John Dowdell points to an interesting little discussion on the value of Wikis. It seems that there are members of the academic community, and net population at large, that consider sources such as Wikipedia, and Wiki in general, to be “shady” at best.

The original article takes note that there is no “formal editor” in place which leads to rampant errors and misinformation. The supporters of Wikipedia contest that the very nature of the Wiki means there are thousands upon thousands of editors all auto-correcting the content.

In the discussion that pursues, an interesting aspect of Wiki is raised, namely, “I could edit it, but it will be changed back to the wrong information because people don’t like the truth”. This is definitely a fascinating observation of the potential to steer the depiction of “facts and history” in a direction that best suits the authors. This harks back to something from one of my first philosophy classes — “History must be considered from the point of view of the author.”

Another good observation focused on the gradient of reliability that can be seen based on topic matter. One comment noted that programming and software architecture Wikis, far less subjective than say, politics, are generally spot on in terms of content. I imagine that this is also the case in enterprise uses of Wikis, though there is a great deal of politics at work in many of those environments so it’s hard to tell from here.

Everyone that knows someone that’s used a Social Networking Service (SNS) has undoubtedly received some form of Social Network SPAM. You know the message, the one that anxiously impersonates a “friend” of yours and the long lost value they’ve found in this new tool.

Finally, it’s starting to get into very annoying, and dishonest, cracks and crevices. The latest culprit, Multiply.com, is getting a lot of flack from a growing audience of annoyed victims.

David Weinberger first hit on this with his “After receiving my 15th request to be someone’s friend at Multiply.com” where he notes “These social networks in my experience continue to be all maintenance and no value.”. Clay Shirky picked up the torch not too long afterwards with this interpretation of motives:

The canonical example of a negative externality is pollution — if spilling effluvient into the nearest river costs me nothing, so what if it kills all the fish. That’s certainly cheaper than installing filters, now isn’t it? Multiply is social pollution, and the environment it’s polluting — my willingness to assume mail from friends and business contacts is likely to be of value — is exactly the environment that social services require. In the long term, they are fouling their own nest.

But they don’t care about the long term, they only care about getting more members now now now. Fortunately, the subject header of the mail always has the non-common word Multiply, so those messages are easy to flag as the spam they are. Better, though a bit more work, is to write everyone who gives Multiply permission to spam you and ask to get them to take your name out of the Multiply db. It won’t keep Multiply from spamming in the short term, but it may hasten the day when your friends stop granting permission to spammers to use their name to reach you.

Source: Many 2 Many, “Multiply and social spam: time for a boycott”

David’s point hits on something I have been building the case for here over the last year: SNS 1.0 is significantly flawed. As I’ve previously noted, “SNS 2.0 will have one striking characteristic, an underlying Purpose-Model”.

If there’s a secondary characteristic, it is that is will be respectful of our personal space and privacy — privacy is a requirement, not a feature.

It what was a major disappointment for many, Craigslist has seemingly taken the first step over the edge and gone corporate. Recently, 25% of the company, the shared owned by a now vacated partner, was bought out by EBay.

eBay has acquired a 25 percent stake in Craigslist, an online listing of classified ads and forums.

The two companies said Friday that the deal will allow them to share “expertise, resources and creativity” on behalf of their online communities. Craigslist lets people post or trade information about jobs, apartments and items for sale in 45 cities.

Source: News.com, “eBay buys into Craigslist”

Craig has commented on the matter via his personal blog as well:

Although I never figured that part of craigslist might be owned by a public company, Meg Whitman and Pierre Omidyar showed that they were interested in us for all the right reasons.

Like craigslist, eBay is about helping folks get everyday stuff done, on a level playing field - they emphasize trustworthiness and reputation, and try really hard to listen to people. Basically, we’re both about building community, and humanizing and democratizing the ‘net, and there’s gotta be more of that.

Source: craigblog, “ebay and craigslist”

I think a large part of the disappointment that most people are expressing is fear of the changes that will occur as a result of EBay’s influence. Craigslist has been the darling of many because of its openness and grassroots management. It’s hard to stay true to many things when new forces, driven largely by profits and shareholders, are involved.

All in all, I don’t see it as a sell-out in any way, as some have described. Popularity breeds content, content breeds bandwidth, and both require management and resources. I trust Craig will do his best to keep the goals of his organization in line.

In Computer Science, there is a common quest amongst object-oriented programmers to seek out and implement design patterns (Design patterns are standard solutions to common problems in object-oriented software design). For many, computer science, and programming, is cryptic in nature. Of course, most programmers will quickly argue that it’s logical and direct. I tend to agree.

Another key aspect of programming is “laziness”. This is not meant as an insult, however. If you take a very loose definition of the term, it can be said that laziness breeds efficiency. And that is, in many ways, the fascination with design patterns as a whole.

Of course, it’s important to note that Design Patterns are not lamented to the darkened cubicles of IT folk. In reality, there are patterns all around us - assuming we want to see them.

Over the past few days, I’ve noted a couple of familiar faces digesting the whole and coming up with some interesting patterns/descriptors for the social networking space.

Ash Maurya of WiredReach describes “network patterns”. He’s identified three different, dominant patterns:

• Individual Trusted Network - “It is important that this network be constructed bottoms-up, one relationship at a time, so that it is defined explicitly and built on 1 degree trust. Done right, the intent here is to model an individual’s current strong ties.”

• Affinity Groups - “Groups serve to connect people otherwise not connected through the group context. People join these groups because they share a common cause or interest and are willing to collaborate and exchange ideas at a group level.”

• Shared Spaces - “Shared Spaces are user created groups that allow members to share content and collaborate in real-time. Unlike affinity groups though, where most content must be searched, content in shared spaces are pushed out to all members ensuring they always have the latest information.”

Source: WiredJournal, “”Network Patterns”

Peter Caputa has also been busy looking at the vectors of communication. He’s also identified three different vectors:

• Bi-Directional Connections - “his is ideal for creating many connections quickly, because both people have incentives to create the connections. The incentive is that they can collaborate.”

• Outbound Uni-Directional - “The connection is defined by one person (the sender) and no approval by the receiver is necessary. This is ideal when people want to show their appreciation and respect.”

• Inbound Uni-Directional - “This type of connection is defined by the receiver and approval is either inherent or optional from the sender. Permission email marketing or double-opt-in marketing is the prime example of this.”

Source: pc4media, “What Does a Connection Mean in a Social Network?”

Interestingly enough. These two sets of interpretations seem to talk about different sides of the same coin. Ash’s descriptors are looking at the network topology (from the network’s point of view). Peter’s review considers the motivation and the nature of those relationships (from the node’s point of view).

How would you match up these two sets of patterns?

Last night, while driving home, I heard a radio spot for the now infamous Tamagotchi product line. I guess I had secretly been hoping that the name would never re-surface, but it seems “They’re Baaack”!

The new product is called Tamagotchi Connections. The name intrigued me almost immediately. It seems the new version have all the same annoying, addictive traits of the earlier generation, but one unique new angle has been added: social networking.

As the ad promised “Play Games, Make Friends, Find Romance”. It seems that the new generation is able to connect using some form of wireless/radio technology which allows the devices to pair, to borrow from the Bluetooth dictionary. The notion of interacting via mobile devices is certainly not new. What’s fascinating is that this is indeed a toy, an obsessive trendy kind of toy which makes it quite possible that there will be tons of them in the while in short order.

Something else crossed my mind as I considered this new device. The Tamagotchi requires care, nurturing, grooming, and interaction. It’s almost paralleled to the way the Pure-Model SNS works now. If you ignore it, it dies on you. Is Bandai creating a Purpose-Model SNS (even though the purpose is pretty flimsy)?

It seems almost inevitable that the retail angle would encroach on the SNS industry. Initial attempts to commercialize SNS went after the group-buying model. In this approach, social networks are leveraged to earn better pricing for the members of that community.

Metails recently announced another interesting approach to this model. Their recently announced “Peer-Rewards” program provides individuals to leverage their profiles as sales platforms:

The new “Peer-Rewards” program is simple: when someone clicks on a product in your profile and then purchases it at a Metails affiliate retailer (of which, Amazon.com, Buy.com, Karmaloop.com are just a few), you receive a reward typically valued at between 3% and 10% of the purchase price. On Metails.com, new users can browse and meet people, research and buy products, and discover burgeoning trends. As users adopt the system, they can build profiles themselves – contributing to the word of mouth that sustains the network.

The “Peer-Rewards” system and the word of mouth sharing service that Metails provides to its users is unparalleled. The Metails patent pending concept and technology enable all users to have immediate access to people who rave about overlapping products, places, and services.

Source: Metails Press Release via Social Software Weblog

Most intriguing will be the “gaming” of this system in the long run. Surely there’s significantly more incentive to join a network of this nature than a Pure-Model SNS. The Pure-Model moniker, as its name implies, describes a SNS that simply represent the connections between individuals but offer little more beyond.

For some time now I’ve discussed the shortcomings of SNS 1.0. Looking back, it’s clear that SNS 2.0 will have one striking characteristic, an underlying Purpose-Model.

Since I’ve just posted on the potential of fostering social networks in the air travel industry, it only seems appropriate to point to these two articles that show both the good and the bad sides.

On the good side, we have a recent article highlighted by the Online Dating News blog. As the article notes:

DALLAS - The loving looks begin outside the gate, jump to the jetbridge and snuggle themselves into coach seats in the Southwest Airlines courtship ritual.

Low-fare carrier Southwest likes to say it is the airline built on love, and thanks to an open seating policy where customers are free to chose their seats, many a romance has taken off with the purchase of an inexpensive ticket.

Over the years, the Dallas-based airline which calls the city’s Love Field its home has received thousands of letters and scores of wedding invitations addressed to top executives from couples who met on one of the airline’s flights.

Source: Houston Chronicle, “Airline’s open seating breeds love connections”

This is similar to the experience I had when travelling from London to Amsterdam and from Nice to London using EasyJet. They use the same first-come, first-served model. Once you’ve checked in, you get to board earlier or later. There must be any number of strategies to “trap” or “barricade” yourself into a situation that is favorable to your desires. Quite interesting.

On the bad end of the spectrum, we have an example of how the often alcohol-laden nature of travel can act up. In this case, we’re seeing a reversal of the Air Rage problem.

MOSCOW, Russia (AP) — Drunken passengers often give air crews trouble, but Russia’s leading airline on Tuesday reported an “unprecedented” reversal: A passenger was assaulted by intoxicated flight attendants.

Two crew members on a domestic Aeroflot flight beat up a passenger who had complained that the flight attendants were drunk, airline spokeswoman Irina Dannenberg said.

[…]

Seeing that the crew were intoxicated and were not fulfilling their duties, Chernopup asked to be served by a sober and competent flight attendant, Dannenberg said. He was then beaten up by crew members.

Source: CNN.com, “Reverse air rage on Russia flight”

So the networks are there, and vibrant, but not organized. I still think we need this.

Earlier this week, in London, I was part of the London Symposium on Social Software. I participated in a discussion about social tools and what they were. The prevalent definition seemed to be that it was software that provided an outlet for individuality and identity.

I certainly see the case for this argument; however, I raised an issue and expanded on the definition. I’ve come to think of social software as software that “enables connections, be it between individuals or concepts, and facilitates the group evaluation of such entities.”. It’s a mouthful, but I can’t seem to see around it anymore.

Many people tend to focus on the individual when looking at this emerging space. Realistically, though, I am positive that there need not be an individual, or even an owner, for social software to flourish. What I do believe is that selfless, or shy, individuals, given the appropriate medium and outlets to express themselves, will actually “float” ideas, concepts, and “winners” into their enterprise. The goal, of course, is not to gain recognition, reputation, whoofie, swarmth, or whatever form of human-nip you prescribe to.

In the end, the connections are formed not between the author and the observer, but instead shared amongst the members of the community. Specifically, relationships are being formed that connect concepts to creatures, sometimes the “owner” matter. Of course, many are going to raise the issues of reputation, social capital, and the implications in moving ideas through the machinery, but I don’t debate them. It still seems clear that Connections are King and Social Tools are the messengers of that decree.

Judith Meskill over at the Social Software Web Log is starting a new series of posts that are designed to find out what features are the most missing from the current crop of social and socialesque applications.

The first “survey” is aimed at Feedster. The survey asks “Feedster would be great if _____”.

My answer to this is simple, really. Feedster would be boatloads more useful to me if it grouped results better. Right now, if I perform a search for my domain, it returns back pretty much every post I’ve ever written. What I really would prefer, however, is to get back a interface that has all results grouped by the unique site that lists them. This would be even better if a little DHTML was applied to let me see these results on a site-by-site basis. Lastly, if I was allowed to exclude (with ease) any particular site or domain from the results, the output is very insightful. The resulting data would make a nice RSS feed to subscribe to for monitoring site growth and meme tracking.

How would you enhance Feedster? Tell Judith.

Word is out that Google’s Orkut SNS might have come to them in something more than a night vision of creator Orkut Buyukkokten. Apparently, before signing on with Google, Orkut (the man) was partners in another venture, Affinity Engines. According to their site, “Affinity Engines is a technology company that provides a secure infrastructure for private-label online social networks.”

It seems that Orkut may have possibly borrowed large, or possibly, all of the code he created/worked on while at Affinity Engines and used it as the basis for Orkut (the SNS).

The origins of the orkut code dispute arose, the lawsuit claimed, when Buyukkokten, a Turkish citizen, decided to take a job with Google to solve his visa problems. He continued to work on inCircle, however, and signed agreements in 2002 and 2003 stating that any social-networking technology he created belonged to Affinity Engines, the company said.

But, the suit alleged, Google soon became interested in owning a social-networking service. When its $30 million offer to buy Friendster was spurned, it turned to Buyukkokten.

“In July 2003, based on oral statements and written assurances from … Buyukkokten, AEI was led to believe that Buyukkokten was not involved in any software development efforts related to social networking at Google,” the company claimed in the lawsuit. “Buyukkokten copied and otherwise used inCircle source code still in his possession,” Affinity Engines claims. “At no time during his communications with AEI prior to Jan. 22, 2004, did Buyukkokten reveal that he was developing … orkut.com.”

Source: Wired, “Lawsuit: Google Stole Orkut Code”

Stowe raises an interesting question: What’s this mean for the Google-Social Search Machine? The idea is simply that the true value of Orkut.com has been hypothesized to come from the intergration of search and social networks. If Google’s current SNS is torn out from under it, either by scandal or otherwise, how hard would it be to simply substitute another?

I’ve given a lot of thought to this topic over the few months, especially in the last couple weeks. Most of that consideration, however, has been related to the SPAM issues and I hope to address those soon. As far as the Search-SNS bridge, the value is there and Google is going to be motivated to secure an SNS backbone they can leverage.