private friend listings possible (you may have one category for the other party to see and another for your own internal organization, filtering, trust, attent...

feature friend lists groups relationship management

started by Kurt Laitner on 01 Feb 10 no follow-up yet
Kurt Laitner

Science in the open » What should social software for science look like? - 2 views

  • SS4S will be trusted and reliable with a strong community belief in its long term stability. No single organization holds or probably even can hold this trust so solutions will almost certainly need to be federated, open source, and supported by an active development community.
  • The problem with centralised services is three-fold. Firstly business models may take them in directions that aren’t useful for the scientific community (e.g. Friendfeed). They may simply fold, leaving the users behind with no-where to go (pick your recent failure).
  • Federation means that communties and organisations can both exist in their own space, with their own business models, but with a confidence that data is portable enough that it can be moved or replicated and with communications protocols that push things in and out of other services.
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • make scientific objects available online while simultaneously assuring users that this upload and the objects are always under their control.
  • This will mean in many cases that what is being pushed to the SS4S system is a reference not the object itself, but will sometimes be the object to provide ease of use
  • shared interest
  • collaboratively filter
  •  
    clearly others are thinking about this in their domain, note the reference to ownership and posting references rather than content to the service (invisible to the user), taking things into one's personal stream (entanglement) and social graph based filtering
Kurt Laitner

Science in the Open » Blog Archive » "Friendfeeds for Science" pt II - Design... - 1 views

  • If we recognize a role of author, outside that of the user’s curation activity we can also enable the rating of people and objects that don’t belong to users. This would allow researchers who are not users to build up reputation within the system
    • Kurt Laitner
       
      this is a really interesting twist, sort of like profile sites that allow you to 'claim' your profile - I also find the blending of poster with author annoying on twine and other socnets - it should be very clear who plays what role, this also reinforces that I would like to modulate the 'post' action to distinguish between things I just want to look at later and am filing, and things I've spent some time with and are recommending, as well as numerous other intentions that are currently bundled up in 'post' or 'share' buttons - this would also contribute to filtering granularity, as I could read everything that one of my trusted advisors had recommended, ignoring things they were merely 'collecting'
  • Finally there is the question of interacting with this content and filtering it through the rating systems that have been created. The UI issues for this are formidable but there is a need to enable different views. A streaming view, and more static views of content a user has collected over long periods, as well as search.
1 - 14 of 14
Showing 20 items per page