Finding Sanity in the Madness

Exploring Social Media

Jumping in… January 18, 2011

Filed under: Social Media — karch10k @ 7:44 pm

I would like to address some feelings I had regarding the readings we discussed this week. A question was posed about how we as a class felt about the differences in how Web 2.0 was defined between three different articles:

What is Web 2.0

Enterprise 2.0: The Dawn of Emergent Collaboration

Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship

Between these two articles, there are some similarities, as well as some subtle differences.  Ultimately I feel that the terms used are arbitrary, and just another way to define the same thing. Let me elaborate…

All of the articles touch on many of the same core concepts of Web 2.0. To rely solely on one alone I think is limiting. Each article seems to have simply a further breakdown of these core concepts which I feel are, but not limited to:

  • Connectivity
  • Sharing
  • Communication
  • User Generated Content
  • User Driven

If you consider the McAfee (2009) handout we got as defining Web 2.0 as ESSPs, or emergent social software platforms, you can see many similarities. The terms used here are social software, platforms, emergent, and freeform. If you take the definitions (I will just use the keywords) and compare them to the categories I have just listed, you get a very close comparison.

Connectivity = social software

Sharing and communication = platforms

User generated content and user driven = emergent and freeform

Take the same comparative concept to the Enterprise 2.0 article. There are 6 “slates” which McAfee (2006) describes as the 6 components of Enterprise 2.0 technologies. Search, links, authoring, tags, extensions, and signals. You can group these all into the same categories I listed above.

Connectivity = Search

Sharing = Links, tags

Communication = Signals

User generated content and user driven = Authoring, extensions

You could argue that extensions is a little harder to place, but in order for services like Stumbleupon to operate, they need user input. With more users, you have a larger audience, and better “stumbles”.

Overall, I really liked all three articles. For personal preference, I especially enjoyed the first one, What is Web 2.0. It seemed almost a checklist of things that make social media successful, or how to be successful in using social media. I also enjoyed the reference to Intel Inside, and at first I didn’t understand. Once we discussed it a lot more, the light bulb definitely came on and I thought back to that section and had one of those “It all makes sense now!” sort of reactions.

All of the various examples of how social media came to be, and how some companies fell short of a quality service was very educating. Great first set of articles!


3 Responses to “Jumping in…”

  1. Mihaela Says:

    Hi, Brandon, nice analysis and connections among the articles. Even though some of the connections are just a bit stretched IMO, they do make sense. I’m very happy to hear a light bulb came on during class – yay! Also, thank you for confirming that the 3 articles make a lot of sense put together for a class reading.

  2. Andrew Allen Says:

    I didn’t understand the Intel Inside reference, and I distinctly remember the commercials. It was less a matter of getting the reference and more a matter of getting how they were using it. It did make sense once it was explained though.

  3. Mihaela Says:

    ah, good think I asked, then! If in the future you are in the same situation and I don’t ask, please make sure to ask in class.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s