SI Wrap Up

I've returned to Toronto and spent a few days settling in to my regular life. Unfortunately, however, it seems to be taking a little while longer than expected. I keep thinking about things like social capital, facebook's implications on corporate networks, and the benefits of instant messaging in the workplace (while I waste time in the workplace on MSN). The fact is, however, 506 was a very useful course for practical things in the context of social networking... who knew?

So... to wrap up this learning journal, I'm going to review and comment on each of the 5 groups and their presentations to see what nuggets of wisdom I can pull from my memories of each presentation.

Group 1 - Facebook for non-profits - There were two very different sides to this issue. One I agree with, and one I do not. Facebook is a great way to promote events, using the social networks of people who are connected to your cause. A "cause" page is a good thing to have, as is a business/organization profile page. All good things, considering how many people use Facebook these days, especially when you take into account that there is no cost for these things. However, the idea of using facebook as a corporate directory to build social capital within the company is a bad one. If people want to do that, they can. But don't encourage people to do it when some people have social lives that they don't want to mix up with their business lives...

Group 2 - Social Bookmarking - I admit to not knowing much about the whole digg/technorati/etc. bookmarking craze, and I think this group's presentation did a good job of showing how it could be used in a real-life situation. I was more intrigued, however, by things like Google Notebook that allow you to flag specific sentences, pictures, etc. on a site and have them displayed when you return to that site.

Group 3 - We were awesome. Enough said.

Group 4 - Jeet Kune Do - I found this presentation to be a little confusing. While the design and delivery was very well done, I was left wondering what the proposed technology actually was. I reread the briefing document, and it confirmed that most of their effort was about addressing social capital problems without much use of technology, let alone a specific one. I heard some talk of the group lamenting that they didn't really have a technical person among them to take charge of technical aspects (this is grapevine chit-chat, so it may not be entirely true) but I feel that we've been in enough of these courses that somebody could have figured out a way to pick something a little more specific. Group 2, for example, deliberately chose something they knew nothing about.

Group 5 - Model UN video game - I found it unfortunate that I was supposed to respond to this presentation because I honestly thought it was the most innovative and well done. Of course, my role was to challenge them, ask tough questions, and pick their brains for possible explanations to issues they may have overlooked. Like most groups, they tap danced around the bits they didn't expect, and threw statistics and studies at the ones they did. Overall, I thought that it was a brilliant idea... I also thought it was brilliant to include a massive grant from Bill Gates to address any potential funding problems.

Overall, I found the 506 experience to be very thought provoking. As stated in previous entries, I'm a very social person, and perhaps that influences my thoughts on social interaction. It's a fascinating area of study and I could see myself spending more time in the study of such a field. Not now though... I'll be worrying about technology acceptance for the next year or so. Perhaps the PhD project will be more relevant to these topics. ;)

Bongwarrior: Wiki Jedi

Today, we discussed wikis and knowledge sharing, and more specifically, Wikipedia. The class discussed just what it was that made contributing to Wikipedia, or any online forum worthwhile. There is no money involved, there is little or no prestige involved, and yet people spend hours, days, and months of their lives adding and subtracting facts, fixing punctuation, and removing vandalism to any number of posts.

As the discussion leader for the day, I was clicking around on Wikipedia and we decided to check out the Pop-tarts page that was mentioned in the article we were reading. The page has over 1000 edits, the most recent change taking place just two days ago. We checked out recent change by a user who calls himself "Bongwarrior." He decided to include the fact that microwaving a pop-tart can actually turn the middle into an amorphous solid. While we had a good laugh about his screenname, I wondered what motivated him to write such a thing. I figured he was just high and he thought it would be funny.

A bit of resarch (Wikipedia makes this very easy) showed me that Bongwarrior is not a a stoner bonehead vandalizing posts under the influence of medicinal canabis, but actually quite the opposite. In the last week alone, he's made more than 500 edits, mostly patrolling recent posts for vandalism and reverting to the most recent acceptable versions.

According to his user profile page, he enjoys heavy metal music, supports the legalization of canabis, likes Stephen King, plays acoustic guitar, and claims to know pi to two decimal places. Sounds like quite a scholar!

Not surprisingly, however, the only posts he's actually made recent text edits to (as opposed to reverting to non-vandalized versions), are about Stephen King and Megadeth. By recently, of course, I mean in the last two days. On May 14th alone, he made a total of nearly 50 adjustments.

What does he get out of this? What does anybody get out of this? Sure, a sense of sharing knowledge, a chance to be "right," and the feeling of some sort of community, I guess. There must be more to it though, because people obviously get hooked and go at this thing with great fervour. And what does it say that of the 500 edits he's made in the last week, 3 of them were actually his contributions to a post. The rest were fighting vandalism. Has Wikipedia jumped the shark? Or will this army of moderators keep up with vandals?

At some point, something's gotta give. And when it does, Bongwarrior will either be a hero in the annals of Wikihistory, or he'll be forgotten like that guy who did that thing...

Using OS to fight PSSORPGA

MMORPGs - Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games. This is both what we talked about all afternoon, and something I've avoided ever since I was a young boy and decided that I might someday want to meet a real girl and perhaps even touch her. I can pretty much guarantee you that if I had ever decided to play World of Warcraft (WOW) or any such game, I'd still be trying to finish the 11th grade... but I'd be a 900th level wizard troll or something. I would also have a PSSORPGA (Pathetically Serious Solo Online Role Playing Game Addiction).

ps - i'm sorry for the nickelback... truly

Given my current addiction to the regular text and photo internet, my vivid imagination, and my love for fantasy, it's a miracle that I was never swept up in this craze. Frankly, I'm not sure how it avoided me, given the thousands of hours logged at my computer, cruising aimlessly around the Internets. My best guess is something called "Organized Sports."

As far as I can tell OS is just like WOW... We meet in these strange grassy places called "parks" and form different guilds and clans called "teams." Depending on which park you're at and when you've decided to show up, an opposing clan will offer you a challenge in the form of a physical contest. These contests all have different rules, which are agreed upon ahead of time, and overseen by an aged sage known as an "umpire." In the interests of keeping things interesting, many of the oldest and wisest sages are also blind, which makes their ability to oversee any contest simply mindboggling.

Each team has a variety of players, who frequently choose to dress their real-life avatars in matching tunics for the physical challenge. The players are all different sizes and shapes, and depending on how many of these challenges (sometimes called "games" or "matches") they've competed in, skill levels can vary from the very high to the not so high. Those with the highest skill levels or the wisest mind to orchestrate the strategy for that challenge are given titles like "Captain," "All-Star," and "Player of the Game." After the challenge is won or lost, the avatars will sit down in part of this physical world and partake of ale often provided by the guild member whose turn it is that week. They will frequently nurse wounds from battle, and tale great tales from past challenges, when a guild member performed a feat so miraculous that a challenge was won by his skill alone...

After a series of these challenges is complete, the winner of the most challenges is crowned champion and players are awarded points in the areas of pride, skill, and luck. Often awards also come in the form of physical additions a player's avatar, such as a new hat or tunic.

... but then again, I've never actually played WOW, so I can't say for sure if this is anything like it.

A Connector? Me?

The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell has come up a few times in our 506 course. When discussing social network, I mentioned that there was a chapter about it in the book, and sure enough it was referenced in one of our other readings. In every group of people, there are some who are better at making and maintaining social relationships. Gladwell calls those people connectors. In some of our discussions, both in class and elsewhere, classmates identified me as a connector, and I agreed. I take my socializing very seriously.

So I decided to find out if this is actually true. Am I a connector? Gladwell tests this by giving subjects a list of 250 surnames. Counting how many people you know with those surnames gives you an indication of how "connected" you are. The average for college students was 21. The average for professionals in their 20s and 30s was 39. My number was...

27.

Frankly, I was a little disappointed. I was hoping for a huge number, but alas, it was not to be. The list of names came from a Manhattan phone book. I genuinely believe that if the list had come from a Canadian phonebook the results would have been different. I'm just making excuses. I'd be interested in trying it with a few lists and comparing. Maybe there's a research project there... for another time.

The other thing that it could indicate is that being a social butterfly doesn't make you a connector. That could very well be the case here. There are a lot of things that could change the results, but for now, I'll just have to be content with being well below average.

The Economics of Social Capital - Volume 2

I was going to include this in the first one, but it was getting a bit long already, and it was late, and I was tired and I wasn't really firing on all cylinders. By the time I got to the end of the post, I couldn't quite find the metaphor I was looking for... I'm still not sure I have, but I'm going to try, because there's something that needs addressing.

Yesterday, I said that all personal relationships are worth the same in terms of social capital. It's hard to wrap your head around of course, because personal relationships can come in different styles and intensities. My relationship with my brother is not the same as my relationship with the doorman in my apartment building. However, yesterday I argued that they possess the same social capital. How can that be?

The thing I realized is that it doesn't matter how much money you have, the thing that matters is how you spend it. Sometimes you get a good deal and are able to use a weak connection and turn it into something great. Wayne's example was about a guy he met at a conference who in turn invited him to another function in Chicago. That was a dollar well spent. Meanwhile, your mom's dollar buys a lifetime of love, support, and nagging about eating vegetables. Another dollar well spent, but in a completely different store. You can't possibly shop in every store, and you certainly don't buy every item in the stores you do enter. Sometimes you shop for specific things and you know which store to go to. Other times, you wander around the mall until something grabs your attention and intices make a transaction. No matter how you break it down, it only matters how and where you choose to invest your social capital.

Of course, you can't put price tags on things like a personal support network or good conversation, but you can safely say that those with a lot of social capital probably afford these things a lot easier.

Next time: Professional Capital (aka - competence)

The Economics of Social Capital

We've been talking about "social capital" in class. It's the idea that the benefits and drawbacks from personal relationships over social networks (in real-life or in virtual situations) make deposits and withdrawls in our overall accounts of human interaction. Apparently, the more positive relationships you have with family, friends, coworkers, friends of friends, acquaintances, etc., the more social capital you've achieved. If you abuse those connections and the relationships turn sour, your social capital fund can suffer a slide. Social capital can then be used within your social network for the powers of good (get a job, get a discount, get advice, etc.).

It's a great system, quite similar to the "emotional bank account" described in 7 Habits of Highly Effective people. What makes this more interesting, if you make the direct comparison to money, a lot of other metaphors come into play. You can invest capital, expecting a return. You can have debts, you can forclose or go bankrupt, you can be rich or poor.

One concept we discussed in our group was inflation. My original thought was that "dollars" of social capital must be worth less than they used to be, because many years ago, it was much harder to keep in touch, and therefore the circle of friends and acquaintances would have been smaller. Then the telephone showed up, and the circle grew. Then email showed up, and suddenly long distance charges were overcome. Then chat became popular and you could have 50 people from all over the world on your desktop available to message at any point. Then social media started telling us that we now can contact hundreds of "friends" at the touch of a button.

So if someone with 20 friends used to be rich in social capital, am I absolutely dirty rotten filthy stinkin' rich because I have 375 friends on Facebook? Or has the value of social capital just depreciated?

Wayne was wise enough to point out that some great things come from continued contacts with these obscure acquaintances, so the value can't be that low. Experiences that would not otherwise be possible, can now be arranged because somebody had email, a cellphone, Facebook, etc. I completely agreed with him, but was certain that our relationships aren't as... potent... as they once were.

Perhaps what we lack in potency, we now make up in volume. While that seems like a prime definition for inflation, I finally figured out that the difference is this. Human relationships are unique. What you feel about your mother is nowhere near what you feel for a classmate, for example (unless you've got some mommy issues that need some attention). On the other hand, what you feel for one dollar is exactly what you feel for the next dollar and the next. No single Loonie gets priority treatment. It doesn't matter if it's been in your pocket for a year, or five minutes, a dollar is a dollar.

Social capital is NOT subject to inflation because in this system, a person is a person. Your mom, your classmate, your spouse, your boss, that friend of a friend, that girl from the bar who took your phone and put her number in under "Ashley maddy," and that guy you met at the conference last year all have the same value: one personal relationship. They're all just loonies in your pocket... and now, because of continuously improving technology, we're all much richer.

LVS - YYZ - CBC - YYZ - YEG

So much has happened since my last post. First of all, I sent in my abstract. Then I went to Vegas for 4 nights, barely slept, and returned home on the Tuesday night red-eye, in time to grab a quick nap and work Wednesday afternoon, then normal days on Thursday and Friday. On Sunday morning at 5:30am Toronto time, I got up, showered, headed to the airport, to catch my 8:10am flight to Edmonton. So after a three time zones in five days, not enough sleep in any of them, I've become convinced that my body hates me, and is genuinely confused.

That being said, today was the first day of school. Our first in person session of 501 with Yuping "Ruby" Mao was more of a getting to know you session, and an airing of everyone's research projects. Suggestions were thrown around, and quite honestly, the topics are far more diverse than I had originally anticipated based on the online discussion. Hearing the class discuss both my project and their own gave me some ideas on how to frame my study, people to talk to, and what kinds of issues to address. Wayne also suggested a book that I plan on picking up(Out of Control by Kevin Kelly)... if only I could read without falling asleep.

The afternoon session of 506, hosted by Stan Ruecker, was equally eye-opening. Stan has a lot of research experience, and specifically U of A experience, and seems like he might be a very useful resource in the completion of the final project. The course is about social networks, but most of the time was spent discussing research projects, ethics, assignments, and later on... blogs.

Blogging is a weird thing for me. Perhaps it's that I like imagining I have an audience, even if nobody reads this. With my personal blog, people tell me from time to time that they visited it, and comment on something in it... and it usually surprises me, entrigues me, and motivates me to keep writing. It happens infrequently, but it's usually enough to keep me going. And now that this has been hyped in class, I feel obligated to deliver raw, unedited, free flowing, typo-filled, braindumps. And I look forward to reading yours too, class. Hmm?