· Baym, N. (1995). The emergence of community in computer-mediated communication. In Steven G. Jones, ed.CyberSociety: Computer-Mediated Communication and Community (pp.138-163). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
· Bruckman, Amy (1996). Finding one’s own space in cyberspace. Technology Review, 99 (1), 48-52.
· Danet, B., Ruedenberg, L., & Rosenbaum-Tamari, Y. (1997). Hmmm...where's all that smoke coming from: Writing, play and performance on Internet Relay Chat. In S. Rafaeli, F. Sudweeks & M. McLaughlin (Eds.), Networks and Netplay: Virtual Groups on the Inter net. Cambridge, MA: AAAI/MIT. (also available in: Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 2 (4).
· Kaufman, M. (1996). They call it cyberlove. In Kling, R. (Ed.) Computerization and Controversy: Value Conflicts and Social Choices (Vol.2). San Diego, Ca: Academic Press.
· Kling, R. (1996, July). Social relationships in Electronic forums. CMC Magazine, http://www.december.com/mag/1996/jul/kling.html
· Lea, M. and Spears, M. (1995). Love at first byte? Building personal relationships over computer networks. In Wood, J.T. & Duck, S. (Eds.). Understudied Relationships: Off the Beaten Track. (pp. 197-236). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
· Mabry, E. (1997). Framing flames: The structure of argumentative messages on the net. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 2 (4).
· Parks, M. R.; & Floyd, K. (1996, Winter). Making friends in cyberspace. Journal of Communication, 46, 80-97 also available at: Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 46(1).
· Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1996). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational communication. Management Science, 32, 1492-1512.
· Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19, 52-90.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Social Networking
Beginning and maintaining interpersonal relationships in the virtual kingdom is becoming increasingly popular in our society. As new communication networks are developing in the world, people are using technology not only in business, industry, education or communication, but as a social tool that is linking together people all across the globe. According to the Internet Society, the use of electronic mail is growing exponentially making communication with someone geographically distant about as easy as if speaking with them in the next room .(Lea and Spears, 1995). The emergence and accessibility of email, chat rooms, instant messaging, and bulletins have made it easier for people to develop personal online relationships. Although online relationships through social networking lack characteristics in areas of non-verbal communication, physical cues, and impersonality of the computer, the frequency and uniqueness of these relationships are popular amongst millions of computer users. My research focuses on three questions; how and why people are socially connecting online? Are online relationships comparable to face-to-face meetings? And lastly what are the effects of social networking and personal relationships online? In an age where technology is at our fingertips, society has the opportunity build and sustain relationships without ever having to leave the comfort of their own home.
“The lost art of conversation is surviving online” (Kaufman, 1996) helps explain t as to why people are participating in social networking through the internet based on social interaction, affiliation, and a sense of community. Social networking allows people to carry on tasks and activities just as they would in “real life”. From the safety of their homes users are able to communicate with friends and family, shop for virtually anything desired, and even attend school. This is beneficiary for people with restricted lifestyles allowing people to socialize online, meet new people, and attend to their favorite interests even if they work unusual hours or are unable to leave home. “CMC users, just like communicators in any context, should desire to transact personal, rewarding, complex relationships and that they will communicate to do so. This is shown most clearly in e-mail usage in organizations.” (Walther, 1992). This sense of affiliation describes how people expend their energy through social networking to get others to connect and share with them. Along with affiliation the sense of community drives people to look for others to relate to, share with, and become close to. People form relationships from commonalities in CMC, rather than by location when face to face. According to Robert Kling of CMC Magazine, “because technology can break down time or place barriers for people, virtually anyone can meet in a common place at anytime”. This in turn explains why so many people interact through social networking, it’s easy and everywhere!
Computers and the internet are now found almost virtually anywhere available in homes, at work, schools, libraries and now even cafés. Only a computer, modem, and internet connection is need for your most basic communication, and the use is growing exponentially across the world. The accessibility of these Social Networking Sites allows people to chat at anytime of the day. The popularity of email, chat rooms and instant messaging allow users to chat with multiple people through a number of networks or even private locations. The growth of independent networks such as Facebook, America On-Line and Myspace, provide access to millions of users each day. Whether social issues, affiliation or the need for sense of community form the basis for personal online relationships there are two opposite sides comparing online relationships to the traditional face-to-face relationship.
There are two different views researchers have found regarding personal connections within social networking. The first outlook describes online networking as shallow, impersonal, and hostile believing that only the illusion of community is created on the internet. It points to the reduction of social cues meaning the absence of physical context such as nonverbal cues, physical characteristics, kinesics, and facial expressions. Because less of this information is actually demonstrated online rather than face-to-face, this view elaborates that people have greater difficulty recognizing and moving towards shared points of view (Kiesler & Sproull, 1996). These observations argue the weaknesses that social networking can present. Here it is illustrated that social networking is lacking in interpersonal qualities considered necessary for building connection. The idea that always meeting through means of a computer may become frustrating for many people, thus in term initiating the need to meet face-to-face. People begin to miss the interactions that occur through face-to-face conversation. It is much easier to read one’s emotions, sarcasm, and honesty up front as opposed to via an online community, arguing the significant qualities that social networking lacks.
The second perspective argues that “computer mediated communication liberates interpersonal relationships from the confines of physical locality and thus creates opportunities for new, but genuine, personal relationships and communities” (Parks and Floyd, 1996). In this opinion, the fact that the users do not meet face-to-face does not necessarily mean the relationship is any less “real” or significant for those involved. (Lea and Spears, 1995). Because of the internets easy access and availability users may adapt quickly to these situations inciting them to further pursue relationships online. The use of emoticons, a symbol or combination of symbols used to convey emotional content in written or message form (dictionary.com), help conceptualize the message being delivered. Emoticons are useful in making up for the lack of nonverbal contextual cues within social networking. This suggests that although social networking may not have the same personal understanding as a face-to-face conversation, it has adapted itself to make up for it through its strengths of accessibility and substitute of expressions through emoticons. Social networking can be viewed as being just as facilitating as a face-to-face conversation because of such adaptations and availability that are in some cases more beneficiary than “real life” conversation.
Lastly, the positive and negative effects of online networking help determine important factors when trying to establish a relationship or avoid its dark side. Social networking can establish genuine personal relationships in the eyes of the participants, some people even report that they are much deeper and better quality than real-life friendship (Bruckman, 1996). In spite of a high quality relationship, this in turn has allowed social networking to expand off the computer through letters, telephone and arranged face-to-face meetings. Internet users are able to organize their own groups based upon personal interests, jobs, etc. allowing people to come and go as they please. These groups or communities may also be apart of a support network such as groups for abused women and children, cancer foundations, and other common interest groups. Social networking allows users open up to others without the pressures of an on-the-spot conversation. The benefit of communicating through the computer allows the user to express themselves freely and overcome any shyness that may arise in a face-to-face situation. This freedom of expression allows any user to explore new behaviors, interact and meet new people and educate themselves in newly discovered areas.
While many positive benefits come from establishing online connections, an ugly side to social networking can arise. Social networking, or computer mediated communications in general, creates many opportunities for self-presentation and identity manipulation (Lea and Spears, 1995). Many feel that this manipulation is not ethical and not fair for the participants involved. Threats, violation of privacy, sexual harassment and even virtual rape are all prevalent dangers when initiating conversation with relative strangers through the internet. Brenda Danet, Lucia Ruedenberg-Wright, and Yehudit Rosenbaum-Tamari (1997) state that cyberspace is "by no means wholly benign," and that CMC can release "aggressive, even shockingly malicious behavior, including sexual harassment and racism." Social networking brings people from distant geographic locations together, including the possibility of bitter, even dangerous people. Flaming, or "messages that are precipitate, often personally derogatory, ad hominem attacks directed toward someone due to a position taken in a message distributed (posted) to the group." (Edward Mabry, 1997) are real life threats. These behaviors can only be controlled to a certain degree and social networkers must be aware of this. Social networks must continue to work on privacy settings and restrictions to prevent such threats because issues like these hinder the safety and success of online networking.
In conclusion, online relationships through social networking are happening across the globe. People are intrigued by developing personal relationships online because the technology is still new and its advancements increase the curiosity and popularity of users old and young. The success of social networking, measured through its advancement and increased popularity, has been a result of the “blurring” of traditional boundaries between interpersonal and mass communication, allowing for "new opportunities and risks for the way individuals relate to one another" (Parks and Floyd, 1996; Lea & Spears, 1995). People are able to connect with others anywhere at any point in time. As stated before, networkers can openly share information whether personal or impersonal without the restrictions of face-to-face conversation. Online networking has adapted itself to the point where some users enjoy it more than “real life” interaction. While there are still disappointments and weaknesses dealing with privacy and deception, social networks are working to improve this. Taking into consideration all positive and negative aspects to social networking, people still thrive to reach others with commonalities and interests. The internet will continue to provide new social networks and channels for people to meet with strangers, initiate conversation and build relationships similar to face-to-face communication for years to come.
“The lost art of conversation is surviving online” (Kaufman, 1996) helps explain t as to why people are participating in social networking through the internet based on social interaction, affiliation, and a sense of community. Social networking allows people to carry on tasks and activities just as they would in “real life”. From the safety of their homes users are able to communicate with friends and family, shop for virtually anything desired, and even attend school. This is beneficiary for people with restricted lifestyles allowing people to socialize online, meet new people, and attend to their favorite interests even if they work unusual hours or are unable to leave home. “CMC users, just like communicators in any context, should desire to transact personal, rewarding, complex relationships and that they will communicate to do so. This is shown most clearly in e-mail usage in organizations.” (Walther, 1992). This sense of affiliation describes how people expend their energy through social networking to get others to connect and share with them. Along with affiliation the sense of community drives people to look for others to relate to, share with, and become close to. People form relationships from commonalities in CMC, rather than by location when face to face. According to Robert Kling of CMC Magazine, “because technology can break down time or place barriers for people, virtually anyone can meet in a common place at anytime”. This in turn explains why so many people interact through social networking, it’s easy and everywhere!
Computers and the internet are now found almost virtually anywhere available in homes, at work, schools, libraries and now even cafés. Only a computer, modem, and internet connection is need for your most basic communication, and the use is growing exponentially across the world. The accessibility of these Social Networking Sites allows people to chat at anytime of the day. The popularity of email, chat rooms and instant messaging allow users to chat with multiple people through a number of networks or even private locations. The growth of independent networks such as Facebook, America On-Line and Myspace, provide access to millions of users each day. Whether social issues, affiliation or the need for sense of community form the basis for personal online relationships there are two opposite sides comparing online relationships to the traditional face-to-face relationship.
There are two different views researchers have found regarding personal connections within social networking. The first outlook describes online networking as shallow, impersonal, and hostile believing that only the illusion of community is created on the internet. It points to the reduction of social cues meaning the absence of physical context such as nonverbal cues, physical characteristics, kinesics, and facial expressions. Because less of this information is actually demonstrated online rather than face-to-face, this view elaborates that people have greater difficulty recognizing and moving towards shared points of view (Kiesler & Sproull, 1996). These observations argue the weaknesses that social networking can present. Here it is illustrated that social networking is lacking in interpersonal qualities considered necessary for building connection. The idea that always meeting through means of a computer may become frustrating for many people, thus in term initiating the need to meet face-to-face. People begin to miss the interactions that occur through face-to-face conversation. It is much easier to read one’s emotions, sarcasm, and honesty up front as opposed to via an online community, arguing the significant qualities that social networking lacks.
The second perspective argues that “computer mediated communication liberates interpersonal relationships from the confines of physical locality and thus creates opportunities for new, but genuine, personal relationships and communities” (Parks and Floyd, 1996). In this opinion, the fact that the users do not meet face-to-face does not necessarily mean the relationship is any less “real” or significant for those involved. (Lea and Spears, 1995). Because of the internets easy access and availability users may adapt quickly to these situations inciting them to further pursue relationships online. The use of emoticons, a symbol or combination of symbols used to convey emotional content in written or message form (dictionary.com), help conceptualize the message being delivered. Emoticons are useful in making up for the lack of nonverbal contextual cues within social networking. This suggests that although social networking may not have the same personal understanding as a face-to-face conversation, it has adapted itself to make up for it through its strengths of accessibility and substitute of expressions through emoticons. Social networking can be viewed as being just as facilitating as a face-to-face conversation because of such adaptations and availability that are in some cases more beneficiary than “real life” conversation.
Lastly, the positive and negative effects of online networking help determine important factors when trying to establish a relationship or avoid its dark side. Social networking can establish genuine personal relationships in the eyes of the participants, some people even report that they are much deeper and better quality than real-life friendship (Bruckman, 1996). In spite of a high quality relationship, this in turn has allowed social networking to expand off the computer through letters, telephone and arranged face-to-face meetings. Internet users are able to organize their own groups based upon personal interests, jobs, etc. allowing people to come and go as they please. These groups or communities may also be apart of a support network such as groups for abused women and children, cancer foundations, and other common interest groups. Social networking allows users open up to others without the pressures of an on-the-spot conversation. The benefit of communicating through the computer allows the user to express themselves freely and overcome any shyness that may arise in a face-to-face situation. This freedom of expression allows any user to explore new behaviors, interact and meet new people and educate themselves in newly discovered areas.
While many positive benefits come from establishing online connections, an ugly side to social networking can arise. Social networking, or computer mediated communications in general, creates many opportunities for self-presentation and identity manipulation (Lea and Spears, 1995). Many feel that this manipulation is not ethical and not fair for the participants involved. Threats, violation of privacy, sexual harassment and even virtual rape are all prevalent dangers when initiating conversation with relative strangers through the internet. Brenda Danet, Lucia Ruedenberg-Wright, and Yehudit Rosenbaum-Tamari (1997) state that cyberspace is "by no means wholly benign," and that CMC can release "aggressive, even shockingly malicious behavior, including sexual harassment and racism." Social networking brings people from distant geographic locations together, including the possibility of bitter, even dangerous people. Flaming, or "messages that are precipitate, often personally derogatory, ad hominem attacks directed toward someone due to a position taken in a message distributed (posted) to the group." (Edward Mabry, 1997) are real life threats. These behaviors can only be controlled to a certain degree and social networkers must be aware of this. Social networks must continue to work on privacy settings and restrictions to prevent such threats because issues like these hinder the safety and success of online networking.
In conclusion, online relationships through social networking are happening across the globe. People are intrigued by developing personal relationships online because the technology is still new and its advancements increase the curiosity and popularity of users old and young. The success of social networking, measured through its advancement and increased popularity, has been a result of the “blurring” of traditional boundaries between interpersonal and mass communication, allowing for "new opportunities and risks for the way individuals relate to one another" (Parks and Floyd, 1996; Lea & Spears, 1995). People are able to connect with others anywhere at any point in time. As stated before, networkers can openly share information whether personal or impersonal without the restrictions of face-to-face conversation. Online networking has adapted itself to the point where some users enjoy it more than “real life” interaction. While there are still disappointments and weaknesses dealing with privacy and deception, social networks are working to improve this. Taking into consideration all positive and negative aspects to social networking, people still thrive to reach others with commonalities and interests. The internet will continue to provide new social networks and channels for people to meet with strangers, initiate conversation and build relationships similar to face-to-face communication for years to come.
prelude to paper
Hey guys, before you read my paper, (if you do haha), I just want to say I did my research on various aspects of social networking, positive and negative, and how that has led to its popularity, creating of online relationships, likes/dislikes, and advancements. Hope you enjoy it!
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Freeing Mickey
When we talked about Mickey and his copyright protection being removed, I didn't think too much of it because he is a huge icon but to me he's just a cartoon. I was in the middle on if it will be a good or bad thing when his copyright protection is removed but after seeing a South Park episode with Mickey in it I changed my mind. It will definitely be a bad thing for younger children because Mickey does not have to be all innocent and happy anymore, and he could be an overpowering Boss that controls the Jonas Brothers and sells sex to little girls! At least that was Mickey's role in the South Park episode, where he also swore and threatened to beat up the Jonas Brothers if they did not meet his demands. I found this portrayal of Mickey very funny, but if younger children saw this after a trip to Disney World they would be appalled.
This episode was very entertaining, therefore I believe other alterations of Mickey might make some profit. Mickey can literally play any role when his copyright protection is removed and I believe this alone will make money. Mickey stoned, Mickey drunk, Mickey in a gang, Mickey choosing political sides, Mickey as a hippy, all these new identities are hard to imagine now but when they come out on television, youtube, and maybe even advertisements who knows how much money this will bring it.
This episode was very entertaining, therefore I believe other alterations of Mickey might make some profit. Mickey can literally play any role when his copyright protection is removed and I believe this alone will make money. Mickey stoned, Mickey drunk, Mickey in a gang, Mickey choosing political sides, Mickey as a hippy, all these new identities are hard to imagine now but when they come out on television, youtube, and maybe even advertisements who knows how much money this will bring it.
Micro #3
So initially when the class went up to the computer lab to play around with the cicada page that resembled Wikipedia, I had a difficult time editing it. Most of our classroom was battling to make changes on the page, and after I had made mine it didn't matter because it was edited again immediately after. I tried to edit the book titles for our class by including information about Amy Shuen and Tapscott and Williams but after I clicked to edit, it did not go through. I saw to my left the other groups doing the same thing, and I asked them if they were having a hard time too and they agreed. I just think that because a number of people were on the same page at the same time the edits were not going through.
A week later I went back on the page and had no problem editing. I did some sentence changing and rearranging in the same area that I had tried before and the editing when straight through. It was very easy for my edit to be posted because I doubt that anyone in our class was on the page at the same time. This tool was interesting to work with and it reminded me of other sites that tend to slow down or not function when too many users are trying to accomplish the same thing. It's cool to think that I have the power to change a website though. Before this class I had no idea that Wikipedia had this option, and it makes me feel like my knowledge is of some importance.
A week later I went back on the page and had no problem editing. I did some sentence changing and rearranging in the same area that I had tried before and the editing when straight through. It was very easy for my edit to be posted because I doubt that anyone in our class was on the page at the same time. This tool was interesting to work with and it reminded me of other sites that tend to slow down or not function when too many users are trying to accomplish the same thing. It's cool to think that I have the power to change a website though. Before this class I had no idea that Wikipedia had this option, and it makes me feel like my knowledge is of some importance.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Macro Assignment 1
In Amy Shuen’s Web 2.0: A Strategy Guide and William and Tapscott’s Wikinomics the issue of organizations and companies not having the brain power to keep up with societies expectations is a significant dilemma mentioned in both books. Big and small corporations do not have enough internal knowledge to satisfy customer demands. Time and creativity are limited within competitive businesses and just a few partners are not capable of keeping up with other competing organizations. As a result of growing customer demands, a collectivist approach has been considered as an effective solution. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate Shuen’s monetizing collaborating strategies and William and Tapscott’s more innovative approach.
Both authors agree that collaboration is crucial in the evolution of organizations and businesses, however, Shuen favors collaborative innovation for it’s opportunities to monetize. In Chapter 2 of Web 2.0, Shuen emphasizes that when social networks grow, the value of the network increases, therefore, willingness to pay to join the network will also increase, otherwise known as a direct network effect. The growth of social networking or online collaboration will bring in money just with the amount of participants that want to join. Before these social networks even share ideas for new business innovations Shuen is considering the money making possibilities.
Another way in which Shuen sees an opportunity to monetize a collaborative social network is by making the network original. If such a network separates itself from other networks by providing rare features that users cant find elsewhere, people will be more likely to contribute and pay for it’s services (p. 65, Shuen). Here we see again Shuen’s monetizing strategies stemming from collaborative networking.
The traditional ideas of competition have been a force behind companies for decades. Big and small businesses are too focused on how they can beat out their competitors when they should focus on how they might be able to benefit from competitors. Businesses are too accustomed to protecting their ideas and money making strategies and miss the benefits of collaboration. Shuen agrees with this point when she says, “Even when industry leaders recognize a potential network partner or ecosystem player, they will sometimes turn down the opportunity in order to protect their own cash cows or maintain control of their walled garden,”(p.133). Her statement emphasizes that companies should let their guard down, collaborate, and make more money by sharing their “garden.” Businesses are actually losing money by not collaborating with other companies.
Tapscott and William’s agree with Shuen on the idea that companies, big or small, must consider collaboration. Wikinomics, is much less focused on the money making of collaboration and centers in on the growth of innovation. Companies solely relying on themselves cannot turn out inventive ideas fast enough to keep up with consumers. It is described best by Tapscott and William’s when they state:
“The pace of change and evolving demands of customers are such that firms can no
longer depend only on internal capabilities to meet external needs. Nor can they
depend only on tightly coupled relationships with a handful of business partners to
keep up with customer desires for speed, innovation, and control,”
(p.19, Tapscott and William).
Again, we see the need for collaboration because the more business partners available, the faster the production of new ideas. Tapscott and William stress the need for change within businesses from an exclusive staff to an all-welcoming, collaborative community.
Wikinomics does not just focus collaborative efforts within the workplace, but it also emphasizes its importance within society. With today’s technology we are able to connect with people across the globe, therefore the globalizing of ideas is in our hands. People now have the ability to feed off of each other, reformulating and expanding knowledge. Tapscott and William’s agree by commenting that the “future lies in collaborations across borders, cultures, companies, and disciplines,” (p.61) highlighting the importance of expanding knowledge. It is not only companies that must collaborate with foreign areas, but all people must consider globalizing their ideas.
Although Tapscott and William’s ideas of collaboration provide a solution for companies to keep up with new demands, it differs greatly from Shuen’s goals because it does not focus as much on monetizing. The primary focus of collaborative efforts is to jump start innovations. This is emphasized when Wikinomics reads, “the real advantage of global sourcing is not cost savings, but the endless possibilities for growth, innovation, and diversity”(p.62). The “fusion” of resources is predicted to launch products and services quicker with the ability to reach more people. Global collaboration is not about the opportunities of money making, but the accelerated production of ideas, services, or products.
Web 2.0 and Wikinomics both focus on the benefits stemming from collaborative efforts, but while Shuen is money hungry William and Tapscott are not. Collaborative success should not be based on how much money it can reel in but by the innovations and ideas it creates. The William and Tapscott approach is much more realistic in that they apply the need for globalizing ideas to culture and society and not just businesses. It is important with the internet access and capabilities that we have today to stretch our knowledge across continents with the hopes of expanding, connecting, and growing globally.
Wikinomics illustrates that people will collaborate within communities “because they want to and because they can,” not necessarily for economic gains (p.67). Participants within these communities will broaden their horizons, giving and taking information from other participants across the globe. Collaboration is a benefit in itself and many participants within communities see this advantage for what it’s worth. Nonmonetary gains can be just as rewarding in many ways that William and Tapscott recognize and Shuen fails to. As a society, if we only depend on monetary gains for success we will be cheating ourselves of a knowledge that was once unattainable. Today we have access to share our ideas with people we will never meet and countries we will never see, why not take advantage of this ability?
Both authors agree that collaboration is crucial in the evolution of organizations and businesses, however, Shuen favors collaborative innovation for it’s opportunities to monetize. In Chapter 2 of Web 2.0, Shuen emphasizes that when social networks grow, the value of the network increases, therefore, willingness to pay to join the network will also increase, otherwise known as a direct network effect. The growth of social networking or online collaboration will bring in money just with the amount of participants that want to join. Before these social networks even share ideas for new business innovations Shuen is considering the money making possibilities.
Another way in which Shuen sees an opportunity to monetize a collaborative social network is by making the network original. If such a network separates itself from other networks by providing rare features that users cant find elsewhere, people will be more likely to contribute and pay for it’s services (p. 65, Shuen). Here we see again Shuen’s monetizing strategies stemming from collaborative networking.
The traditional ideas of competition have been a force behind companies for decades. Big and small businesses are too focused on how they can beat out their competitors when they should focus on how they might be able to benefit from competitors. Businesses are too accustomed to protecting their ideas and money making strategies and miss the benefits of collaboration. Shuen agrees with this point when she says, “Even when industry leaders recognize a potential network partner or ecosystem player, they will sometimes turn down the opportunity in order to protect their own cash cows or maintain control of their walled garden,”(p.133). Her statement emphasizes that companies should let their guard down, collaborate, and make more money by sharing their “garden.” Businesses are actually losing money by not collaborating with other companies.
Tapscott and William’s agree with Shuen on the idea that companies, big or small, must consider collaboration. Wikinomics, is much less focused on the money making of collaboration and centers in on the growth of innovation. Companies solely relying on themselves cannot turn out inventive ideas fast enough to keep up with consumers. It is described best by Tapscott and William’s when they state:
“The pace of change and evolving demands of customers are such that firms can no
longer depend only on internal capabilities to meet external needs. Nor can they
depend only on tightly coupled relationships with a handful of business partners to
keep up with customer desires for speed, innovation, and control,”
(p.19, Tapscott and William).
Again, we see the need for collaboration because the more business partners available, the faster the production of new ideas. Tapscott and William stress the need for change within businesses from an exclusive staff to an all-welcoming, collaborative community.
Wikinomics does not just focus collaborative efforts within the workplace, but it also emphasizes its importance within society. With today’s technology we are able to connect with people across the globe, therefore the globalizing of ideas is in our hands. People now have the ability to feed off of each other, reformulating and expanding knowledge. Tapscott and William’s agree by commenting that the “future lies in collaborations across borders, cultures, companies, and disciplines,” (p.61) highlighting the importance of expanding knowledge. It is not only companies that must collaborate with foreign areas, but all people must consider globalizing their ideas.
Although Tapscott and William’s ideas of collaboration provide a solution for companies to keep up with new demands, it differs greatly from Shuen’s goals because it does not focus as much on monetizing. The primary focus of collaborative efforts is to jump start innovations. This is emphasized when Wikinomics reads, “the real advantage of global sourcing is not cost savings, but the endless possibilities for growth, innovation, and diversity”(p.62). The “fusion” of resources is predicted to launch products and services quicker with the ability to reach more people. Global collaboration is not about the opportunities of money making, but the accelerated production of ideas, services, or products.
Web 2.0 and Wikinomics both focus on the benefits stemming from collaborative efforts, but while Shuen is money hungry William and Tapscott are not. Collaborative success should not be based on how much money it can reel in but by the innovations and ideas it creates. The William and Tapscott approach is much more realistic in that they apply the need for globalizing ideas to culture and society and not just businesses. It is important with the internet access and capabilities that we have today to stretch our knowledge across continents with the hopes of expanding, connecting, and growing globally.
Wikinomics illustrates that people will collaborate within communities “because they want to and because they can,” not necessarily for economic gains (p.67). Participants within these communities will broaden their horizons, giving and taking information from other participants across the globe. Collaboration is a benefit in itself and many participants within communities see this advantage for what it’s worth. Nonmonetary gains can be just as rewarding in many ways that William and Tapscott recognize and Shuen fails to. As a society, if we only depend on monetary gains for success we will be cheating ourselves of a knowledge that was once unattainable. Today we have access to share our ideas with people we will never meet and countries we will never see, why not take advantage of this ability?
Monday, November 2, 2009
So my Avatars name is Dixie Lexenstar, which is pretty funny. My blonde haired chihuahua is named Dixie so I think that encouraged the deciding factor on the name.
The main difficulties I had were dealing with the password confirmation for some reason. I solved this by logging off and then back on again,slight confusion. I did personalize my avatar, although there were only a few options. So I have short blonde hair, and I'm a typical female, not a zelda wizard guy.
This technology is interesting because it gives users a body, a world, and a life to interact with people that the users might not even meet.It's a benefit to have a virtual network, something differing from the usual social network. It may be worthwhile getting into.It seems as though its full of creativity and may introduce users to new people and groups.
It's easy to connect with people on Second Life. When you go to a place there are always others walking around and its simple to walk up to them and say something. It does not feel as though i'm talking to a void because i can physically see the other networkers.
Drawbacks of having an Avatar are that its hard to get used to and to move around. It is very similar to getting accustomed to a video game. I also don't like how some things the user has to pay for. Everything on Second Life should be free! Not everyone has an Avatar because I don't think it has reached its peak popularity. Users will increase once more and more people discover the program.
I honestly don't think I'm going to use Second Life after this class because I get frustrated with video games easily so I'm probably going to give up on my Avatar at some point. Sorry Dixie.
The main difficulties I had were dealing with the password confirmation for some reason. I solved this by logging off and then back on again,slight confusion. I did personalize my avatar, although there were only a few options. So I have short blonde hair, and I'm a typical female, not a zelda wizard guy.
This technology is interesting because it gives users a body, a world, and a life to interact with people that the users might not even meet.It's a benefit to have a virtual network, something differing from the usual social network. It may be worthwhile getting into.It seems as though its full of creativity and may introduce users to new people and groups.
It's easy to connect with people on Second Life. When you go to a place there are always others walking around and its simple to walk up to them and say something. It does not feel as though i'm talking to a void because i can physically see the other networkers.
Drawbacks of having an Avatar are that its hard to get used to and to move around. It is very similar to getting accustomed to a video game. I also don't like how some things the user has to pay for. Everything on Second Life should be free! Not everyone has an Avatar because I don't think it has reached its peak popularity. Users will increase once more and more people discover the program.
I honestly don't think I'm going to use Second Life after this class because I get frustrated with video games easily so I'm probably going to give up on my Avatar at some point. Sorry Dixie.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
