5 reasons why social networks fail

An elderly but still relevant and very perceptive short piece, pre the rise of Facebook, on why social networks don’t always succeed. The reasons the article gives are:

  1. privacy – or the lack of it
  2. no real reward or penalty system – what’s the point of sharing, where’s the value?
  3. not granular enough – we don’t have binary relationships – they have a context and vary according to what our current context might be (e.g. a workmate who is also a friend)
  4. not integrated with other apps – predates Chris Anderson’s distinction of social networks as destination or feature and speaks to the importance of mashability
  5. walled gardens – not connected, isolated pools

I like these a lot, and they reflect a number of the issues I and many others have been writing about since and that strongly underpin Athabasca Landing, this site – not bad for 2006. But the interesting thing here is that Facebook then happened, largely by concentrating on the single second aspect of value and not just ignoring the other four issues but actually riding rough-shod over them and squashing them into the ground. Which is of course why I hate Facebook, because these principles are sound, usable and relate to human, not multi-billion-dollar company needs and interests. However, it shows that you can probably do away with a lot of ‘necessary’ things if you do one thing very well and, equally, that there are quite a few necessary things that are not mentioned here.

 

Address of the bookmark: http://www.tnl.net/blog/2006/06/15/5-reasons-why-social-networks-fail/

Networks are not always revolutionary

An article in the Guardian from Cory Doctorow, pointing out the (possibly) obvious fact that networks are a necessary but far from sufficient cause of social change. Facebook, Twitter, et al do not cause revolutions like those seen recently in the middle east, but they certainly help to spread the word around.

A good antidote to over-enthusiastic posts that suggest social networks will change the world – e.g. this or this. People change the world, not social networks. Social networks make it easier for more people to connect, communicate and share in a more egalitarian way than ever before, but other forces and other (hierarchical and centralised) media still matter.

Address of the bookmark: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jun/16/networks-fame-revolutions?INTCMP=SRCH

The ties that bind: Social network principles in online communities

Thanks Gregg for pointing me back at this one – a great paper on the importance of structural holes in networks. This is a formal representation of principles I and others have explored relating to parcellation in social spaces, and the need for (small) bridges and isthmuses to connect those parcellated spaces. Further proof and rationale from a different angle that (as is often so) Darwin was right about this.

It makes me wonder whether the principles the authors look at might be extended somewhat to consider temporal flux in more detail: the reason Darwin found this kind of hole-filled network interesting was that evolution happens more rapidly and branches sooner in small, parcellated spaces (like, famously, the Galapagos Islands). However, he noted that, very rarely and occasionally, these spaces need to connect with others in order for adaptations to flow into the broader ecology or, more often than not, be swamped by them. But maybe not entirely swamped: an interesting article in New Scientist recently suggests that early homo-sapiens coming out of Africa bred occasionally with existing hominids in Europe and Asia and, though only a small percentage of Neanderthal and Denisovan genes persist in modern populations, they definitely had an important impact, especially on immunity to disease. Lots of good lessons on social environment design from this.

Address of the bookmark: http://onemvweb.com/sources/sources/ties_bind_socialnetwork_principles.pdf

History flow in Wikipedia edits

This is fascinating, not only in providing a bit of information about the resilience of Wikipedia pages to vandalism but also in graphically illustrating the flow to the adjacent possible, ever-growing and branching, that makes the system not just a repository of knowledge but a means through which it grows.

Address of the bookmark: http://www.research.ibm.com/visual/projects/history_flow/results.htm

Group dynamics key to avoiding tragedy of the commons

Interesting report on an article suggesting that the tragedy of the commons may be avoidable more easily at smaller scales. Obvious but interesting, this suggests to me that the principle of parcellation that helps drive differentiation in evolution has some ubiquitous underpinnings – it works in much the same way whether you consider competition or cooperation.

Address of the bookmark: http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/06/group-dynamics-key-to-avoiding-tragedy-of-the-commons.ars?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+arstechnica%2Findex+%28Ars+Technica+-+Featured+Content%29

Privacy on Social Networks: American, Chinese, and Indian Perspectives – IEEE Spectrum

Shared with me by a student (self-referentially anonymised for public broadcast but thanks, you know who you are!) this is a brief article about a research paper comparing attitudes to privacy and trust on social network sites in different countries – specifically, India, China and the US.

Some of the differences are to be expected – telemarketers and poor privacy laws probably account for a little of the greater reticence to share private information in the US, for example, and the article mentions use of fake identities in China due to fear of restrictive governments. But there are some big disparities that may point to more profound cultural differences. It would be interesting to explore the extent to which this is determined by surrounding culture and context, and how much by the path dependencies of the popular social network sites in these countries. For instance, Facebook itself, with its famously callous and exploitative regard for user privacy, might have a lot to do with the apparently greater concerns for privacy in the US. Yang Wang’s site has more interesting research in this area at http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~yangwan1/projects.html#sns-privacy

Address of the bookmark: http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/telecom/internet/privacy-on-social-networks-american-chinese-and-indian-perspectives/?utm_source=techalert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=052611

Driving with chickens: the pedagogy/technology thing again

Chickens and eggs

I’ve been involved in a conversation recently in which a participant described a problem as one of chickens and eggs – should we look at new technologies and adapt teaching methods to use them, or should we look at how people learn and design technologies to help that process? The latter is the conventional perspective on learning technology design, which I think is fundamentally wrong. I gave a pat answer about the technology/pedagogy dance, adjacent possibles and the need to consider it from a systemic perspective, not as a question of priorities. Thinking about it some more, I have a metaphor that may help to explain my position better.

Main premise: most intentional learning has a destination in mind – learning outcomes, competences, objectives and so on. At least, it has a direction or trajectory.

Getting around without teachers

Some destinations are easy to reach – if it is right in front of you then you can usually walk and don’t really need much assistance.

Further destinations can be reached if there are signposts, more easily if there are roads. Wikipedia and a good old Google search are not bad for this, when the destinations are nearby. 

Some are too far to walk – then we need further assistance. 

Learning technologies

We can more easily reach further destinations if we have a vehicle. Courses, programs of instruction, textbooks and computer-aided instruction are not bad for this. Now we are seriously entering the world of learning technologies.

For efficiency, that vehicle may have many seats, though it will not necessarily take the most direct route (if it needs to pick up or drop off passengers along the way) nor may it drop us precisely where we want to go. That’s the nature of most courses, textbooks and programs.

A vehicle needs a driver. Let’s, for the sake of argument, think of that driver as being the teacher: it’s an ugly metaphor but it quite accurately describes certain pedagogical approaches – especially when travelling in a bus. Of course, the learner can be the driver, or the learner’s friend, or they can take it in turns…teachers don’t have to be formally recognised and certified. Taxis are great, but expensive. One day we might have effective automated versions of taxis, but for now I would not risk my life in one of them.

There’s no point in having a driver if there is no vehicle to drive. The vehicle must have requisite parts like wheels, brakes, an engine, spark plugs (for a petrol-powered vehicle) and so on, must fit on the road, and that needs an infrastructure of garages and so on to support it. Generally speaking, there must be a road, it should be well-maintained and lead in roughly the right direction – at least, in combination, the roads should lead to the destination, with as little discomfort and delay as possible.  We have technologies like classrooms, whiteboards, learning management systems and so on that fulfil that role.

(As an aside, some destinations have poorly made-up roads leading to them and some have no roads at all – then we might need good guides with a fair amount of experience of navigating similar territory. Most PhDs follow that kind of pattern. A parallel set of learning technologies and a pretty interesting one is needed here.)

The driver needs to follow some rules – it’s generally bad to make arbitrary decisions about which side of the road to drive on and how one treats traffic lights, for instance. That doesn’t negate the need for creativity in driving, but it has to follow some constraints. Again, these are part of the technology for learning – softer than the mechanical constraints, but still technologies – and often provided by institutions, regulations, patterns, templates and so on.

Subject matter and pedagogies

The driver needs to navigate effectively – to reach the destination as pleasantly or as fast as possible. Personally, I’m usually a fan of making journeys interesting, but sometimes speed matters more. Knowing the way is not dissimilar to knowing the subject matter, tempered with some other considerations not least of which is knowing what landmarks to point out along the way, which roads to avoid, what the passengers might like to see. That leads us to pedagogy.

The driver needs skills, to apply principles, from simple stuff like not pressing the brake and accelerator at the same time, knowing how to steer, to more complex heuristics about what distance to keep from others in wet weather, how to read a map, or even how to double-declutch. This is actually still part of the technology – repeatable patterns and processes that we can communicate with others that help in the orchestration of phenomena to some purpose. This, combined with a bit of the navigation stuff, is close to the notion of pedagogy.

 

Transports of delight

And there are good drivers and bad drivers – we can all learn to follow the rules, more or less, but great drivers go beyond that and all drivers, to a greater or lesser extent, adapt the rules, change behaviours, respond differently in novel situations. And that’s what being a great teacher is really about. A great driver can break a lot of rules and still get us there faster, more comfortably, more safely, even in a rickety vehicle, than a bad one who follows all the rules.

Necessary, not sufficient conditions

It makes no sense to talk about some things coming before others on this journey or being more important. To a greater or lesser extent that varies a bit with context, all are necessary, none are sufficient. Wheels are as important as engines are as important as drivers, in the sense that the absence of any would stop us getting to our destination. Sure, we can work around the loss of some things: we might manage without seats, or roads, or signposts, or some traffic regulations, or a good driver, but the journey would be a lot riskier, probably longer (or would feel longer) and less comfortable without them. What matters is that everything should work together and play its part in getting where we want to go, how we want to get there.

Chickens? Eggs? Whatever

So, there’s no chicken and egg problem here. The issue is one of designing a system with parts that play nicely with each other, including pedagogies, subject matter knowledge, digital systems, social systems, organisational systems and a whole lot more.

I suspect there’s fun to be had with this metaphor – what about trains, planes, horses and carts, roller skates, cycles, etc? Who are the traffic police? What about car co-ops? Who decides whether a vehicle is roadworthy? But that’s maybe for another time.