Social role, Capital and Trust: a case of yahoogroups, facebook page, and final project idea

The first online community (OC) I am using for this post is a Yahoo! Groups mailing list for alumni of my school from the same year. Each class year has its own group with a 'regent' (head of class) and deputy regent(s) that reports to the head of regents as part of the alumni network. I have been the regent for my class from the time we graduated high school. We have about 230+ members who are based all around the world with most members residing in Indonesia and South East Asia region. The purpose of this OC is to maintain contact amongst friends from school and keep each other updated on the happenings pertinent to group (i.e. weddings, birthdays, gathering plans, discussion on a variety of topic, etc). Currently, there are 4 moderators (regent and 3 deputies) who loosely monitors conversation in the mailing list.
More importantly, these 4 moderators act as gatekeeper to who can join the mailing list. Massa's article talked about 'worthiness' in OC and in this instance, only those who were from the same cohort are 'worthy' to be part of this OC. This also falls in line with Gleave et al article about preventing vandalism from unidentified users and at the same time, ensure some privacy and freedom to express opinions amongst friends.

When it comes to social capital and trust, the main test is when someone request to join the OC. One can subscribe by sending an email to the moderators. An automated message will be sent back to verify their 'worthiness' through a set of questions that only people from the same class would know. The set includes questions such as naming three senior teachers we had, the regent and vice regent(s) of the class. They are also to provide some personal detail to verify their identity based on our knowledge of friends and class members (sometimes, it helps to check with our yearbook as we can't necessarily remember all 240+ friends from school). When one has been approved to be a member, a notice is sent out to the regent and vice regents about a new member where we would normally announce their arrival to the community. Another notice is sent out to the new member regarding rules and regulations of the OC (refer to screenshot below - the rule and welcome txt files are sent out when a new member is approved. The subscribe txt file is sent out to verify their 'worthiness' before hand).

Unlike the majority of OCs, personal identity has to be revealed when joining this OC. Members can create an avatar and nickname but their message needs to bear a signature that is recognizable by fellow members. In this regard, online persona is crucial to establish social capital (Williams 2006) and other's perception of the member. This way, others can respond accordingly to the poster i.e. with friendly jabs as we know each other well.
To increase and keep up with social capital and trust (Allen, Colombo, and Whitaker 2009), also to keep each other up to date about themselves, the group has spawned online spin offs/other OCs/SNS via friendster group (in earlier years), facebook group, twitter lists, linkedin group, and blackberry message groups. Note in the screenshot below the fluctuation of message posting in the OC. The recent spike of postings is because of the advent of blackberry and other smartphones where it becomes easier and more convenient to check and reply to a thread. Concurrently, interactions are happening in blackberry group message and since the group is capped at 30 participants each, members still rely on the OC for their information and updates.

The second OC I am using for this posting is the Taylor's College Alumni Association page (800+ members) and group (290+ people like it) on Facebook. I attended this institution in my early college years. The two OCs compared here are of similar theme, alumni communities. As opposed to the first OC, it has a really low entry barrier i.e. requires a facebook account (everybody has one nowadays), press 'like' button for page or request to join for the group. There are 6 moderators for the group page. There is not as much as interaction between members here, mostly announcements of events, pictures, or job opportunities posted by the moderators. The discussion forum are very much under utilized. Occasionally, I would receive a message from the group/page regarding an upcoming event.

The difference in interaction intensity perhaps comes from the fact that the second OC is administered by the institution/alma mater whereas the first OC is fully run by alumni for alumni. The first OC is very well defined; only for a specific year's class members, meanwhile the second OC is open to any Taylor's college alumni that encompasses more than 10 different programs located in 3 campuses. Thus, what is valued (worthiness and interestingness) differs, discouraging members to freely post questions or start a thread in the second case.

Suggestions for the OCs
The first OC is build based on a mailing list structure. It is a rather web 1.0 concept. Yahoo! has worked to improve the features here and there but perhaps a more comprehensive upgrade is needed if they are to keep up with the current onslaught of SNS that integrated many of web 2.0 elements. However, they also need to be careful not to make too drastic of a change as this might potentially turn off current users from fully embracing the idea of change. User friendliness and intuitiveness is key here.
The second OC can use more fine tuning when it comes to segmenting its members. It is nice to have the main alumni group but to foster better communication, it could segment their members based on the programs they used to be in, i.e. I was part of the American Degree Program, meanwhile others might be part of the Business School or Law School. Perhaps the OC is low on the priority list because compared to the Taylor's College page on Facebook, it is really low on the reach level (290+ like versus 18k+ like) and interactions (current postings on the wall and discussion topics).

Tentative final project idea
I am interested in looking at how social computing can be useful in reference management, i.e. using software such as WizFolio and Mendeley. If you are not familiar with them, they are similar to Zotero and EndNote. They offer freemium service where the basic features are free with paying options for more advanced capabilities. I am looking forward to work with a fellow blogger in the class for this project.
Some research questions I would like to help address: 1. how WizFolio shared collections and Mendeley groups can contribute to the scholarly activities through collaboration? 2. What are their social capital/trust mechanism? How does this impact question 1? It would be great if you can give me comments, feedbacks, or suggestions regarding this final project topic and perhaps methodology to collect the data for it.

References
Allen, Stuart M., Gualtiero Colombo, Roger M. Whitaker (2009). Forming Social Networks of Trust to Incentivize Cooperation. Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Waikoloa, HI, 5-8 January 2009.

Ellison, N.B., C. Steinfield and C. Lampe (2007). The Benefits of Facebook "Friends:" Social Capital and College Students' Use of Online Social Network Sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4).

Eryilmaz, Evren, Mitch Cochran and Sumonta Kasemvilas (2009). Establishing Trust Management in an Open Source Collaborative Information Repository: An Emergency Response Information System Case Study. Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Waikoloa, HI, 5-8 January 2009.

Gleave, Eric, Howard T. Welser, Thomas M. Lento and Marc A. Smith (2009). A Conceptual and Operational Definition of ÔSocial RoleÕ in Online Community. Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Waikoloa, HI, 5-8 January 2009.

Massa, Paolo (2006). A Survey of Trust Use and Modeling in Current Real Systems. Trust in E-services: Technologies, Practices and Challenges. Idea Group.

Williams, D. (2006). On and Off the 'Net: Scales for Social Capital in an Online Era. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2), article 11.

Motivation for Participation

1) Complete the Session 3 readings. Briefly summarize and evaluate their diverse senses of online participation and motivation,
Ridings, Catherine and David Gefen (2004). Virtual Community Attraction: Why People Hang Out Online. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 10(1). http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue1/ridings_gefen.html

The first article really covers the topic for session 3 comprehensively. However, the study was only limited to bulletin boards, though it did cover a wide range of topics and interests. It is a good starting point to understanding people's motivation in spending time in online communities (OCs). However, additional readings are required to learn about other means of online interaction, i.e. social media (Twitter, Facebook, Blog feeds, etc).

Ling, K., G. Beenen, P. Ludford, X. Wang, K. Chang, X. Li, D. Cosley, D. Frankowski, L. Terveen, A.M. Rashid, P. Resnick and R. Kraut (2005). Using Social Psychology to Motivate Contributions to Online Communities. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(4), article 10. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue4/ling.html

Using the first article as my starting point, this article by Ling et al took the issue of participation in OCs deeper and introduced the element of incentive and different incentive methods can (dis/en)courage participation. This concept along with objectives and goals introduced in websites (i.e. progress bar when completing a new profile for a social networking site) is a currently developing area where various methods are being tested out to see their effectiveness.

Tedjamulia, Steven J.J., David R. Olsen, Douglas L. Dean, Conan C. Albrecht (2005). Motivating Content Contributions to Online Communities: Toward a More Comprehensive Theory. Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

This article provides a model of participation that includes external/environmental and internal/personal factors in online participation, measurement of contribution, reinforcers/incentives that feeds back to personal factors, and provides a closed loop model. I like the breakdown of the proposed model as it covers most of the factors and processes in participation (aside from those I might have forgotten or overlooked).

Schrock, Andrew (2009). Examining Social Media Usage: Technology Clusters and Social Network Site Membership. First Monday 14(1). http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2242/2066

This article uses MySpace as its sample to examine social media usage. While most of the research results are still relevant until now, MySpace is no longer what comes to mind when discussing social network site or OC - that would be Facebook and Twitter for the most part.

Java, Akshay, Xiaodan Song, Tim Finin and Belle Tseng (2007). Why We Twitter: Understanding the Microblogging Effect in User Intentions and Communities. Joint 9th WEBKDD and 1st SNA-KDD Workshop, 12 August 2007, San Jose, California. http://workshops.socialnetworkanalysis.info/websnakdd2007/papers/submission_21.pdf

The last article from the reading list analyzed Twitter in its early days. The main user intentions of microblogging are still relevant, so are the user categories of the most popular microblogging site (Twitter). However, the structure, development, and user composition of Twitter has changed a lot. For one thing, Japan & Indonesia shot up to #2 & 3 in total number of users (July 2010). Many other changes have happened since the early days of Twitter's potential to now, where Twitter is synonymous to microblogging.

two examples from your own online experience: one that supports a claim in one of the readings, and another that challenges or extends a claim in another.
ex. 1 - claim supported: from Tedjamulia et al
Prop 5, increase interesting content and ease of use = higher participation and contribution.
as the moderator and head of class for my high school, i noticed that when an interesting or relevant content that spans more than just one or two friends, many others will also participate by replying, following up, and posing new questions.
as wired connection is still unstable and unequally spread back home, many participants don't have much time to interact and participate in the board. However, with the proliferation of BlackBerry, its messaging capability (BBM), and wi-fi internet access, I noticed an uptick of participation. Level of interaction has never been higher before, although, some of the responses are rather short and cryptic due to using handheld smartphone rather than a full range computer.

ex. 2 - claim challenged: from Schrock
I think that introverts can find SNS a good place to express themselves. Some SNS have provides limited access to personal information (private profile, limit who can see what) and this is a place for more introverted people to express their interests, feelings, creations, etc. Yes, perhaps they still use pictures of cats or panoramic view as their avatar but per my observation of friends I consider more introverted, they are quite open and expressive.

2) Observe an online community that's new to you, and gather data from at least 50 posts in the community to answer the following questions:
--What modes of participation are there?

http://www.hulu.com/saturday-night-live - discussions tab. Features:

• search
• create new topic
• sort by topics, last post, #posts, views
• subscribe to a topic
• expand on a topic without opening a new page
• naviagate with opening a new page
• reply
• browse user's profile
• get permalink
• flag for spoiler, spam, or offensive
• add user as friend
  

--How is participation encouraged? Which types of content draw the most responses?

ease of use helps encourage participation. there is no other explicit incentive. there is motivation to contribute based on liking or hating a show or specific episode of a show. when people feel strong enough, hate/like, they are motivated to comment. in addition, users are motivated to contribute when they see others interacting added with an interesting/controversial topic, i.e. last SNL's episode featured Chris Brown as musical guest and as we know his story of domestic violence, this topic was hotly discussed in the discussions tab. Another example: when a performance is really good or bad, people tend to comment more. From the same episode's Weekend Update, Stefon the NYC (Bill Hader) was funny according to many of the commentators (and me) and the users discussed about different aspects of this performance along with some detractors in it.

-- most common forms of content observed in the sample:
1. controversial issue: Chris Brown's appearance and controversy (50+ posts)
2. show quality, good or bad: worst performance ever (50 posts), Digital Short - flags of the world (35 posts), Bill Hader as Stefon (25 posts), Taran as Eminem (6 posts), debating best episode this season (7 posts)
3. resurfacing topic: Arcade Fire just won the Grammy. They performed a few month back in episode 6 (now is ep.15). (12 posts)
4. discuss previous show/skit: Time for a sequel for S31E12 - Dont Buy Stuff (12 posts), Bill Murray (2 posts)
5. (& 2 could be combined) comments on cast members: Kirsten Wiig (100 posts), no Asian cast (66), Andy Samberg (48), Kenan Thompson (34 posts)
6. comparing eras of SNL's best: 86-93 (5 posts), Stopped being funny 15 years ago (34 posts)

First screen shot (above) shows discussion thread based on the number of posts per topic.
Second screen shot (below) shows it based on the last topic posting.

Findings and analysis

Reading the discussions at Hulu's page for SNL is similar to reading the comments section of newspaper websites. Many of the postings are short 1-2 sentences or even less with rare sprinkles of long write up that sometimes are coherent while other times are just off topic. Users are expressing (or venting) their feelings and passing judgments in the discussions without much of deliberation. There is nothing much to learn intellectually, from following these postings. There is no formal incentive to participate. The incentive or motivation to participate are rather intrinsic as discussed above. Anonymity level is high thus no one knows each other well. There is no leader board for top contribution or other metrics for contribution. Reflecting back, perhaps I could've chosen another OC to be discussed for this entry. However, this goes to show that not all OCs are equal or even similar. some tenets are probably true across the board, i.e. a small number of users contribute the majority of content. While in MySpace/Facebook, female dominates, in more tech heavy or gaming communities, male would probably dominate. Assuming that many or some heavy gamers are more introverts, and they still are active in OCs, this would challenge Shrock's idea of OCs as only the place of extroverts to express themselves.