Some Useful Groundwork
www.fabernovel.com/socialnetworks_en.pdf
The above research is an attempt to provide a little structure around social networking (and to sell FaberNovel Consulting -- though more power to them, I say).
Generally speaking, a little order is a good thing. I do believe there is much talk about social networking (or community if you prefer that term), and little communication. The reasons are largely due to lack of any agreement on terms. Without such an agreement, we simply can't have any sensible discussion.
I'd debate several points in the above referenced research:
- The metrics discussion (Where are things like number of connections, or connection density -- we are talking networks here.)
- The networks typology (Where are learning networks? Isn't this really a list of network activities rather than any sort of typology. Bigger issue here is this: the report makes the same mistake many observers do: that social networking is somehow exhausted by what is currently headlining in the popular SN consciousness. Better breakdowns exist if I must say so myself.)
- Simplistic views of identity (Real or fantasy? Is a managed persona of the LinkedIn type real? Aren't identities all activity/context dependent? Lot's more here, perhaps fodder for a post of my own.)
- No examples of fantasy/qualitative (how about the relationships that form in WOW guilds -- oh wait, they're not listed so they mustn't be social networks -- silly me).
To be sure, there are many good points made and frankly anything that seeks to add some order is welcome. It's a marketplace of ideas that we need, along with the energy to shop that market. To stretch the analogy a little too far, I'm always dismayed to see the number of people that stop their intellectual shopping as soon as they find the first affordable offer. It may be human nature, but that makes it no less unfortunate.