Group items tagged

This article examines on various factors of uses and gratification on why people utilise media in Youtube. First factor is motivation, where the writers believe that the media behaviour is goal directed and purposive. This motivation is part of the central concept in acquiring media within online space. Youtube technology enable the user to satisfy interpersonal needs and communicate their opinion to others thus creating social bond between users. Secondly, the activity factor explained that Youtube provides a medium to facilitate activities to audience before, during and after media exposure. This activity can influence how audience perceive certain (media exposure) through social interaction. Last factor, which is affinity, described how Youtube enable users to select various channel of media for their own interest. For example, active users tend to create their own video and share with the public, while the less active users may only need to find information or entertainment. These factors relates well with the reading by Wasko (2005), which examine why online users voluntarily contribute knowledge and ideas to help others in online environment.  Following the factors above, the writer also includes the study on user background characteristics that shape their activity on Youtube. This characteristics including: social activities and interpersonal interaction, locus of control where belief is reflected to control events, sensation seeking and innovativeness. The study is based on the quantitative research to support their hypothesis. 

To conclude the article, there was an argument that previously, researchers believed the Internet would blur the lines between mass and interpersonal communication. Through the analytical data that were included, the writer argued that the new social networking sites would blend the mass and interpersonal communication.

The link above only provide first page free sample. For complete version of this reading please access through Curtin Library catalogue Source: Haridakis, P. & Hanson, G. (2009) 'Social interaction and co-viewing with Youtube: blending mass communication reception and social connection'. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, June 2009, 53(2), p.317 (19) available online through Curtin Catalogue. Additional reference: Wasko, M. M. & Faraj, S. (2005), 'Why Should I Share? Examining Social Capital and Knowledge Contribution in Electronic Networks of Practice', MIS Quarterly, 29(1), p. 35-57.

Based on a longitudinal study of five torrent hosting sites (Btefnet, e-tree, easytree, piratebay, torrentportal), this scholarly paper is an in-depth examination of cooperation in bittorrent communities. It relates that collaboration is a social activity. This paper is pertinent as it compliments its examination with data collected by its authors. Firstly, it explores the ethic of sharing central to bittorrent community - people who leech (download) files must later seed (upload) them so that they are available to other members of the organisation - relating this reciprocality as the main incentive for torrent users to collaborate (p.111). Comparing the five sites, the paper examines the different tools used to shape how sharing occurs, they find that the most salient of these is seeding ratios. Seeding ratios are used to ensure that users spend a fair amount of time seeding in comparison to the amount they spend leeching. These ratios are publicly viewable, it is as such that the user's contribution to the community is overt and users feel obligated to maintain this in order to preserve good relations within the group. Users in torrent swarms (collection of seeders and leechers linked via a common file) have minimalist identities (Kent 2012), however, they are not completely anonymous, linking their identity with download activity (p.112). In this way users in swarms are still connected to the physical world and individual identity through things like bandwidth speed, which determines how a user interacts with their peers. The paper relates how easytree, a network for bootleg recordings, had to have ratio enforcement emplaced as the site grew and received new users who were not familiar with the sharing culture of offline bootleg traders who had originally populated the network ( pp.114-5). We see that even within the diffuse nature of virtual entities, online collaboration is influenced by (physical and virtual) social factors (p.114).

This is a page from BitTorrent.com's Idea Bank, a messageboard where people can post the ideas they would like to see adopted by BitTorrent's programmers. This page can be used as a text in the way that it demonstrates the user attitudes toward collaboration in bittorrent. The page shows conversation in fourteen posts. Firstly, we see something of the ideology of bittorrent, coming from the culture of Open Source software it actively invites the user's input into development. The conversation is interesting because it presents distinct 'for' and 'against' arguments on the inclusion of a 'thank you pop up'. The context of the page is salient, sitting at number two in popularity on the requests board, one realises that not being able to say thanks to peers is of concern to members of the swarm. The majority of commenters see the 'thank you pop up' as a good thing (nine 'for' comments to four 'against') stating sentiments of altruism, politeness and an intent to strengthen relationships within the bittorrent community. User Jp comments: "The world would certainly be a better place to live in, if only it's people would start to be kind toward those who share. To become more polite is a small step for man and a bigger one for humanity. I will surely pop one up (a thank you window) to the man who will spread the code for a better living." On the other hand the 'against' comments relate statements as to why a 'thank you pop up' is actually harmful to bittorrent community, Jimmy Hendrix posting: " I absolutely.......... absolutely do NOT want a feature to say thanks, chat, or get to know anybody that I'm downloading from. I want to stay as anonymous and impersonal as possible. Viren......you do know that this is still illegal? request/ban viren chocha." While the swarm is by nature anonymous, users do you yearn for a way to extend a warm hand to members they are collaborating with. Whilst the extralegal nature of bitorrent inhibits the devel

This suggestion combined with the much polarised reactions in the comments section is worth looking at and thinking about. Although the majority of the comments are positive and there are a significant amount of votes for this feature, five out of fourteen of the comments are either against it or express that they would not want to use it by bringing up issues like anonymity as well as legal issues. Unlike the interactions within the close social group looked at in the paper "BitTorrents and Family Guy: teenage peer group interactions around a peer-to-peer Internet download community", it seems that some of the users' who made comments about this suggestion do not want to make contact with other BitTorrent users, perhaps because the illegal nature of the exchange makes them feel uncomfortable. Their perspectives suggest that they just want to use BitTorrent for downloading and uploading, and not directly as a kind of community. I think they may have a point, and real life social groups as well as online communities seem to function fine without communication being possible directly within BitTorrent programs. It is interesting to think if file-sharing was less taboo, perhaps it would be more acceptable for social features like this to be directly integrated into the platforms.

In the article, Collaboration in context: Comparing article evolution among subject disciplines in Wikipedia, the writers Katherine Ehmann, Andrew Large and Jamshid Beheshti, compare a small selection of articles - some newly created, and some well-established - from three subject disciplines - the hard sciences, soft sciences and humanities - in order to examine the article quality, how it differs from discipline to discipline and if it changes over time (Ehmann, Large & Beheshti, 2008). One of the most interesting findings that was published in this article was that, contrary to previous research (Brandle, 2005; Dondio, et al., 2006; Lig, 2004; Stvilia, et al., 2005a, 2008; Wilkinson and Huberman, 2007), the articles used that had a greater number of edits than the others, were not the articles of the highest quality (Ehmann, Large & Beheshti, 2008). Wikipedia articles on average retained 90.3 percent of their original text and in general, only small edits were made over time (Ehmann, Large & Beheshti, 2008). I believe these new findings still support, 'the wisdom of crowds' theory though (Surowiecki, 2004, p. 5). Even though a large portion of the text remains from the original contributor, the small edits by other contributors over time, still help to fine-tune the article's meaning and readability. The authors' exploration into Wikipedia Talk pages is also of interest, especially how these places aided the collaboration and coordination process and how this in turn contributed to the quality of articles in Wikipedia (Ehmann, Large & Beheshti, 2008). While Ehmann, Large and Beheshti only studied a small number of articles, and another study is required which examines a larger number of articles, in order to make more conclusive findings, I think this article is still a useful resource (Ehmann, Large & Beheshti, 2008). It is constructive to compare this article's findings to the findings in the Rosenzweig article (Rosenzweig, 2006).

I think this article is interesting and pointed wisdom of crowd cannot bring high quality for Wikipedia's article. Talk pages are playing important role in Wikipedia, editors post their suggestion there and other active editors come and follow them or put other suggestion to make a more credible article (in Talk pages the most request belonged to the suggestion for editing and completeness had the less request followed by accuracy and accessibility) (Beheshti, Ehmann & Large, 2088). According to my own research, one of the important things, which mentions in talk pages is about sources of articles which can take a place as print resources, deep web resources external links and inexact references. Disagreement about content of articles is another important subject in Wikipedia and before an article edited, editors discuss in talk pages about adding controversial material or removing content, and then they get a decision to how edit the article. Talk pages may use to notify other users to know this article had recent edit or editors ask their questions there from other or they request for help. However, the author mentioned participation of contributors on different topics is different. There are many articles which have only one comment on their talk page and there is large number of articles who has various comment and suggestions on their talk page (Breslin, Passant & Schneider, 2010). Breslin, J, G., A, Passant. & Schneider, J. (2010). A content analysis: How Wikipedia talk pages are used. 7. Retrieved from http://journal.webscience.org/373/2/websci10_submission_80.pdf

Collaboration in Context takes an in-depth view at the collaboration which produces Wikipedia pages. I was attracted to this resource in that I imagined it would assist me in understanding how users interacted in a organised context - ie. the mindsets of users collaborating on a specific, and, in the case of many Wikipedia pages, complex, task. Whilst the paper examines the development of pages from a 'contributor's' point of view, it does this through statistical interpretation of a set of data the authors assembled on page edits. The result is that the paper doesn't so much uncover the nuances of collaboration in an organisational setting, as relate the nuts and bolts of page editing. Perhaps, the mores of collaboration might be inferred from this reading of Wikipedia's collaborative process, though I found it difficult to see this in numbers rather than testimony from wikipedians themselves. What this paper does do is highlight the efficacy of 'talk pages' in the process of building of 'rich' Wikipedia entries. These forums provide the engine of collaboration on Wikipedia - users able to get together as a group to uncover the most efficient ways to combine their work - the paper concluding, "Talk pages - in addition to article edits themselves - provide wikipedians with a powerful means of shaping the presentation of knowledge. (chap.8)" This information is useful to me in the way I will be able to compare it to the, say, simpler, and more spontaneous collaboration of strangers in bittorrent which does not require a 'talk page'. What I would have liked to have known is how the 'talk' on these pages allowed networks of 'equal' users to perfect articles on complex topics, and what the users themselves thought of the arrangement.