46 Matching Annotations
  1. Last 7 days
    1. RESEARCHGATE RIDICULOUS POLICIES AND DEEDS:

      Members are not FREE/allowed to write comments/reviews or replies (to projects, publications, Q&A) where they promote/mention their own publications. ResearchGate (RG) lock their accounts and threatens deleting their account if they continue that behavior. This happened to me several times and my account has just been locked:

      Dumb people make sad policies! If they (RG) were smart enough, they would implement an algorithm that would automatically remove those types of comments/replies they don´t tolerate (even though I consider it a ridiculous policy) without having to bother their members with warnings and threats.

    1. RIDICULOUS POLICIES AND DEEDS:

      Members are not FREE/allowed to write comments/reviews or replies (to projects, publications, Q&A) where they promote/mention their own publications. ResearchGate (RG) lock their accounts and threatens deleting their account if they continue that behavior. This happened to me several times and my account has just been locked:

      Dumb people make sad policies! If they (RG) were smart enough, they would implement an algorithm that would automatically remove those types of comments/replies they don´t tolerate (even though I consider it a ridiculous policy) without having to bother their members with warnings and threats.

    1. RIDICULOUS POLICIES AND DEEDS:

      Members are not FREE/allowed to write comments/reviews or replies (to projects, publications, Q&A) where they promote/mention their own publications. ResearchGate (RG) lock their accounts and threatens deleting their account if they continue that behavior. This happened to me several times and my account has just been locked:

      Dumb people make sad policies! If they (RG) were smart enough, they would implement an algorithm that would automatically remove those types of comments/replies they don´t tolerate (even though I consider it a ridiculous policy) without having to bother their members with warnings and threats.

  2. Aug 2019
    1. Running a small social network is like hosting a party. It requires social intelligence, empathy, and yes, technical skills.

      Testing out this Hypothesis thing

  3. Dec 2018
    1. Newport is an academic — he makes his primary living teaching computer science at a university, so he already has a built-in network and a self-contained world with clear moves towards achievement.

      This is one of the key reasons people look to social media--for the connections and the network they don't have via non-digital means. Most of the people I've seen with large blogs or well-traveled websites have simply done a much better job of connecting and interacting with their audience and personal networks. To a great extent this is because they've built up a large email list to send people content directly. Those people then read their material and comment on their blogs.

      This is something the IndieWeb can help people work toward in a better fashion, particularly with better independent functioning feed readers.

  4. Aug 2018
    1. First, I will focus in these larger groups because reviews that transcend the boundary between the social and natural sciences are rare, but I believe them to be valuable. One such review is Borgatti et al. (2009), which compares the network science of natural and social sciences arriving at a similar conclusion to the one I arrived.
    1. You might have seen the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter in the previous step. In this 6-minute video, #BlackTwitter after #Ferguson, we meet activists who were involved in the movement and learn about their own uses of Twitter as a platform of protest. Hashtags, when used like this, can be extremely complex in the way they represent ideas, communities and individuals.
    1. Because of both the content that people upload and the behavioral traces that they leavebehind, social network sites have unprecedented quantities of data concerning humaninteraction. This presents unique opportunities and challenges. On one hand, SNSs offera vibrant “living lab” and access to behavioral data at a scale inconceivable to manysocial scientists. On the other, the data that are available present serious research ethicsquestions and introduce new types of biases that must be examined (boyd and Crawford2012)

      The scope and scale of trace data —from settings, public facing fatures, and server-side — presents similar challenges as technological platform changes = new ethics/privacy issues.

    2. For those of us who believe that social network sites are socio-technical systems, in whichsocial and technical factors shape one another, failing to describe the site under studyignores the fact that the technological constraints and affordances of a site will shapeuser practices and that social norms will emerge over time. Not including informationabout what the feature set was at the time of data collection forecloses the possibility ofidentifying patterns that emerge over time and through the accumulated scholarshipacross a range of sites and user samples. Unfortunately, because they have no knowledgeabout how things will continue to evolve and which features will becomeimportant to track, researchers may not be able to identify the salient features to reportand may struggle with devoting scarce publication space to these details, but this doesn’tundermine the importance of conscientious consideration towards describing the artifactbeing analyzed.

      What about documenting technological features/artifacts on a stand-alone website or public repository, like Github to account for page limits?

    3. In order to produce scholarship that will be enduring, the onus is on social mediaresearchers to describe the technological artifact that they are analyzing with as muchcare as survey researchers take in describing the population sampled, and with as muchdetail as ethnographers use when describing their field site. This is not to say thatresearchers must continue to describe technologies as if no one knows what they are—weare beyond the point where researchers must explain how electronic mail or “email” islike or unlike postal mail. But, rather, researchers must clearly describe the socio-technical context of the particular site, service, or application their scholarship isaddressing. In addition to attending to the technology itself, and the interchange betweentechnical and social processes, we believe SNS researchers should make a concertedeffort to include the date of data collection and to describe the site at the moment of datacollection and the relevant practices of its users. These descriptions will enable laterresearchers to synthesize across studies to identify patterns, much in the same wayreporting exact effect sizes allows for future meta-analyses

      Excellent point and important for my SBTF studies.

    4. One key challenge of studying social media is that designers of these tools are innovatingat a very rapid timeframe and often with little advance notice. Given the rapidly changinginfrastructure and the timeframe of academic publishing, the site at the time of datacollection is likely to be very different from its incarnation at the point of publication.

      Challenges of studying SNSs:

      Temporal effects of platform changes.

      Later in the passage, the authors encourage researchers to fully describe the SNS/platform features studied and any potential effects on user behavior, practices, and norms to avoid orphaned research.

    5. Because of howpeople's position within the SNS shapes their experiences of it, activity-centric analysesrequire contextualization and translation, not unlike what social scientists studyingdiffering cultural practices have had to do for decades.

      Challenges of studying SNSs:

      User's position with the social graph shapes experience and interactions.

    6. What oneexperiences on SNSs and the content to which one is exposed differs depending on thestructure of one's network, a user's individual preferences and history, and her activitiesat that moment.

      Challenges of studying SNSs:

      Content varies by network structure, preferences, history and user activity -- but also site technology/upgrades/new features/deprecated features.

    7. By far the most pressing challengefor SNS scholars lies in the rapid pace at which innovations and technical changes areimplemented in this space. For scholarship in this arena to develop, SNS researchersneed to be mindful of the ways in which these sites evolve over time and the effects thismay have on the interpersonal, psychological, and sociological processes they arestudying.

      Challenges of studying SNSs.

      Evolution of site and the way people use it.

    8. What makes “social media” significant as a category is not the technology, butrather the socio-technical dynamics that unfolded as millions of people embraced thetechnology and used it to collaborate, share information, and socialize. Popular genres ofsocial media integrated the public nature of interest-driven CMC with the more intimatedynamics of interpersonal CMC.

      I'm curious why the authors don't mention the UI/UX advancements in SNS that allowed non-technical people to participate online, rather than passively read. Even most blogs in the early 00s were challenging to use, let alone publish on, without some technical savvy.

    9. All SNSs support multiple modes of communication: one-to-many and one-to-one,synchronous and asynchronous, textual and media-based

      This functionality is the make-or-break for collecting user-generated content during humanitarian crises by DHNs.

    10. Many of the weak tie relationships articulatedon SNSs would fade away were it not for the ease with which people can communicate,share, and maintain simple connections. For this reason, this new definition positionssocial network sites first and foremost as a communication platform, while alsohighlighting the importance of sharing content, typically consumed through a stream.

      Evolution of the new definition of social network site emphasizes its use as a communication platform, followed by content sharing.

    11. A social network site is anetworked communication platformin which participants1) haveuniquely identifiable profilesthat consist of user-supplied content, contentprovided by other users, and/or system-level data; 2) canpublicly articulateconnectionsthat can be viewed and traversed by others; and 3) can consume,produce, and/or interact withstreams of user-generated contentprovided by theirconnections on the site.

      Updated social network site definition.

    12. As social network sites have become mainstream, traversing the connections betweenpeople to view profiles is no longer the sole—or, even primary—way of participation.Content is surfaced through streams, and each piece of content is embedded withnumerous links to other content nuggets.

      Streamed content has supplanted the social graph for traversing SNSs.

      Like the API robots, this also contributes to mis/disinformation campaigns that influence on- and offline behavior.

    13. Yet, one significant shift has unfolded: the traversability ofconnections has become more important for machines than users. As APIs make thesocial graph available to broader audiences, algorithms are being designed to traversethe graph and learn about the individual nodes’ relationship to one another.

      For the SNS, crawlers help serve recommended content, ads, search, and drive prediction models.

      Also, very likely contributes to ease of launching mis/disinformation campiagns.

    14. The ability to see—andtraverse—others’ contact lists was innovative and important in several ways. From anadoption perspective, it enabled users to find shared contacts easily, thus lowering thebarriers to initiating contact with other users and enabling users to harness networkeffects more easily. From a social perspective, it allowed people to easily see therelationships between others, to reconnect with old friends and acquaintances, and totravel through the network in a way that enhanced social interactions.

      Value of viewing/traversing connections.

      Early on, this capacity was a critical and defining feature. The default site design is to "display one's articulated network..."

    15. The rise of open APIs and developer platforms meant that these collections of articulatedcontacts became valuable in contexts outside that particular SNS. Engineers andentrepreneurs alike began talking about the “social graph”—the global network oflinkages between all individuals within a system (Fitzpatrick and Recordon2007). Thislanguage emerged at a time when commercial entities began to believe that the socialgraph hadvalue beyond the individual's relationship with a given social networksite.

      Social graph definition.

    16. As SNSs became more popular with a wider range ofindividuals, many individuals’ contact lists became more diverse as these users Friendedpeople representing a range of contexts (family, professional contacts, church members,etc.). This growing diversity has contributed to cases of “context collapse,” whichdescribes the ways in which individuals that we know from different social contexts cometogether in SNSs in potentially uncomfortable ways (Marwick and boyd2011)

      Context collapse definition.

    17. For users, these connections represent what sociologistsrefer to as a person'ssocial network—the collection of social relations of varyingstrengths and importance that a person maintains

      Social network definition.

    18. Earlier communication tools enabled individuals to create a private list ofcontacts (for instance a buddy list on instant messaging), to establish a group of contactsthat were shared by others (such as a listserv membership list), or to publish a list ofrelated links (such as a blogroll), but SNSs extended the practice of creating a publiclyvisible, personally curated list of contacts and made it a mainstream practice.

      Differences between SNS and CMC.

    19. Streams of quotidian,ephemeral content encourage people to participate more in that they provide an initialartifact around which others can engage. Features that support actions associated withstatus updates—the ability to post comments to, share, or register interest in an update—also encourage a stream of activity that is prompted by an update but often takes on a lifeof its own in the central stream. Today's SNSs are more like news aggregators than theyare like profile-based contexts, even if the algorithm for displaying content is quiteobfuscated.

      Essentially, this is the hook to motivate user-generated content.

    20. In boyd and Ellison (2007), we attempted to stabilize the discussion by offeringa definition of social network sites:web-based services that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-publicprofile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom theyshare a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and thosemade by others within the system.

      Early definition of social network sites. Later Ellison and boyd redefine SNS per evolving Web 2.0 standards, CMC studies and social norms.

    1. Mastodon deliberately does not support arbitrary search. If someone wants their message to be discovered, they can use a hashtag, which can be browsed. What does arbitrary search accomplish? People and brands search for their own name to self-insert into conversations they were not invited to. What you can do, however, is search messages you posted, received or favourited. That way you can find that one message on the tip of your tongue.
    2. So that’s already a huge advantage over other platforms due the basic design. And in my opinion it’s got advantages over the other extreme, too, a pure peer-to-peer design, where everyone would have to fend for themselves, without the pooled resources.

      Definitely something the IndieWeb may have to solve for.

  5. Jul 2018
    1. Then I used Gephi, another free data analysis tool, to visualize the data as an entity-relationship graph. The coloured circles—called Nodes—represent Twitter accounts, and the intersecting lines—known as Edges—refer to Follow/Follower connections between accounts. The accounts are grouped into colour-coded community clusters based on the Modularity algorithm, which detects tightly interconnected groups. The size of each node is based on the number of connections that account has with others in the network.
    2. Using the open-source NodeXL tool, I collected and imported a complete list of accounts tweeting that exact phrase into a spreadsheet. From that list, I also gathered and imported an extended community of Twitter users, comprised of the friends and followers of each account. It was going to be an interesting test: if the slurs against Nemtsov were just a minor case of rumour-spreading, they probably wouldn't be coming from more than a few dozen users.
    1. Micro.blog is not an alternative silo: instead, it’s what you build when you believe that the web itself is the great social network.

      So true!!!

  6. Apr 2018
    1. "Similarly on the justice front, we now work with a Legal Aid funded lawyer. If I see that someone has legal concerns of any sort — and these can be very broad from domestic violence issues to family issues to criminal issues — I can refer them straight over to that member of our team."
    1. This fall, my colleagues and I released gobo.social, a customizable news aggregator. Gobo presents you with posts from your friends, but also gives you a set of sliders that govern what news you see and what’s hidden from you. Want more serious news, less humor? Move a slider. Need to hear more female voices? Adjust the gender slider, or press the “mute all men” button for a much quieter internet. Gobo currently includes half a dozen ways to tune your news feed, with more to come.

      Gobo, a proof of concept.

  7. Mar 2018
    1. At the moment, several projects in the space are working to adopt new supplementary protocols, with the intent of building better bridges between one another. The proposed development might end up looking like this:<img class="progressiveMedia-noscript js-progressiveMedia-inner" src="https://via.hypothes.is/im_/https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1600/1*3pEK-Fwq7bNOVcnXfVdNuQ.png">Diaspora at this time has no plans for new protocols, having just significantly upgraded its own. postActiv intends to adopt support for Diaspora federation in a future release. Mastodon just released support for ActivityPub, and Pleroma , Socialhome and GNU Social are thinking of adopting it. Nextcloud is also notably getting into the federation space, and Hubzilla and Friendica will likely both support the ActivityPub protocol as extensions.

      Where we discover that Friendica (and Hubzilla) are clearly the best options for navigating The Free Network.

      It's a shame that the connectivity to Twitter and other non-free networks and services is not better highlighted. It's clearly by being compatible with the non-free networks that the Free Network will win in the end -- by allowing people to escape en masse.

  8. May 2017
    1. Interesting things are happening over at Mastodon. If you have had your ears tuned to the hacker grapevines, you will most likely have heard that Mastodon is an open source federated social network that works very much like Twitter but is, in fact, not Twitter, and thus poses a challenge to the venerable bird site.
  9. Mar 2017
  10. Jan 2017
    1. Asking questions via social media that are intentionally designed to elicit responses can provide a plethora of useful responses. Why wait until an end-of-year survey to find out about an issue when you can poll/question students throughout the year via social media?

      It doesn't have to be just student feedback about the operations and mechanics of the course, or as a replacement for a course survey tool. You can also use the platform as a way to engage students on the content relevant to the learning outcomes of the course. And use the platform to connect learners with people in the field of study.

  11. Apr 2016
  12. Jan 2016
  13. Dec 2015
  14. Jul 2015
    1. Whether or not you take a constructivist view of education, feedback on performance is inevitably seen as a crucial component of the process. However, experience shows that students (and academic staff) often struggle with feedback, which all too often fails to translate into feed-forward actions leading to educational gains. Problems get worse as student cohort sizes increase. By building on the well-established principle of separating marks from feedback and by using a social network approach to amplify peer discussion of assessed tasks, this paper describes an efficient system for interactive student feedback. Although the majority of students remain passive recipients in this system, they are still exposed to deeper reflection on assessed tasks than in traditional one-to-one feedback processes.