Innovation Trends: Web 2.0

UNIVERSITÀ CATTOLICA DEL SACRO CUORE

Sede di Milano

Facoltà di Economia

Corso di Laurea Specialistica in Management per l’impresa

Innovation Trends: Web 2.0

Relatore:

Chiar.mo Prof. Federico Rajola

Tesi di Laurea di:

Jari Ognibeni

Matricola n. 3406067

Anno Accademico 2006/2007

3

To my always loved father Nello

5

Contents

Chapter 1

WEB 2.0: The truth about the internet

second revolution…………………………………………….17

1.1 What is Web 2.0…………………………………………………………………...17

1.1.1 Web as a platform…………..………………………………………......21

1.1.2 Collaboration, Network and collective intelligence.......................…21

1.1.3 Participation and Technology……..…………………………………..21

1.2 Web 2.0 Structure and definitions ……………………………………..……….22

1.2.1 Web as a platform. …………………………………………...………...23

1.2.2 The open web……………………………………………...……………25

1.2.3 The Enterprise 2.0…………………………………………...………….25

1.3 The Web 2.0 structure………………………………………………….………...26

1.3.1 The User and the Net Generation………………………….………….28

1.3.2 Input………………………………………………………………….......31

1.3.3 Technology………………………………………………………………32

1.3.4 Specific Tools: web application and widgets…………………..…….34

1.4 Three dynamics for the Web 2.0……………………………………..………….38

1.4.1 First Dynamic: Openness Standard……………………….…………..38

1.4.1.1 Open Source……………………………………..…………….40

1.4.1.2 Google APIs…………………………………….……………..42

1.4.1.3 Perpetual Beta…………………………………..……………..46

1.4.1.4 Creative Commons…………………………………….……..47

1.4.2 Second Dynamic: Decentralized Participation……………………....50

6

1.4.2.1 Blogosphere……………………………………………..……..51

1.4.2.2 Social Networks………………………………………..……...54

1.4.2.3 Platform for participation……………………………………59

1.4.2.4 The Long Tail…………………………………………..……...62

1.4.2.5 But what is a wiki?....................................................................64

1.4.2.6 Hyperlinks: knowledge management in Wikis……………73

1.4.2.7 Trust…………………………………………………………...73

1.4.3 Third Dynamic: User data control……………………………………74

1.4.3.1 Control the content…………………………………………..75

1.4.3.2 Identity………………………………………………………...76

1.4.3.3 Open ID………………………………………………………..78

1.4.3.4 The Next Intel Inside…………………………………………80

Chapter 2

SOCIAL NETWORKS: How people decide to live

other lives on-line…………………………………………...85

2.1 From Virtual Community to Social Network………………………………….86

2.2 A brief history of Social Networks……………………………………………...91

2.3 Two pattern of analysis…………………………………………………………..94

2.3.1 First pattern: What people want to do in Social Networks?..............94

2.3.1.1 Leisure and entertainment…………………………………...95

2.3.1.2 The “F” factor of (in)success………………………………..100

2.3.1.3 Social Shopping……………………………………………...103

2.3.1.4 Professional Networking……………………………………106

7

2.3.1.5 Media and UGC Sharing……………………………………109

2.3.1.6 Virtual Meeting Place………………………………………..110

2.3.1.7 Specialized niche…………………………………………….115

2.3.1.8 Save time, manage information flow……………………...115

2.3.2 Second pattern: What people do on the SN Sites….………………116

2.3.2.1 Entrance……………………………………………………...117

2.3.2.2 Profiling……………………………………………………...118

2.3.2.3 Friends………………………………………………………..120

2.3.2.4 Social Matching……………………………………………...123

2.3.3 Trust……………………………………………………………………128

Chapter 3

SOCIAL NETWORK: goes mobile…………………….…133

3.1 Mobile Social Networks………………………………………………………...134

3.1.1 Synchronous and asynchronous interaction………………………..134

3.1.2 Mobile applications of existing SNSs or Stand alone

services……………………………………………...…………………135

3.1.2.1 Existing Platforms…………………………………………...136

3.1.2.2 Stand Alone Mobile Services……………………………….137

3.2 Mobile Social Network: a perspective………………………………………...138

3.2.1 Status Upload………………………………………………………….139

3.2.1.1 Dodgeball…………………………………………………….139

3.2.1.2 Friendstribe…………………………………………………..140

3.2.1.3 Jaiku…………………………………………………………..142

8

3.2.1.4 Partysync……………………………………………………..143

3.2.1.5 Twitter………………………………………………………...143

3.2.2 Geolocalization & Social annotation………………………………...144

3.2.2.1 Loopt………………………………………………………….144

3.2.2.2 Socialight……………………………………………………..145

3.2.3 Content Upload on-the-go……………………………………………146

3.2.3.1 Groovr………………………………………………………...146

3.2.3.2 Kyte…………………………………………………………...147

3.2.3.3 Radar………………………………………………………….147

3.2.3.4 3Guppies……………………………………………………..148

3.2.3.5 Rabble………………………………………………………...148

3.2.3.6 Vipera…………………………………………………………149

3.2.3.7 Sms.ac…………………………………………………………150

3.2.4 Download Content……………………………………………………151

3.2.4.1 Gotzapp………………………………………………………151

3.2.4.2 Mobango…………………………………….………………..152

3.2.4.3 Mozes…………………………………………………………152

3.2.4.4 mklix………………………………………………………….153

3.2.5 Mobile Social Network Providers…………………………………....154

3.2.5.1 Morf…………………………………………………………...154

3.2.5.2 Mobilemo…………………………………………………….155

3.2.5.3 AirG…………………………………………………………..156

3.2.5.4 Jumbuck………………………………………………………156

3.3 Social coordination matters…………………………………………………….157

3.3.1 Three simple questions about freedom……………………………..158

3.4 Understand the Mobile Social Network environment………………………160

3.4.1 Usability………………………………………………………………..161

9

3.4.1.1 Design………………………………………………………...162

3.4.1.2 Infrastructure………………………………………………...163

3.4.1.3 Users’ use of the platform…………………………………..165

3.4.1.4 Privacy………………………………………………………..166

3.4.2 Sociability………………………………………………………………168

3.4.2.1 Connected Sociability……………………………………….169

3.5 Online community Framework………………………………………………..170

3.5.1 Policies………………………………………………………………….172

3.5.2 Purposes………………………………………………………………..172

3.5.3 Actions………………………………………………………………….173

3.6 Object and Benefit……………………………………………………………….174

Chapter 4

DON’T CALL IT: “ just a phone!”………………………..177

4.1 It’s all about mobility………………………………...…………………………177

4.1.1 Ubiquitous devices…...……………………………………………….178

4.2 Connectivity……………………………………………………….…………….181

4.3 Multimedia………………………………………………………………………183

4.4 Communication…………………………………………………………………186

4.5 Mobility Concept………………………………………………………………..187

4.5.1 Three dimensions of mobility………………………………………..188

4.5.1.1 Spatial Mobility……………………………………………...189

4.5.1.2 Temporal Mobility…………………………………………..191

4.5.1.3 Contextual Mobility…………………………………………193

10

4.5.2 Fluid Environment…………………………………………………….194

Chapter 5

ENTERPRISE 2.0:

Innovation trends behind companies’ firewalls………..199

5.1 Origin of the term “Enterprise 2.0”………………………..…………………..200

5.2 From “Web 1.0” to “Web 2.0 “ Era…………………………………………….204

5.3 Enterprise 2.0: forces and components………………………………………..209

5.3.1 Forces for adoption……………………………………………………210

5.3.2 Enterprise 2.0 components…………………………………………...213

5.3.3 Benefit and future issues to address………………………………...225

5.4 A survey and “what’s next” for Web 2.0 in 2008…………………………….228

Conclusions ……………………………………..…………………………………..233

Bibliography………………...………………………………………………………237

List of Figures……………………………………………………………………….247

Appendix…………………………………………………………………………….248

11

Acknowledgements With these few words I want to thank most of the people who let this work, this

important journey possible.

First of all I want to deeply thank Professor Rajola which with his hints,

opinions and encouragement has let me approach such a wonderful subject.

Going on I have to thank Paolo Marenco for the opportunity to visit for the first

time the Silicon Valley and the chance he gave me to meet the smartest people

in the world. At these people working there many thanks for time and the

many question they answered. Thank Michele, Marco, Flavio, Ettore, Vittorio,

Professor Foster, Raffaele.

The warmest thanks go to my family, my mother Paola, my brother Jgor and

my always loved father Nello, who have always been pushing me forward,

encouraging me in keep going and believe in the things I was doing; their

support and humanity in these months will last forever, as my love for theme.

And you, dear Sonia I thank you for all your kindness and love even the my

mistakes has separated us.

Last, but not least, all the bunch of my great friends and let me thank

particularly Nicolò for all the hospitality and support in my days passed in

Milan and the Trentinnovation co-founder Andrea.

Before ending, I don’t want to cite famous people or famous words, but a

simple sentence one days before starting this work, I saw printed on a student

t-shirt:

“ The thesis is not the destination, it is a journey. It’s not essential where you will

arrive, but how you will arrive there “

This idea has been my companion for this beautiful journey.

13

Introduction In the last decade, people have known what will be most important invention of

the 21st century: the Web. This incredible platform continued its evolution since

arrive today in all its power and possibilities, directly in the hand of common

people. The web has become a platform to entertain people with a bounce of

functionalities, information, content which let people stay on the platform and

shape their daily life around it.

Today this platform became more accessible to people thanks to technological

innovation such as laptops, broadband wireless connections and advanced

protocols but also because people understood that in this platform the have

power, to create, share and explore. People are at the centre of the platform as

the main player and they can count on open and accessible technologies, on

participative tools and on a broad control on data and information they create,

share and manage.

This power coming from the web platform and individuals need, give people

the chance to contact and organize their life around groups of people.

In this way Social Networks represent the quintessential form of human

aggregation and community building, putting together people from all around

the world with different languages and culture but linked by the desire they

have to “Say something”. People merge together because the desire to find

someone similar or only some people with same interests, hobbies or

characteristic which attract theme. Social Network are biggest Agora of the

history, a continuum 24/7 creation, share and use of information, data and off

course connections.

14

Social Networks and the consequent forms of social media, enlarge the

attention form the individuals to his/her relations, to the connection the

individuals have with other people, friends, acquaintances.

Ever more people argue the importance of their connections and the constant

need to cultivate these precious links with others; specially this issue is crucial

in the way people are becoming more nomads, in the meaning that their

relations, their knowledge and also their life is mobile.

Individuals are facing this mobilization of their relations by using advanced

ubiquitous hardware: guess what? The mobile phone. Mobile devices are

becoming an extension of our activities in the web platform, letting us bring

where we want our network of people, our interests and knowledge . In our

hands we have incredibly powerful devices which are transforming our daily

life. It’s from these changes that the biggest issues for individuals and off course

for business take off; we need to embrace this evolution, this change. Probably

because it is too late to jump off the train or because this revolution let us enjoy

our way to live our life and other lives along the pervasive presence of the

network. Chances are in our hands, tools are ready and off course potentialities

of this live connected are only waiting our choice.

My choice is “Yes”, I want to live connected with this beautiful world.

15

Summary

The thesis dissertation is structured in the following way: in the chapter

number 1 will be analyzed what is the meaning of the Web 2.0; will be

considered all the components and dynamics forming it. The three dynamics

will regard the open standards, the decentralized participation and at the end

the user’s data control. All the critical components of the Web 2.0 will

approached giving examples and precious data about theme.

The chapter number 2 is dedicated to the Social Networks phenomenon and it

will enter in deep into the framework the first chapter has delineated about

Web 2.0. In this part after a brief digression about the evolution from Virtual

Communities to Social Networks, a large space will be give to all the different

typologies of Social Networks, their characteristics and what users act on such

great platforms. The chapter number 3 will bring Social Networks on mobile

phones. Here will be cited the main realities of Mobile Social Network present

around the world, their characteristics. The mobility concept will be addressed

with a particular analysis which will consider two crucial variables like

“Usability” and “Sociability”. Chapter number 4 complete the work of the

previous chapter three, going deeper in the mobility concept and dimensions,

specially for what concern mobile phone ubiquitous functionalities.

In the end the chapter number 5 will approach the Enterprise 2.0 concept,

describing the evolution form a “2.0 to a 1.0 era” and the resulting components.

The role of the enterprise inside the Web 2.0 revolution will be illustrated

according to forces, benefits, issues to address; a dedicated survey on the

Enterprise 2.0 concept will help to better understand future innovative trends in

this scenario.

17

Chapter 1

WEB 2.0: The truth about the

internet second revolution

In this chapter we will understand the meaning of the term “Web 2.0” and all

the components that compose it. The analysis will follow three main direction

in the way to highlight the main structural characteristic of the concept: web as

platform, collaboration, network and collective intelligence and at the end

participation and technology.

The purpose is to represent the complete Web 2.0 enviroment, a reality

composed by three main areas ( Openness standards, Decentralized

Participation and Used Data control ) with, at the centre of the framework, four

inhabitants which are the User, the Input, the Technology and the Web

application.

18

1.1 What is Web 2.0

What about this new word rocketing the entire web community?

Where did it come from and why?

We can say that everything became more public and explicit during a

conference in which Tim O’Reilly talked the first time about the new word:

“Web 2.0”.1 Thanks also to the book of Dale Dougherty, from that day anything

would be the same: thinking at this word like some promotional strategy is not

all wrong, but the key point is that now everyone use this word to talk at the

new things happening everyday in the internet world. With this new word, Tim

O’Reilly tried for the first time to give a sense using a simple and “eye

catching” definition, to the entire growing revolution the web was experiencing

after the bubble of the year 2000. But first read a few citation of important

players of the web about this new technology and social revolution; than taking

out some key word, we will continue to analyze the web 2.0 landscape in all its

shapes.

“ The business revolution in the computer industry caused by the move of the internet

as a platform and an attempt to understand the rules of success on that new platform.

Chief among those rules is this: build application that harness network effects to get

better the more people use them” Tim O’Reilly2

“ An emerging network-centric platform to support distributed, collaborative and

cumulative creation by its users” John Hagel3

1 oreilly.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html

2 radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/12/web_20_compact.html

3 edgeperspectives.typepad.com/edge_perspectives/2005/09/what_is_web_20.html

19

“ All of the action is in services. Web 2.0 is where the action is “ Marc Benioff, CEO

Salesforce.com4

“The participatory Web” Brad Decrem5

“ Distributed technologies built to integrate, that collectively transform mass

participation into valuable emergent outcomes” Ross Dawson, Future Exploration

Network6

“A collection of technologies that leverage the power of always on, high speed

connections and treat broadband as a platform and not just as a pipe” Om Malik7

“The new Web is about verbs, not nouns” Ross Mayfield, Socialtext founder8

"eTech is where the seeds of new and interesting technologies are first discovered,

whilst Web 2.0 is where they take root in the soil of business." John Battelle9 (talking

about upcoming conferences)

"...a Point of Presence on the Web for exposing of invoking Web Services and/or

Syndicating or Subscribing to XML based content." Kingsley Idehen10

4 networks.silicon.com/webwatch/0,39024667,39161662,00.htm

5 blog.web2fordev.net/2007/09/25/is-the-participatory-web-really-in-parallel-with-participatory-

development/

6 h20325.www2.hp.com/blogs/garfield/archive/2007/06/06/3601.html

7 gigaom.com/2005/09/28/what-is-web-20/

8 businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_39/b3952401.htm

9 battellemedia.com/archives/001220.php

20

"According to the experts, Web 2.0 is on its way to the workplace soon – it's an

infrastructure that's decentralized and more open than that which exists today."

Wirearchy11

"Don't think of the Web as a client-server system that simply delivers web pages to web

servers. Think of it as a distributed services architecture, with the URL as a first

generation "API" for calling those services." Jon Udell12 (as quoted in a classic

essay by Tim O'Reilly13)

"The conference will debut with the theme of 'The Web as Platform,' exploring how the

Web has developed into a robust platform for innovation across many media and devices

- from mobile to television, telephone to search." The World 2 Come14

"The next generation of web applications will leverage the shared infrastructure of the

web 1.0 companies like EBay, Paypal, Google, Amazon, and Yahoo, not just the "bare

bones transit" infrastructure that was there when we started"Deep Green Crystals15

"web 2.0...is about making the Internet useful for computers." Jeff Bezos16

"Yesterday’s challenge of producing elegant and database-driven Web sites is being

replaced by the need to create Web 2.0 'points of presence'" computeruser.com17

10 openlinksw.com/blog/%7Ekidehen/index.vspx?id=373

11 blog.wirearchy.com/blog/_archives/2005/1/27/286582.html

12 weblog.infoworld.com/udell/

13 oreillynet.com/lpt/a/251

14 divedi.blogspot.com/2004/10/web-20.html

15 martinandalex.com/blog/archives/2004/10/initial_thought.html

16 readwriteweb.com/gems/jeff_bezos_web2.txt

17 computeruser.com/articles/daily/8,10,1,1011,04.html

21

"They don't see that the power of Weblications is that "simplicity and flexibility beat

optimization and power in a world where connectivity is key", as Adam Bosworth put

it." Adam Rifkin18

"The web browser and the infrastructure of the World Wide Web is on the cusp of

bettering its aging cousin, the desktop-based graphical user interface for common PC

applications." Mitch Kapor19

These are only a few definitions about the Web 2.0 but if we pay attention we

can look at some important key word in the way to understand better the new

Web:

∗ Web as a platform

∗ Collaborative network of collective intelligence

∗ Participation

∗ Technology innovation

From this citations we underline some key words which will be very important

in the next steps of the work.

18 ifindkarma.typepad.com/relax/2004/12/weblications.html

19 blogs.osafoundation.org/mitch/000812.html

22

1.1.1 Web as a platform

In the Web 2.0 the web is no more considered as only a broadband pipe20 in

which flow all the bits and contents from a user to a server and back. Internet is

a new place, is a new level and dimension in which people can live their lives

and companies can do their business. This new dimension led people to build

networks with other people in which share their pieces of life was it music,

images, videos or writings.

1.1.2 Collaboration, Network and collective intelligence

In this platform people live sharing their life and interests with other users.

Internet now is a plain platform where there is no limitation and obstacles to

file transferring; we can throw a ball from one side to the other of the platform

and we are sure it will hit the other side in a millisecond: the time to digit on the

keyword the enter button. People put their life on the table and start play cards

with it. The desire to contact people with our same interest and hobbies is

bigger and now people have the tool to do it.

1.1.3 Participation and Technology

In the web platform people can communicate with everyone only pushing a few

buttons. People also can produce their content and information using images,

videos, text thanks to simple tools ever more based on internet platform

20 gigaom.com/2005/09/28/what-is-web-20/

23

accessible 24/7. The emergence of platform for blogging, Social Networks and

free video and images uploading allowed extremely easy content creation and

sharing by anyone.

Summarizing all the key words in a single definitions of “Web 2.0” will be a

hard work because this web has many aspects and it’s changing every day,

every second, every user’s click. These key words will help us to trace the road

to understand the Web 2.0 and all its main aspects. To begin we can say that:

“ The Web 2.0 delineates the internet as a platform in which users, linked together by

networks and collaborative experiences, participate in the production of contents and

information thanks to new technologies and new tools ” I said.

The work will describe the Web 2.0 as a mutating world defined by its

dynamics and forces; by its citizens and the effect of their living, content

production and evolution of their relationships.

1.2 Web 2.0 Structure and definitions

Now we will describe the structure and framework of the Web 2.0 approaching

this new world from its basis, dynamics and forces moving then to the centre to

understand what is the fulcrum of the new web.

The Web 2.0 description will start considering the web as a platform.21 As we

sad before with the evolution to the Web 2.0 the broadband and the internet

21 readwriteweb.com/archives/web_20_definiti.php

24

environment is considered as a platform where users, companies and web

applications coexist in a multiple evolution.

1.2.1 Web as a platform

Internet in the last 5 years became a platform for innovation across many media

and devices22. Web is not more considered as the service itself but as a place

where all services and products became commodities23 spreading over million

of users. To understand the raise of the web as platform we will do a

comparison of two company and their positioning: Netscape and Google24. If

Netscape was a standard bearer for the “old Web” from now called Web 1.025,

Google on the other side is most certainly the standard bearer for Web 2.0. But

let start from the past.

Netscape framed “ the web as platform” in term of the old software paradigm:

their flagship product was the web browser, a desktop application and their

strategy was to use their dominance in the browser market to establish a market

for high-priced server products. Control over standards for displaying content

and applications in the browser would in theory give Netscape the kind of

market power enjoyed by Microsoft in the PC market. Summarizing Netscape

promoted a “webtop”26 to replace the desktop and planned to populate that

22 divedi.blogspot.com/2004/10/web-20.html post by Dimitar Vesselinov



25 digital-web.com/articles/web_2_for_designers/

26 wp.netscape.com/newsref/pr/newsrelease385.html

25

webtop with information updates and applets pushed to the webtop by

information providers who would purchase Netscape servers. At the end both

web browser and web servers turned out to be commodities and value moved

up to services delivered over the web platform. And here start the most recent

story of Goggle success.27 Google started as a native web application, never sold

or packaged but delivered as a service, with customers paying directly or

indirectly for the use of that service. No one of the old software trappings are

present: continuous improvement, no licensing or sale but just usage. No

porting to different platforms so that customers can run the software on their

own machines and equipment, just a massively scalable collection of

commodity PCs running open source operating systems plus home-grown

applications and utilities that no one outside the company ever gets to see.

Google isn’t just a collection of software tools, it’s a specialized database. And

this is the difference from Netscape: Google requires database management,

something Netscape never needed. Without data, the tools are useless; without

the software the data are unmanageable. Now software licensing is irrelevant

because the software never need be distributed but performed, and because

without the ability to collect and manage the data, the software if of little use. In

fact the value of the software is proportional to the scale and dynamism of the

data it helps to manage.

Google’s service is not a server and nor a browser. It happens in the space

between browser and search engine and destination content server, as an

enabler/middleman between the user and his or her online experience.

Both Netscape and Google could be described as software companies where the

first belong to the same revolutionary software world of the 80’s28 as Lotus,

27 Vise, D. and Malseed, M. The Google Story EGEA 2005, pp. 33-45

28 electronics.howstuffworks.com/80s-tech.htm

26

Oracle, Microsoft, SAP while Google stay closer to other internet applications as

eBay, Amazon, Napster.

We understand that in today internet, the platform is the battle camp where

companies, web applications and user enter in contact and build their web

experience. Going deeper in the framework we are developing, we see that the

web platform is divided into two important parts: the open web and the

enterprise 2.0.

1.2.2 The open web29

For open web we mean the entire space of the World Wide Web open to anyone

to access and participate. The open web has been the initial domain in which

Web 2.0 technologies, applications, attitudes have developed. That’s why it is so

important: the open web represent our knowledge of what is internet, and what

we can do in and with it. In opposite at this free-access area where all has been

developed, we found the second part.

1.2.3 The Enterprise 2.030

There’s a piece of the entire open web that we can find in relation with

enterprises: this is the space inside the firewalls of organizations and their

partners. The power and efficacy of Web 2.0 technologies, originally developed

29 rossdawsonblog.com/weblog/archives/2007/05/launching_the_w.html

30 rossdawsonblog.com/weblog/archives/2007/03/post_12.html

27

on the open web, are now being applied within enterprise to enhance

performance and achieve business outcomes. They take inside and led

profitable what was outside and was “only” functional. This term linked

together the word “enterprise” with the 2.0 number to underscore the

connection between the business world and the amount of creative application

and services of the open web.31

1.3 The Web 2.0 structure

Figure 1: The Web 2.0 Structure

Until now we have put the basis of what is the environment in which the web

(re)evolution take off. Summarizing we sad there’s the web as a platform in

31 theobvious.typepad.com/blog/2007/03/the_100_guarant.html

28

which companies, web applications and users enter in contact and build their

web experience. Than going deeper we have described the open web where

Web 2.0 technologies, applications, attitudes have developed. We approach the

Web 2.0 configuration by building a simple structure composed by three areas

converging to a central core. This three parts are representative of the main

forces and dynamics of the Web 2.0:

∗ Openness standards

∗ Decentralized Participation

∗ User data control

These three parts are the flavor of the actors at the centre of the Web 2.0

configuration: user, input, technology and web application. The Openness

standards, the Decentralized Participation and User data control are the

expression of user’s interactions with information across web platforms and

dedicated applications.

At the centre of this structure defined by the three parts above, we find the core

of all the web: the user which interact with inputs thanks to technology and

web applications. In this core we have 4 inhabitants all connected with each

other by logical processes of interaction and information management. Let start

discover this 4 players: User, Input, Technology, Web Application

29

1.3.1 The User and the Net Generation

Let start by the user, his/her behavior in front of new tools of communication,

production and collaboration. The user we want to describe is defined by his or

her interaction with friends and people, by the desire to emerge, of being part of

a mass, community of people like him or her. Thinking about the Web 2.0 user

we have heard many words like: big consumer, voyeur, producer, specific

interested, tastemaker, trend-maker. But the one word which describe at the

best the new shape of the Web 2.0 user is: Prosumer.32 What’s the meaning of

this word?33 This word represent the essence in which a user could be called

observing his or her “Web Life”. 34 The word “Prosumer” has been used the first

time by Don in his book of 1996 called “ The digital Economy “.35 He introduced

the term “prosumer” to describe how the gap between producers and

consumers was blurring. So could we accept this answer? From our point of

view it is satisfying.

This word embrace the evolution started at the end of the ‘90s36 in which the

internet permitted to people to communicate better and faster, share

experiences an emotions using the emails; where the bits and the information

started run fast across the globe and where the boundaries didn’t means

anything more. So with this term the object is to underscore that there are

fewer differences between consumer and producer and that this two kind of

people are colliding in a new thrilling and powerful entity: the prosumer.

32 worldwidewords.org/turnsofphrase/tp-pro4.htm

33 techcrunch.com/2007/06/15/the-rise-of-the-prosumer/

34 boston.com/business/globe/articles/2005/06/13/are_you_a_prosumer

35 newparadigm.com/default.asp?action=category&ID=88

36 corante.com/amateur/articles/20030211-3564.html

30

Figure 2: Typology of content different user categories access Source: Robert Peck, Bear Stearns Internet analyst What should Yahoo! do regarding Social Networks? Bear Stearns Report August 2007

However a new generation of youngsters has grown up online, and they are

bringing a new ethic of openness, participation and interactivity in workplaces,

communities and markets. They are the demographic engine of collaboration

and their power will gather force and efficacy as they mature. Demographers

call them the “ baby boom-echo “37, but I prefer the Net Generation38, as Don

Tapscott dubbed them in his 1997 book “ Growing Up Digital “. This

generation, born between 1977 and 1996, is bigger than the baby boom itself.

Internationally the Net Generation is huge, numbering over two billion people.

This is the first generation to grow up in the digital age and that makes them a

force that will dominate the 21st century. Is amazing how they are growing

bathed in bits. In America 90% of teenagers say they use the Net. The same is

true in a growing number of countries around the world specially in the

developing and emerging ones. For example there are more youngsters in this

37 msnbc.msn.com/id/9929332/site/newsweek/

38 riverdeep.net/current/2000/10/100400_netgen.jhtml

31

age group who use the Net in China than there are in the United States. This is

the collaboration generation for one main reason: unlike their parents in the

United States who watched passively twenty-four hours of television per week,

these youngsters are growing up interacting. They spend time searching,

reading, scrutinizing, authenticating, collaborating and organizing. They are

not passive receiver of mass consumer culture. While their parents were passive

consumer of media, youth today are active creators of media content and

hungry for interaction. They are also a generation of scrutinizers because they

are more skeptical of authority as they sift through information at high speed

by themselves or by their network of peers. They have greater self confidence

and they are nevertheless worried about their futures.

Research shows that this generation also tends to value individual rights,

including the right to privacy and the right to have and express their own

views.39 Throughout adolescence and later in life, they tend to oppose

censorship by governments and by parents. They also want to be treated fairly

because they have a strong sense of common good and of collective social and

civic responsibility.

But after all this reasoning, there is one thing that emerges which need our

attention. This is the first time in human history when children ( Net Gen ) are

authorities on something really important. Young people are authorities on the

digital revolution that is changing every institution in society. This means that

what this generation create, think, share, remix and reject are the key factor that

will rewrite the rules of communities, markets and workplaces. And now we

miss only to understand how people use the web to do all this kind of

“magical” things. How this user interact with the web and the technology to

39 educause.edu/FirstStepsTowardUnderstandingtheNetGeneration/6058

32

arrive to communicate his or her being, his or her message? We introduce the

input.

Our user or better Prosumer, is related with the web by these elements: his or

her inputs permitted by a supporting technology and specific tools behind the

scene.

1.3.2 Input

The user generates, in his or her interaction with technology and the web

platform, different kind of inputs. We can divide the user’s input in two types:

active and passive inputs. For active inputs we mean all the kind of active

interaction a user could have also called user generated contents. The user

generated contents are contents created directly by the user and published

online using specific web applications.40 In the list of user generated contents

we find:

∗ Text ( messages or all the written things a user could write and post )

∗ Image ( huge amount came from digital cameras )

∗ Video ( mostly self-produced and shared with platform like YouTube )

∗ Interactive media ( all creation which involved a cut and copy of

different media sources are these image or video or text )

∗ Virtual architecture ( all content created for virtual environment ) 41

40 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User-generated_content

41 secondlifeblog.it/index.php/2006/11/19/virtual-architecture-intervista-con-mario-gerosa/

33

The UGC are the heart of the Web 2.0 because these contents express all the

power of the Prosumer, of his or her connections and interests. Let have a look

to the passive inputs that are the complementing part of the total user’s inputs.

The passive inputs are essentially the so called opinions which are the normal

answer of the user to active inputs of other users. The opinions are:

∗ Links (establishing an hyperlink from an item to another item/page of

interest)

∗ Clicks (opening content and exploring throughout links and pages)

∗ Tagging (attaching descriptions to information or content)

∗ Rating (giving a rate in a common scale to a content or information)

∗ Social connection (connections built by surfing pages, clicks, links with

users)

We created a circle built by active and passive inputs which alternate each other

in a positive dynamic of collaborative and participative creation of information

and connection between people. Here is the turn for technology which allow

inputs collide and create networks, structures and information. Technology is

the skeleton of the entire web platform specially because in the last five years

emerged innovations, implementations and new technology approaches which

today permit to the Web 2.0 to explode in all its stunning features.

1.3.3 Technology

With the Web 2.0 revolution we are living a huge growth of pop-up

technologies, usually remixed by older ones and oriented to develop new way

34

of creation of content and interaction between human and chips. To all this new

kind of technologies we will give a brief description and in the following of the

work we will give example of their real use in services and products.

Here are the most important technologies42 involved in the structure and life of

the Web 2.0 with a brief description:

∗ Ruby on Rails: an open source web application framework that is

frequently used in Web 2.0 website development

∗ AJAX: Asynchronous Javascript and XML, a combination of technologies

that enables highly interactive web applications

∗ XML: eXtensible Markup Language, an open standard for describing

data, which enables easy exchange of information between applications

and organizations

∗ API: Application programming Interface, a defined interface to a

computer application or database that allows access by other

applications

∗ Mashups: combination of different types of content or data, usually from

different sources, to create something new

∗ Remixing: extracting and combining samples of content to create an new

output

∗ Aggregation: bringing multiple content sources together into one

interface or application

∗ Embedding: integrating content or an application into a web page, while

the original format is maintained

∗ Folksonomy: rich categorization of information that is collectively

created by users, through tagging and other actions ( ex. Taxonomy )


35

∗ Tag Cloud: a visual description of tags that have been used to describe a

piece of content, with higher frequency tags emphasized to assist content

comprehension and navigation

∗ Virtual architecture: the creation of avatars – alternative representation

of people, buildings, objects and other artifacts inside virtual spaces.

∗ RSS: Really Simple Syndication, a group of format to publish-syndicate-

content on the internet so that users or applications automatically receive

any updates

∗ Tagging: attaching descriptions to information or content

∗ Widget: small and portable web application that can be embedded into

any webpage

1.3.4 Specific Tools: web application and widgets

Technology is the energy and the Web application is the human-friendly

interface machine. This machine is formed by three parts which permit all

together to drive and enrich the user web experience. Web applications are the

conclusion – or the beginning - of the interaction cycle we described before: a

cycle starting from the user which communicate with active and passive inputs

thanks to a skeleton and invisible technology concretized in user-friendly

applications.

In software engineering, a Web application or webapp is an application that is

accessed via web over a network such as the Internet or an intranet43. Web

applications are popular due to the ubiquity of a client, sometimes called a thin

43 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_application

36

client. The ability to update and maintain Web applications without

distributing and installing software on potentially thousands of client

computers is a key reason for their popularity. Web applications are used to

implement Webmail, online retail sales, online auctions, wikis, discussion

boards, Weblogs, MMORPGs - Massive(ly) multiplayer online role-playing

game (MMORPG) is a genre of online role-playing video games (RPGs) in

which a large number of players interact with one another in a virtual world -

and many other functions. Web applications dynamically generate a series of

Web documents in a standard format supported by common browsers such as

HTML/XHTML. Client-side scripting in a standard language such as JavaScript

is commonly included to add dynamic elements to the user interface like in

your Gmail account. Generally, each individual Web page is delivered to the

client as a static document, but the sequence of pages can provide an interactive

experience, as user input is returned through Web form elements embedded in

the page mark-up. During the session, the Web browser interprets and displays

the pages, and acts as the universal client for any Web application. The Web

interface places very few limits on client functionality. Through Java, JavaScript,

DHTML, Flash and other technologies, application-specific methods such as

drawing on the screen, playing audio, and access to the keyboard and mouse

are all possible. General purpose techniques such as drag and drop are also

supported by these technologies. Web developers often use client-side scripting

to add functionality, especially to create an interactive experience that does not

require page reloading (which many users find disruptive). Ajax, a web

development technique using a combination of various technologies, is an

example of technology which creates a more interactive experience. Though

many variations are possible, a Web application is commonly structured as a

three-tiered application. In its most common form, a Web browser is the first

37

tier, an engine using some dynamic Web content technology (such as ASP,

ASP.NET, CGI, ColdFusion, JSP/Java, PHP, Python, or Ruby On Rails) is the

middle tier, and a database is the third tier. The Web browser sends requests to

the middle tier, which services them by making queries and updates against the

database and generates a user interface44. The Web application is the three-tires

car which allow the user to live his or her web experience. In this landscape

widgets are emerging marking their importance when we talk about Web 2.0

and web applications in particular. A widget is an interface element that a

computer user interacts with, such as a window or a text box.45 Widgets are

sometimes qualified as virtual to distinguish them from their physical

counterparts, for example virtual buttons that can be clicked with a mouse

cursor, vs. physical buttons that can be pressed with a finger. Widgets are often

packaged together in widget toolkits. Programmers use widgets to build

graphical user interfaces also known as GUIs.46 A graphical user interface is a

type of user interface which allows people to interact with a computer and

computer-controlled devices which employ graphical icons, visual indicators or

special graphical elements called “widgets”, along with text labels or text

navigation to represent the information and actions available to a user. The

actions are usually performed through direct manipulation of the graphical

elements. Widgets could be part of Web application like small windows which

operates different task, receive update directly from internet, give specific tools

at users. Widget are the portable expression of the bigger and more complete

Web applications.

44 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wui

45 apple.com/downloads/dashboard/

46 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_user_interface

38

So this three-tires car has in plus some optional we called widgets. When we are

talking about Web application/widget the first word coming out in mind should

be: freedom and customization. Web application and specially widgets birth in

the so called world of “Open source” which is a set of principles and practices

that promote access to the design and production of goods and knowledge.47

The term was initially and is most commonly applied to the source code of

software that is available to the general public with relaxed or non-existent

intellectual property restrictions. This allows users to create software content

through incremental individual effort or through collaboration. Open source

culture is one where collective decisions or fixations are shared during

development and made generally available in the public domain, as made in

the successful example of Wikipedia. Some consider open source as one of

various possible design approaches, while others consider it a critical strategic

element of their operations. Before the term open source became popular,

developers and producers used various phrases to describe the concept; the

term gained popularity with the rise of the Internet which enabled diverse

production models, communication paths and interactive communities. Later,

open source software became the most prominent face of open source practices.

With this term we introduce the three main dynamics which characterize the

Web 2.0 and we need to analyze to understand at all the structure of the today

and future internet.

47 firstmonday.org/issues/issue3_3/raymond/

39

1.4 Three dynamics for the Web 2.0

The Web 2.0 framework I built is characterized by the presence of three main

areas, which represent the three main dynamics of the Web 2.0. Here the

following paragraphs will introduce each of the three part: Openness standards,

Decentralized participation and User Data control.

We can say that the dynamics are the main trends pervading the Web 2.0

environment of tools, technologies and processes.

1.4.1 First Dynamic: Openness Standard

Web 2.0 era writes a breakthrough page in the history of innovation and

software development. There is one word you have to keep in mind: openness.

In the Web 2.0 structure we are describing, openness is the first of three major

dynamics which influences the entire world of the web today. This openness is

characterized also by aspects which describe its potential and importance:

standards and modularity.

For standards we mean that this openness is based on standards that provide an

essential platform for Web 2.0. Common interfaces for accessing content and

applications are the glue that allow integration across many elements of the

emergent web48. For modularity we underscore the fact that Web 2.0 is the

antithesis of the monolithic. We have many components and modules that are

designed to link and integrate with others, together building a whole that is

48 rossdawsonblog.com/weblog/archives/2007/04/the_state_of_so.html

40

greater than the sum of its parts. In this open process of creation and

development, standards and component’s modularity are the key factor for the

Web 2.0 success. 49

The openness is considered the first dimension of this web revolution because it

allows every user, every developer, everyone to enter in the developing process

of a product or a service. During the last years this openness became more and

more wide and viral. Normal users became co-developer simply with their

normal and daily use of the service, the software or the product. Companies

start harnessing collective intelligence releasing no completed version of the

software or of the web application and led people using it reporting bugs and

errors.50

The father of this “popular” openness is the open source which is a set of

principles and practices that promote access to the design and production of

goods and knowledge.51 This word is associated most commonly with the

source code of software that is available to the general public with few or

nothing property restrictions. This allow users to create software content

through incremental, collaborative and peering efforts with other users. The

open source culture reside in the fact that collective decisions or fixations are

shared during development and made generally available in the public

domain, as done in the famous Wikipedia or Weblogs. Blogs are another

significant platform for open source culture: they make the “open sourcing”

even more uncontrollable since it allows a larger part of the population to

replicate material more quickly in the public sphere.

49 webmonkey.com/webmonkey/06/12/index4a_page8.html

davidcrow.ca/article/708/web-20-as-modularity

50 Eric S. Raymond, The Cathedral & the Bazaar O’Reilly, 2001

51 Steven Weber, The Success of Open Source Harvard University Press, 2004

41

This culture is the creative practice of appropriation and free sharing of found

and created content. Participants in the culture can modify those products and

redistribute them back into the community or other organizations.

There are three rules of the open source: nobody owns it, everybody use it, and

anybody can improve it. They are simple ones but with an impressive power of

innovation.

“Cooperate on standards, compete on solution”. That is the IBM motto to

underscore the importance of being open and permit the “hackability” of their

codes, services and products. Companies understand the power coming from

merging together different users, developers and people inside company’s

products.

The open source’s dynamic points to use the workforce for realizing the

company mission, which more and more identifies with individual’s dreams

awareness52. Take a step forward and see from where does the word “open

source” come from.

1.4.1.1 Open Source

The term “open source” had a big boost at an event organized in April 1998 by

technology publisher Tim O’Reilly which name was originally “Freeware

Summit” but later known as the “Open Source Summit”. The event brought

together leaders of the most important open source projects, including Linus

Torvalds, Larry Wall, Brian Behlendorf, Jamie Zawinski of Netscape and Eric

Raymond. In the personality of Linus Torvalds, founder of Linux, we found the

essence of the openness. Linus Torvalds’ style of development stand for

52 Ballard, J. G. Millennium People Feltrinelli Editore, 2004, pp. 215

42

diffusing releases fast and frequently, delegating to others all the possible and

being open at the maximum level. Linus didn’t invent the Linux kernel, but he

ideated the development model of Linux characterized by the words above. The

magic key Linus Torvalds owned was to bring into play users as co-developers

in the most efficiency way: Linus endorsed every co-developer for his or her job

to give them the sensation of being part of the result and success of the entire

group.

Establishing a wide base of testers and co-developers, every problem will be

defined fast and someone will find the right solution53. This is the so called by

Eric Raymond, author of “The Cathedral and the Bazaar”, the “Linus law”. Eric

in his book highlight the difference between: a “Cathedral” style, characteristic

of companies which build complex structures of developments in term of

processes, rights management and profits, in which the problem’s visualization

of bugs, programming, development represent complex and insidious events.

From here the long period of time between one release and the other, and also

the consequently delusions when the so long attended software versions

revealed all their malfunctions.

On the other side we have the “Bazaar” style, where users and developers

exchange their creations with the common object to do something great and

useful for people: different and innovative approaches embedded in a creative

disorder similar to a bazaar. The bazaar is the stage in which users and

developers became the main character, contributing at company success. Barr

from Amazon sad: “the more data we put in the hand of developers, the more

interesting tools, sites, applications will be built, and the more of those that

exist, the greater the return to Amazon”54. Not only Amazon beneficiates by the

53 De Marco, Lister Peopleware: Productive Projects and Teams New York; Dorset House, 1987

54 Tapscott,D. and Williams, A.D. Wikinomics Portfolio Penguin 2006 pp.196

43

contributes of users which produce all the product reviews so important to

drive customers purchases; eBay is another example with all the comment of

users which generate reputation and trust between sellers and buyers. Another

giant like Google opened to developers and users its most popular services

allowing people to mash-up, use and spread applications like Google Maps or

Google Calendar. In all, Google currently offers more than two dozen APIs,

which can be found on the Google Code site. Much like the Facebook platform

or the APIs offered from widely-used startups like Flickr and Twitter, Google’s

APIs provide developers with an “in” to millions of potential users through

Google’s vast reach. In turn, creating applications that are both useful and

provide smooth integration with an existing Google service is an effective way

to spread your product through technology instead of relying solely advertising

or viral marketing. At the same time, as Google continues to add new APIs and

expand on existing ones, the company further expands its reach as the

developer community builds new products tailored to Google products and

services.

1.4.1.2 Google APIs

Here’s a list the Google APIs opened to people55:

Google Toolbar API - The Google Toolbar is widely-used and comes standard

with Firefox. The Toolbar API allows developers to create buttons for Google

Toolbar, thus creating a way for you to add data from your web site to the

user’s web browser. For example, the Fox News – Latest Headlines button will

55 Ostrow,A. A guide to Google’s APIs on mashable.com/2007/08/09/google-apis/

44

display all of the latest news from the Fox News site and let you click to the

story. In addition to the more than 100 apps featured in the Google Toolbar

Gallery from mainstream names like CNN and YouTube, dozens of

independently developed applications and mashups have also been created.

For example, the Twitter Google Toolbar Button allows you to input Twitter

feeds and receive updates in your toolbar.

Google Gadgets API - Perhaps the most important of the Google APIs for those

looking to take advantage of Google’s massive user base, the Google Gadgets

API allows developers to create applications that run on iGoogle (formerly

Google Personalized Home), Google Desktop, Google Page Creator, and the

“Google Gadgets for Your Web Page” directory. For example, the CNN TV

gadget streams live news, while Outlook Tasks imports your task list from

Microsoft Outlook. Assuming you are able to get your application into Google’s

official directory, the Gadgets API is a great way to gain exposure for your

company’s product.

Google Base API - Google Base is Google’s service for listing things online –

essentially a classifieds service integrated with the company’s other products

like search and Google Checkout.

The Google Base API allows developers to both search the Google Base

database and input new listings. Thus, shopping sites, classifieds aggregators,

and others are building applications that either expand their own listings or

allow sellers to submit items to multiple sites at once. vFlyer is a service that

enables you to post to Google Base, Craigslist, and eBay, among others. For real

estate listings, BaseEstate integrates Google Base listings into their service,

which displays properties on a mashup of the Google Maps API.

45

Google Calendar API - The Google Calendar API allows developers to build

applications that let users create, manage, and delete events from their

calendars. Online task manager Remember The Milk has utilized the Google

Calendar API to enable their users to sync their task list with their Google

Calendar. For business users, there is a mashup on Salesforce.com that allows

you to merge your events from salesforce.com with your Google Calendar. If

you want to sync your Google Calendar with your mobile phone, open source

project GCALSYNC allows you to do so. With dozens of startups focused on

finding and managing events, expect more mash ups with Google Calendar in

the future.

Google Docs & Spreadsheets APIs - As announced earlier this week, the

Google Documents List Data API allows developers to build applications that

can upload documents to Google Docs, request a list of a user’s documents, or

search content within a document. The Google Spreadsheets API performs

similar functions, allowing external applications to access and edit data within

the company’s spreadsheet program. A good example of these relatively new

APIs in action is Swivel, where data can be pulled in from Google Spreadsheets

and then utilize Swivel’s community tools for analyzing and discussing data.

Google Maps API - One of the most popular (and longest running) Google

API’s is that of Google Maps. The API allows developers to built applications

that plot their own data on top of Google Maps. We recently took a look at 13

Must-See Google Maps Mashups, but there are hundreds (if not thousands) of

applications using the API, ranging from Frappr’s social maps to Trulia’s real

46

estate search. In addition to the API, Google also recently introduced Maplets,

essentially allowing developers to place Google Gadgets on Maps.

Google Desktop SDK - The Google Desktop SDK (Software Developer Kit)

allows developers to build plugins that extend the functionality of Google’s

popular desktop search software. Some plugins add capabilities to Google

Desktop, while others are essentially widgets for other programs that you can

place in your Desktop sidebar. An excellent example of an application that adds

capabilities is the Google Desktop Search Plugin for Windows Explorer which

links the “Search” icon that can be found throughout Windows to Google

Desktop instead of the default Windows search tool. On the widget side of

things, any Google Gadget can be quickly and easily added to your Desktop

sidebar, thus making Gadgets an attractive method for developers to reach new

users.

Openness is present mainly in the software development, that’s why we talk

about “Open source software” because all the operations and developments are

in this area. So the software and the related web applications are at the centre of

many developers’ action with the object to improve them participating at their

market and user success. In the Web 2.0 momentum, companies harness

collective intelligence in development of the software and in plus the massive

use of applications by users permit to innovate and improve features in less and

less time.

47

1.4.1.3 Perpetual Beta

We are accustomed to see in a huge number (and growing) of web application

the word “Beta” or “Beta version” beside the logo application. This means that,

that application is in a still development phase in which users collaborate with

their normal use to get better and improve. The developing software progress

mark two different levels: the alpha version and the common beta version. For

alpha version we mean a product’s version which satisfy all the software

requirements. This level can be considered approximately 35% complete and

usually includes temporary material and multiple product-breaking issues. In

this phase the testers are the main players - not more the programmers –

usually people internal to the organization or community which develop the

software.

Than we have the most visible beta version which is the next steps in term of

quality, stability and richness of the software. A beta version is the first version

released outside the organization that developed the software, for the purpose

of real-world evaluation by users-testers. This process is called “Beta Release”

where the software is between 60-70% of completeness, generally including all

features, but also issues and bugs of a less serious variety. In this phase people

who use the software are called “Beta Testers” and they are usually customers

or potential ones. Beta versions test the supportability of the product, the

launch on the market, the manufacturability of the product and the overall

channel flow or channel reach. Beta versions are not ready for a complete

release in fact they are considered as preview stage or technical preview (TP).

Beta versions stand at an intermediate step in the full development cycle.

Developers release either a closed beta or an open beta; closed betas versions are

released to a select group of individuals for a user test, while open betas are to a

48

larger community group, usually the general public. The testers report any

bugs that they found and sometimes minor features they would like to see in

the final version. An example of a major public beta test was when Microsoft

started releasing regular Windows Vista Community Technology Previews

(CTP) to beta testers starting in January 2005. Exploring new software and web

applications in the web, it seems that many of these versions maintain the Beta

stage longer than usual. For example Gmail and Google News, for example, had

been in beta for a long period of time and were not expected to drop the beta

status despite the fact that they were widely used; however, Google News did

leave beta in January 2006. This technique may also allow a developer to delay

offering full support and/or responsibility for remaining issues. In the context of

Web 2.0, people even talk of perpetual betas to signify that some software is

meant to stay in beta state.

In the “Openness” dynamic we have observed a complete freedom in creation,

share, use of software and web applications without talking anytime about

copyrights or “some” rights of producer, developers and programmers. Here I

want to introduce the breakthrough energy of the complex world of copyrights

and licences: creative commons.

1.4.1.4 Creative Commons56

CC is a non-profit organization founded by Lawrence Lessig and launched in

200157, devoted to expanding the range of creative work available for others

56 Lessig, L. Free Culture New York: Penguin Press 2004 chapter 8

49

legally to build upon and share. CC has released several copyright licenses

known as “CC Licenses” which restrict only certain rights of the work or none,

depending on the one chosen by the creator. These licenses allow you to protect

your copyright ownership while allowing other to make derivative works, and

stipulating whether you only want to non-commercial or commercial use

among many other options. For example if you have an audio track you’d like

to let other people post freely or sample, just affix a CC license and the world is

now free to use it58.

The diffusion of this flexible and hassle-free option counter the effects of what

CC consider to be a dominant and increasingly restrictive permission culture; as

CC founder Lawrence Lessig sad: ”…a culture in which creators get to create only

with the permission of the powerful, or of creators of the past ”. Lessig maintains that

modern culture is dominated by traditional content distributors in order to

maintain and strengthen their monopolies on cultural products as cinema or

popular music, and that CC can provides alternatives to these restrictions.

The CC licenses’ intention is to avoid the problems current copyright laws

create for the sharing of information; for this CC provides first several free

licenses that copyright owners can use when releasing their works on the web

and for second the organization makes available a “Founder Copyright”

contract intended to re-create the effects of the original U.S. Copyright created

by the founders of the U.S. Constitution.

Nowadays several millions pages of web content use CC licences and here a

few examples:

57 Lessig, L. Creative Commons and the Remix Culture (mp3). Talking with Talis Retrieved, 7 April

2007

58 ccmixter.org/

50

∗ Portals, aggregation, and archives: Flickr, Internet Archive, Wikimedia

Commons, Ourmedia, deviantART, ccMixter

∗ Formal publications: Public Library of Science, Proceedings of Science,

Sino-Platonic Papers

∗ Instructional materials: MIT OpenCourseWare, Clinical Skills Online,

MIMA Music, Second Life Open SLedware

∗ Collaborative content: Wikinews, Wikitravel, Memory Alpha,

Uncyclopedia, Jurispedia, Microsoft Developer Network, Open

Architecture Network and many other wikis

∗ Blogs, Videoblogs, and Podcasts: Groklaw, This Week in Tech, :

Rocketboom, Jet Set Show, newspaperindex

∗ Journalism: 20 minutes newspaper, Blast Magazine, lifestyle magazine

∗ Cartography: OpenStreetMap

∗ Progressive culture: Jamendo, BeatPick, Revver, GarageBand.com,

blip.tv

∗ Counterculture: Star Wreck

∗ Movies: Elephants Dream, Bumper stickers, Bumperactive

∗ Photos and images: Everystockphoto.com - Search engine and member

bookmarking for Creative Commons Photo, Open Clip Art Library

∗ Porn: The Good Girl

∗ Record labels: BeatPick, Comfort Stand Recordings, Jamendo, Kahvi

Collective, Krayola Records, LOCA Records, Magnatune, OnClassical,

Opsound, Small Brain Records, Quote Unquote Records,

Thinner/Autoplate, Vosotros Music

Beside CC Licenses, the organization has spawn a new mash up platform called

“ccmixter.org” where participants can remix CC-licensed content and share it

with the community. The site offers the access at different content and this is

51

effectively creating a possibility for a kind of creativity that otherwise would

just not have been allowed.

Many not-just amateur band are getting involved such as Beastie Boys, Nine

inch Nails and many others. These bands see fan-created remixes as a way to

connect with their audience encouraging mash ups and new creations. This is

only a little step in the direction to led people being co-producers of the content

created and it is significantly important because the direction point to the

democratization of content and production tools. An example are the Beastie

Boys that on October 2004 they decided to get their fans involved to help

making a documentary film and upcoming concert. The group recruited fifty

fans selected by internet, equipped with Hi8 video cameras and set them loose

in Madison Square Garden with the instruction to film all the concert from the

beginning until it was over. The resulting product was an amazing collage of

amateur videos - called “Awesome: I fucking shot that!” – produced using more

than one hundred hours of footage. That was the “democratization of

filmmaking”: led people free to engage, interact and remix content thanks to

easy to access productive tools such as a video camera. The Beastie Boys

example introduces the second dynamic which studies the power of

participation, of sharing content and use of participative productive tools; in

few words we introduce the “power to people” paragraph.

1.4.2 Second Dynamic: Decentralized Participation

DP is one of the three main forces of the Web 2.0 ( in add at web applications

and user identity/data ) and in my opinion is the most important. Every aspect

of Web 2.0 is driven by participation. The transition and evolution to Web 2.0

52

was enabled by the emergence of web platforms such as blogging social

networks, free image and video uploading that collectively allowed extremely

easy content creation and sharing by anyone. But this participation is

decentralized. Web 2.0 is decentralized in its usage, participation and

architecture. From distributing applications and content over many computers

and systems emerges power and flexibility. This potential come from

maintaining them not on centralized systems59.

Talking about participation the first aspect of this powerful dynamic is the huge

amount of inputs ( active and passive ) the user share between each others. The

share is the connection between active and passive inputs. Imagine when you

upload a video for example on YouTube there are many people who watch

your creation and give a rate or a comment on it: this is the perfect “share cycle”

in which there is an active inputs which is followed by an opposite passive

input. This connection between two inputs is possible thanks to the share

platform in which the UGC is placed. Sharing is the glue of the inputs

infrastructure of participation. The perfect example of this share of content,

information, profiles comes from two creation of Web 2.0: blogs and Social

Networks.

1.4.2.1 Blogosphere

A skyrocketing example of this sharing experience between users and their

inputs is made by the blogosphere: a self organized network of over 50 million

personal commentary sites that are updated every second of the day60. Blogging


60 technorati.com/pop/blogs/

53

makes easy to people to build their personal website in which they could talk

about whatever they want, to whomever they want in the outside world61. It

needs only ten minutes a day to publish contents and information. At a high

level we can say that blogs represent a simple publication system by which an

individual or small group can rapidly and regularly distribute content via the

internet with little oversight62. Today the blogging phenomenon points the way

to the most profound changes the new web will wreak on the economy. Blogs

have been described as the biggest coffeehouse of the earth. In their simplicity

they capture a moment-to-moment picture of people’s thoughts and feelings

about things happening right now, turning the web from a collection of static

documents in to a running conversation. This “face to face” structure interest a

lot enterprises which are building their own company-blog talking about

insight news or products releases. Firms use blogs as focus groups “listening

in” on what people are saying about their company or products. Only some

numbers: 50 million blogs registered, 1.5 million blog posts daily and a new

blog created every second. Though the majority of blogs are not yet of a quality

to compete with commercial media, they point to the increasing ease with

which end users can create their own news and entertainment and bypass

established sources. Hundreds of communities of interest are forming where

people engage in lively exchange of information and views around everything

from knitting to nanotechnology. The potential for blogs to become richer and

more engaging will only grow as people build audio and video into their posts.

Blogs and recently other forms of media, are aggregated using a technology

called RSS. This turns the web into something programmable like TiVo – a

61 Greg Reinacker, Founder and CTO of NewsGator Technologies

62 Axup, J. Methods of Understanding and Designing for Mobile Communities Information

Technology and Electrical Engineering Ph.D. Thesis July 2006

54

flowing stream of entertainment and news choices that individual users have

asked for, perhaps stripped of commercial messages. With RSS the information

come directly to you usually in an aggregator called RSS Aggregator like

Netvibes or Mozilla Thunderbird: no lose of time surfing dozens of websites to

read and catch the last news, but a single web application which aggregate fast

and all the updates of your interests. To have an idea here will be mentioned

the top ten most viewed Italian non-commercial blogs and in the second figure

the top ten most viewed blogs worldwide63:

1. Pandemia ( Pandemia.info )

2. Blog di Beppe Grillo ( beppegrillo.it )

3. Manteblog ( mantellini.it )

4. Macchianera ( macchianera.net )

5. Andrea Beggi ( andreabeggi.net )

6. Wittgenstein ( Wittgenstein.it )

7. Edit

8. Sw4n ( sw4n.net )

9. Daveblog ( daveblog.net )

10. Blog Italia Blog ( blogitalia.it )

Figure 3: Top 10 most viewed Italian Blog Source : Technorati on August 2007

1. Engadget - technology, gadgets and electronic

2. Boing Boing - weblog of cultural curiosities and interesting

technologies. It's the most popular blog in the world, as ranked by

Technorati.com, and won the Lifetime Achievement and Best Group

Blog awards at the 2006 Bloggies ceremony

3. Gizmodo - the gadget guide

4. Techcrunch

5. Breaking News and Opinion on The Huffington Post

6. Lifehacker - tips and downloads to get things done

7. Ars Technica the Art of Technology - News, analysis, and in depth

coverage of technology

63 technorati.com/pop/blogs/ August 2007

55

8. Daily Kos: State of the Nation

9. PostSecret - PostSecret is an ongoing community art project where

people mail in their secrets on one side of a homemade postcard

10. Tmz.com

Figure 4: Top 10 most viewed Blog Worldwide

Source : Technorati on August 2007

1.4.2.2 Social Networks

The second amazing example of how people create content and share it thanks

to the web platform are the Social Networks.

A list of the major social network websites in the world here divided according

to name, description of the main purpose, members and registration policies64

give us the idea that we are “not alone”.

For Social Networking we mean different abilities to manage and use

participative tools the web is offering, building community in which people

meet each others, share profiles, interest, contents, images and videos. Is clear

that in Social Networks people manage a lot of information, tools and contents;

they share their inputs and build connections with friends and people with

same hobbies or interests. The first thing you have to do entering a social

network is creating your public profile. In this section you build the “image”

the other users will have of you inside the network. Than when you are inside,

a world of actions will open in front of you. You can:

∗ Invite or be invited at seminars, meetings and parties

∗ Manage a lot of online relationships with people from all over the world

∗ Find information about people, events and data from the web world 64 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_networking_websites - Remixed

56

∗ Share UGC – specially images, video, text and all the things you find

interesting when surfing the web

∗ Meet new friends and get in touch with people you didn’t now directly

∗ Doing business and start collaborations

What’s the object of being part of a social network? First receive endorsement

by other users and friends; cross profiling; enlarge personal knowledge and

being upload of what is happening; exchange opinions and contents; influence

different audiences. Phenomena like MySpace, Facebook, flickr, 43 Things,

Technorati, and del.icio.us aren’t just web sites, they are dynamic online

communities where sprawling and vibrant web of interaction are forming. Now

this generation of youthful users is bringing the same interactive ethos into

everyday life, including work, education, and consumption65.

Social Networks are growing much faster than the traditional “portals” such as

Yahoo! for example. A good question here is nice to answer is if the Social

Networks will became the new portals: this is known as the portal paradigm. In

the portal paradigm we underscore the difference between “company

generated content” – the portal - and “user generated content” – the social

network.

Majority of youngster users are spending more domestic time ( 51% ) on user-

generated sites vs. traditional sites; users with age between 25 and 41 spend

35% of their time on UGC sites; last users between 42-60 spend 27% of their

time. ( appendix 3 )

Sometimes people thinks, Social Network as phenomenon for kids or young

web users, but the data and studies demonstrate that the largest user group of

65 See note 54 pp. 36

57

Social Networking is older with an age between 35-54 years66. (appendix 2 )

This segment of internet user count for an astonishing 38.9% of the entire

internet traffic on the top 5 Social Network sites. In MySpace for example on the

huge number of more than 70 millions unique visitors, the 42.3% of theme are

people pertaining at this middle age category. Until now we have understand

that Social Network phenomenon is not only a “Kid affair” but it is a global and

cross ageing revolution: but how big is this social revolution? Starting to

consider the total internet users in the world: we arrive at the number of 772 M

which recognizes a YoY growth of 9%. In this total number of internet surfers,

the Social Network traffic attracts 454 M users (59% of the total). To do a

comparison, in US on a total number of more than 170 M domestic internet

users, the 64% ( 115 M users ) use and be on SN sites. Also Social Network

environment growth in a tremendous way; here the year 2006-2007 growth

registered from the first and most important Social Networking sites:

∗ Facebook 47M users – 235% of growth

∗ Bebo.com 17.2M users – 181% of growth

∗ Flickr 26.8M users – 102% of growth

∗ MySpace 109.5M users – 78% of growth

∗ Orkut 23M users – 77% of growth

∗ Hi5 28.5M users – 37% of growth

∗ Friendster 24.7M users – 74% of growth

To underscore the amazing growth of the SN sites, if we consider the

geographical shift of mix happened to realities such as Facebook’s and

66 Robert Peck, Bear Stearns Internet analyst What should Yahoo! do regarding Social Networks?

Bear Stearns Report August 2007

58

MySpace’s users, we understand the global impact and diffusion of SN

dynamics. In 2006 Facebook had the 99,8% of users coming from the US; now in

2007 this percentage decrease to a 56,45% for domestic traffic and a 43,55% of

outside US traffic. The same speech denote MySpace’s users composition: in

2006 MySpace users were divided for a 83,46% on US and a small 16,54%

outside US; now in 2007 MySpace counts a 62,94% of US users and a 37,06% of

outside US users. According of comScore June 2007 report about SN, we can

provide the visualization of the region in which each SN is going better or

worst, among internet users with an age of 15+.

Figure 5: Domestic vs. International traffic on MySpace and Facebook

Source : Robert Peck, Bear Stearns Internet analyst What should Yahoo! do regarding Social

Networks? Bear Stearns Report August 2007

For each Worldwide region we see a different structure of percentage and SN

users.

∗ North America: there’s a strong battle between MySpace (62.1%) and

Facebook (68.4%) for the dominium of the US SN market; than follow

Tagged an Bebo with percentage close to 20% each.

59

∗ Latin America: here dominate the Google employee’s creation named

Orkut with 48.9% of reached users; than follow Hi5 with a 24.1% and the

other SN players with miserable percentages under 5%.

∗ Europe: here comes the truth; in Europe the market is fractioned in

percentage from the 62.5% of Bebo, 31% of Hi5, 24.7% of MySpace, 23.4%

of Tagged and 16.8% of Facebook.

∗ Middle East – Africa: here the market is not so crowded caused to the

lower internet access capabilities of these countries and the low level of

GDP; the underscore the 10% of Tagged, 8.7% of Hi5 and the 5.7% of

Facebook.

∗ Asia Pacific: Friendster is dominant with 88.7% of SN users followed by

Orkut with 43%, Tagged with 29.2%, Hi5 20.8% and Bebo with 13.9%. In

this region the two stronger player of SN challenge are positioned on

percentage respectively of 8.1% for MySpace and 7.1% for Facebook.

Another important data to consider when we talk about SN, are the “Page

Views” - PVs. The PVs represent the number of pages visited and surfed by

users in a defined period of time; also this “value” could be translated into the

appeal of the site, the interest and fun generated into users, the time spent by

users: in few words the PVs indicate how the level of interest, use and share of

SN site’s contents. At May 2007 the total number of page viewed were close to 2

BN ( 1.944.666.000 ) PVs, signing a YoY growth of the 6%; the total number of

page views in SN site were 222 M. But let see more in specific the PVs in each

SN site at May 2007 with the relative growth from the year 2006:

∗ MySpace 50.6 M ( 76% )

∗ Orkut 34.5 M ( 70% )

60

∗ Facebook 29.88 ( 355% )

∗ Bebo.com 11.2 M ( 415% )

∗ Friendster 8.99M ( 311% )

∗ Hi5 7.2 M ( 51% )

1.4.2.3 Platform for participation

Web 2.0, in particular the second dynamic of “Decentralized participation”

underscore the importance of a platform. With these platforms, people have a

destination and a “common” place where “hang out” to find their friends, talk,

share and spend a good time. Having a good place to go in the Web is the

perfect recipe to allow people to enjoy in deep their time, interact and create

value like content, posts, video. UGC contribute to the single satisfaction but

also, considering a higher level, to people Web shared experience. Considering

the term “Peer Production”67 in its purest form, it is a way of producing goods

and services that relies entirely on self-organizing, egalitarian communities of

individuals who come together voluntarily to produce a shared outcome68. This

is the peer-oriented approach coming from the academia, of researchers and

universities and it is spreading to the Web 2.0 and its inhabitants. Users and

people living in the web platform create, produce and share their own

production without imagine the final structure that all the user’s contributions

will draw. In this new era every act of consumption ( watching a video or

sharing a picture, bookmarking a webpage or comment a post in a blog ) is

67 Yochai Benkler, Linux and the nature of the firm Yale Law Journal vol.112, 2003

68 See note 54 pp.67

61

becoming an act of creation69: all users have private benefits but also they create

collective benefits as well. These collective benefits yield a richer Web

experience and enhance “the wisdom of crowds”70. Platforms like Google,

Technorati, Flickr or del.icio.us merely borrow this power to create value from

the single to all the users71.

Don Tapscott was the first Web analyst to call it “collective intelligence” with

the following meaning: “…the aggregate knowledge that emerges from the

decentralized choices and judgements of groups of independent participants” 72.

As the author James Surowiecki says: “The ability to pool the knowledge of millions

( if not billions ) of users in a self organizing fashion demonstrates how mass

collaboration is turning the Web in something not completely unlike a global brain”.73

A perfect example could be the one of Amazon that harnesses the collective

intelligence to provide better services and increase its revenues. When you shop

on Amazon you don’t benefit only from the distributed rating system that

enable customers to review books but also from a sophisticated system that

searches for similarities among the purchases of all Amazon customers in order

to suggest books that probably you’ll like to discover and read. To give another

simple example, think about tags: as Wired cofounder Kevin Kelly describes as

a “public annotation”. Tags allow people to classify and organize the Web

content, simply affixing descriptive labels or keywords on content. This is what

in Web 2.0 dictionary is called “metadata”, or data about data. Collecting all the


70 Surowiecki, J. The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter than the Few and How Collective

Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations Doubleday 2004

71 Jarvis, J. Who owns the wisdom of crowd? Buzzmachine.com, 26 October 2006

72 Don Tapscott, The digital economy: promise and peril in the age of networked intelligence NY:

McGraw Hill, 1996

73 See note 70

62

people action and tagging, systems like YouTube could organize all the content,

del.icio.us organize my bookmarks or platform like Flickr allow my mom to

easily find pictures about interior design.

People participate with great results to other’s success and satisfaction in their

web experience. We saw that participation is feasible thanks to the easy-to-

access productive tools and the presence, upon all the stuff, of a platform which

manage user’s interaction and permit applications to run. In this environment

there’s no physical limitation although the time. Information and content are

available 24/7, with infinite shades and typologies. Every user can contribute to

generate, share and assimilate information thanks to a platform which allows

people to match their interests, passions and curiosity. Thanks to this, people

are not fragmented, disconnected: but they are linked together in different

dimensions; these dimensions can be infinite and people can merge in multiple

category of interests. The Web 2.0 era is characterized by the idea of “The Long

Tail”74, a culture not filtered by the economic scarcity. We talked that people re-

organize in different dimensions, with information available and always

sharable; with Web 2.0 we have to forget the idea of Mass Market, and embrace

the revolutionary theme of a market made by a mass of niches. A person can

built his or her niche of interests because there’s better, faster and more efficient

access to sources of information, sharing and creation of content. Users follow

their interest segmenting by themselves the market and giving up the idea that

in the web platform one size product fits all.75

This theory is confirmed by the same Web 2.0 environment, formed by small

site-companies which make up the bulk of the internet content and traffic. In

the figure we can appreciate the idea that the web platform has small citizens,

74 Anderson, C. La coda lunga Codice Edizioni, 2007


63

but all with great product and niche solutions.76The crazy and most exciting

thing is that all of these narrow niches constitute the volume of internet’s

possible applications.77

Figure 6: Web 2.0 Landscape and categories of different 2.0 Companies

Source : Ross Dawson, Future Exploration Network

1.4.2.4 The Long Tail

Before Web 2.0 “revolution”, people couldn’t follow and share at all their

interest, but also they couldn’t find a solution to their problems or needs. Now

with all the people connected together in the same platform, with the easy-to-

access productive tools, thanks to small companies and useful web applications,



64

the horizon is incredibly potential. To give an example of the power of the Long

Tail, we start from the big ones:

∗ Amazon and eBay: think about their huge products availability

∗ Last.fm: this peering system let available all the music the members have

in their pc; from top chart songs to the most unknown and alternative

ones.

∗ Flickr: let members to show their photos and share interest on world of

photography.

∗ YouTube: a “Flickr version” but for video; anyone can edit their home-

made video receiving comments and find members interested in theirs

creations.

The idea behind the Long Tail concept, is that if you want something, you will

have it. Imagine that there’s a blank search box dedicated to every interest or

passion you have: video, photo, information, news, blog post and also

knowledge.

The best example of long tail’s effect comes from Wikipedia78: an on-line

encyclopedia implemented as a Wiki, where collective intelligence is directed to

allow user to have better access to organized information, knowledge and

content. Wikipedia was formally launched on 15 January 2001 by Jimmy Wales.

Initially it was created as a complement and “feeder” to the expert-written

encyclopedia project “Nupedia” in order to provide an additional source of

draft articles and ideas. It quickly overtook Nupedia, growing to become a large

global project, and originating a wide range of additional reference projects. As

of 2007, Wikipedia includes several million freely-usable articles and pages in

78 coe.sdsu.edu/eet/articles/wikis/index.htm

65

hundreds of languages worldwide, and content from millions of contributors. It

is one of the most popular web sites and extensively used reference sites

worldwide79.

Wikipedia is off course important for its content and popularity, but most for

the platform - the wiki- that allows millions of people to get free access to a

open and collective knowledge. The Wiki structure, functionality, and

application - as in the Wikipedia - offer several supporting arguments. Wiki

technology enables collaboration of people similar to open source software

development, while at the same time minimizing the effort of content

publication80.

1.4.2.5 But what is a wiki?

A Wiki is a set of linked web pages, created through the incremental

development by a group of collaborating users81 and the software used to

manage the set of web pages. The first Wiki was developed by Ward

Cunningham in 1995, as the Portland Pattern Repository, to communicate

specifications for software design. The term Wiki (from the Hawaiian Wikiwiki

meaning “fast”) gives reference to the speed with which content can be created

with a Wiki. Wikis are among the newest of several conversational

79 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin

80 Wagner, C. Wiki: Technology for Conversational Knowledge Management and Group Collaboration

Communications of AIS, Vol. 13, 19

81 Leuf, B. and Cunningham, W. The Wiki Way - Quick Collaboration on the Web Boston, MA,

Addison-Wesley 2001

66

technologies with an impact as knowledge management tools82. Wiki key

characteristics are83:

Figure 7: Wiki Design Principles

Source: Arreguin, C. (2004). Wikis. In B. Hoffman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Educational

Technology Retrieved October 5, 2007, from coe.sdsu.edu/eet/articles/wikis/start.htm

∗ It enables web documents to be authored collectively

∗ It uses a simple markup scheme version of HTML

∗ Wiki content is not reviewed by any editor or coordinating body

prior to its publication

∗ New web pages are created when users create a hyperlink that points

nowhere (usually simply by writing a term in CamelCase,

concatenating two or more words and capitalizing them)

82 Pearson, Ian Wikipedia and the new dark age btinternet.com, December 2005

83 Koblas, Jane Oltre Wikipedia Sperling & Kupfer Editori 2007

67

A Wiki is described as a set of linked web pages (and the application enabling

its development), created through the incremental development by a group of

collaborating users. The Wiki’s uniqueness lies both in its software and in the

use of the software by collaborating members84. The term wiki is applied to a

diverse set of systems, features, approaches, and projects which have in

common the fact that: multiple contributors can edit, change and delete

anything; the use of simplified HTML; freely accessible information; any wiki

page is never being finished and always in the process of editing. Wikis are

based on 4 elements:

∗ Content - created by users and contributors and kept on a server

∗ Template – define the wiki page structure including information of

formatting

∗ Wiki Engine – is the software, write on programming language such as

Java, PHP, Pearl, which manage all the logic operation of the wiki. Is the

heart of the wiki

∗ Wiki Page – created by the wiki engine using the template’s content,

when a user want to visualize the page in the web browser

It seems a simple structure, anyone can use and share, but behind this

simplicity and open access design there are several problems to consider.

The main problem a Wiki structure is facing is about security: anyone can enter

in a wikipage, modify it or delete it. To help resolving this issue, community

members represent the best surveillance. We talk about “SoftSecurity”, which

relies on the community, rather than technology, to enforce order and security.

84 See note 82

68

As described on the MeatballWiki85: “…SoftSecurity is like water. It bends under

attack, only to rush in from all directions to fill the gaps. It's strong over time yet

adaptable to any shape. It seeks to influence and encourage, not control and enforce".

Whereas “hard security” functions by restricting access or hiding pages, wikis

save copies of successively edited versions; thus, work that has been deleted or

defaced can be recovered with a couple clicks of the mouse. Changes are readily

detected (e-mail or RSS alerts can announce page edits), and deleting flames or

unconstructive contributions is usually easier than creating them.

It’s undeniably true that determined vandals can make real pests of themselves.

But an open environment also encourages participation and a strong sense of

common purpose, so the proportion of fixers to breakers tends to be high, and a

wiki will generally have little difficulty remaining stable - assuming that people

see value in its existence and have a genuine interest in keeping things in order.

"SoftSecurity" is not the only way to protect contributions to a wiki space.

There’s nothing about the software that prevents it from being hosted behind a

firewall, for instance. Many wiki systems employ more structured architectures

than Cunningham’s WikiWikiWeb and feature password protection, private

spaces, IP banning, and other "hard security" measures.

Coming back in specific to the Wikipedia structure, another obvious weakness86

of this model is that anybody can claim to be an expert on any subject. This is a

problem of access and quality of contributions. Anybody couldn’t know at all

who was in front at the pc and wrote these things: the authority of a contributor

could be debatable. A this point will be interesting to read the contribution

85 usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?SoftSecurity MeatballWiki


69

about the “Wiki debate” of Ian Pearson - BT futurologist - of December 2005

called “Wikipedia darge age”.87

“We may expect that the quality of articles will grow for a time as the resource becomes

more useful, therefore attracting more interest in quality contributions and reviewing.

In fact, it could well become a serious threat to ‘professional’ information companies. If

high quality information is available for free, why pay for it?”. Than Pearson

continues talking about the quality of the information uploaded in the Wiki.

“The quality of professional information might continue to improve, but the price that

can be charged for it might well decline as Wikipedia becomes a viable alternative.

However, Wikipedia tends to get anonymous contributions, so the personal incentive to

contribute is reduced. Sadly, there is little correlation between altruism and ability, and

potentially a reverse correlation between free time and ability. Adding or improving

Wikipedia articles normally requires a degree of both time and altruism. The result

could well be that after a few years of initial enthusiasm, the knowledge on Wikipedia

starts to stagnate and degrade”.

Pearson argue that there’s a double danger. “…the Wiki danger is twofold. One

danger is the decreasing signal to noise ratio as it includes more information on

alternative knowledge alongside facts and scientific knowledge. The other is the

tendency towards natural monopolies on the net for this sort of application. In much the

same way as Google account for a very large proportion of net searches, we might expect

that an on-line encyclopaedia is a natural monopoly too. Decreasing the signal to noise

ratio in the primary reference point is much more dangerous than if it is just one source

among many”.

The author talk than at facing issues and challenges among players in the Wiki-

Market. “…of course, even though Wikipedia itself is (at least so far) a fairly high

quality reference that is mostly well reviewed, there is no certainty that other, more

87 See note 82

70

popularly oriented, encyclopaedias won’t take over as the primary web reference. If the

future primary reference is web equivalent to the downmarket tabloid rather than the

quality broadsheet, then the dark age will accelerate. Finally, Wikipedia is being echoed

in many niche encyclopaedias that act as knowledge sharing platforms of companies and

organisations. These niche resources are likely to reflect any existing prejudices in the

owning community, and even reinforce the prejudices by providing increased exposure

to other inputs that are similarly aligned”.

After the Ian highlight, results simpler to understand forces and weakness of a

system such as Wikipedia. Focusing on the structure and problems this model

is encoring, we need to highlight a comparison between wikis and webpages.

It’s interesting to see how and by which characteristics a wiki differs from a

web page. The chart highlight the idea a wiki is something ever mutable, never

finished at all and always in process. In wikis, users have the same roles and

not a hierarchical structure as for web pages; the limited known authorship of

web pages differs from the multiple, anonymous autorhsip of wikis. The

seriousness and high quality of the entries of a wiki emphasise the main

strength of Wikis: a depth born of multiple authors working together to hone

material. This contrasts with the blog88, which shines in its ability to offer one

person's view across a vast spectrum of subjects.

All the rumors about blogs as the future knowledge platform outline several

limitations. Weblogs basically are an individual user technology, enabling users

to quickly and easily publish their content on the web. We can say that blogs

are an individual broadcasting technology89, operating in one-to-many mode.

88 news.netcraft.com/archives/2004/03/26/of_blogs_and_wikis.html 89 Wagner, C. WIKI: a technology for conversational knowledge management and group Department

of Information Systems City University of Hong Kong, Communication of IAS, 2004, Vol.13, pp.

256 -289

71

Also a growing interest lives in the idea that blogs and wikis one day will

merge in a single platform for knowledge creation and sharing. Wikis are far

from being recognized as a serious knowledge management technology

whereas, over the last few years, weblogs made significant in-roads and are

now targeted as the next great conversational knowledge management

technology90 .

With this communication design, they are well suited for a single expert who

wishes to share his or her knowledge with a community, a network, but less so

for communal knowledge creation. Newer weblog technology permits multiple

users and teams, as well as reader comments attached to weblog articles.

Figure 8: Wiki vs. Conventional Web Pages

Source: Koblas, Jane Oltre Wikipedia Sperling & Kupfer Editori 2007, pp. XXX

90 O’Shea, William New Economy; The online journals known as Web logs are finding favor as an

efficient way to communicate within the workplace New York Times, Published: 7 July 2003

Wikis Conventional Web Pages

Open editing Limited editing

Simple text formatting language Conventional HTML

Earlier versions stored in online database Earlier versions not automatically stored

Easy to create new pages Harder to create new pages

Low security High security

Equal user roles Hierarchical user roles

Multiple anonymous authorship Limited known authorship

Communal, collaborative Individual

Pages considered always in process Pages considered finished

72

However, weblog traffic is distributed in log-normal fashion, with a few highly

popular sites drawing a lot of traffic, while the majority barely rises above

Internet noise.91 Weblogs, being diaries, are organized chronologically. Newest

posts usually come first, and older posts disappear in archives. This format is

useful for news broadcasting, but not necessarily the best format to

communicate knowledge.

Especially in a multi-user setting, weblogs have several limitations compared to

Wikis and few comparable strengths. Furthermore, the way in which these

weaknesses are addressed with newer weblog technology, results in weblog

implementations that more and more remind you of Wikis. Blogs and wikis in a

future will probably merge into a single technology, differentiating by different

authoring rights and indexing methods. The key benefits will come up once this

merged technology take advantage, of shared community knowledge and the

commune ability of users to correct problems and errors and not only from

individual knowledge and skills. Before this prospected merging between the

two model, we can only ascertain that Wikipedia is a perfect story of success.

91 Shirky, C. Power Laws, Weblogs, and Inequality on Networks, Economics, and Culture published

February 8, 2003

73

Figure 9: Article Growth on Wikipedia according to different languages period 2001-2007

Source: Wagner, C. Wiki: Technology for Conversational Knowledge Management and Group

Collaboration Communications of AIS, Volume 13, Article 19, 33

Looking at the number of articles ( in English – red line ) we see the amazing

growth in term of popularity, interest and importance the “ King of wikis” has

known: April 2003 - 125,000 articles; April 2004 - 250,000 articles; March 2005 -

500,000 articles; March 2006 - 1,000,000 articles; September 2007 - 2,000,000

articles. With this analysis, we want to underscore two aspect which are

standing up in the Wikipedia platform: hyperlink and trust power.

74

1.4.2.6 Hyperlinks: knowledge management in Wikis

The use of hyperlinks is a fundamental aspect of knowledge management with

Wikis. Hyperlinks connect topics and create context (Principle: Open). Wiki

design makes hyperlinking easy. Users do not have to create and use URLs.

Instead they use CamelCase (multiple words capitalized and concatenated) to

create a link. The Wiki also automatically creates reverse links (backlinks) from

destination pages to all pages that refer to them. This convention enables bi-

directional Wiki navigation without the browser’s BACK button. Users

therefore can always explore the entire Wiki web, independent of their entry

point into the Wiki. Hyperlinks connect concepts to other concepts, thereby

creating context. Aside from the obvious advantage of allowing readers to make

connections and to drill down into detail knowledge, hyperlinks are also a

potential quality assurance mechanism and relevance indicator. Pages with

many links to them indicate a highly useful page.

1.4.2.7 Trust

Trust is the quintessence of the peering collaboration. People trust on each other

creation and valuation of the content published: “user trust similar users”.

People are moved and characterized from the same interest of having a

complete, ordered and valuable platform designed for sharing collective

knowledge. Off course exist vandalism and imperfections, but the most are

quickly identified by the community and resolved. People trust in the other

members ( peering trust ); members trust in the intrinsic power of the wiki-

platform which allows the common and collective knowledge to be organized

75

and accessible. Simply we could say that: What Wiki does is to open the Web to

those who might not contribute elsewhere.92The Wikipedia example of

collaboration, publication, peer review and exchange of precompetitive

information are now becoming keys to success in the knowledge based

economy.

Platforms for participation represent an exciting new kind of business that

thrives in mass collaboration and embodies all the wiki-principles Don Tapscott

mentions in his book: openness, peering, sharing and acting globally93.

1.4.3 Third Dynamic: User data control

Web 2.0 framework is completed with this third part, which consider the user’s

power to control, manage and access to data and content; also we highlight the

strategic importance of all this data for companies.

A key direction to Web 2.0 is for user, first to control the content they create, the

data captured and stored during their web activities; second their identity.

92 c2.com/cgi/wiki?WikiHistory


76

1.4.3.1 Control the content

Users now have better and more power control on their web activities, thanks

to web application, a higher level of interaction and involvement of platform

such as blogs and social networks. We have a tight control of user generated

content, because we can create a post, or a wikipage; we can track the path of

diffusion of our creation in the web thanks to hyperlink and tags. The user can

create, share, publish, mashing up al kind of data, is it personally created or

find it in the web. This control allow the explosion of blogs, socialnetworks,

sites of video and pictures uploading or simply the massive use of feed reader;

people feel free to accept or ignore an information, a content, a interaction: this

is called control. A pretty good example about user’s control across web

activities could find in the social bookmarking site del.icio.us. 94 The site permit

to user to attach to bookmarks, words or phrases: these are called tags.95 The

lesson of del.icio.us is that personal value and data precedes the network value;

people find value in saving their personal bookmarks first, manage it across the

web and than share it later. Bookmarking may looks like a simple activities in

our day by day, surfing across web pages, articles, posts but it’s evolution is

important to underscore how users now have control of what they see in the

web. Control means to get track of information ( web page and tagging ), to

share it with a dedicated and everywhere accessible platform, to know other

user’s bookmarking’s choices.

94 bokardo.com/archives/the-delicious-lesson/

95 rashmisinha.com/archives/05_09/tagging-cognitive.html

77

1.4.3.2 Identity

Identity is a critical ingredient of Web 2.0 and also it represent the future of the

entire web.96 Nowadays we can choose to represent our identity wherever we

like, across interactions, in virtual worlds and social networks. Our identity is

become, and will become moreover a critical element in our future interactions

in the web arena; probably identity will became the more important and

valuable good on the internet. Identity let us to have access, for example to our

email accounts thanks to a username and a password: username and password

represent the simplest identity translation in the world wide web of our real

ego. This is the beginning to start imagine the development of identity in the

web and the related system of identification. We start to consider the identity

topics from the place we use it most: social networks.

Beside the power and popularity of Facebook, a stream of critics became to

emerge underscoring the “Island design” of Facebook and other SN family’s

members like MyBlogLog or Twitter: they are cool platforms but with closed

walls. On your SN life, for example on Facebook, you create your profile,

upload your video and pictures, write messages to friends, but all this content is

not open and accessible to people who are not logged in. The SN platforms

work like independent and closed island in the Open Web: you couldn’t link

friends from Facebook to MySpace and Bebo97 for example. All these SN

platforms work like aggregators of people: they keep you on their own platform

for as long as possible, rather than giving you freedom to take your identity and

content wherever you like. Right now it’s hard to make money without owning

the user’s identity and content in some way: user lock-in remains the strongest

96 opensocialweb.org/2007/09/05/bill-of-rights/

97 wired.com/software/webservices/news/2007/08/open_social_net

78

business model98. Some recent news suggest that finally, after many years of

highly competitive play, there is the potential for more open social networking

systems.

The first key news is Plaxo’s release of a new social network: namely, Pulse. It

was clear their ultimate business model was going to be something quite

different, building on the extraordinary database of members and contact

information they were acquiring. With the recent surge in popularity in

Facebook – which means that now a far broader segment of the population is

familiar with social networks – Plaxo has decided the time is right to make their

move. What distinguishes Plaxo’s new offering is that it is more open and

offers more user control than Facebook. On one hand Facebook is a poster-child

for openness, in that it has opened up the platform so any developers can create

applications that complement the system. Yet in many other ways Facebook is a

highly closed system, only allowing users to access profiles and content. Plaxo

will allow its users to aggregate feeds and contents from any location, and to

take that content and use that anywhere else. In addition, it allows a far greater

degree of control on who can and can’t see particular information or content on

your profile, allowing you to present different faces to professional and social

audiences, for example.

The other key announcement is that Netvibes is allowing users to view their

Facebook friends and notifications within Netvibes. This means that Netvibes

users can access everything they need, including news and feeds as well as their

Facebook information in the one page. However Netvibes is still not able to

access Facebook news. In this case the underlying functionality of Facebook is

not being replaced, but it means that the play to be the primary aggregator, or

98 blog.broadbandmechanics.com/2007/08/the-chess-game-of-social-networking

79

space where people access their online information and activities, is definitely

still in play99.

1.4.3.3 Open ID

With Plaxo the powerful trend to openness is being illustrated in practice, and it

call attention to open standards on sharing social network information where

the data standard FOAF ( friend of a friend ) represent the perfect example. This

standards could be find on the foaf-project.org100 website and it belong to the

mainstream of interest for creating an open standard or OpenID101 and

“Universal” data profiling which people could use to be identified in the web

and in the different SN they frequent, but also to make their relationships

portable. Mashable, they popular tech news site, supports the open friend

format or FOAF, citing another time the important example Plaxo is giving in

this way. As Anshu Sharma explains in article: “…many of us are getting sick and

tired of creating multiple user id's, checking messages on multiple inboxes and

accepting the same 75 friends on 10 different social networks. For now here is my

personal solution to the social networking problem - if you have my gmail address and

my blog address, that is all that you need to reach me, read about me, see my pictures,

date me, send me fan letters and/or harass me”.102

99 rossdawsonblog.com/weblog/archives/2007/08/openness_networ.html

100 foaf-project.org/

101 alexbarnett.net/blog/archive/2007/08/17/closed-is-still-the-old-closed.aspx and 2007/09/06/my-

data-let-me-use-as-i-choose.aspx

102 anshublog.com/2007/08/identity-crisis-in-land-of-social.html

80

We are facing an identity problem, which will be a juggernaut in next years for

SN structure and design. “Would be so much easier for users”, continue

Ansha,” to leverage multiple services without worrying about whether they are

built by Facebook,LinkedIn or MySpace”. Another voice against SN walled

gardens, come from Scott Gilbertson of Wired who praises Plaxo’s break in this

contest where companies serve their business interests but not the wider

interests of consumers. Companies like Microsoft, Yahoo and AOL want their

own proprietary IM systems: they are all good but they would work better

together103.

The iPhone would be better if it could be used with other carriers, or Facebook

would be better if you could link to friends’ pages in MySpace and Orkut.

What is the most common open standards we use every day? The email. Every

one, from every platform could send a readable and standard based message:

an email. Scott continue saying: “ It’s possible to replicate most of the

Facebook’s features without getting into its black hole, but the single most

important element is missing. At this point, "friend" relationships remain

unique to the social networks. The web still lacks a generalized way to convey

relationships between people's identities on the internet. The absence of this

secret sauce - an underlying framework that connects "friends" and establishes

trust relationships between peers - is what gave rise to social networks in the

first place. While we've largely outgrown the limitations of closed platforms

(take e-mail or the web itself), no one has stepped forward with an open

solution to managing your friends on the internet at large.”

Managing relations and “personal networks” need a new framework based on

“open standards”. Think of it as a structure that links individual sites and

makes explicit social relationships, a way of defining micro social networks

103 wired.com/software/webservices/news/2007/08/open_social_net

81

within the larger network of the web”, Scott says and continue “ Such a

"micronetwork" standard may sound daunting or even impossible, but nearly

all the tools we've mentioned so far started small.104 Blogging grew from a few

people trying to easily publish web content on a daily basis. Del.icio.us started

with one person looking for a way to manage his bookmarks from any machine.

Even Facebook started with a few college friends looking for a better way to

plan their social lives”.

1.4.3.4 The Next Intel Inside

Data is the next intel inside.105Here’s what we mean for the data created,

managed by users and the related one stored by companies. Database

management is a core competency of Web 2.0 companies and the question we

may argue is: who owns the data? If on user’s side, data control means user’s

power to use and interact with applications, to decide what identity use in a

determined environment; otherwise companies’ side reflect more problems

about copyrights, use and storage of the data. Currently we are in a early stage

of the future development of database management because in also nowadays

the amount of UGC, identities across multiple SN and Virtual hangouts is

increasing brutally. A future point on which users, companies and legislators

need to focus will be the one about data control, ownership and database

104 microformats.org/wiki/social-network-portability

105 radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/02/data_is_the_int.html

82

management; specially in a moment of new web and virtual environment

growth.106

There are some example of this “new” movement in defence of user data like

opensocialweb.org, which will try to begin a discussion with a sample of “Bill

of rights” for users of social web. The post regarding the bill has in its author

people like Joseph Smarr, Marc Canter, Robert Scoble, and Michael Arrington.

On the post of early September 2007 first they assert that “all users of the social

web are entitled to certain fundamental rights” 107, specifically:

∗ Ownership of their own personal information, including: their own

profile data, the list of people they are connected to, the activity

stream of content they create

∗ Control of whether and how such personal information is shared

with others

∗ Freedom to grant persistent access to their personal information to

trusted external sites

Going on authors, they give advices to sites which will support this petition.

The interest is growing and also people and user’s sensibility and

understanding of the importance of this subject will mark the next step of the

Web 2.0.

106 blog.plaxo.com/archives/2007/09/there_is_now_a_1.html

107 opensocialweb.org/2007/09/05/bill-of-rights/

83

Conclusion

The first chapter helped us to better understand structure and components of

the main Web 2.0 framework. Things can be simple at a first view, but deeply

every aspect of the Web 2.0 structure keep a complex arrangements of different

actors, technologies and approaches.

With the three main dynamics is clear that Web 2.0 is about openness of

software development processes and approach to collaboration; is decentralized

and diffused throughout the world network created by the web, and in this

network the active participation of people to create, use and share content have

incredible consequences on our daily life; also the third dynamic remember us

that in all this flood of openness and participation, an issue to be addressed and

which require attention is the identity, how people manage it and how the web

is ready to host new form of identity management and security.

The framework so created doesn’t know end, in the sense that everyday

something change; Web 2.0 introduce more variability in every aspect and

components of the structure. This changes are always increasing in number and

for complexity and a future issue will be the one develop advanced models to

manage this change: for us, simple consumer, and also for company

management.

85

Chapter 2

SOCIAL NETWORKS: How people

decide to live other lives on-line

In the previous chapter we underscored the importance and the growing power

of collaboration dynamics between users across digital platform of such as web

sites, communities and blogs. Today on the web, people create content, share

knowledge and interests, building step by step a new way to live their lives. At

the end of the part about the Web 2.0, the focus was on two main topics:

platform for participation and democratization of the productive tools. In this

scenario we will now embrace the most disruptive and influencing formula of

the Web 2.0: Social Networks that now for ease of use we will call SNSs.

The beginning of Social Networks, could be placed in the needs and possibility

to people to get more and more connection by each other as soon as the

technology developed more “user friendly”. Basically people are born to get

connected, to get in touch with other similar, to exchange their experience and

get some value from these relations; with the evolution of technology, people

desires of being connected come true and go more the expectations. If years ago

our relations with others, were limited to our neighborhood or to our daily

routines; now the chances to be connected with people from all around the

world are a commune thing. We can say that thanks to technology and linking

86

dynamics, our off line life is enriched by on line living where we build

connections, exchange experiences and share content.

2.1 From Virtual Community to Social Network

This evolution is marked by the creation of the so called virtual

communities.108In the web, most of the Virtual Communities are classified as

relational communities109, because their members are not physically linked

together and these communities are defined by the social relationships built on

the web through repeated contacts into a specific and limited web-

environment.110

But doing a step backward, according to Blanchard and Horan is important to

distinguish between on-line or off-line originated communities. 111

Most of on-line originated Virtual Communities, are based on common interests

and the computer based technology reinforced connections.112 Example of on-

108 Koh, J. and Kim., Y.G Sense of Virtual Community: a conceptual framework and empirical validation

International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Winter 2003-4, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp 75-93

109 Wellman, B. and Gulia, M. Virtual Communities as communities: net surfers don’t ride alone In

M.A. Smith and P. Kollok (eds.), Communities in Cyberspace. London: Routledge, 1999, pp.167-

194

110 Fernback, J. and Thompson, B. Virtual Communities: abort, retry, failure? Computer Mediated

Communication and the American Collectivity. May 1995

www.rheingold.com/texts/techpolitix/VCcivil.html

111 Blanchard, A.L. and Horan, T. Virtual Communities and Social Capital Social Science Computer

Review, 16, 3 (1998), pp.293-307

87

line originated Virtual Communities, are newsgroups, game sites, e-commerce

sites which started without a prior relationships or possible interactions

between members. In this case, relations, influence and ties between members

are low specially in the beginning. In opposite, off-line originated Virtual

Communities tend to be strong thanks to prior off-line experiences or shared

situations. Example of off-line originated Virtual Communities are class forums

in the university and all the intra/inter organizational communities of practice

whose members set a series of direct and physical interactions before the

creation of the Virtual Community.113 We observe that people use the web, off

course, to connect by each other, but also to continue a previous connection

originated in an off-line experience.

Let enter in the different components of a Virtual Community. According to

Balasubramanian and Mahajan a Virtual Community is: “…any entity that

exhibit all of the following characteristics: an aggregation of people, rational members,

interaction in cyberspace without physical collocation, a process of social exchange, an

objective, property identity, or interest shared by members”. Continuing in this

classification of Virtual Community’s components, Preece argued that: “… a

Virtual Community has four components: people, shared purpose, policies and computer

systems”.114

In the following part of the work, we will focus in particular on Virtual

Communities, but defining them as “a group of people with common goals or

112 Balasubramanian, S. and Mahajan, V. The Economic leverage of the virtual community

International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 5, 3, (spring 2001), pp. 103-138

113 Blumstein, P. and Kollok, P. Personal Relationships Annual Review of Sociology, 14 (1998), pp.

467-490

114 Preece, J. Online Communities: designing communities, supporting sociability New York: Wiley

2001

88

interests, interacting predominantly in a web environment”.115 This for

simplicity but also to embrace the importance of web platform as a space for

people to meet, share content, information, and create relations. With this

definition of Virtual Community we want define the merging process of on-line

and off-line activities in a unique solution do to social and technological

dynamics. Until some years ago at the centre of a Virtual Community was

considered the community itself and the interest by which people joined the

group; now Virtual Communities put at the centre the member him/herself in

the meaning of the number, the type, the quality of connection this member

establish in the cyberspace. We argue that Virtual Communities evolved from a

community based approach to a user based approach: if some years ago the

glue in a common newsgroup was the “belonging to the newsgroup itself and

the interests shares there”; now the attention is switched to user’s personal

interests and also to connections and friendship to people this user translate in

the on-line life and activities. This switch in term of considering the idea of

Virtual Communities, is related with the emerging needs of the society to

manage and get access to communication, rather than information116; this shift

involves a different thinking particularly in term of networks and interaction

between users117. Communications is the category of expenditure which known

highest expenditures over the last few years indicating a huge growth in

consumption 118. Internet with its vast networking possibilities has been a

powerful means of expanding social relations and possibilities. In add, the

115 See note 108

116 Silverstone, R. and Sorensen, K. Towards the communication society In: R. Silverstone (editor)

Media, technology, and everyday life in Europe: from information to communication London: Ashgate,

pp.213-222

117 Castells, M. 1996-1998 The information age Oxford: Blackwell

118 OECD, Communication Outlook Paris: OECD 2005

89

diffusion of user-friendly interfaces and platforms has provided novel modes of

interaction and new ways of communication. As Castell argue: “…we are shifting

from group based societies to networked societies”.119

In recent years the union between growing dynamics of communication needs,

technology and user-friendly interfaces evolution, the focus shifts from groups

to network and the social scenario will introduce a new meaning of Virtual

Community: the Social Networks Sites.

This word has grown impressively in the last years and it refers to a set of

people, organizations or other social entities connected by a set of social

relations, such as friendship, co-working or information exchange.120These

relations could be strong, weak, long, short, uni- or bi-directional, and occur

over short or long period of time. Following this definition, a social network

could be viewed as a graph and a set of connection which represent people

relationships.121

In this work we will use the term “social network sites” ( SNSs ) to refer to

services that allow people to build a public or semi-public profile within a

bounded platform/system that displays a list of their relationships with other

members of the platform.122According to Boyd, a distinction is needed; we are

talking about Social Network Sites, but another common term used is “social

networking sites”. This last term refers to any site that allows people to

communicate with people they don’t know, including dating sites, chatrooms,

community sites and bulletin boards: it emphasizes networking. But what

119 Castells, M. The rise of network society Malden MA: Blackwell 1996

120 Garton, L. and Haythornthwaite, C. and Wellman B., Studying online social networks In S. Jones

(ed.) Doing internet research 1999, pp. 75-105 London: Sage Publications

121 Wasserman, S. and Faust, K. Social Network Analysis Cambridge University Press 1994

122 Boyd, D. and Ellison, N. "Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship." Journal of

Computer-Mediated Communication, October 2007

90

makes “Social Network Sites” unique is the ability to manage, articulate and

make visible the user social network, the people connected to him or her,

relationships. SNS targets users who communicate with people they already

know, who are already part of their life, their social network, from close friends,

family to acquaintances. SNSs provide an online private space for individuals

and tools for interacting with other people in the internet.123Let try to enter in a

more clear classification of SNS.

SNSs have two functionalities which characterized them in a unique way:

advanced tools for sharing content and digital objects – text, pictures, video,

tags, bookmarks; advanced tools for communication and socialization between

members.124 These SNSs have the capacity to increase social ties and interaction

between people.125People engage in social interaction with others, establishing

their identity in a public profiles, building social relationships, exploring others

identities and sharing information. Users express themselves in social

interactions across social platforms, following common rules and policies. The

glue which holds together this amount of connections and relationships is the

“network/social capital”. Robert Putman asserts that social capital encourages

collaboration and cooperation between members of groups and communities

for their mutual benefit.126Interaction and exchanges between members and in

123 Yong Yeol Ahn, Seungyeop Han, Haewoon Kwak, Sue Moon and Hawoong Jeong Analysis of

topological Characteristics of Huge online Social Networking Services,– WWW Conference 2007, May

18-22

124 Cachia, R. Compano, R. and Da Costa, O. Grasping the potential of online social networks for

foresight European Commission, Joint Research Centre - Technological forecasting and social

change, 74 Elsevier 2007

125 Wellman, B. Boase, J. and Chen, J. The networked nature of community: online and offline It and

Society, vol. 1, No. 1, 2002 pp. 151-165

126 Putnam, R.D. Bowling Alone: the collapse and revival of American Community New York: Simon

& Schuster 2000

91

general across the network ties, generate network capital127: which is the social

capital embedded in interpersonal relations that can offer resources for the

community sustainability, life and growth.

2.2 A brief history of Social Networks

To find the first social network site we have to walk backward in 1997:

SixDegrees.com is the first one recognizable, and it allowed members to create

profiles, list friends and surf the network. SixDegrees.com was the first to

merge into its platform all these characteristics; even before these features were

available separated in different services on the web. For example dating and

community sites allow to post your own profile; in instant messaging system

you have to list your friends into the buddy-list but the others couldn’t get

access to your network; classmates and campus communities consent to people

to connect with their high school, college or institutions and navigate the

network looking for others affiliated.128

We can say that SixDegrees.com was the first platform to offer all these

functionalities in one single layout. The service was born and promoted itself as

a tool by which people could get connection with others and communicate with

them; but the time was too early and people didn’t have yet an extended on-line

127 Plickert, R. Cotè, R. and Wellman, B. It’s not who you know, it’s how you know them: Who

exchanges what with whom Gabriel – Elsevier 2007

128 See note 122

92

network of friends through the web. SixDegrees.com failed to become

sustainable and in 2000 the service was closed.129

In the same lifetime of SixDegrees.com, other actors enter the web scene

supporting the growing trend of creating profiles and public friends’ list. Two

good example of the network stream pervading these years, are LiveJournal (

people marked others as friends to follow their journals, not because they were

“just friends” )130 in 1999 and Friendster in 2002; but also others like MiGente,

BlackPlanet or Asian Avenue spread out in that period. SNSs originally spread

out and grow into small boundaries, small group of people linked together by,

for example, common interests or cultural origin. Friendster gained attention

among three groups in the beginning of its life: bloggers, attendees of the

Burning Man festival and gay men.131 The site knew a giant growth in the early

2002 and its objective was the one to let people to link and meet friends of

friends, going over the typical two/three degrees of separation: the idea was

that more friends you could have, better it was.

In 2003 a new protagonist quaked the land of SNSs: it was MySpace. The west

coast site, growing fast supporting indie-rock bands of Los Angeles region,

began to attract alienating users of Friendster who were not satisfied of the

service and policies the site was running in the last month of 2002, specially the

one against the most active and linked members.

MySpace registered the highest growth on subscription in 2004 and three main

groups of members emerged: bands/musicians, teenagers, urban on the age

20/30-something.132 MySpace knew a proliferating media coverage in the

129 Weinrich, A. Personal Communication 11 Jul 2007

130 Fitzpatrick, B. Personal Communication 15 June 2007

131 Boyd, D. Friendster and Publicly Articulated Social Networks Conference on Human Factors and

Computing Systems (CHI 2004), Vienna: ACM, April 24-29, 2004.

132 See note 122

93

following time, and its popularity exploded when in July 2005, Rupert Murdoch

with his News Corporation bought the site for $580 million.

We can say that MySpace opened a new era, from that moment other big

players started to populate the SNSs world. Friendster re-emerged and took its

domain in Singapore, Malaysia, Philippines and Indonesia; Orkut launched by

Google in 2004 became the premier social network in Brazil before continuing

its growth in India133; Mixi dominated Japan; Lunarstorm in Sweden; Hyves

embraced Holland; Grono tied Poland; Bebo became extremely popular in the

United Kingdom, New Zeland and Australia. Other platform started

implementing their structure with SNS features. For example QQ, Chinese

Instant messaging service, implemented SNS tools; or Cyworld did the same in

the Korean market; in France we can mention Skyblog which started as a

blogging platform; and to conclude Windows Live Spaces dominates numerous

markets worldwide including Italy, Mexico and Spain.

Many SNSs started from small group, serving their needs and interest and after

became giant platform attracting million of people. Now we are assisting to a

proliferation of thousands of smaller SNSs, which connect people through

shared interests, geographical areas, language, sports, race, identity and foucs

on niche of passionate users. Facebook is an example: it began as a site for

college students and arrived to compete seriously with MySpace. We have

already talked about Facebook fortune in the previous chapter, but its example

underscores the growing dynamics and trends among the web: people want to

be linked to friends, communicate, share experiences and content, cultivate

interests and add tangible value to their on-line and off-line life. What is

happening focuses our attention to the idea that SNSs are primarly organized

around people, their network and not, as the community of intertest, around

133 Kopytoff, V. Social Networks on sfgate.com, 16 June 2004

94

interests. This shift is incredibly important: social network sites are structured

as egocentric networks with the individual at the centre of the scene and their

own community.134This will be analyzed when we will talk about profiling and

identity building process inside SNSs in the part of the second pattern of

analysis.

2.3 Two pattern of analysis

SNS will be analyzed with two different but complementary patterns: the first

will consider the object of the social network or better what people will go to do

on the platform, why do they choose that one and not the other one; the second

pattern will approach the level of interaction that determine what people can do

on the platform, which actions, personalization and freedom.

2.3.1 First pattern: What people want to do in Social Networks?

The first pattern of analysis could be simply described answering the following

question: “ What people want to do in a SNS?” Everyone can identify

immediately that the first framework to use to analyze the SNSs is the address

of these sites in term of what people want to do on the platforms. We can divide

the SN global landscape by indicate four main trends:

134 See note 122

95

1. Leisure and entertainment - where people could communicate and

entertain with free access with million of users around the world

2. Professional Networking - sites focused on business networking

3. Media and UGC Sharing - distribution and consumption of user-

generated media content, such as video, photos, blog posts.

4. Virtual Meeting Place - 3D virtual world built and owned by its resident /

users

2.3.1.1 Leisure and entertainment

This sort of SN are places in which people share their profiles and can choose,

by specific tools, with which kind of people enter in contact. The user of this

type of SN is heterogeneous: from teenager to generation Y and older people.

Certain type of user are aggregated in specific kind of SN. From a research135

emerges that 78% of users participate in SN to meet new people, the 47% to

have fun, the 38% to learn new things and the 23% to change other’s opinions.

Net generation works in networking. Young people dominate the many of the

huge, online communities we saw before, where millions of youth socialize

collaborate to do everything from evaluating companies’ products and services

to providing entertainment and services of their own. Danah Boyd136, a

University of Berkeley-based social scientist, provides some insights into SN.

For Boyd, today’s teens spending time on places like Facebook or MySpace is

about reclaiming private space. Adults control their home, the school and other

activities. Frequently the same home is not consider by teens as their private

135 competeinc.com/news_events/pressReleases/168/

136 See note 54 pp. 48-49

96

space. So the new private spaces are frequently found online in places like

MySpace, Facebook. Here people meet in mass, network with peers, and make

shared space of their own. It’s like a bedroom with closed doors. Expect that in

MySpace they can invite one thousand friends in. Virtual spaces like this, are

becoming more vital and appealing also because young people have less and

less access to public spaces outside their home in the neighborhood. In virtual

spaces teens are increasingly free (and safe) to manage their interactions, build

networks, and shape their own identities. This network landscape is divided

into few main players, everyone with different characteristics, target, structure

and off course number of users. comScore137 has released the results of a study

regarding the global reach of major social networks, indicating that these

networks have had substantial growth in the past year.

Figure 10: Social Networks Platform worldwide diffusion in countries

Source : valleywag.com/tech/data-junkie/the-world-map-of-social-networks-273201.php

137 Comscore Social Network Worldwide Research on mashable.com July 2007

97

Visitation to Selected Social Network Sites by Worldwide Region

June 2007

Total Worldwide Home/Work Locations Among Internet Users

Age 15+

Share (%) of Unique Visitors 138

North

America

Latin

America Europe

Middle

East-Africa Asia Pacific

MySpace 62,10% 3,80% 24,70% 1,30% 8,10%

Facebook 68,40% 2,00% 16,80% 5,70% 7,10%

Hi5 15,30% 24,10% 31,00% 8,70% 20,80%

Friendster 7,70% 0,40% 2,50% 0,80% 88,70%

Orkut 2,90% 48,90% 4,60% 0,60% 43,00%

Bebo 21,80% 0,50% 62,50% 1,30% 13,90%

Tagged 22,70% 14,60% 23,40% 10,00% 29,20%

Figure 11: Social Networks Platforms popularity per continent

Source : comScore World Metrix 31 July 2007

138 See note 137

98

Figure 12: Social Networks Total Unique Visitors June 2006 – June 2007

Source : comScore Wordl Metrix 31 July 2007

MySpace tops the charts with over 114 million global visitors age 15+ in June,

2007. This is a 72% increase from last year. Facebook had more growth than

MySpace, with a 270% increase, going up to 52.2 million visitors. Bebo is up

172% reaching 18.2 million while Tagged has seen the highest growth factor, up

774%, gaining 13.2 million visitors. comScore notes that this global growth

means that online social networking is not a fad, but a larger expression of

global Internet culture that’s becoming more integrated every year. The report

also highlights the trend of Bebo, dominating in Europe while MySpace and

Facebook hold the top spots in North America. Also noted in this report is the

trend that major social networks appeal to certain groups, allowing them to

become popular in different regions. This shows, on a geographical scale, the

correlation between physical communities and online networks139.

139 See note 137

99

Its heart is the personalized profile. Members fill them with interests, tastes,

values supplemented by music, photos, video clips that make their profile more

appealing. Even top-drawer music and movie stars have profiles and fans can

“friend” them as well. Every user can personalize his or her homepage adding

new friends, send IM or adding images of your last trip into your profile. In

MySpace there are over 114 million registered users and 79.7% of market share;

230.000 new users every month. MySpace is strong in Australia, Greece,

Croatia, Italy, Mexico, USA, Venezuela and its market value arrived at 12 billion

dollars. The power of MySpace reside in its personalization and popularity

born in July 2003, year in which was created.

Founded by a Google employee Orkut Büyükkökten, the SN counts 47 million

users.

Is the new actor in the world of SN and it’s doing a good job. Facebook count 20

million users and the number is growing at high rates.

Considered one of the top-line SN until 2004 when it was overtaken in term of

pages view by the emerging MySpace. Friendster counts 40 millions users.

100

But in this battle for being the ultimate SN on the ring we have two contenders:

the “Golia” MySpace and the “David” Facebook. It is incredible how the

dynamics of positioning change with time and user trends’ evolution. MySpace

is seeing every day user switching SN platform in favour of the youngster

Facebook. It’s a fresh news that in the month of September 2007 according to

Alexa chart, Facebook passed MSN.com for daily pageviews moving to close to

the 2% level. 140

Figure 13: Msn vs. Facebook Daily Pageviews (Percent)

Source : Alexa.com on December 2007

2.3.1.2 The “F” factor of (in)success

Founded in 2004 by the Harvard programmer Mark Zunckenberg, Facebook

represent a turning point in the world of SN. With its 27 millions active users,

140 alexa.com

101

Facebook ranks in 16th position according to Alexa Ranking of June 2007141. A

50% of these active users return to the site daily; 100,000 new users join per day;

45 billion page views per month. 50 million users and lot more page view

predicted by the end of 2007. As say Marc Andreessen: ”…the Facebook platform

is a dramatic leap forward for the internet industry…”.142 He is right because

Facebook introduces a new way to use and develop a SN platform. The crucial

aspect of Facebook’s success came from its platform’s structure.

Essentially for platform we mean a system that can be reprogrammed and

therefore customized by outside developers/users and in that way, adapted to

countless needs and niches that the platform’s original developers could not

have possibly contemplated. In contrast we have the application as a system

that cannot be reprogrammed by outside developers. It is a closed environment

that does only what their original developers intended it to do, nothing more.

On May 24 of 2007 Facebook started to write a new story in the SN landscape: it

launched the new version of the Facebook Platform, a set of application

programming interfaces (APIs) and services that allow outside developers to

inject new features and content into the Facebook user experience. Veterans of

the software developing industry say that platform will always win in a fight

against an application. This is the breakthrough in the world of SN: giving

people a platform which users could upload in which share and use different

applications developed by other users in parallel with all the normal life of a SN

( share profiles, music, video, images…). The Facebook API enables outside

web developers to inject new features and content into the Facebook

environment. As we talked before the real power of the Web 2.0 era, exist in

141 Il Sole 24 Ore, Nova 5 July 2007

142 Andreessen, M. Analyzing the Facebook Platform, three weeks in 12 June 2007 on

blog.pmarca.com

102

“open environment” where everyone could enter and collaborate for the

success of the user-experience and not of only a limited number of walled

shareholders. In Facebook after signing up, the developer writes the web

application and hosts it on his own servers. The developer than registers his

application with Facebook and than users can add that application to their

Facebook page. Facebook is doing something more sophisticated than

embedding web application inside its structure: it is providing a complete suit

of APIs that allow third party application to integrate tightly with the Facebook

user experience and database of user and activity information. In addition of

this complete APIs tool, Facebook provides a viral engine to spread the new

and most useful web application. You as a user, are notified if your friends are

using a new application and you can start using with a simple click. After using

the application you can inform also your friends and the cycle continue and the

result is that a useful and successful application can grow to a million users

within a couple of weeks of creation. Looking at the business part another

evolution of Facebook Platform is that third party applications could run ads

and sell goods and services to their heart’s content. In June 2007, Mark

Zuckerberg in a interview with Fortune, told that Facebook is a technology

company and not a media one.143 Today SN is fragmented; there are networks

for dating, pet owners, golfers, for parents. Each has its own ways for member

to register, describe themselves, communicate and interact. Facebook aims to

make much of that unnecessary. It will provide the underlying services – a

platform – and offer access to its pre-recruited pool of members. Facebook is

providing the ease and user attraction of MySpace-style embedding, coupled

with the kind of integration you see with Firefox extensions plus automated

viral engine to spread new applications. Facebook platform embrace a winning

143 Kirkpatrick, D. Facebook's plan to hook up the world on Fortune Magazine 29 May 2007

103

strategy because everything routes through Facebook’s servers. This is known

as “proxy model”: you interact with a third party Facebook application by

interacting with Facebook servers which turn interact with the application’s

servers. With this system Facebook retains tighter control of the overall user

experience, and of course of all the web traffic. Applications must conform to

Facebook guidelines for appearance and content or they are disallowed. Beside

all this characteristics there are three aspects of being a platform in the web era

that Facebook does not embrace. First is that Facebook itself is not

reprogrammable so anyone outside company could change the Facebook

system itself in any way; second is that all third party code that uses the

Facebook APIs has to run on third party servers; third is that you cannot create

your own world, your own social network using the Facebook platform. You

couldn’t built another Facebook with it.

2.3.1.3 Social Shopping

Sites like MySpace, Orkut, Facebook are only the emerged part of the leisure’s

iceberg of SN. If we go deeper analyzing the SN environment we could find

different categories; everyone differentiating by the other, for target user,

functional capabilities and design. Looking at the chart we understand the huge

amount of categories in which the SN are divided. We have SN for photo

sharing, Anime and games, for Open Source developers, Music, for University

students, business. But the one I’d like to talk about before ending this first

group of SN is the Social Shopping site. Mashable tech news website draw up a

list of the 18 most popular social shopping websites144. The object of these

144 mashable.com/2007/08/08/social-shopping-2

104

platform is to provide a continuum of the shopping experience, before, during

and after the purchases. People want to share their emotions, their wishes in a

new way, with people from all over the world, with different styles and tastes.

Social shopping145 sites give users: help to find what they are looking for,

comments on reviewed products, a wish list the members can build, pictures

and video uploads, products recommendation, price information and the

flexibility of a web platform could provide. Here are some example of how

shopping can be transformed in a social object and lifestyle.

Allows you to easily create product wish-lists and share them with the

community. Wishpot allows you to add items to your list by performing either

an internal site search or using the browser clipping utility. The internal site-

search also happens to be powered by shopping.com, which allows for many

more advanced search features, including search by price or category. Wishpot

also features mobile integration which enables you to add items to your list

from your cell phone, or take a snapshot of an item and add it that way, also

from your mobile phone. Another features that adds value to the service is

inclusion of user information for better results and recommendations.

Share product recommendations with the community and discover new stuff

from users with similar tastes and styles. When you see something you’re

145 Corcoran, C. Shopping Online Now More Social WWD: Women's Wear Daily 01495380, May

2007, Vol. 193, Issue 104

105

interested in buying, just click the bookmarklet and it’ll fetch all of the

necessary info; you can also browse what the community’s been bookmarking

and comment on their bookmarklets.

Is a women’s social-network based on shopping. Features include personalized

product suggestions and other elements of social shopping. While the service

hasn’t officially launched, you can still sign up and be notified when it actually

does.

The more high-end of these services, ShopStyle features an active designer

marketplace. Overall, a well-integrated one-stop-shop for all your designer

fashions.

Is another community based, very “web 2.0-ish” wiki, all about products. It’s a

good resource for quick background and price information on a wide-range of

items.

106

2.3.1.4 Professional Networking

According to comScore Inc., SN sites attracted more than 110 million unique

monthly U.S. visitors in July 2007, up more than 40% from the previous July.146

Social networking is blooming into the business world enabling, as written in a

research of the WSJ, professionals from different industries and countries to rub

virtual elbows with colleagues147.

There are two aspect that contributed to slow down professionals to embrace

social networks platforms: first, for many reasons, social networking has been

slower to take off in the business world because employees are wary of

disclosing too much information to potential competitors, and loose-lipped

executives can easily embarrass themselves and their companies online; second,

business users typically have less time to devote to socializing online and are

willing to do so only if they believe they are getting a unique benefit from the

site.

In this section of SN we analyze the two kind of SN frequented by professionals

we can encounter on social network platforms and in the web: one “company-

driven” and the other “employee-driven”.

Company driven - The first kind of SN, is the one created by the company

itself, which enables employees, partners or client to communicate and interact

in a SN environment as happened in the more popular platforms like Facebook

or MySpace. In this category a good example could be Reuters which this fall

will open a SN service named “Reuters Space” for fund managers, traders and

146 See note 137

147 Vascellaro, J. Social Networking goes professional on

online.wsj.com/article/SB118825239984310205.html - 28 August 2007

107

analysts. For a fee, not disclosed, they will be able to log on and create profiles

with industry relevant information, check financial news feed and interact with

personal blogs. Reuters Space will be open also to employees of Reuter’s

customer company. Having employees in a controlled and walled environment

would be easier for a company, but we know that people don’t like chains,

specially when they are doing things considered for leisure such as interact and

communicate.

Employee driven - Another kind of SN, and the most powerful, is the one we

call “employee-driven” because is created by users/employee outside the

company firewalls and databases. Here we find SN built inside existing

platforms such as Facebook, Bebo or SN created around brand new and

dedicated platform such as INmobile.org. The common thing the two SN have

is the idea to create an alternative, efficient, casual and powerful platform in

which users/employees could interact and communicate. A company like

CISCO has to manage a employees SN in Facebook which arrived to count 5,450

users; or the Steve Jobs’ Apple has a Facebook SN of 4,898 users. This what I

mean for people-power: the ability to connect each other outside the company

rules and firewalls; and companies are in front of an important revolution in the

way how employees interact and in the way the company will do business in

the future. These SN have features such as profile pages showing professional

credentials and experience, personal blogs, links to friends online, invitation

tools to real or online events, IM. Here we have a list of the most interesting

“outside company” SN:

Online career community with 250,000 users.

108

For 730 Wireless and related industry high level executives, users can arrange

conference calls and virtual meeting on popular discussion topics; members can

choose to pay 2,000$ a year to list promotions and ads in a special marketplace

section.

More than 14 million registered users, spanning 150 industries and more than

400 economic regions.

For new entrepreneurs with over 250,000 members in 200 countries, with over

1,000 external organizations hosting sub-networks on the site.

25,000 licensed physicians interact about topics from dermatology to

psychiatry.

Named openBC/Open Business Club until November 17th, 2006 is a social

software platform for enabling a small-world network for professionals. 4

million members from over 190 countries.

109

2.3.1.5 Media and UGC Sharing

Often these types of SN are associated to blogs and wikis. These sites represent

the media platform from which users post text, video or image directly to their

spaces. In this category we find famous user friendly application like YouTube

for video, Flickr for images, Typepad or Wordpress for blog creation and

maintenance, Socialtext for the wiki. All these SN are structured in the way to

let you upload easily and fast your content, are they text, video or images; to

tag information with personal descriptions; to share all these information with

friends and users; to discover new enthusiast users of your creations and

interests. Only some numbers to target our attention:

∗ YouTube has 20 million users

∗ Flickr 7,2 millions

∗ Socialtext 2000 companies registered

∗ Wordpress more than 1 million blogs under management

This can be what Don Gillmore call the world of “We the media”. A world in

which “the former audience”, not a few people in a back room, decide what’s

important.148 We have to think that these SN are communities focused around

interests like video, images or posting a blog and people registered spend time

and passion around uploading material or giving comment to friends

productions. People create, share the content and receive endorsement by

comments or links at their work: this is the secret which explain the success of

these SN. People need people who like what they do; so simple. And these SN

are the tool which permit to people to receive this kind of precious prize. Beside

148 See note 108

110

this normal exchange of material, comments and endorsement, there is a world

which is more close to money. There are SN which permit to earn money

managing all these kind of information uploaded, are they images, video or

text. Example like Flixya, Bebo, Mingle-Now are perfect. Flixya offer to users

the chance to earn small amount of money with a simple business model: word

of mouth. On Flixya you choose a video and share it with your friends; you will

receive half the money generated by Google Adsense advertisings. You can

share and tag videos coming and uploaded on 33 different platforms like

YouTube or MySpace. Another example of this business model we can find it in

Bebo. It si the first English SN which permit to users to sell music from their

profile and share what they get. Warner Bros and Mercury Music provide

music catalog and if until now the number of band available was limited the

number will grow fast in next months. To get back in States, Mingle-Now to

invert tendencies of young-mature US people which prefer at beer, super-

alcoholic the Beer Producer Association financed Mingle-Now. In this SN users

upload images and video representing club-moment in which the beer is

protagonist. User when they upload images, share it with friends or invite them

to see them, they earn point. When points arrive at the number of 40, the user

receive an invitation as a “Vip member” which permit to get access to exclusive

“Mingle-Now parties” in the most trendy clubs of the West Coast.

2.3.1.6 Virtual Meeting Place

In the above categories of SN, people engage ever a computer-user dialogue;

users stand in front of a monitor and manage their networked life, sharing

content with friends and enlarging their range of acquaintance. The so called

111

also “Casual Immersive Worlds” or “Virtual Hangouts”, are virtual platforms

where people can engage others using imaginary characters in imaginary

environments149. At this point is important to distinguish between online

worlds where people hang out such as ones we will talk about and worlds

called MMORPG ( Massively multiplayer online role-playing game ) where

people play role playing games such as World of Warcraft, Guild Wars and

Entropia Universe. In this category of platforms where people hang out, things

going different from other SN in the sense that users are represented in the

network/virtual world not only by a profile, some pictures and a brief

description of themselves, but with a user generated avatar, a kind of virtual

representation/incarnation of users in the Virtual World. We will see that an

avatar may have real-life characteristics of the user or only an imaginary profile;

it depends on user’s choice and platform policy. Virtual hangouts have been

around and popular in Europe and Asia for years, but they gained traction in

USA as of late. Virtual Hangouts attract a big interest by people but also ever

more by companies which plan to develop new line of business in the virtual

marketplace. Taking a closer look to the Virtual Hangouts market, we ascertain

the presence of various platforms: from the most famous Second Life from the

Linden Labs, to the childish Club Penguin and the miniaturized Habbo Hotel.

In the figure you can find a complete list of the 18 most common and

frequented Casual Immersive Worlds on the web.

Virtual Worlds are characterized and differentiated by some variables like:

∗ target audience: we have general, children, teenagers targets

∗ main premise: is the experience object the user is living

149 techcrunch.com/2007/08/05/virtual-world-hangouts-so-many-to-choose-from

112

∗ immersion level: how deep and complete is the virtual experience,

depending on graphics, users’ interaction, personalization, activities

∗ graphic: 3D or 2D objects, HTML or Flash graphics, bird’s eye view or

side view, 1st / 3rd person or trailing view

∗ number of online visitors and total unique visitors: the traffic of the VW

depending on the number of online visitors during the research and the

total of unique users who visited the site at least once during the month

scanned ( June 2007 )

∗ revenue sources: it’s the business model which generate revenue for the

VW; premium subscriptions and avatar’s upgrades, virtual purchases,

ads

Currently Virtual Hangouts differentiate themselves by targeting particular

audiences and providing certain types of immersive experiences. Platforms

such as Club Penguin and Barbie Girls cater to children and pre-teenagers with

their simple interfaces, basic games, and cartoon graphic. Worlds meant for

children are designed in concern for the security and safety of their users.

For example, Webkinz only lets users chat with a preselected set of phrases so

anyone can say anything inappropriate or share personal information.

Other immersive worlds such as Second Life and Habbo Hotel are directed to a

broader audience by providing more advanced chat capabilities, more realistic

simulations of reality and tools to design objects and surrounding’s

components.

113

Figure 14: Virtual Hangouts Platforms with relative characteristics

Source : techcrunch.com/wp-content/casual_immersive_worlds.html

Also in add for a mature adult public ( user must be 18 years old ) there’s Red

Light Center which provide more explicit breed of entertainment and behavior.

Let analyze the other variable: the level of immersion the VW provide. Some

platform such as Second Life and Active Worlds, put you in a 3D-rendered

environments with first person point of view in an attempt to replicate virtual

reality. Others, such as Gaia, the world’s fastest growing online world hangout

for teens, and Club Penguin use sprites which provides a bird’s-eye view of

characters moving around in largely static environments. Other worlds, such as

114

Cyworld and Neopets are produced simply using HTML images and Flash

animations.

We mentioned before at one of the most cited Virtual Hangouts which is

Second Life, the perfect example of a “Metaverse”150 that is a metaphysical

universe. The Linden Lab’s creation currently in this precise moment has 36,858

residents online151; 9 million registered residents but the 85% of theme has been

entered once before leaving forever. According to official data at June 2007 the

world has 3,151,881 total unique visitors but rumors say that the “official”

active users are circa 300,000152. This little populations generated last year 2006 a

total amount of 64 millions dollars in transactions of goods, services and lands.

Part of the success of Second Life comes from the fact that it is so 2.0: the

platform permits people to enjoy an advanced experience, focused on UGC.

According to Jaron Leiner, which pioneered the “concept of virtual reality” in

the 1980s and is now “science adviser” at Linden Lab, “the act of creation is the

act of being social”. The popularity of Second Life reside in the chance for users

to interact with the platform’s architecture in the way to create his or her

profile, avatar, buy an island or sell goods. Second Life outlines the power of

UGC and projects it in Virtual Hangouts worlds opening new doors to the

study of users power and creations in the real or virtual web environment.

To conclude we have minor category of Social Network which consider other

variables and resolve other problems like: personalization/customization and

lack of time.

150 economist.com/surveys/displaystory.cfm?story_id=6794220 - September 2006

151 FocusMagazine, Second Life June 2007 - Related data of April 2007

152 Gerosa, M. Second Life Ed. Melteni, 2006

115

2.3.1.7 Specialized niche

Along all the stand-alone SN we found before, there’s a new vertical approach

at the community’s world. We have some vertical environment like Ning,

itLinkz and Vox in which people participate with specific and common

interests. A platform like Ning allows users to create their own SN and

personalized it as they like. Also they could participate in multiple SN, for

example, each for every interest or passion they want to share and cultivate.

Ning has been found by a veteran of the Silicon Valley, Marc Andreessen,

Netscape founder. Ning gives to user all the “administrator” tools which permit

to personalize the structure, access, accounts, interface and contents. In the

same shoes there’s itLinkz Corporation, owned by Medical Technology and

Innovation Inc., has announced that it will develop 500 new SN in next years

starting from a number of 13 SN estimated for the 2007. Their business model

will be focused on advertising according to a recent research which underscore

the users’ availability to accept contextual advertising in the SN or in their

account. This means a great chance to media and ads company to enter in the

walled gardens of SN.

2.3.1.8 Save time, manage information flow

In this category the word is: save time. A lot of information impact in our daily

life and the time to manage it is fewer. People start more and more to pay less

attention to all the information flow and this could be danger because may

crucial or important contents could be lost in the frenetic shunting of data,

mails, posts, comment or opinions. Thanks god in this section of SNl, we talk

116

about the tools which permit user to save time and manage in same cases the

incumbent overflow of information. Here we have aggregators of time and

activities like Netvibes, Google Reader or PeopleAggregator. They allow to re-

organize information sources into a unique and handy interface. In add these

applications permit to synchronize and upload profile information, in different

SN. Aggregator’s environments are becoming more and more important in

popularity and effectiveness because the growth of information the web need

we manage and elaborate. Netvibes offers in a single interface all the

information you need to update your daily information flow. In your account

you can import your feed or create new ones. The RSS aggregator works great

and you could customize and personalize your interface as your needs. In plus

are present different widgets which provides different kind of services: from

weather forecast in your city, the last football news to the most viewed and

commented blogs.

Blogosphere and Social Networks are the essence of the Web 2.0. They

represent the highest level of expression and power of people ever: people

create, share information easily, enjoy other people with same interest or

passions, participate in the creation of a new way people interact with each

others.

2.3.2 Second pattern: What people do on the Social Network

The second pattern of analysis will approach the level of interaction and

socialization offered by the SNSs and we can do a modular classification of

them into four categories; the following category will hold the characteristics of

the previous one and grow in term of level of interaction.

117

The first category we consider offers simple access to online recorded shared

network information (ex: Google Trend, Zeitgeits, Yahoo!Answers ); the second

allows participants to share and exchange digital content and contribute to a

community of interest ( ex: Wikipedia, YouTube, del.icio.us, digg ). The third

allows users to contribute with profiling and advanced networking tools ( ex:

MySpace, Orkut, Facebook, Flickr, LinkedIn ). The last category introduce the

idea of using avatars or virtual characters in a full 3D environment ( ex: Second

Life ). 153Using this modular approach we classified SNSs by the level of

interaction, participation and profiling they allow. According to us, the most

important category we have to focus on is the third: here we find SNSs which

aggregate and entertain million of people per day. Here is the place where the

most interesting dynamics and trends emerge.

This useful model could be used to analyze different moment of a SNS

member’s life: first approach and entrance in the SNS, profiling, identity

building, upload friends and content. The following framework will freeze

every step of the evolution of a SNS member, from the beginning to the

complete involvement in the service: Entrance, Profiling, Adding Friends and

Social matching.

2.3.2.1 Entrance

The first approach people have with SNS is the idea to login and create an

account; people can enter in different ways into a SNS: just for curiosity, to meet

some friends who are already in the network or mostly after an invitation by

153 See note 124

118

friends or someone. This last approach is the most frequent reason why people

enter in a SNS and build there their profile and friends network. It happened

that someone enter into a site and first thing he/she does is to upload a list of

emails and contacts correspondent to their buddy list; here a series of email

arrive to friends inbox inviting theme to enjoy the same network/SNS. With this

system as soon as you enter in social network you will be no longer alone

because your friends will probably enjoy or follow you.

Let assume that you received an invitation by a friend and decide to accept it

and enter in the SNS your friend is inviting to. The first task you will face

entering the SNS is the profile’s building, that allow you to create your identity

on the web. You need to let people find you, interact with you and for this

reason you need to have a projected identity in the social network.

2.3.2.2 Profiling

The backbone of SNSs are the profiles: unique pages where users can “write

themselves into being”.154Individuals entering into a SNS are required to fill out

some questions which will go to build his/her profile on the network. All the

answers will shape the identity of the user, including descriptors such as sex,

birthday, age, location, phone contacts, interests, hobbies, favorite music and

movies and also a couple of blank boxes where describe freely their own

character. In the most part of social networks, the user can also personalize

154 Sundén, J. Material Virtualities: Approaching Online Textual Embodiment New York: Peter Lang

2003

119

his/her profile by adding some pictures, multimedia content and modifying

profile’s design and look.

A key aspect of the profile creation by an individual, is that all these

information could be controlled and filtered by the user’s discretion and

choices. The visibility of a profile varies by site or by user’s choices, but it’s

possible to limit the access to one’s profile by selecting some options in the

profile pages. A profile, for example, could be let accessible only by friends, or

by people inside user’s network; or it could be open and visible to all web user

even in the search engine results; or it could limited only to specific individuals

or particular situations.

The landscape about accessibility of profile across SNSs is characterized by

different approach to this issue. By default profiles on Friendster are visible by a

search engine, regardless an individual has an account in the social network.

LinkedIn makes only a portion of user’s profile visible by internet and search

engines, another part for registered members of the network and the complete

profile to members with a paid account. MySpace give to users the choice to let

their profile access available or limited only to “ friends”. Facebook has a

different approach in the sense that every user who is already in the network of

friends, has access to see the profile of every friends, unless the user did a

specific request to refuse to network’s members this permission. It’s common

that SNS’s members disclose without problems a lot of personal information,

just because they desire to re-create their identity in the web as precise and

complete as in the real world. A study about disclosing personal data and in e-

commerce sites demonstrate this optimism along digital profiling.155

155 Ackerman, M.S. Cranor, L.F. and Reagle, J. Privacy in e-commerce: examining user scenario and

privacy preferences ACM Conference of Electronic Commerce 1999, 1-8

120

This study is interesting because demonstrate that across 400 internet user

interviewed, only the 17% of theme were considered “privacy fundamentalist”;

the rest 83% of internet users act specific strategies to approach their concerns

but they didn’t feel worries about their identity in the most of the time

circumstances. During the profiling phase, the individual upload content and

other personal information which will help others members, friends or

acquaintances. Next to some pictures, users upload multimedia content, such as

video about themselves or some one interesting they want just share, links to

exciting pages or blogs talking about their interest and hobbies. This is only half

the way a user need to cover to express digitally him/herself. The other missing,

and most critical part of the profiling a user fill in the next process, is the one

about the creation of the friends’ network.

2.3.2.3 Friends

Now the user is ready to add real value to his/her SNS uploading a list of

friends. Imagine that these people could be seen as the main features SNSs offer

to members. “Friends” are the connection between users and allow theme to

maintain an online network.156 The first invitation an individual could receive

was the one to enter in a determined SNS; the second invitation a member

could receive ( and also sent ) is the one of a user that invites you to be one’s

friend. If the invited user accept the invitation, between the two members

would be created and established a friend relationship. Now the user has more

than just a profile, but also a friend list. Most social networks require a double

156 See note 123

121

or bi-directional confirmation by the two individuals before accepting and

creating the friend-connection. The so created connection, after a confirmation

is called “friendship”; but there are other sites that don’t require such a kind of

confirmation and they create connection regardless of whether or not the link is

reciprocated. In this case with one-directional connection, we use to talk about

“Fans” or “Followers”, however many mix these terms - mistakenly - inside the

single term “Friends”. The best example for describing the one-directional

connection, are Fakesters and in a second time “groups”. The Fakester

phenomenon started from Friendster platform because the policies of the social

network restricted users to view profiles of people who were more than four

degrees away ( friend of friends-of friends-of friends ).157 People, to bypass this

limitation started adding acquaintances, strangers and all the people were

asking for a connection, with the only objective to expand their network as

much as possible to get more access to others’ profiles.

In this way growth in popularity and friends’ connections, some Fakester like

“Burning Man” or “Ali G” count more than 10,000 friends each. These so called

“Gateway friends” because their functionality was to go around the limitation

of the initial four degrees, allowing people to get more and more connections as

possible initially. These Fakesters include characters, celebrities, objects,

institutions, companies, ideas and their ability to catalyze individuals was and

is also today pretty high. Fakesters support networking and connect people

with shared interest, hobbies, ideas; even if the trend was stopped by Friendster

by deleting all the fakester’s accounts, the phenomenon evolved in what today

we call “groups”. Many platform such as MySpace and Orkut increase their

popularity consenting to individuals to built and aggregate to fakester-

evolution friendships labeled as groups.

157 See note 122

122

We underscore the importance of friends and buddy lists: people can receive

invitation of being one’s friends, but also they can send as many invitation as

the number of their friends or the email they have got in their address book;

and if someone accept an invitation, a link is created.

Into a user’s profile, could be shown also the network of friends he/she has and

this is the breakthrough feature which distinguish the significance of SNSs.

Adding friends means that the user complete his/her profile status showing to

other members with whom he/she is connected with.

Users represent the network in which they are involved, showing friends, most

of the time signaling the level of friendship and the dimension of his/her

capacity of being friend of others. Uploading a series of email and contacts of

people, the user is placed at the centre of the next network he/she is creating. I

add my email contacts, my friends and, taking a word from the network

analysis, I’m the first node: I’m the beginning of the following connections. We

argue that SNSs encourage firstly the ego-centric building of networks,

supporting people to establish their “small-world” on the social platform.

Talking about ego-centric network, according to Tarveen and McDonald “…we

mean one that represent data about the relationship of a single person, the ego”.158

Analyzing the development from Virtual Communities to Social Networks, the

awareness of people shift from interest to people in the sense that before SNSs

individuals need to choose interest first and second people to connect with;

now individuals with the “friending” process, choose people first and interests

second.

People shape and design their community and network ego-centrically: this is

the new approach we have to keep in mind analyzing such SNSs.

158 Tarveen, L. and McDonald, D.W. Social Matching: a framework and research agenda ACM

Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, Vol. 12, No. 3, September 2005, pp. 401-434

123

The list of friends define three things: context and audience, profile. Friends

define the context in which an individual exist, in the sense that friends’

characteristics are the signal of user interests. Buddy list defines the context and

the potential situation in which a user want to interact or add new friends, or in

opposite, represent for external users, an indirect signal that he/she don’t want

to be disturbed. SNSs are not only a place where put your friends and interact

with theme, but it is a public space where the scope of interaction and the

consequent social boundaries are defined by friends. After defined the context

is natural that in this context will enter or will assist individuals which

understand and matched their interest in that context. So the audience, the

people who follow your posts or see your profiles or agree to enter in your

network are influenced to do this because your friends, your list and network

by which you are linked. Concluding, friendship serves as a substitute for the

inadequate structural definition of situation.159 We can going on saying that

friends define context, audience and in conclusion they help to complete the

user’s profile.

2.3.2.4 Social Matching

It may sounds too simple but: “ we are the friends we have”. The connections

one’s has in the profile really say something about who he/she is. Friend’s list

could be imagine as a bookmark that everybody can see and that can be used to

better define and complete the profile; this bookmark stand for the link to

somebody which could be also seen as the link to a common interest or

characteristic which pools the two friends. We can use the word

159 See note 154

124

“Hyperfriending”160 to better delineate this dynamic to link friends into the

personal homepage or profile on the SNS. As the user’s main page in a SNS

may display the user’s friends network, this list could be seen as the same

functionalities of hyperlinking such as in blogs or webpages: friends link other

friends. So it’s possible that viewers, if they have permission, surf the network

graph of somebody from friend to friend simply using friends list.

This activity of link friends and surf on acquaintances profiles in search of

interesting connections, may be called “Social Matching”.

This amount of activity could be divided in two steps: one user-driven and one

machine-driven. Social browsing and social searching161 are all actions user-

driven, in the sense that are all based on a simple user input that decide to act.

Old friend searching or just a friends of friends profile browsing, are all

activities of the human being of connections and relations with other related

individuals.

At this point a question could emerge: are SNS members using the site to make

new online friends, or to follow and control already offline connections?162

Every user has a social life related to offline activities and experience, and most

of the time some connections are created and in a second moment cultivated

directly online thanks to social network platform, simply by adding new offline

friends to the buddy list. The study of Lampe, Ellison and Steinfield consider

the university students’ activity on Facebook and they argue that this platform,

but also other similar, foster connections building by permitting to users to

control and follow activities, evolutions and beliefs of groups and network to

160 Reynes Goldie, K. and Fono, D. Hyperfriendship and beyond: friendship and social norms on

LiveJournal Association of Internet Research ( AOIR-6) Chicago 2005

161 Lampe, C. Ellison, N. and Steinfield, C. A Face(book) in the crowd: Social searching Vs Social

browsing CSCW ’06, November 4-8, 2006, Banff, Alberta Canada

162 See note 161

125

which they belong.163 This “peripheral awareness” function characterize the

activities along SNS and it increases offline connections and builds social

capital.164 These activities of surveillance may be classified by the intention and

goals of the user in: social searching and social browsing.

With social searching we mean that a user investigate specific profiles and

people with they already share an existing offline connection or experience, to

know more about theme. In this search is popular to surf profiles of targeted

individuals but also to check related friends’ list, trying to absorb as more

information as possible. The offline connection between two people need and

find more support into the online activities of a social network; searching for

profiles, buddy list and virtual description boost the strength of an existing,

even thin, connection such as attending the same class at the university.

Social browsing is an activity which diverge from the social searching in the

way that people didn’t already have the chance of an offline connection.

Popular views, paint SNS as the way by which people date others and start

online connections to meet for real and offline the person: social browsing. The

previous study we cited, reports that social searching is incredibly most

popular and used than social browsing which is unlikely use by the survey

respondents.165 At interviewed was asked about the purpose for which they

used Facebook; a 5-point scale highlight the idea that users were more likely to

use social searching than social browsing. The ranking express the following

results: first purpose ( 4.63 ) is to keep in touch with and old friend or someone

user knew from high school; second ( 4.51 ) is to checkout user profile of

163 Shoemaker, P.J. Hardwired for news: Using biological and cultural evolution to explain the

surveillance function Journal of Communication, 46 (3), 1996

164 Resnik, P. Beyond Bowling Together: Socio technical capital in Caroll J., ed. HCI in the New

Millenium. Addison-Wesley, 2001

165 See note 162, pp. 169

126

someone meet socially; third ( 4.00 ) is to get information of people who lived in

the same dorm, fraternity or sorority; fourth ( 3.65 ) is to get information about

people attending common classes. At the bottom of the ranking with a score

minor to 2.5, we find what is related with social browsing. With 2.41 points

people who want a face to face encounter with people met online and with 1.99

points people who want to find people to date.

The result emphasizes the purpose of being into a social network: search for

more information about people already meet in offline social activities; only a

small part of activities are related to arrange offline meetings with strangers.

We saw how people and their activities of social searching/browsing led to

match new connections and links among groups and friends, but also

technology come to help people match their needs of being connected.

We talk about the machine-driven phase, in which friendships can be pushed

by automatic social matching systems. These systems are complex software

which, according to different parameters try to match individuals with similar

interest, ideas, hobbies or just with similar habits. Systems like this could be

find simply by searching for a book in Amazon, or a used laptop in Ebay. The

object of such a social matching system is to facilitate the process of joining and

participate in online communities and ever more in social networks, with zero-

effort interfaces.166

In Amazon for example, when we search a book of Thailand cuisine, the system

will show in the bottom part of the results page a list of books that people also

searched, related with the one we were looking for. This social matching system

is based on the idea that people which do similar choices could be similar

individuals. Ebay is doing the same innovative step, by adding social-shopping

166 Lieberman, H. Fry, C. and Weitzman, L. Exploring the web with reconnaissance agents

Communication ACM 44, 8, 2001, pp. 69-75

127

features to its pages: the site will show people that already bought, or simply

rated the same product you are interest in now. But the web is full of examples

of this rocketing feature; think at YouTube with its system that show you in the

right top side, during watching a video, all other users which in that precise

moment are watching the same one. This mechanism will boost the innovation

and the facility by which user could match more and more their interest and

being with other individuals. Social matching systems’ goal consists in other

two consequences: these innovations could facilitate people who didn’t know

each other but have shared interests, to introduce to each others; or these

systems can enhance for example people who work in the same company, to

collaborate specifically about share interest or a particular event or conference.

In conclusion social matching systems work as recommenders, filtering from a

huge network the potential matching profiles in which an individual is

interested to communicate or simply connect. 167

At this point emerges a key aspect which characterize the majority of the social

network: even if their capacity and functionalities increase our living and social

exchange online, SNSs are yet embedded into offline social life. In a deep

mediated society, people constantly moved from mediated and non-mediated

social interactions; online networks support also social life offline.168

What makes friendship in online networks so tricky is that it’s connected in the

profound to members’ offline social life. Each social choice an individual makes

in online environment, such as add or not a friend’s invitation, has the power to

increase, complicate or demolish relationships with friends. SNSs are not digital

worlds disconnected from the society and the real values; SNSs could be

167 See note 158

168 Wellman, B. Hogan, B. with Berg, K. Boase, J. Carrasco, A. Cot, R. Kayahara, J. Kennedy,

T.L.M. and Tran, P. Connected lives: the project In: P.A. Purcell (editor). Networked

Neighbourhoods: the connected community in context London: Springer, chapter 8, pp. 161-216

128

described as participants’ social world which is constantly evaluated and

checked in other social contexts such as offline activities.169

2.3.3 Trust

This evaluation and constantly mixing between online and offline worlds,

highlight the role of aspects of reputation and in particular the trust between

individuals.

Using a catching definition we can say that: “ [ Trust ] is the willingness of a party

to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectation that the other

party will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability

to monitor or control that other party”.170 In this way Meyer and Davis explained

what trust is. Also trust could be seen as a common or individual belief among

a group of people that other individuals or group makes good-faith-effort to

behave in accordance with implicit and explicit promise, follow honest

negotiations and don’t take excessive advantage from a situation even the

opportunity is available.171

169 Boyd, D. Friend, Friendsters and top 8: writing community into being on social network sites First

Monday, Vol. 11, No. 12, (December 2006)

170 Mayer, R.C. Davis, J.H. and Schoorman, H.D. An integrative model of organizational trust

Academy of Management Review pp.712, 20, 3, 1995, pp. 709-734

171 Cummings, L.L. and Bromiley, P. The organizational trust inventory (OTI): Development and

Validation pp.303 In M.R. Kramer and T.R.Taylor (editions), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of

Theory and Research Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage 1996, pp. 302-330

129

Trust grows and develops as individuals learn what to expect from each

others.172 When the starting point is a past of good experiences and interactions,

expectations to achieve new successful interactions boost trust. Here come

interesting to look back at what we said about profile surfing and the custom of

individuals to take a look at profiles and buddy list of people they met offline.

All this contributes to enlarge trust and in particular the expectations of future

good interactions: as much as you know of a friend or acquaintances, much you

trust him or her.

This discussion exalt the strong relation between offline activities, trust,

embeddedness and relationship-building in communities and off course in

social networks.173 Emerges continually this link from online and offline

individuals’ worlds, that enhances members to recognize, trust and better know

easily other members; online ties can be reinforced by face-to-face meetings.174

Trust is like a glue that fasten collaborators and members of a social network,

fostering faith that both parties will contribute and not behave in a

172 Preece, J. Supporting community and building social capital Special Edition of the ACM, 45, 4,

pp. 37-39

173 Rothaermael, F.T. and Sugiyama, S. Virtual Internet communities and commercial success:

Individual and community-level theory grounded in the atypical case of Timezone.com Journal of

Management, 27, 3, 2001, pp. 297-312

174 Andrei, D. Preece, J. and Turoff, M. A conceptual framework for demographic groups resistant to

on-line community interaction International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 6, 3 ( spring 2002),

pp. 9-24

Hummel, J. Lechner, U. Social profiles of Virtual communities. In R.H. Sprague Jr. (ed.),

Proceedings of the Thirty-fifth Annual Hawaii Int. Conference on System Sciences. Maui: IEEE

Computer Society Press 2002

See note 109

130

opportunistic way.175 This idea of collaborating openly getting access to

information and resolve personal needs, could be find in the famous article of

Mark Granovetter, “The strength of the weak ties” of the 1973.176 The study opened

a huge research field about how trust is conveyed through third parties and

consequently enabling individuals to gain access to specific information and

resources. All this is based on the principle of the “trusted third parties”: in an

online environment such as a social network, imagine Adam and Caroline

know each other Bob; but Adam and Caroline don’t know each others. They

only express a similarity to Bob for example about horror movies; is this

expressed affinity that allow Adam and Caroline to manage and conduct

autonomous operations, even if they don’t know directly.

These events can be observed in virtual teams and collaborations, where trust

emerged as a three-based component depending on: social characteristics of the

members, outcomes of interaction processes, social norms and policies.177 In

add, the explanation of trust made by Mayer before, where the term could be

synthesize as the “…willingness to be vulnerable to the action of another party…” is

based in the idea that the latter party is competent, open, concerned, reliable.178

In the beginning, trust between parties is not based on any kind of experience

175 Jarvenpaa, J.S. Knoll, K. and Leidner, D.E. Is anybody out there? Antecedents of trust in global

virtual teams Journal of Management Information Systems, 14, 4 (Spring 1998), pp. 29-64

176 Granovetter, M.S. The strength of the weak ties American Journal of Sociology, Vol.78, 1973, pp.

1360-1390

177 Gefen, D. Karahanna, E. and Straub, D.W. Trust and TAM in online shopping: and integrated

model MIS Quarterly, 27, 1 (2003), pp. 51-90

Zucker, L.G. Production of Trust: institutional sources of economic structure, 1840-1920. In N.B.

Staw and L.L. Cummings (eds.), Research in Organizational Behaviour. Greenwich, CT:JAI Press,

1986, pp. 53-111

178 Mishra, A.K. Organizational responses to crises In R.M. Kramer and T.R. Tyler (eds.) Trust in

organizations: Frontiers of Theory and research. London:Sage, 1996, pp.261-287

131

and contact with the other party; instead it is based on the personal and

individual’s temperament to trust another without firsthand knowledge.179

Trust, according to Rotter, could be seen as a stable intra-individual

characteristic that influenced interpersonal interactions with others.180

Conclusion

Social Networks can be considered for sure “The Trend” on the Web 2.0

internet landscape; their impact on users’ activities and purposes on the net is

huge. Social Networks starting from be the place where people meet and share

a couple of hours of their day with friends, now are evolving fast into the

direction of being also a place where people go there and satisfy their needs and

act under the idea of common purposes with other members. Social Networks

will go in the direction to select and better define their audience, their members

more around objects and specific concepts: more around a new way to stay

together for people, create content, value and for sure work.

From the big platforms like MySpace and Facebook, a new way of innovation is

pervading the small realities in which the potential to built something around

specific concept or object reside. Here in these niche, specific and well done

platforms we will assist at the most interesting services in the web.

179 McKnight, D.H. Cummings, L.L. and Chervany, N.L. Initial trust formation in new

organizational relationships. pp. 474 Academy of Management Review, 23, 3 (1998), pp. 473-490

180 Rotter, J.B. A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust Journal of Personality, 35, 4

(1967), pp. 651-665

133

Chapter 3

SOCIAL NETWORK: goes mobile

In the previous chapter we studied what makes big and extraordinary the social

networks revolution. We outlined the different kind of SNSs and how people

interact with such a different typologies offered. All our attention has been

spent on the usual structure of SNSs we all know and use every day by posting

on our blog, uploading pictures on Flickr or simply checking what’s going on

about our friends in MySpace or Facebook.

In this chapter we want to enter in the evolutionary path SNSs will follow in the

next years: mobile. We will study purposes and situations why people will use

their mobile phone and application to enlarge their experience into SNSs and

personal life.

134

3.1 Mobile Social Networks

Starting simply by defining and categorising the different kind of interaction

like synchronous and a-sychronous, our attention will be shifted on the fact that

there are two models of mobile social network: the first we have simple mobile

extension for the existing Social Networks; the second represented by the

variegated environment of the stand-alone Mobile Social Networks where our

efforts has been spent.

3.1.1 Synchronous and asynchronous interaction

Imagine you are at the bus stop and waiting to go back home; you’ve been at

school with your friends and you couldn’t wait to check out the new pictures

your friend posted on MySpace about the yesterday night’s party. Normally

you have to wait until you arrive at home, turn on your pc and enter in your

MySpace account to check the uploads and news of your friends. This could be

the worst situation in a era where being connected seems to be the “must”, but

it’s useful to describe how we manage synchronous and asynchronous

interaction.181

In this example the boy at the bus stop need to wait until home to establish a

connection with other individuals such as the friend who posted the pictures;

this is called asynchronous communication in the sense we have a time delay

between exchanges: the two characters of the interactions communicated in two

phases, one face to face and one delayed in front of the respective computers.

181 Sorensen, C. Instant mobile connections as a way of teenage life The Mobile Life Youth Report

2006

135

All the length of the communication and interaction is deployed in a time line

and not in a spot, not immediate. To close the communication circle we need to

search and get in front of the information we need ( such as pictures) and are

not the information which follow us. This is a simple example to focalize the

idea of not-being mobile. A research revealed that there are currently 45 million

people using mobile social network services worldwide, and the number will

increase reaching 175 million in 2012.182 Already in the USA, according to

M:Metrics mobile consultancy, 33.2% of 18-24 –year-old Americans, post photos

to web sites via mobile phones. The outlook considers that in next years the

availability of bandwidth and the readiness of handsets available will increase.

3.1.2 Mobile applications of existing SNSs or Stand alone services

Now it’s the turn to explain how we can be mobile and interact in mobility with

our friends, interest and information. We will describe almost 20 platforms we

can call “Mobile Social Networks” ( MSNSs ) better defined by the sociologist

Berry Wellman as: “…networks of interpersonal ties that provides sociability,

support, information, a sense of belonging, social identity, and which always connects

its members regardless of where they go”.183 In the scenario of MSNSs we have to

distinguish between two genre of services: stand alone or mobile applications of

existing SNSs.

182 Wireless Federation Research Mobile Social Communities March 2007

183 Wellman, B. Physical Place and Cyberplace: The Rise of Personalized

Networking. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 2001, 25(2), pp.227-252

136

3.1.2.1 Existing Platforms

The first one, considers mobile applications, such as services for pictures

uploading or text messaging, of existing SNSs platforms. In this category the

mobile service is an extension of minor importance in term of value and

number of users of services presented by the platform, by the way it trace an

important mark for the future evolution of the existing platforms. It’s clear that

our life and in particular the one of people addicted to such social networking

activities is not strictly constraint in their room and in front of a computer. Life

is outside and people love to let friends know about what they are living and

learning; our constant companion is ever more the cell phone rather than the

personal computer.

The “big ones” platforms for social network, have embraced the mobile option

time ago, sure that it could shake their members. For big-ones we mean

Facebook and MySpace for example only to cite the most active in the social

network scene. Facebook mobile functionalities allows users to get Facebook

messages, wall posts, and notifications sent to the phone as text messages

(SMS).184 Sending a message to the number FBOOK – 32665, you can upload

your status or look up profile info. On the mobile upload functions, you upload

photos and videos directly from your phone to your profile in Facebook

sending an MMS to [email protected].

The same we can say for MySpace: mobile functionalities for status upload,

messaging and notification represent a growing piece in the business but it’s

ever related to issues of data plan and costs. Something is moving in this way

because already in 2006, MySpace structured a partnership with Cingular, the

184 Facebook.com

137

largest US mobile-phone service provider185 and with Helio. Other partnership

are established with other wireless network carriers such as Vodafone in

Europe, which offers to its customers access to MySpace services.

I think the most activities and dynamism will be concentred on stand-alone

services which build networks around new objects, interests and experiences

going fragmenting the mobile services offer into many different and various

solutions. In this segment of market we assist to new realities growing up every

day and aggregating million of users in a relative short period. The pervasive

presence of mobile devices, PDA and cell-phone can only boost even more this

process of creation and service providing.

3.1.2.2 Stand Alone Mobile Services

The second category regards to services that are not linked directly to other

mass-attractive SNSs such as Facebook or MySpace, but they provide a service

by itself, on their independent platform, with their policies and structure.

Although they provide a stand-alone service, some of the mobile social

softwares analyzed allow the user to upload different and well known

platforms of social network, blogging and photos. Here we will find the most

disruptive and innovative ways to approach the process of social networks.

Here they are the platforms we have find out in the web which can respond to

the name of independent or stand-alone Mobile Social Networks.

All the services have the mobile purpose to provide a service on the go; than

they are differentiated in categories according to the service they offer. We have

185 Kharif Olga businessweek.com/technology/content/may2006/tc20060530_170086.htm

138

simple services about text messaging and status–upload, media sharing

applications or geo-localization information.

We can divide the landscape of Mobile Social Networks in categories answering

the question “ What can you do on that platform”, in other term, what is the

main needs people satisfy thanks to the mobile service.

3.2 Mobile Social Network: a perspective

Figure 15 : Mobile Social Network Categories

139

Here are represented the five main category of the “stand alone social

networks” in which they can be divided according to which service they

provide and which kind of activities they allow on their platform: Status

upload; Social annotation; Content Upload and Download; service providers.

One thing is in common: the innovative use of the mobile as a new and

disruptive personal social media device.

3.2.1 Status Upload

In this category there are services which allow users to simply upload their

status by sending an SMS or simply connecting to the service by their mobile;

user’s friends will be automataically updated on what is going on and on what

people is doing or want to do in precise moments.

3.2.1.1 Dodgeball186

What: service available in 22 cities in the USA; the platform provides five

different levels of service. First you can send to your friends messages about

where you are so you can meet up; second the service allows you to enter in

contact, by messages, with friends of friends, also called people who are at more

than two level of friendship from you; third, Dodgeball is also a dating site in

186 Dodgeball.com

140

the sense that it consent to you to receive uploads about crushes nearby a

distance of ten blocks from you; fourth you can have venue information and

direction to find a bar address; and last the fifth functionality permit to you to

send a message to all your friends for example to announce you are back in

town.

How: create an account and insert your mobile phone; than send a SMS to the

number “DODGE” = 36343; in automatic all your friends receive the text

messaging indicating where you are.

Role of mobile: mobile phone is used in its simplest functionality: receive and

send SMS. The nice improvement is the one you can receive information about

place’s address.

3.2.1.2 Friendstribe187

What: the service works around text messaging. You send a text message to the

short code 87130 with one keywords ( AT, BLAST, GROUP…). The keywords

tell the service what you want and it then contact your friends for you and let

you know what your friends are up to. Here’s a quick list of the keywords

accepted in Friendstribe:

∗ AT (venue) - Send your location to all your friends and any friends of

friends that are nearby; example: "AT Onda"

187 Friendstribe.com

141

∗ BLAST (message) - Send a message to all your friends.

∗ (venue) BLAST (message) - Send a message to all your friends and

friends of friends that are near a venue; examples: "BLAST Who

wants to go to the movies" or "Onda BLAST Anyone want to play

pool?"

∗ GROUP (group name) (message) - Send a message to a group of your

friends.

∗ FIND (venue) - Returns the location of a venue or a list of matching

venues.

∗ (attribute) FIND (venue) - Returns a list of venues with an attribute

near a venue. If you leave the venue off we'll use your home zip code.

examples: "FIND Onda" or "Pizza FIND Onda"

∗ BLOG (message) - Adds a message to the Out There section of

friendstribe.

∗ GET - Get the location of all your friends that have checked in with

the AT keyword in the past two hours.

∗ ZIP (zip code) - Changes your zip code for search and radius

purposes.

∗ RSVP (number) (Yes/No/Maybe) - RSVP to an event after you receive

an invitation.

∗ ON/OFF - Temporally turn Friendstribe on or off.

∗ HELP Friendstribe - Find out where to get help with Friendstribe.

∗ KEYWORD - Returns a list of keywords.

Then the service allows you to search for friends, venues and locations, events,

see pictures snapped on the go by users, check mobile calendaring about

happenings.

142

How: create an account online and then interact with the service by sending

SMS to the short code and than browse content and information by your laptop.

Role of mobile: your mobile works like a copy machine for the reality around

you and consent to people to get access to all the information and content by

traditional browsing on laptop. Here the mobile is used for text messaging but

in plus for capturing video and pictures.

3.2.1.3 Jaiku188

What: create your activity stream, by add icons to your post, customize the

background, adding web feeds, setting your location. You can also find your

friends, checking what they are up to, adding comments to their status-

uploading posts. You can set your status so nearby user with Jaiku can see if

you are busy or free to chat. In Jaiku you can create “channels”, a sort of group

in which interact and share information such as calendar, location…

How: Jaiku works in a double way, from your laptop or downloading the

software to your phone. In the case you download to your mobile, it will use

the SMS technology to let you post update of your activities, and send them to

friends.

Role of mobile: here is used the SMS and GPRS/3G connection to send and

upload information of your friends.

188 Jaiku.com

143

3.2.1.4 Partysync189

What: sign up in the website and create a first list of friends providing name

and cellphone numbers; invite text messages are sent to your friends. You can

send text or photos to the group and the message is forwarded by the service

for free; any member can reply back and chat to the whole group of friends.

Users have a web account in which they can chat and send free text/picture

messages to other users.

How: sending an SMS or MMS if you want to add pictures to Partysync group

and than the service will forward the message to people.

Role of mobile: works as a tool to contact, interact and chat with groups of

selected friends using the SMS/MMS technology.

3.2.1.5 Twitter190

What: using it when you want to let your friends, family and co-workers what

you are doing. The simple interface and the length limitation at 140 letters let

users to express quick, easily and frequent about they daily life and humour.

How: you register online, create your account and profile; than you can search

abut people you are interested to follow what they are doing. Also people can

do the same with you adding you to their friends’ list. Also twitter could be

integrated with SMS and IM technology and platforms so you can upload your

status every time you want, even if you are out.

189 Partysync.com

190 Twitter.com

144

Role of mobile: mobile phone is used as an uploading tool to communicate

what’s up to you, using SMS technology and data wireless network to support

IM service.

3.2.2 Geolocalization & Social annotation

Social mapping si the evolutionary trend coming form the booming us if people

if map services online. In this category we have services which leverage the

power of maps, to let users customize and use theme as a giant billboard where

people can access, put their landmark and let others to use theme. All the

information members pickup simply by walking in the street merge to these

kind of services: information and geo-localization, there’ s the secret.

3.2.2.1 Loopt191

What: the service connects people and places; you can connect with friends and

get alert when they are nearby, you can share your location, status, photos with

a few or all friends. Also you can explore places and events recommended by

friends and get a complete control of all the information you want to share (or

not).

191 Loopt.com

145

How: you can access the service by web or your mobile as you wish. On the

mobile the service works by SMS and data. The service will deliver soon a 2.99

$/month fee subscription.

Role of mobile: mobile is complementary to web accounts extending the

potentiality of being on the go.

3.2.2.2 Socialight192

What: is a guide book written by people, about nice places people have been;

you can add, share and get access to advices and experiences of your friends.

These information are geolocated and you can visualize theme in a Google map;

also you can create your own “sticky” to post on places you have been and you

want to share with other people. The service integrate functionalities to upload

content to the main social network sites such as Facebook, MySpace, Bebo and

blogging platforms.

How: you download to your mobile the application, create your profile and just

walk around receiving advices of places nearby matching your interests. Also

on the go you can upload new places, localizing theme on the map and also

including an audio file to describe better what it is.

Role of mobile: mobile works as a GPS for places people like and want to talk

about; also the mobile works as an agent that provide to user push information

and advices. The service works downloading data from the wireless network.

192 Socialight.com

146

3.2.3 Content Upload on-the-go

In this category services allow users to get access to tools which let theme

upload every kind of content they have in their mobile, is it a picture or a video

or a text message. These services let their members to feel ever connected and to

let theme share on-the.go content with friends at home or other users of the

mobile service.

3.2.3.1 Groovr193

What: the service lets you tell the world where you are and what you're up to;

you can snap and send pictures or video, send text messaging to friends list.

The service works as a mailing list deliver, forwarding in automatic all the

information you want your friends receive by email.

How: the system works with email, this implicate you can interact with Groovr

service by home or mobile.

Role of mobile: here the service involved the email technology and this needs

your phone to be able to set up an email account to receive forwarded

messages.

193 Groovr.com

147

3.2.3.2 Kyte194

What: the service allows you to create multimedia content and shows, share

theme instantly across web and mobile. In add you can create live content with

chat if you couldn’t wait people see you.

How: you create content via web or mobile, you share it immediately across

social networks such as Facebook, MySpace or on blogging platforms such as

Wordpress and Blogger. On your video creation you can get ever the control in

the way to interact live with video-audio-.text chat with viewers and your

audience.

Role of mobile: imagine to have in your hands a video camera connected to the

web and your social applications which allows to upload instantly content

created by you.

3.2.3.3 Radar195

What: imagine you are able to do an instant picture conversation with favourite

people.

How: create an account and a profile and then download the application. You

can do pictures, send it to friends and let them share and comment it on the go.

Also every time you upload an image, Radar works for you sending it directly

194 Kyte.tv

195 Radar.com

148

to your account on the web, so you can find it later. The service is integrated

with Facebook.

Role of mobile: mobile phone works as an advanced, connected and handy

camera.

3.2.3.4 3Guppies196

What: capture the moment, is it a picture, a video or simply a text message and

post it directly to your profile and let other friends share it on their mobile. The

service is integrated with MySpace so you can send content directly to your

MySpace account, even away from your computer.

How: the service works on MMS technology that allow user to send to

[email protected] the content, and it will be uploaded in the personal moblog.

Role of mobile: here the integration with MySpace platform gives to 3Guppies

an astonishing market to approach. The mobile phone is used as an editor to

deliver moblog posts to your friends.

3.2.3.5 Rabble197

What: Rabble is a location based social networking application you download

to your mobile device; the service offers a wide fan of applications and

functionalities such as:

196 3Guppies.com

197 Rabble.com

149

∗ Blogging - Update your blog from anywhere.

∗ Messaging - Send and receive messages – it's free within Rabble.

∗ Social Networking - Create a profile and connect with others.

∗ Community - Get fans, join groups and share interests.

∗ Search - Find people, places, bands and more using Rabble's keyword

“SEARCH”.

∗ Share Pictures - Create and view galleries.

∗ Find Places - Discover cool new clubs, restaurants and stores.

∗ Web Integration - Instantly import content from your web based

blogs and update from the handset.

How: you register on the website, create your profile and download directly to

your mobile the software dedicated; create content on the go and share it on

your Rabble channel. Than you can search and connect to friends.

Role of mobile: mobile phone works as your extension on the web to get

information and being up to date about your friends’ blogs and new content

they post. The service leverage on SMS and data download.

3.2.3.6 Vipera198

What: as written in the website, the service let you publish the world, from your

mobile. The service is made by three components: Vipera mobile application, a

Java application you install on your phone; the web site; the mobile-optimized

site on WAP. With the service you can connect to thematic channels, where you

can create your own blogs and post multimedia entries.

198 Vipera.com

150

How: after you download the application from the website to your mobile, you

need to create a profile and than it’s time to upload content in a blog o simply in

your profile and share it with people.

Role of mobile: the phone is essentially a mobile browser for content centred

on media sharing and blog uploading.

3.2.3.7 Sms.ac199

What: the service allows users, previous registered to the website and after

created a profile to send and receive SMS using mobile or the dedicated area in

the website. The service is based on data plans with the major wireless network

careers around the world: you can choose two data plans, one “standard” and

one “complete”. There are limitations for the amount of messages you can

send/receive included in the data plan.

How: using your web account you create your category for video, pictures and

text and then add friends mobile number; the system allows members to send

and receive SMS notification to and from friends about what’s going on.

Role of mobile: the service use the SMS technology and monthly fees to deliver

content to users.

199 Sms.ac

151

3.2.4 Download Content

As mentioned before in the previous category, mobile phone became ever more

a connecting device form the user and his/her world of friends, content,

information and knowledge. In this particular category people download

content from their mobile such as video, wallpapers, ringtones but ever the

interaction require a direct involvement of the members for pushing things on

their mobile and create content to share and let other to download.

3.2.4.1 Gotzapp200

What: send and receive combination of photos, graphics, audio and animations

to your friends mobile phones with a single download also called “Zapp”. The

content is characterized by user generated content such as pictures of

themselves or mash ups of celebrities and video clips taken on the web.

How: you have to create your profile on the web and then upload friends to let

them know you are using the service; than you have access to friends content

directly sent to your mobile and also to others “Zapp” available on the main

website of the service.

Role of mobile: is used as a browser device to sent, receive downloadable files

containing pictures, video, audio.

200 Gotzapp.com

152

3.2.4.2 Mobango201

What: the software to download to your phone allows the user to convert

content such as video, audio, pictures, ringtones, software, games on your

mobile and send them to your friends; also with this service you get access to

1GB space of storage and free mobile messaging with friends.

How: you need to download the content via GPRS/3G and for this is better to be

sure you have a data plan profile activated with your mobile carrier.

Role of mobile: the mobile phone works as a converter of content you can share

with everyone registered to Mobango. You use the mobile to generate content

and get access/enjoy content of others.

3.2.4.3 Mozes202

What: the service is focused on music and bands. You send a SMS with a

keyword to the 66937. This keyword could be the name of a band, an artist or

something you like. The system will provide to your account some content

related to the keyword you typed in. For example if you type the band name

“Oasis”, some content related to the band/keyword has been sent to your

dashboard. In the dashboard you can collect ringtones, wallpapers, pictures,

audio files; also people who are interested in the same keywords or content can

share files and communicate with each others building a “mob”. On the other

hand Mozes offers to business operator the chance to create their own

201 Mobango.com

202 Mozes.com

153

keywords and related content, as a new way of promotion. Social and business

purposes will merge in a single service.

How: to interact with the service you need to sent the keyword by SMS and

then all the content will follow like data to download.

Role of mobile: the phone is used as mail inbox to send to the user content of

his/her interest and let people merge into groups linked by the same

keywords=interest.

3.2.4.4 mklix203

What: the service offer via SMS, WAP and web the access to exclusive mobile

content and activities. Subscribers can download or share free mobile content,

make friends, form communities, create WAP sites. mklix offers to users to

embed in their content advertising and gain revenue for this. mklix offers on the

business side ( advertisers and producers ) the same features of selling their

products and services.

How: users create their account and space according to their interests, friends

connections and objectives. By SMS and keywords users get access to premium

content, chat with other users and friends; with mobile download users can

enjoy java applications, games and interesting content.

Role of mobile: the phone is a destination of most of the use a user do of the

service; receive content, download games. Only a small part is leaved for

community building and socializing.

203 Mklix.com

154

3.2.5 Mobile Social Network Providers

You may ask you how all these thing are possible: thanks to such companies

that provide all the structure and organization to create ad-hoc mobile social

networks. Increasing demand in this market let players to enter the game and

becoming the referents for mobile social networks creation, management and

development.

3.2.5.1 Morf204

What: allows business or a brand to create and run an own social network. No

one software need to be installed on the users’ phone. The consumer of client’s

mobile community will enjoy the best of today's social networking features

optimized for their mobile phones. The community features include:

∗ Web and Mobile registration options

∗ Personal profile

∗ Friends by invite only

∗ Photo albums (optimized for the 3rd screen)

∗ Video albums

∗ Photo blog

∗ Mobile links

∗ Hookup messages ( one to one, and one to many )

204 Morfmobile.com

155

∗ Mobile phone preview

In add, Morf offers another type of service for mobile content only and

advertising pages; here also the package offered by the company includes

customization of text, logo, source code and content.

How: the service works with wireless data networks connected to the internet

where sites and content are specifically shaped for mobile use.

Role of mobile: the phone has the double function as tool to which deliver

content and by which user share and spread out the word.

3.2.5.2 Mobilemo205

What: the service is oriented to consumer and business/institutional clients

both. With the service you can create, customize, manage a mobile site with all

the advanced features such as messaging, guestbook for visitors, voting and

polling, sharing files and photos.

How: the service after logging in, offers a series of tools easy to use to create by

yourself, starting from templates and themes, personalized web pages which fit

perfectly with the mobile screen.

Role of mobile: mobile is at the end of the process; after the creation of your

own mobile site, the next step is the one to spread out the buzz and let people

use and share what you created.

205 Mobilemo.com

156

3.2.5.3 AirG206

What: it says to turn audiences into communities. AirG offers a complete

service in term of creating, manage, monetize and sustain a mobile social

network.

How: The service has more than 20 million users and it has interconnection

with more than 100 mobile operators in over 40 countries. AirG offers a wide

and professional range of service: Mobile community, community content,

mobile video platform, integrated voice service, community marketing engine

to deliver targeted promotions, community patrol to monitor and filter all

content, community storefront of content service with 1,500 products, mobile

marketing solutions to keep going marketing campaigns.

Role of mobile: the mobile is the aggregator of all these features. The company

up in the value chain have a reference to deploy the best and most attractive

mobile solutions to their mobile customers.

3.2.5.4 Jumbuck207

What: the company provide mobile community services since 2000. Jumbuck

offers a variety of products including: fast flirting, power chat, live chat,

Jumbuck Island, chat del Mundo, Chat do Mundo, TXT n’Pic Chat, Moderation

on content and user activities, Jumbuck Blog

How: it has agreement with 80 supporting carriers and support a community in

excess of 15 million users. 206 Airg.com

207 Jumbuck.com

157

Role of mobile: mobile phones are their first customers; it runs different

applications all centred on chat systems and entertainment such as Jumbuck

Island.

3.3 Social coordination matters

From a first sight emerges that the platform analyzed respond for the majority

at the category of “status upload” also called of social mapping. People are

interested in keep connection with best friends, family or just acquaintances

during the daily activities and experiences; here comes the success of services

such as Jaiku or Twitter. Talking about social mapping what best example than

the urban areas as environment where users want to be connected. It’s in urban

areas that social mapping platforms underscore their success: people moving

and work but being uploaded about what’s going on with people they are

interested in and keep other informed about themselves. In this landscape we

can call this powerful system of uploading status and information flow pushed

to friends, as “social coordination”.208

With this term we want to describe how much is important to communicate in a

fast and simple way specially in urbanities where coordination is essential. This

coordination could be facilitated, or not in same cases, by the use of mobile

devices as PDA and cellphones. In coordinate daily meetings or simply a coffee

with friends is important to keep the interaction not too much pervasive in the

208 Humphreys, L. Out with my mobile – exploring social coordination in urban environments Receiver

Vodafone 2006

158

other activities and space of a day. Status upload services privilege push

systems where the information comes directly pushed to the user in the way to

keep a low level of pervasive interaction and information overload. The phone

role in this scenario, is to exchange information to concretize casual social

interactions ( “..I’m going downtown for launch, do you come ?...”). and to give

urbanities a useful tool for coordinate meeting with friends. But what makes the

phone a unique communication tool is that its capacity to deliver multiple

SMS/MMS messages to a list of people; this transforms the usual interpersonal

communication pattern, by voice and messages, between two people in a multi-

personal communication system where text messages can be broadcast from

one person to several/many people.209

3.3.1 Three simple questions about freedom

To coordinate activities and daily life in urbanities, some question need to be

answered: when, where, who:

∗ When: with this question is defined the duration of the activity, when it

start and finish; exactly in the moment I switch place I can send a

message “I’m @ the bar”, and the time switches to another location.

∗ Where: the most important question that define and geolocalizes the

place in where the actor is; the “where” part of the coordination is more

complex than just an address or a venue. Location doesn’t include only

spatial information and position, but also includes social information

according to people who will meet up.

209 See note 208

159

∗ Who: is another complex negotiation in casual social interaction. With

messages broadcasting people can see who is coordinating meeting up,

and who will be invited or not.

Managing social coordination means a constant negotiation by users referring

at their freedom and efforts’ functionality in coordinate meeting up. In this case,

for freedom we mean the ability of people to choose and decide without

constraints; in a era where our phone follow inevitably our life, the obvious

consequence is that the phone create a voluntary and involuntary connection

with people. Than managing this connection and continuous being linked to

people and decision, is not so easy: the problem is that we can be

everywhere/anywhere reachable by individuals. On the other side of freedom

we find that an intermediate communication via mobile phone is different than

a face to face meeting and talk with a friend; in this way people using a

mediated communication channel by phone are permeated by a sense of

freedom in the way they can choose to go out, looking for the next cool place to

go or just stay longer where they are. Thanks to this freedom to change

meetings or just think different from other people about where is cool to go or

be seen, it needs more communicative exchanges and an overload of wireless

interaction in order to meet up. In social coordination, emerges the figure of the

“coordinator” which tends to be highly conscious about what and how to

communicate with others. This kind of people are usually early adopters in

technology and also they are positioned ahead in the social curve, driving

activities and people; this attention to how manage people and broadcast

meeting, led a user to be branded by his/her choices and be seen as good by

others by the choices he/she made. This amount of information, in most cases

starting from a motivated and “early adopter” user, serves as a functional effort

160

in order to facilitate meet up and to prepare people about things to do for

incoming appointments ( dressing code, formalities, party..).

3.4 Understand the Mobile Social Network

environment

The previous overview of mobile social network, gave us the idea of what is the

market and landscape of the various mobile applications. Now is time to take a

deeper breath into these platform, starting analyze their structure according to a

simple but precise framework.210 This pattern is divided in two parts:

∗ Usability211 aspect of the social network, its design and infrastructure

and how these variables influence community’s efficiency and

effectiveness;

∗ Sociability212 and it means how people socialize, interact, create

connections, policies and purposes of the socialization;

210 De Souza, C. and Preece, J. A framework for analyzing and understanding online communities

Interacting with computers, The interdisciplinary Journal of Human-Computer Interaction,

2004

211 Preece, J. Thriving Online Communities: Usability and Sociability John Wiley & Sons, 2000

212 See note 211

161

3.4.1 Usability

This first category represents and defines the structure of the mososo; its design

and the impact of it on the users’ daily action on the platform. Usability is the

key ingredient for the success of software in even more of mobile social

software. A good usability supports people’s creativity, boost their productivity

and makes theme enjoy the time spent using the software. In opposite poor

usability frustrates people, make theme feel like wasting time, money and

energy. In the study of “user interface”, usability is seen as a system

characterized by three principles:213

∗ Consistent: sequences of actions concerning the use of the software

should follow the same format. This is worth for colour, typography and

terminology.

∗ Controllable: users want to keep control of their actions in the software so

they can do what they want, when they want and are not constrained in

any options by the software.

∗ Predictable: a software enables users to build experiences and using this

progress to build confidence and skills on this experience.

The usability is concerned mostly with what happens at the human-computer

interface, and it effect the mobile social network by impacting on three different

areas: design & infrastructure, users’ use of the platform, privacy.

213 Shneidermann, B. Designing the User Interface: strategies for effective Human-Computer

Interaction (Third Edition) Reading, M.A.: Addison – Wesley, 1999

162

3.4.1.1 Design

Talking about design means we are approaching the one to one moment when

the user is in front of the computer or the mobile device and is managing

activities and operations. Design may affect all the user’s experience on the

platform, transforming the time spent on the service in a good or in a bad

moment; but also influencing a future use and diffusion of the mobile service

itself.

The navigation structure could be represented by the click-stream of a user and

his/her working on different pages and links. This is a key variable for any

website and in particular for any mobile service, which need to be able to

provide what user wants and to allows a quick and easy navigation through

tools and different services.

In mososo navigation could be limited by missing hardware functionalities and

specifics such as screen size, qwerty keyboard and mouse, wireless connection.

All these specifics may change the user’s experience on navigating such

platforms. In this case is important to limit to the essential actions and

operation the use and navigation of the mobile service.

Users navigate into a structure which host information and in particular, and

ever more, it host other users’ information such as profiles uploads and user

generated content. Information presentation is crucial if you want that navigation

works properly: tagging, templates to fill in, advices on how to complete them

are key point to address. If navigation is limited to essential and basic

operations, information presentation need to follow this pattern of use, getting

the user uploading and share information using well known and usual

framework of action such as typing an SMS or simply snapping a picture. The

information presentation process follow operations and activities that a

163

common user has already interiorize and in this way they don’t influenced and

limited the right and correct use of information.

All these activities are possible thanks to a good software with advanced features

that includes: search for friends and network members, send messages, files

and chat, communicate emotions and status upload. In mobile social networks,

basically the power is kept behind the scene, in the sense that the needs of a

smart, fast and natural navigation are supported by a software that works for

the user providing simple information and tools to achieve the best mobile

interaction. We need to keep in mind that someone who is walking around the

city, for example need to get access to more valuable information as possible

but with the minimum overload of interaction, which means a minimum level

of input and a satisfactory level of information received/output. Software with

good usability supports rapid learning, high skill retention, low error rates and

high productivity; translated in a more simple way, a good software makes

people enjoy and being entertained by the service.

3.4.1.2 Infrastructure

The infrastructure here works as the key actor providing the backbone in which

all operations may be concretized. The infrastructure usability is represented by

the media type which is used to carry messages and allows interactions. The

media type can be seen as the driver of all the communication and users’

exchanges, its characteristics and properties may influence the impact of the

messages and the evolution of the social network. In the mobile social networks

analyzed, the media which carry the interaction between people is the mobile

phone associated with a web platform which allows to better complete and

164

enjoy the previous mobile interaction. In mobile social networks, the most used

media is the text messaging, thanks to its easy creation, sending and reading;

text message has a deep and long curve of use by the users and this makes it the

most useful media to carry a simple message such a status or an emotion

upload. Other media types follow in term of usefulness the SMS but precede it

in term of capacity to carry more complete and valuable information: here we

have the MMS and the data connection with the wireless network or mobile

browsing.

These two technologies allow users to exchange more complete and

sophisticated interactions, in term of information and richness of content

transferred. Here comes a first but important obstacles in the evolution path of

the use of these two last technologies: network capacity and individual capacity

to get access to such of technologies. The network is the highway where

information circulate and interaction happened; the slowest is the network

worst is the interaction and the gap between creation, sending and receiving of

the content or the message. Network access and in particular data connection

costs may be seen as a problem especially in countries like Italy where doesn’t

exist a unique tariff for unlimited mobile data connection. This network

inefficiency goes to influence individual capacity of being connected and get

access to the social network, with mobile devices but also with a “simple” home

wired connection. This topic needs particular attention where people don’t have

access to high bandwidth computing facilities.

Imagine thousands of people, or better million of users connecting in the same

time in the same social network; how is it possible to guarantee the same level

and standard of quality to the users? Here comes a key aspect of social software

design and infrastructure: scalability. This term refers first to the software

capacity to host multi-conversation and interaction in terms of interface and

165

usability itself; second to the governance of the software represented in the

figure of human or “electronic” moderator which manage the information flow

and problematic issues; third the backbone network, and in the mososo the

wireless network should be ready to enlarge its range to a ever growing

number of potential users.

3.4.1.3 Users’ use of the platform

Usability design may impact and affect the community and the social network

in a series of aspects. When a user enter in the platform, actions follow one by

the other building what makes remarkable an experience from another. On the

user side, design and infrastructure of the service works on several variables:

∗ Conviviality: it refers to how people communicate inside the platform and

how this communication may do users behavioural reactions to each

other.

∗ Efficiency: how quickly and easily members of the social network reach

operational goals and communication tasks with others; this efficiency

may be seen as a prerogative to the success and the use of the platform.

∗ Effectiveness: how well people execute the previous goals and tasks and

how well the software support these activities.

∗ Belonging: satisfaction users feel in belonging to a specific community or

groups; belonging to a defined group makes people experience a

common sense in the purposes and goals the community follows and

realizes. This is a special glue which makes community lifetime longer

and stronger.

166

In the social network creation is vital to understand and approach an analysis

following the categories shown before. Design and infrastructure represent the

backbone where all the experience and social life will act; characteristic as the

scalability of the software and efficiency aspects lead to a development of the

social network and the extension of its lifetime, power of aggregation and value

perceived by users.

3.4.1.4 Privacy

In the word “privacy” are included many other terms and meanings, but the

one that social networks ever associate with it is “security”: the major technical

issue for many social networks and communities. In this section two main areas

of concern will be approached: first the one about the conflict between

identification and privacy/anonymity; second the one about copyright

protection.

In a social network and also using a Mososo, the problem of how a user

represents him/herself inside the platform needs some reflections. When you

create an account in somewhere service on the web, you need to give some of

your personal information the system will use to create a “virtual image” of you

on the web; the choice on what kind of information and the use others may do

with it is extremely sensible in the existence and sustainability of a social

network. People don’t want that their personal information will be seen and

used by strangers or simply they don’t want show their real identity in the web.

The problem is approached inside the first chapter where the user control on

167

personal data and identity in particular is a peculiar aspect of the Web 2.0 and

social network revolution.

How a user is represented in the web or simply in a social network is a power

that people want to carry and use as they wish; in this case a social network and

in particular a mobile social network allows users to create a kind of level of

privacy that only restricted friends, for example, can cross. The privacy, security

and identity issues are more critical in a MoSoSo where people are outside their

home and probably away from it, in an open environment and are exposed to a

different series of potential meetings and contexts. Imagine to use a

geolocalization service: if you inadvertently allow people to check your status

upload and geolocalization, this could be dangerous for example because you

send information about your status and precise position. This issue needs

particular attention in the case of people minor of 18 years old or for example

girls and teenagers; this, in many Mobile Social Networks is written and made

clear to the user during the service subscription, where is mentioned to pay

attention to whom and how give personal contact and positioning to others. A

symmetric privacy issue to address, is represented by the potential actions and

promotion that companies may do to customers and individuals using Mobile

Social Network and, for example geo-positioning systems. Here companies

need to reserve a particular attention and study on how approach the mobile

contact to the final users and potential customers. The promotional object may

be substitute or simply camouflaged by a service that allows individuals to rate

shops or simply discos and restaurants and than share these kind of

information; another example can be the one about a service that, giving a free

and high value perceived service to the final user, transfers advertising or

targeting information.

168

3.4.2 Sociability

The term Sociability is related with social interactions happening inside online

community and social networks; in the term are included different aspects of

the social behaviour of people including policies, purposes of the interaction

and constraints to a good sociality.

In this part we will talk about sociability as the art of “living together”,214 in the

sense of all the modes of interaction with others, our interpersonal behaviour,

the temporal moments characterized by presence and absence, the rhythms of

actions, communication and comparison between individuals.215 Sociability is

basically composed by the interactions and exchanges people have and the ties

and connections created by these interaction: in other words we associate the

term Sociability to the exchange of information and content happening inside

social networks. Ever more thanks to development of mobile technologies and

products, these exchanges, communications and ties creation can happened on-

the-go, while your are long away from your home or simply from a computer.

This evolution lead to the creation and proliferation of different “technologies

of encounters”216 like mobile phones and PDA working with mobile social

networks; people are ever more connected with services, other individuals and

context of interaction.

214 Barthes, R. Commet vivre ensemble: cours et seminaires au College de France (1976-1977). Paris,

Suil (2002)

215 Licoppe, C. and Smoreda, Z. Are social networks technologically embedded?How networks are

changing today with changes in communication technology Social Networks 27 (2005) pp. 317-335

Elsevier

216 Thrift, N. Remembering the technological unconscious by foregrounding knowledges of position

Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 22 (1), pp. 175-190

169

3.4.2.1 Connected Sociability

Here we can start talking about the “always connected sociability”217, a

condition in which people live ever more and its importance is growing going

to influence communication coordination and interactions. People are

connected with each others by text messages, phone calls or with social network

platform and, more important, via mobile social software and services. In this

pattern, absence from the communication or interaction, doesn’t means,

consequently silence. Development of technologies and softwares that enable

social coordination and interaction, switch and evolve the term “always

connected sociability” in the “always connected presence”. People are

constantly online, connected with the social stream of activities related to close

friends or acquaintances and in every moment they can enter in discussions or

decisions; but on the other side, this always-on presence means that people

around you want to count constantly on your words or support. “Connected”

presence realized in its most emotional and expressive register, underscore the

demand of people to have attention but in the same time allowing a deferred

response and answer. In this communication pattern emerges the non-dialogic

means of communicational purposes, where messages don’t require an

immediate response but permit a lack of time and interest in the answer. The

evolution of this reasoning will go in the direction of a reshaping of

interpersonal sociability, where presence is mediated and “connected” by the

use of non-intrusive message systems: this idea of pervasive presence seems

sufficient to be sure of being connected to others.

This overload of information to manage and interactions to accomplish may

cause to people the sense of not have control of their own spaces and time.

217 See note 216, pp. 322

170

These constraints are better described by sampling conditions in which

constraints materialize in, such as:218

∗ co-presence, perception of sharing similar physical environment

∗ visibility, members of the same social network can see each others

∗ audibility, members can listen to what someone is saying

In this scenario the evolution of system of auto-presence and auto-computing of

mobile devices will allow people to feel ever more connected but not

overloaded of actions and responses.

3.5 Online community Framework

People belonging to social networks, are they mobile or “classics”, or simply to

community based on internet follow a pattern of being connected that is formed

by three principal themes: policies in yellow, purposes in red and interaction in

blue.219

218 Clark, H. and Brennan, S. Grounding in communication In R.M. Baecker (Ed.), Groupware and

Computer-Supported Cooperative work, pp. 229 San Francisco, CA: Morgan

219 See note 210, pp 8

171

Figure 16: Online Community Framework - Policies, Purposes and Actions

Source : De Souza, C. and Preece, J. A framework for analyzing and understanding online

communities Interacting with computers, The interdisciplinary Journal of Human-Computer

Interaction, 2004

This framework freeze in a single shot the idea of what components enter in the

cycle of a community or a social network life. The framework above indicates

the existence of three main areas in which the games happened and where at

the centre are the individuals, members of the social network. People,

individuals and actions are entities and between them we have relations and

attributes of the two.

172

3.5.1 Policies

People’s interactions are conditioned by policies which build the conditions to

sustain a community and in our case a social network too. One of the main

policy of online communities is represented by the privacy; we have already

talked about this important aspect when we described the usability pattern.

Policies are needed to guarantee that host operators, service providers and

maintainers are required to follow fundamental privacy rules. Also these social

policies need to be understandable, acceptable and practicable to ensure that

they be followed.220

Following the framework, policies are composed by norms and rules: a norm is

represented by the registration criteria in a social network and if this

registration is available for such a kind of user; a rule can be find in the

memberships circumstances available.

3.5.2 Purposes

Individuals interact and create connections of value and knowledge between

each other with the intention to achieve different objects. These kind of “social”

purposes are formed by goals and aspirations and, anyway they influence the

social life of individuals. These goals and aspirations are shared inside the

network and the platform where gravitate users in their daily online activities;

220 See note 211

173

sending a message, a picture or simply create a new connection with a friends

you didn’t see for a long time: all these things happened because there’s a

purpose, a goal to achieve and some personal value to create and keep from the

operation.

3.5.3 Actions

Following the framework, actions operate in both side of policies and purposes.

Actions foster goals and practical aspirations, but also they follow precise rules

and norms we have already described; operations and communication

composed the mix for individual’s actions.

Operations are related to task-oriented goals221 and can be divided in four broad

categories that contribute to achieve these tasks and goals: generate, choose,

negotiate and execute.222 Communications compose actions and are required by

operations to accomplish tasks; we also distinguish two kind of communication,

one oriented for interpersonal purposes and one for social-emotional

purposes.223 The first serves the users’ needs to create connection with people

they don’t know; the second serves as a tool to underscore status, emotions and

feelings with friends and close members of the network.

221 Wenger, E. Communities of Practice Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (1998)

222 McGrath, J.E. Groups: Interaction and Performance Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Morgan Kaufmann

Publishers, Inc. (1984)

223 Bales, R.F. Task roles and Social roles in problem-solving groups In E.E. Maccoby & T.M.

Newcomb &E.L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in Social psychology, pp. 437-459 New York: Holt,

Rinehart & Winston

174

3.6 Object and Benefit

Entering this topic we shift immediately to a related aspect of purposes: object

and benefit. About object, a growing idea about social network is that these

platforms are created to support relationships around objects: in this case an

object can be a video, a photo, a movie or simply posting in a blog. All the

activities related to creation, uploading and sharing of content are painless as

possible, boosting the success of these platforms. YouTube, Flickr, MySpace and

Facebook: they all move around objects. Their success reside in the way they

allow a simple and enjoyable social life on their platform. In the framework

above, is recognized such real-world dynamics and connections even if the

notion of “sociality” is limited to just people; the players are people, purposes

and policies.224

Try to think about Facebook: every time you add friends to your network, the

system ask you how did you know this person. It want to know if you worked

with them, if you went to school with them, or if you met them trough and

acquaintance. These items, the school, the job and the other friend, are the very

objects of sociality that make the relationship works and of course the social

network platforms. The idea of object of sociality in MoSoSo will be touched

later in the work because its importance and in the same time, lack of studies

and level of adoption along final users.

From purposes and objects came out benefit: it can be seen as a compensatory

economy. People in their attempt to maintain a connection and relations or

simply a tie in the network, they allocate scarce resources like availability,

224 Engstrom, J. Object of Sociality on Bokardo – Joshua Porter Blog 22 September 2007 (

bokardo.com )

175

presence, time, physical effort to find an equilibrium between interaction and

absence. Butler225 introduce the idea of social structure sustainability: social

structure, communities can be sustainable if their dynamics and purposes

provide benefits that outweigh the cost of membership. Is a simple reasoning,

but if a community or in our case a social network, don’t have resources, they

cannot provide benefits and without benefits new members are not attracted

and existing one are not retained.

Object, purposes and benefits are ingredient of sustainability and life of a social

network, and in general they contribute to the success of every aggregation of

people.

Conclusion

Mobile Social Network represent the exponential development of the existing

social platforms allowing people to achieve the ambitious state of ever-

connection. This means that people will be increasingly connected to the

network, with contact and information sources. This complete new way of

living is starting pervading our lives more and more thanks to hardware

development, bandwidth connection and new people habits to live their lives

on the social network platforms.

We understand that the mobility concept behind the social network evolution

regard a bounce of interesting but sometimes complex dynamics; studies in this

scenario are continuing and better result will come out, better solution and

products the market can be offer to users.

225 Butler, B.S. Membership Size, Communication Activity, and Sustainability: A Resource-Based Model

of Ondine Social Structures Information System Research, 12 (4), 2001 pp. 346

177

Chapter 4

DON’T CALL IT: “ just a phone!”

4.1 It’s all about mobility

The mobile phone, is it a simple one or a fully-features-packaged PDA, is the

virtual and physical extension of a social network platform which every person

can carry out with. The mobile phone is ever more established as the switching

innovation from a “laptop social life” to a “real mobile” one.

This device is became during the last years the most interesting and precious

companion of our daily life; if we go out and we forget the phone at home, I’m

sure you go back to take it. People couldn’t live without their mobile phone; or

better they can, but with some important social limitations.

Mobile phones and in general all the media portable devices are penetrated

inside our daily routines and activities, and they are transforming everyday

cultural, social practices and also spaces of interaction.226

226 Mc Mullan, J. Richardson, I. The Mobile Phone: a hybrid multi-platform medium In Procedings of

the 3rd Australasian Conference on interactive Entertainment. ACM International Conference

Proceeding Series, vol. 207, 103-108.

178

The distinction between communication, content creation, face-to-face and

technology mediated interaction, and real or virtual environments has become

ever more thin and unclear. The pervasiveness and ubiquitous presence of these

portable technologies and in particular the one of mobile phones is increasing

every day adding to our activities advanced functionalities in terms of

connectivity, entertainment, media creation and computing portability.

4.1.1 Ubiquitous devices

The origin of the term ubiquitous come from Kleinrock which embrace the idea

of “anytime, anywhere computing”227 in relation with the “Nomadicity”, a term

used to underscore the nomadic arrangements that assume a convergence of

systems and a compatibility of services across devices and operating systems.228

The more interesting applications and ideas in the market of mobile application,

are spreading out from new start ups which understand the potential of mobile

phones and people needs related to social life and mobility. In this innovative

approach to problems, opportunities and solutions there are many aspects to

consider related to the overall mobile experience reached.

A mobile phone is becoming ever more a multi-platform medium that

aggregate functions, interfaces, physical features and content: all these things

227 Kleinrock, L. Inventor of the internet technology UCLA Computer Science Department (2003)

228 Kietzmann, J. Mobile Communities of Practice Department of Information Systems LSE London

(2005)

179

merge into a unique multimedia device for produce, play and share content, is

it voice, pictures, video or text messaging.

Being mobile means acting as in front of our laptop at home, adding at this

experience new features and let other ( the old ones ) evolve in different way of

living our life, our interests and social connections.

Different features seems to merge into a single device, or better into a single,

common and easy to use device: the mobile phone. On the technology debate

there’s the idea of the ubiquitous computing, where complex technologies

disappear in the single background of our life and activities.229 Technologies are

related increasingly to the social context in which they are used, the social

aspect is merging with the technical one. The simple action of sending a text

message or snapping a picture and send it to our blog by the mobile phone, go

over the approach to a technical action and reach directly the fact that we are

doing a social action. The most profound technologies are the one that

disappear230 and are mixed inside social, daily activities and uses at the point

that is difficult to distinguish one from the others. Technologies and in

particular the ones in the consumer electronic industry ( mobile phones ),

became more and more person-centric technologies.231 The person-centric era is

the evolution of the mainframe-era where many people were around one single

computer; than came the PC-era where were one person-one computer. Weiser

conclude with the last era, the one we are living today, where ubiquitous

229 Sorensen, C. and Gibson, D. Ubiquitous Vision and Opaque Realities: Professionals talking about

mobile technologies The Journal of Policy, Regulation and Strategy for Telecommunication,

Information and Media, vol.6, no.3, pp: 188-196

230 Weiser, M. The Computer of the 21st Century Scientific American Ubicomp Paper, September

1991

231 Kalakota, R. and Robinson, M. M Business: The Race to Mobility McGraw Hill (2002)

180

computing is characterized by one person-many computers.232 Another

distinction can be made on ubiquitous computing, distinguishing between the

degree of mobility of the technology and the degree of the embeddedness. 233

Figure 17: Computing categories according to variables of Mobility and Embeddedness

Source : Lyytinen, K. The Next Wave of the IS Research Design and Investigation of Ubiquitous

Computing in Panel presentation on “Mobile Interaction and Pervasive Social Technologies”

Panel at ECIS, Naples Italy (2003)

Ubiquitous computing is positioned in the upper right side of the chart,

characterized by a high degree of mobility and a high degree of embeddedness.

Imagine to be around walking with your PDA or mobile phone and chatting

with friends on the go, uploading some nice pictures on your blog, and

checking out the arrival time of your mom’s airplane in the afternoon. High

mobility and high degree of embeddedness, it doesn’t involve a variety of

232 Weiser, M. Ubiquitous Computing on ubiq.com/weiser

233 Lyytinen, K. The Next Wave of the IS Research Design and Investigation of Ubiquitous Computing

in Panel presentation on “Mobile Interaction and Pervasive Social Technologies” Panel at ECIS,

Naples Italy (2003)

181

complex actions or a long time to learn: technical aspect and technology itself

disappear into simple actions and daily social activities.

Starting with this ubiquitous view, we will analyze main mobile phones’

features highlighting potentials, weakness, and future development related to

the rocketing dynamics of social networks: connectivity, multimedia,

communication, physical features.

4.2 Connectivity

Mobile connectivity is composed by a wide fan of different protocols and

technologies which in a close future will probably merge, not in a unique

connectivity standards but better in a transparent and a high bandwidth mobile

connectivity.234

If the mobile phone is evolving in a multimedia device, the same process need

to be followed by the connectivity aspects transforming the mobile phone in a

every-connection available and ever-connected device. This evolution will

considers in its path advanced protocols and technologies to led devices being

connected and switch allowed to different connection technologies. Here are the

main connection technologies we can find in our mobile phones

The 3G is the third generation of mobile phones standards after the 2G ( GSM

and GPRS ). 3G technologies enable network operators to offer to users a wider

range of services, more advanced and completed and in the same way

234 See note 226

182

achieving greater network capacity and spectral efficiency. In this third

generation standards we find:

∗ UMTS or called 3GSM to underline the evolution of GSM technology

and the third generation of standards.

∗ HSDPA will represent the evolution of the 3GSM and it usually called

as 3.5GSM working with a downlink of 7.2 Mbit/s.

∗ WiMax is long-range system which will offer bandwidth access to a long

distance under the 802.16e standards. WiMax works on licensed

spectrum. The main purpose of the WiMax will the one to offer mobile

internet access with a 70Mbit/s connectivity. This in theory, but in a

range of 10 Km the connectivity will reach 10Mbit/s.

Figure 18: Comparison of connectivity technologies related to Speed and Mobility variables

Source : Finneran, Michael WiMax vs. WiFi: a Comparison of Technolgies, Markets and

Business Plans dBrn Associates Inc. ( June 2004 )

∗ WiFi is a short distance system that provide internet access commonly

used in final-user networks such as home or office and it don’t require a

licensed spectrum. WiFi compatibility allows mobile phones to connect

183

to local area network and experience a acceptable connectivity in a range

of several meters from the radio source. A typical example of WiFi areas

are the one in airport, hotel lounges or in an Internet Cafè.

∗ Bluetooth is the shorter range connectivity technology of a mobile

phone; it is used to connect peripherals and transfer mobile-to-mobile

data such as business cards. The connectivity is established until the

distance of several meters and now it’s embedded in every mobile phone

starting from entry products until high-end ones.

∗ GPS connectivity is a different technology because it involves the use of

satellite triangulation giving a geo-positioning related to maps if the

mobile phone is running a dedicated software such as Nokia Maps or

simply TomTom. An increase number of mobile phones ( specially in the

high-end segment ) are equipped with a built-in GPS antenna expanding

the chances of geo-positioning applications and features which will

surely expand the mobility concept of social network platforms.

4.3 Multimedia

The multifunctionality of mobile phones and the connectivity to high-speed

third generation and WiFi networks, means that the game is moving far beyond

predicted. Mobile phone carriers and handsets makers are moving beyond the

voice market and into that of digital content and data creation, aggregation and

sharing.

Mobile phones are becoming an amazing media platform to access, create and

share content, data and information. Let start to see how many features may

have our mobile companion:

184

∗ Built-in camera: is the main source by people record their experience

and daily life, is it in pictures or video. Cameras resolution vary from 2

to 5 megapixel depending from device model; by 2010 camera phones

are expected to account for 87% of all mobile phone handsets shipped.235

To boost this growth will participate improvements in imaging functions

( zoom, resolution and auto-focus ); dropping prices of mobile phones

with this functionality; higher speed wireless bandwidth; and easier-to-

use handsets, services, and peripherals. Mobile Social Network leverage

their success thanks to these factors and the outlook will see for the 2010

a total of 288 billion of images captured by camera phones in a market

value of $ 7.0 billion.236

Figure 19: Mobile Phone with camera/not growth during period 2004-2010

Source : InfoTrends Releases Camera Phones Account for 87% of Mobile Phone Shipments in 2010

Mobile Imaging Study Results, 18 January 2006

235 InfoTrends Releases Camera Phones Account for 87% of Mobile Phone Shipments in 2010 Mobile

Imaging Study Results, 18 January 2006

236 See note 235

185

∗ Multimedia Player: enjoy content on the go is becoming ever more

completed thanks to screen resolution and size, and media content

compatibility. On a mobile phone now you can watch videos, listen to

the music and watch your favourite pictures. The level of immersion in

such a kind of content enjoyed on mobile devices is still low, but things

started to change since the iPhone was introduced in the market in June

2007. Screen sizes and resolution can only increase the level of efficiency

and quality of mobile phones as multimedia platforms

∗ Web Browser: in this simple features probably reside the future of

mobile phones; surfing the web is becoming a better experience in term

of quality, speed and level of interaction and researchers will point the

idea that in next years the mobile phone will become the primary means

for internet access.237 From a M:Metrics Research emerges that in Europe

there are nearly 19 million unique browsing subscribers and in the US 23

million238 and the number is increasing year by year by double digit

percentages.

∗ Radio continue to be an essential features in a mobile phone and it is

ever appreciated by final users, in particular with the ones not so

friendly with uploading music to their phones.

∗ Audio Recorder a minor features but for some professional figures

essential ones, which allows to record phone calls or simply audio notes

to collect and send by attachment in MMS and emails.

237 Levinson, Paul. Cellphone: The Story of the World’s Most Mobile Medium and How It Has

Transformed Everything! Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2004

238 Weather information is most popular among american mobile subscribers, while europeans prefer

browsing sports information on mobile web M:Metrics Press Release 24 July 2007

186

4.4 Communication

The mobile phone at the beginning of its introduction in our daily life, was a

mere extension of the land-line telephone; it was seen as a device to provide

voice communication, with a simple keypad and screen able to visualize only

numbers. From this prehistoric device the evolution was short and really fast:

now mobile phones continue maintaining a communication purposes only

adding “some” interesting features in term of connectivity, multimedia

technology and of course in term of communication options.

Beside voice communication a huge variety of methods and trends are

emerging supported by ever more sophisticated but user-friendly devices.

Here are the main communication system by which people can exchange a

mobile interaction:

∗ Voice: the downside trend of voice revenue of carrier company is

growing and becoming faster; phone calls are less than text messages

sent by a user.

∗ SMS: text messaging has penetrated all ages of mobile users and in the

US revenues coming from this communicative features touch the amount

of $ 34.3 billion in the first quarter 2007 with 620 billion messages sent in

the same period analyzed.239

∗ MMS: can be seen as the evolution of the SMS, in the sense that in a

MMS you can attach more data like pictures, audio files, small video; but

two aspects limit its diffusion and they are costs and devices

compatibility/carrier configuration.

239 Capobianco, F. Mobile data is not killing SMS Mobile Open Source Blog 18 July 2007

187

∗ Email: is a technology for asynchronous communication and it’s use is

increasing also for consumer users and not only for business people. In

most mobile phone users can set their email accounts information and

get direct access to their messages without connect to the website and

email client.

∗ IM: differs from emails, Instant Messaging stands for synchronous

communication and need people attention and virtual presence to

answer messages and get conversation alive. IM is called the SMS-killer

because its better features in terms of costs, interaction level and speed in

the conversation.

4.5 Mobility Concept The idea of being mobile, in recent years started to be far from the human

movement single concept, and is going straight in the direction of a

mobilization of the interactions themselves.240 People use an incredible and

amazing number of interaction technologies – such as the mobile phone,

internet, email, test messaging, IM – and all these technologies are more and

more interconnected.

We are mobile, our society is mobile and of course our interactions are mobile:

people can communicate, interact and share content, information without being

constrained by boundaries, space and time; a culture of mobility is emerging

240 Sorensen, C. Digital Nomads and Mobile Services available on receiver.vodafone.com (2002)

188

where movement is a regular part of life and the world is increasingly

interconnected and perceived small.241

The most incredible and innovative aspect of this mobile revolution is that we

are facing the mobilization of our inter-personal interaction. We are

experiencing every day the mobile concept, and in the same way an opposite

feeling of connection, ( virtually ) presence in others people’s or friends’ life.

“Being Mobile”242 is not just an issue of people traveling around but, the

meaning is far more associated to the interaction people do in their social lives,

using for example a mobile phone, a social network platform or another

interaction technology. The social environment is modified and many social

variables which are the base of interactions, now can be socially negotiated: it’s

similar to say that there are no ( or only few and not important ) limitations to

social interaction. Space and time for example don’t represent any more a

limitation, but they represent only a pair of negotiable variables between people

entering in the interaction. An example can be the one of the email, an

asynchronous interaction technology which sustains social interaction without

implicate remarkable limitations related to space and time factors.

4.5.1 Three dimensions of mobility

We here want to expand the concept of mobility, by looking at three different

dimensions of human interaction related with the mobilized social

241 Axup, J. Methods of Understanding and Designing for Mobile Communities Information

Technology and Electrical Engineering Ph.D. Thesis July 2006

242 Sorensen, C. Kakihara, M. Mobility: An Extended Perspective Proceedings of the Hawaii

International Conference on System Sciences, January 7-10, 2002, Big Island, Hawaii IEEE (2002)

189

environment. The three dimensions have been deeply mobilized by the use of

mobile technologies, in particular of mobile phones, in our social and working

lives. The three interrelated dimensions of human interaction are: spatial,

temporal and contextual mobility.

Dimensions of Mobility Aspects of Interaction

Extended Perspectives

Spatiality Where

Geographical movement of not just

people, but objects, symbols, images,

voice

Temporality When Clock time vs. Social Time

Monochronicity vs.Plychronicity

Contextuality

In What way

In what circumstances

Towards which actors

Multi modality of Interaction

- Unobtrusive vs. Obtrusive

Weakly / Strong tied Social Networks

Figure 20: Three dimensions of human interaction

Source : Sorensen, C. Kakihara, M. Mobility: An Extended Perspective Proceedings of the Hawaii


4.5.1.1 Spatial Mobility

Spatial mobility denotes immediately the most direct aspect of mobility in our

social lives, and is described by the increase in international tourism and

business travel. We can move everywhere we want (and can), and remain

190

connected to what we were doing before, are they friends, working fellows or

simply interests. Moving into a physical world doesn’t necessary means to cut

virtual connections, we can be mobile and continue being connected into our

network. People changed their perception of space and mobile connectedness is

become more of a necessity; in this way we shifted our attention and

importance from location to a “socio-informatic space”243 where people can

collaborate, feel connected and share their experiences as they were at the same

table. It has been argued that people are becoming independent geographically,

nomads supported by the use of both old and new social media technologies.

The term nomadicity244 underscore the fact that people are ever more

autonomous without depending from a single location and defined space; this

dynamic is visible geographical movements such as tourism and business

travels, but also in work environments and in urban life. The same spatial

mobility, can be divided and analyzed in three different aspects depending on

what is mobilized in the space dimension. First, the mobility of objects. Objects

became ever more portable and can deploy their functions and task in mobility,

following the people who use theme. Think only at the Walkman-Sony245

arriving to the Apple iPod: they indicate the interplay between object and

corporeal travel/mobility.

Along the mobility of objects, we need to consider the mobility of symbols.

Global broadcasting television or the internet platform have become a place

where a huge amount of information, data, content, video, images and sounds

cross borders and reach simultaneously billions of people; symbols used in our

243 See note 228, pp.8

244 Makimoto, T. and Manners, D. Digital Nomad Chapter 4, Chicester: John Wiley & Sons, 1997

245 Du Gay, P. Hall, S. Janes, L. Mackay, H. and Negus, K. Doing cultural studies: The Story of the

Sony Walkman, London: Sage Publications, 1997

191

social and economic activities need to be exchanged because this continuum

mixing and filtering by billion of different people.

Third aspects regards the mobility of space itself; traveling in the internet our

interactions and communications are dematerialized and can be placed

everywhere there is a server or a computer connected. A bulk of several

computer connected to the web can create a spatial dimension by themselves

for example creating a virtual community or a social network: the boundary

between “here” and “there” dissolves. Some studies marked the idea that

there’s no “where” in these kind of cyberspace communities, and the

abstraction from a physical space is replaced by other types of values such as

knowledge, information, common beliefs and practices. For example in social

network, the notion of “space” is shifted and mobilized in relation with

members interests, similarities rather than geographical proximity.

The spatial mobility refers not only to the geographical increasing movement of

people, but it also means the physical flux of objects and the virtual one of

symbols and space, defining a complex and interesting pattern of the social

interaction among people. Spatial mobility is not the only one measure that can

describe the mobilizing dynamics of human interaction, and in help come other

two dimensions to describe the mobilization of our lives, namely, temporal and

contextual dimensions.

4.5.1.2 Temporal Mobility

With the introduction of such a high a different range of mobile ICTs, the

concept of a linear clock time remains but it perception by people has been

changed. To remain in the work environment, people with these technologies

192

started to structure in a different way their workdays, accelerating the speed of

work and saving time. People workdays’ dynamics has been influenced by a

mix of asynchronous ( email ) and synchronous fast internet chatting and voice

communication patterns, which underscore the comparison between the usual

clock time and the social time. Coming back to the previous cited evolution and

restriction of a linear meaning of time only, we can argue that time is measured

ever more by social interaction time, phases and rounds. This idea is supported

by the studies of Barley, which describe temporality with the dichotomy:

monochronicity and polychronicity.246

The first term defines situations in which people allocate specific slots of time

for specific events or occurrences ( For example, one slot of time for planning a

trip, another one to answer at some emails and so on ). The second term, refers

to situations in which people accept divergences of structural and interpretative

features of temporal order; slots of time are used to achieve different,

consequent tasks and activities. Today because a continue and increasing

mobilization and instantaneity of time in the society, the polychronicity of

human activities seems to be the emerging trend characterizing the timing of

mobilized interactions.

246 Barley, S.R. On Technology, Time and Social Order: Technically Induced Change in the Temporal

Organization of Radiological Work in F.A. Dubinkas ed. Making Time: Ethnographies of High-

Technology Organizations, Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 1988

Hall, E. The Hidden Dimension New York NY: Anchor Press, 1962

193

4.5.1.3 Contextual Mobility

Considering the various aspects of mobilization of social interaction helped by

technologies including mobile ones, another dimension need to be addressed:

contextuality. The term refers to interactional aspects such as “in what way”,

“what circumstance” or “toward which actors”247 actions are performed; these

characteristics can be defined as crucial in the full human interaction

framework. From the context perspective we extend our view to different

modality of interaction belonging to this dimension248:

∗ Unobtrusive vs. Obtrusive: an interaction can be more or less obtrusive

depending on how strictly it forces users/people to react, answer or

notice.249

∗ Ephemeral vs. Persistent: the first related to “unfolding activities” and

the second one “which define an interaction that leaves behind a trace for

further inspection and discussion”.250

All these types of interactions lead to understand the importance of connections

among people and the strength of the ties between theme. Technology and

computer mediated communication mobilize weakly tied social networks,

providing people a wider access to a wide number of weakly tied actors and a

247 See note 242

248 Schmidt, K. and Simone, C. Coordination Mechanism: An approach to CSCW Systems Design

Computer Supported Collaborative Work: An International Journal, vol.5, No. 2 & 3, 1996, pp.

155-200

249 Ljungberg, F. and Sorensen, C. Overload: From Transaction to Interaction in K. Braa, C. Sorensen

and B. Dahlbom eds., Planet Internet, Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur, 2000, pp. 125

250 See note 249

194

broader number of contacts expanding communication and interaction beyond

contextual constraints.251 Context is became a changeable pattern in human

interaction, where technologies let people to be freed from contextual

constraints, interacting with people in different co-existing contexts.

Talking about mobility needs to approach mobilized environments of

interaction in particular contexts and relation of social lives.

4.5.2 Fluid Environment

Today our social “mobilized” environment can no longer being exemplified

and appreciated using static spatiality, linear clock time, or rigid contextuality.

A new way is required to appreciate the evolution and dynamics of social

environment and the human interaction happening inside it. To delineate the

evolution we are facing everyday in our sociality, and the social consequences

of mobilization of human interaction we use the idea of social topology, and a

fluid metaphor.252

Interaction among people, is increasingly mobilized by the diffusion and use of

interaction technologies and devices, switching from the pre-ICTs era where the

social environment of people may be limited by a local area or neighbors. These

new approaches in the way people interact, require new ways to understand

and analyze the social patterns of human interaction.

251 Haythornthwaite, C. Tie Strength and the Impact of New Media in Proceedings of The 34th

Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences ( HICSS 34 ), Maui, Hawaii, 2001, IEEE

252 Mol, A. and Law, J. Regions, Networks and Fluids: Anemia and Social Topology Social Studies of

Science, vol.24, 1994, pp. 641-671

195

In this idea of social topology, three different degree of social environment can

be explained. Mol and Law propose three metaphors coming from their studies

on the spatial properties of blood condition anemia in which there are few red

blood cells in the blood. The three metaphors are named regions, networks and

fluids.

The region is a topology where objects are aggregated together and boundaries

are drawn around specific or particular regional cluster. The region metaphor,

can be applied to the traditional and geographically clustered human

interaction in the pre-ICT era. All social interactions at that time were defined

and restricted into variables of geographical distance, linear clock time, and

rigid contexts.

Second, the network is a topology where relative distance defines the

relationship between nodes, the members of the network. All the relative

connections between people/nodes, create the network. This metaphor can

describe the modern life styles where interaction and communication among

people has been mobilized thanks t the telephone and the use of internet which

define mobile media networks. Networks walk beside the post-industrial

society and “…constitute the new social morphology of our societies” as argued by

Manuel Castells in his book.253

Looking at the diffusion, technology improvement and “domestication” of ICT

devices, technologies and applications like mobile phones, SMS, IM, email,

PDA, laptop, and wireless connections in our daily life a network definition

seems insufficient to approach and support present-day social dynamics.

Interaction among nodes/people of networks are acted with increasing spatial,

temporal and contextual mobility. Today people can access others “anytime

253 Castell, M. The Rise of the Network Society Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1996, pp. 469

196

and anywhere”254 using mobile devices and interaction technologies, and at this

point the relational disposition of human interaction among networks, is

becoming obsolete and transitory. We are moving to another, more advanced

and fitting dimension which consider the daily negotiating activities of people

managing interactions unchained from spatial, temporal and contextual

constraints. Here we introduce the fluid metaphor, supported by Mol and Law

definition which argue that a fluid world “…is a world of mixtures, variation

without boundaries and transformation without discontinuity”255.

In this pattern of fluid interaction, there’s no center and no peripheral; people

belong at the center of their clustered collection of relations, but at the same

time they belong to a unlimited number of potential connections which redefine

boundaries of potential interactions. In this way the centre and the peripheral

doesn’t no more exist; their borders are continually mixed and shook by the

continue flow of content, information, objects, images, video, blog posts,

communication and building relations an connections. This fluidization of

social interaction is boosted by the use of technologies as our fellow mobile

phone: fluid conversation and awareness of spaces, time and contexts are the

variables that will define the idea of mobile human interaction.

254 Klenirock, L. Nomadicity: Anytime, Anywehere in a Disconnected World Mobile Networks and

Applications, vol. 1, 1996, pp. 351-357

255 See note 252, pp. 658-660

197

Conclusion

Mobile devices are becoming ever more ubiquitous, they allow people to

manage an increasing number of task and solve different needs, from taking a

nice picture or managing some spreadsheets or simply sending email.

The most interesting point is that mobile phone are becoming “the mobile

platform”: on the base of a mobile environment, considering interactions,

functionalities of the device, status of the user a huge fan of concept,

applications can be deployed easily in such platform.

A fluid environment is emerging around us and we with our mobile can be

protagonist of such a big revolution; no more boundaries will separate people

because pervasiveness of mobile devices and habits has already touch all of the

three main dimensions of “wireless life”.

Space, time and context mobilization are redefining how people interact: from a

wide perspective we are assisting at the mobilization of our interpersonal

interaction under all the three aspects

199

Chapter 5

ENTERPRISE 2.0: Innovation trends

behind companies’ firewalls

In the last chapter we will describe how Web 2.0 processes and technologies

will affect future development of enterprise life and business models., in

particular we will focus on the well-before analyzed Social Networks Platforms

and in general on Social Media.

Previous chapters were mostly centred on the “user side” of the Web 2.0

landscape, our every day use of platforms, applications and solutions that led to

us live a better and “more-connected” life.

In this chapter will be analyzed all the main innovation trends that will impact

(or already have) the company-side of technology, the enterprise structure, its

organization and future development. In other terms we will embrace the

interesting and exploding concept of “Enterprise 2.0”.

After a brief description of the origin of the term, we will face the main

evolution from a 1.0 era to a – actual or better approaching – 2.0 era with the

typical dynamics, problems and opportunities of a evolution process. Than the

attention will be shifted forward to the core topic: Enterprise 2.0.

In the dedicated paragraph will be illustrated forces, trends and components of

the Enterprise 2.0 framework.

In doing this, a dedicated survey will be mentioned and relative results which

will help us better focus and understand this evolutionary stream of

200

corporations. Concluding this chapter and the my entire work, I will describe

some future trends which companies need to pay attention for this year 2008.

5.1 Origin of the term “Enterprise 2.0”

At a first sight, the term “Enterprise 2.0” remember us something in common

with the Web 2.0 landscape, but going deeper we have something more to

discover. Enterprise side of the 2.0 era, take inspiration and influences from the

Web 2.0’s powerful ideas such as user generated content, peering, collaborative

production all lead into the workplace.

The term has been introduced in early 2006 from Professor Andrew McAfee of

Harvard business School and the concept has evolved until the generous and

visionary article titled: “Enterprise 2.0: The Dawn of Emergent

Collaboration”.256

Born initially as “..the use of emergent social software platforms within companies, or

between companies and their partners or customers”257, the term Enterprise 2.0 has

been expanded and re-shaped by press releases and the growing interest across

the corporate market. But the essential meaning remained the same: “...Social

applications that are optional to use, free of unnecessary structure, highly egalitarian,

and support many forms of data” 258.

256 McAfee, Andrew P. Enterprise 2.0: The Dawn of Emergent Collaboration Management of

Technology and Innovation, Reprint 47306, Spring 2006, Vol. 47, No. 3, pp. 21-28

257 See note 256 258 Hinchcliffe, Dion. Enterprise 2.0 Redux blogs.ZDNet.com ( 19 November 2006 )

201

To continue the interesting McAfee reasoning, Enterprise 2.0 new wave of

processes and communication technologies, collectively allow better and

spontaneous collaboration around information and knowledge.

An interesting highlight emerges from the article, and it’s a concept-word

which embrace all the dynamics Professor McAfee thinks related to the

Enterprise 2.0 phenomenon. The paradigm used by the author is SLATES,

which refers to the leading characteristics of these new technologies. SLATES

stay for: search, links, authoring, tags, extensions, signals. Let talk quickly about

everyone of these components also referring to the previous chapters. Search

means the true discoverability of the information stored and present inside the

enterprise ecosystem, allowing to connect content with context where the

information/data are located. Links will be used to create connections between

enterprise content as it is happening today in common blog platforms; in this

way can be identified a “hyperlinking” concept which enable employees to

create ties across content and corporate elements. Authorship is already a critical

issue in the “consumer web” where a huge amount of content is created every

day, every hour easily; in the Enterprise 2.0, authorship stay for ensuring that

workers may have easy access to platforms and tools. This issue need particular

attention because evermore in next years people entering the enterprise as new

employee, bring their web 2.0 skills and customs; giving theme the chance to

have access and controlled freedom to engage in such tools and processes can

only boost collaboration and value creation across the entire corporate

structure. In the open web, or if you want to say outside companies, there is a

total availability of social software which allow people to easy create a blog or a

wiki page: outside in the web is full of accessible and open solutions to

collaborative and communicative tools. Tags are the essential Web 2.0 tools

which allow people to organize on-the-go every content and they manage on

202

the web; a precise and contextualize use of tags will led to a more efficient

management of data and information inside the company. Extensions available

in software and common tools such as web browsers or IM platforms, will let a

better experience to user/employees but in the other side, allow enterprise to

better understand and promote employees daily work. Signals component stay

for the technologies and emerging trends in the way people, tools in particular

widgets and mash-up application manage their access to information and data;

switching from an old pull-view of content to a contemporary push-view of

content: simply the idea behind Signals word stays for “..tell me when

something is changed..” and adding the word “..immediately please”.

The article continue highlighting a series of prerequisites and issues which need

to be addressed in order to actuate “2.0 practices”, and the extension of these

issues will constitute the next analysis of Enterprise 2.0 dynamics.

Inspired by the words of Professor McAfee, four things are essentials to boost

new practices adoption and development: first a receptive culture which will

welcome the new practices and processes; second a common platform which

will allows collaboration and harness collective efforts; third an informal rollout

of technologies and tolls will be preferable to a more formal and rigid one in

order to taste humours, initial feelings and collect sincere feedback form users;

fourth managerial level support, supervision and leadership are of vital

importance. We don’t have to forget that every time new technologies and

practices appear, they are followed by positive changes and improvements but

also they hide the commitment to deal with new challenges.

These hidden challenges are well counterbalanced by the potentialities of using

Web 2.0 technologies and processes across and inside corporate firewalls

leading to a superior use and share of knowledge and data; using a simple

description we can say that Enterprise 2.0 is providing a way to open up the

203

previously inaccessible corporate information and let people to discover,

navigate, use and share theme all inside a pattern inspired by Web 2.0 models

and web-based solutions.

Now is coming to my mind a simple and easy question: is Enterprise 2.0 a

merely Web 2.0 for business? I think no, and here I will explain you why.

Enterprise structure of computing and process is far more complex than final

user and personal computing. Enterprise means an amount of environments,

different and mostly mismatched data sources, variable numbers of users

around the globe and precise policies and regulation.

State of art today lack in a acceptable number of case studies, mature Enterprise

2.0 products and feedback and humours on the use of such new technologies.

The early stage and immature environment, limit most of times the discussion

of Enterprise 2.0 to blogs and wikis technologies. We have to affirm that blogs

and wikis inside companies mark a evolution in communication and

collaboration processes by enabling to capture information for a huge amount

of people and let all this mass of data be used as man times as needed. Imagine

only the information added daily in wikis and blog that can be reused and

reached simply from a search blank box; in opposite the old high effective

collaboration tools such as the phone, instant messaging, emails where

information couldn’t be leverage to create sharable, reusable value.

Enterprise 2.0 goes beyond a simple bunch of tools borrowed from the Web 2.0

and usual customers’ daily use of collaborative technologies; Enterprise 2.0

know an evolutionary process which is already started but that is not already

ended, or for some visionary people the evolutionary process is just begun.

Branding the corporate solution of the Web 2.0 only with images of blogs and

wikis is not an error, but it is a limited vision of the spectre of potential

applications and solutions represented by the name “Enterprise 2.o”. This fan of

204

potentiality and changes can be visible highlighting the enterprise factor inside

the web evolution from the “1.0 era” to our “2.0 era”.

5.2 From “Web 1.0” to “Web 2.0 “ Era

In the evolutionary path of the web structure and models we are facing in these

last 5 years, the enterprise factor has known a huge shift, a upside down

shocking revolution. Old business models needed a review, the old competitive

advantages changed and the market overall move forward following new

dynamics of development and sustainability of respective business. In the chart

we describe visually the evolutionary path from a “Web 1.0” to a “Web 2.0”

status of the web. In this evolutionary curve enterprise’s structure is shifting

and moving up towards new vibrant market variables in term of products and

competition variety, where changes happens in a bottom up process and where

people/customers have more power, have better access to information and are

better aware about your company. The old web structure has move and

nowadays is still moving to a 2.0 recipe where the ingredients will be: people, a

pervasive two-way network, a no-stop activity on the web of close to 1 billion

users, products and services that leverage the previous three aspects to enter

and serve a market. After having draw the line where we will arrive in this web

evolution let start exploring the web development from the bottom of the

graph, from a web-configuration of approximately 5-7 years ago.

205

Figure 22: From the “Web 1.0” to the “Web 2.0” for the Enterprise

In this “old” configuration of the web, we call it “Web 1.0” to easily follow after

the evolution of the term, all the production was centralized in the hand of

companies, few management teams which decide what people and market

needs and how they will get access to products and

services. “Web 1.0 “ era is described in the enterprise scenario with a “push “

business model, where people receive what others decide the people need to

receive; this is the era of the “bestsellers” of the WalMart shelves where all

tastes was pre-defined ( by WalMart off course ) and all the accessible products

were placed in the early part of the curve described well in the book of Chris

Anderson.259

In this scenario of “limited shelves space”, traditional media were dominant

such as television, magazines, papers and Hollywood’s movie industry; it was a

era of the “one-way” and “one-to-one” pattern of communication in the

customer relations but also in the business relationships of companies. The

network still couldn’t leverage the amount of power it would have released in

next years. In other words for companies the “first internet era” was

259 See note 74

206

characterized by centralized production, development and where the control

was strong in the hand of company boards members and stockholders, not to

people and customers.

It’s from this aspect of control that we enter in the next web era for the

enterprise: the Web 2.0 era. Control started to shift dramatically position,

moving from the board of companies to communities of people, to collaboration

network and in the end to final customers, internet users connected everybody

with the idea to create, get and obtain by using better products and services.

In this path of changing, “ Web 2.0” pattern take all the good aspects of the

previous web era but it add some new features and resolve some issues of vital

importance. In the “Web 2.0” era the business model changes moving from a

“push” to a “pull” business model, where people decide with their choices and

web activity what to get access, which information and data have to reach

theme and how these activities need to be accomplished: user now are at the

centre, not more products and off course revenues. In this shifting scenario of

characters, the open source software developing model come to the scene

giving to developers and companies which leverage the use of developers kits

and their support, to open up the soul of software products and services,

letting a huge amount of brains to take part at the evolution, improvement and

release of better products in the market. Following and inspired by the “open

source way”, the product development and the production shifted position to a

more collaborative environment, where usually the peer collaboration and

production between users, customers, members of communities and social

networks led people to put together common efforts participating at the

developing process of products and services. Released products and services

begin to be more user-friendly letting people to manage theme without a deep

technical knowledge, letting a self-service process in which people can do what

207

before they were not able to do. People like to be together in this is shown by

the amazing development and growth of social networks platform, and in this

new amount of aggregating forces customers, for example people using all your

car or your flying company decide to create connection between theme. “Web

2.0” era is explicitly the time of communities and networks people which

connect with each others socially around interests, products or also around

companies. We have already mention in the previous chapters about social

networks inside and outside companies, and is this aspect that put a landmark

in the web evolution.

We can summarize all these social dynamics inside Web 2.0, calling theme

social media: patterns and processes of communication and value creation

which allow people to get a more social experience, sharing ideas, comments,

opinions and get connections with other users.

Companies increasingly observe their output to be the result of a variety of

actors and forces and where the unpredictability variable is ever more present

in their value chain. At this point a Forrester research highlight this pattern of

analysis, calling what is happening and what is happening: Social

Computing.260

The research define Social Computing “… (a) new social structure is emerging in

which technology puts power in communities, not institutions”.

Basically this definition can be found in three aspect: innovation moving from a

top-down to a bottom-up model; value is shifting from the idea of ownership to

experience a service, use it; power going from institutions to communities of

people, of users. This two-way network effect, where communities of users

260 Charron, C. Favier, J. and Li,C. Social Computing: How Networks Erode Institutional Power,

And What to Do About It Forrester Research of February 13, 2006

208

have power and move the vision of companies and institutions, is changing the

existing social structure of organizations and market.

We continue now to enter in the “Web 2.0” era by highlighting some trends we

will analyze in deep in the next paragraph dedicated entirely to “Enterprise

2.0”.

The framework about “emerging-2.0ish” trends in the enterprise landscape,

will consider, first of all, the two main dimension of the situation: production

also where and how products and services are produced ( central or peer ), and

consumption also described by an internal or external to the company use of the

services ( employees or everybody ).

Let start from the bottom left part of the graph, defined by and internal use and

a centralized production of goods; here we find APIs, web services and

software releases produced and developed inside institutions and accessible to

an internal public. Moving up to the external use and consumption of product

developed and released by a centralized core, we find widgets, RSS pull

technologies, blogs and podcast. In this up-left area, the use is available to

external users and customers and the technologies and process leverage mainly

the below components ( open APIs, SOA, Mashups..).

Let have a look to the bottom-right part where dynamics move from a

centralized production to a peer production/collaboration; here things harness

collective efforts and developing solutions, and the first important trend we

find is Enterprise Wikis. This product exploit the collective intelligence to let

people edit, publish, enrich with content and share information and data in a

common and friendly interface such as a wiki page we all know. Moving to the

top, internal boundaries loose their strength letting to external influences and

audiences; here social networking platforms and peer-to-peer networking write

209

a remarkable trend in the Enterprise 2.0 landscape of processes and

technologies.

We have figure out a smooth and simple scenario of Web 2.0 products,

applications and technologies mainly taken form the consumer web and

adapted or apparently adapted to the enterprise environment. Business are

structured differently that the consumer Web we all use everyday, and in this

gap of structure, culture and functionalities exist the main barriers. Examples of

limitations in the adoption of consumer customized web inside enterprises, are

the scarcity of optimized enterprise search, walled systems, facing problem of

security, of low integrated applications and divergences in system’s models and

standard protocols.

Introducing this early Enterprise 2.0 scenario, in next paragraphs present and

future of Web 2.0 inside companies’ firewalls will be examined.

5.3 Enterprise 2.0: forces and components

The previous introduction to the Enterprise 2.0 framework, will be here better

defined and traced; variables like internal/external use and central/peer

production will remain but in plus we will define another categorization about

the Enterprise 2.0 components about processes, technologies and tools which

can be of social or technical source.

First of all we enter in the environment of forces, dynamics which influence

growing introduction curve of such technologies of collaboration and

innovative production, with forces for adoption and impedance of the

adoption. Than will be the time to understand in deep the Enterprise 2.0

210

framework, with all the components of the Web 2.0 environment behind

companies firewalls; in particular we spend few more words on the most

common application like company’s blogs and wikis .

At this point the result of a survey elaborated specifically for my work, will

describe with a real point of view problems, potential or already existing

benefits, level of knowledge of Web 2.0 tools and the state of the art of adoption

inside companies of 2.0 technologies. The survey has been taken on a base of

more than 100 people, mainly composed by employees (46%), entrepreneurs

(23%) and professor/researchers (14%).

The chapter will be closed with a final outlook on the future of the Enterprise

2.0 with a particular attention to the next trends for the year 2008 in term of

Web 2.0 tools and technologies adoption for companies.

5.3.1 Forces for adoption

As all the main changes happening in markets and different realities, there are

a lot of forces blowing in different direction and for different scopes that

influence continually purposes and potential results of changes.

211

Figure 23: Forces Influencing Enterprise 2.0 adoption

Adoption problems and desires of adoption of Web 2.0 tools and processes, is

ever more present spreading virally inside heads of IT managers and CIOs and

boards members. Looking around, there is a limited number of case studies we

will mention later, and many people thin time is right for changes and

innovation in the direction of a Web 2.0 state of mind: but barriers and

obstacles remains. Forces for adoption and other in opposite of impedance are

fighting a strong, every one bringing a good and possible solution for do, or not

to do actions in the direction of a more collaborative, open and user-oriented

company.

The first couple of opposite forces coming out in the “Forces Framework” are in

one side, the push adoption because the easy to use characteristics of Web 2.0

tools and technologies; at the other side of the barricade, is the fact that such of

kind of tools are not adequate to the enterprise context, they lack in

contextuality aspect of customization for a business-acceptable internal, and of f

course external use and image.

212

Than we arrive, in my opinion, at the most strong force against the adoption of

innovative way to work and doing business: control. We already know that

many of the 2.0 trends in work and everyday life environment are characterized

by a collaborative work, a peering production and a consequently loose of

control of institutions on many aspects starting from the product and service

development going until the business model of companies themselves. Is this

idea to loose control, a give a piece of it in the hand of people, users and

customers that represent the main obstacle. Loosing control to give to people

the freedom to enter inside your company plans and dynamics is the price to

pay for a more innovative product development, a better a more effective

market positioning and to give a more attractive product/service experience to

customers. The pro-adoption trend, in opposite leverage its idea to open up,

loose control in same key aspect of the company chain to the fact that in this

way a lot of hidden and unknown enterprise information can came up, can be

searchable and reachable by employees first and, in a limited part than also by

external people. To conclude, the last force we can mention is off course related

to people, user habits in the use of old, present and future tools specially on the

work place, in the office and in general in the business market. Habits in this

case are referred to a different fan of receivers: final users of company’s product

or service, business partners and not to forget employees which are the main

actor in this change directed to Web 2.0 technologies. Here companies

management need to concentrate its efforts and investments, because these new

series of tools and processes guarantee a higher level of productivity and a

incredible level of knowledge retention. Pull-models, personalization, better

access and share of information inside and outside company boundaries can

only boost the learning and productivity curve upwards.

213

We have to admit that limits, barriers on one side and benefits or better forces

for adoption are on the same level and time, experiences will tell us what will

happen. About one thing we are pretty sure and it is that the opportunity to

catch the Enterprise 2.0 tools’ adoption is veritable and the market for

Enterprise 2.0 tools and business social software solution in 2007 top the level of

$ 1 billion and projections say that it will arrive to over $ 3 billion in 2011.261 The

opportunity is outside, for both providers and services and tools companies’

adopters, the only variable yet to be approached in deep by business market

and off course companies, is a conscious, strong, capable planning of specific

and new business models and a growing strategy.

5.3.2 Enterprise 2.0 components

Figure 24: FLATNESSES, stands for SLATES evolution Source : See note 263

Enterprise 2.0 technologists and developers are developing tools and services

that try not to impose to users, and off course companies employees how to

work, how things should be done, or processes structured.262 “2.0 tools” are

positioned in the way to let all these rules of knowledge be written directly by

261 radicati.com/enterprise2 ( July 2007 )

262 blog.hbs.edu/faculty/amcafee/

214

the people; in this condition we can introduce an advanced solution coming

from the previous and famous McAfee’s “SLATES” model: we introduce the

“FLATNESSES” one.263 The funny word, is quite complete to let us understand

what are the main factor and characteristic of Enterprise 2.0, and here will

follow a brief introduction of the more important ones; some components we

have already found theme in the “SLATES” previous model, but there are some

added. In add, the “freeform” aspect come in the beginning of the word,

because its importance in the way to guarantee in the minimal upfront

interfaces with simple lists, tags at a first level, and later offers more structure

and options.

Than we have the “network oriented”, in the sense that a “2.0 tool” need to be

web based, 24/7 accessible form everywhere, reusable, and addressable; this is

the golden rule of SaaS, or better “Software as a Service”. In a network

configuration, software and all its information and setting is accessible from

any computer, from any workstation around the world and it is the most

productive software now available in the market. Don’t forget the emerging

and disrupting aspect of “Social software”, a configuration which harness

collective intelligence and efforts sustained by a pull-based system; all this in a

transparent and non-hierarchical structure: two undeletable words in the

developing path of the business social software.

In the paragraph 5.2 we started mention at the trends happening in the

Enterprise environment thanks to Web 2.0 influences and technologies

adoption. Continuing this pattern of analysis, a suggested key to describe all the

different components, involved two axes: one composed by internal or external

using/facing; another dividing between social and technical components. We

263 Hinchcliffe, Dion. Enable richer business outcomes: Free your intranet with Web 2.0 ZDNet (July

26th, 2006 )

215

have to keep in mind that here are involved final solution ( tools, software,

interfaces…) but also technologies which constitute the backbone for tools and

processes. I want start by describing what I think are the four main “Enterprise

2.o Platforms”: Wikis, Blogs ( business & employees ones ), Mashups and Social

Networks.

Wikis nowadays start to be a presence in most of organization’s intranet; the

technology consists simply in web pages than everyone can edit, public and

share. Thanks to their easy of use they are the most used Enterprise 2.0 platform

adopted inside company; they are the field where let growth any user

generated content or architecture. A good example is the IBM platform called

“QEDWiki”264 which stands for “ Quick and Easily Done Wiki”. The “Big blue”

system is essentially three things in one: it is a Mashup maker which allows to

create canvas and in this way build situational application; it is also a Wiki

which aggregate all the well known wiki-characteristics; and at the end it is a

Browser in the way all content can be accessed achieving a rich user experience.

A wiki system is a self-controlled system and it looks like a continuum meeting

room where people enter and get out as they want, they leave in the room their

ideas and compare theme with other ones; if something wrong is committed or

if someone tell something incorrect, the system and in this case the other people

present in the room provide immediately to remove the wrong information and

replace it with one commonly accepted and verified.

Blogs are the most disruptive result of people need to communicate to as many

individuals as possible; “from me to everybody” may be the motto of this

diffused publishing and communicative technology. As in the users-web,

264 alphaworks.ibm.com/demo/flash/qedwiki (QEDWiki)

216

enterprise use the blog to publish information and interesting syndicated

content in a structure which promote collaboration with comments, links and

trackbacks. Usually the corporate use of a blog consists in corporate

communication, reports on product releases or projects. Enterprise Blog today

are used in the following way inside the company:265

∗ Knowledge Management ( 44 % )

∗ Internal Information Dissemination & Project Collaboration ( 42 % )

∗ Customer Communication ( 28 % )

∗ Content Management ( 26 % )

∗ Marketing and Public Relations ( 25 % )

A final issue to be approached talking about blogs, regard the fact that also

employees want or can create their blog; this fact opens another problem in

term of control, of auditing of content crossing from inside and outside the

company boundaries, and finally of searchable and available information to

publish and use. The key point stay in the need to add some features to the

normal blogging activities and in particular to give an enterprise context to

theme. Solutions can consist in the introduction of a system for security and

identity so only employees or authorized people can publish and edit a blog

content; in add a preferably automated auditing process can guarantee previous

hypothesis even if all the services will be offered in a open environment for

creation and consumption.

265 gilbane.com/search_blog/2007/02/which_would_you_have_software.html (Gilbane Group

Research about blogs inside companies)

217

Social Networks is “the Trend” in Web 2.0 era; the rise of this kind of social

media destroyed all the old pattern of communication, information sharing and

collaboration between people. Social Networks represent the big promise of

Web 2.0 stream of innovation: a two-way web where people have the power to

control theme and the information they bring inside the network. We have

already given a complete and satisfactory view of the consumer social

networks’ landscape, but also something is moving for business. Near popular

platforms such as Facebook or MySpace, other realties are emerging above the

name of social network providers for business: an example is for sure Visible

Path266, a company specialized in providing social network platforms for

business purposes in enterprise environments, which refers to these kind of

platforms calling theme RCM, or Relational Capital Management.

A primary issue to solve before we can see real social network in action, is to

minimize the personal aspects of corporate social networks, will ends up for

limiting their native usefulness. We know that social platforms work thanks to

affinities people can match in filling out interest or simply talking about

themselves: in other word the information which create the personal social

surface that other can access and see. The issue for social media companies like

Visible Path and others to success in this new market, will be the one to

guarantee an increasing personal social surface to employees, for example, but

without disturbing the business itself. All these tools mentioned above describe

the platform view of Enterprise 2.0 next potential applications and here we talk

about benefits and also issues of such a new kind of innovative trends. In the

benefit these social media applications offer, first there’s the more ad hoc and

contextual collaboration between employees; second a discoverable, usable and

more sharable business information; third capture and reuse institutional

266 VisiblePath.com

218

knowledge thanks to innovative interactions and situational applications;

fourth a hyperlinked, tagged and syndicated structure where information can

be literally followed and used more efficiently inside and outside the company;

fifth a more productive and innovative environment, which was unthinkable

before.

Beside benefits, there are several issues to address in the way to guarantee a

smooth development and more aggressive introduction of such technologies

into daily business work. First there’s the productivity issue, because

employees using social media platforms may use these platforms for non-

productive tasks such as socialize; second a security and control issue, where

information, identities and actions inside company social platforms need to be

audited; third and essential issue is the one about trust, to solve there’s the way

how content, people and information can be trusted inside these platforms.

So go back and start exploring the missing components of the Enterprise 2.o

framework built above; the 4 main platforms mentioned before represented the

core where technologies, applications, efforts of technologists and users

experience will merge.

219

Figure 26: Enterprise 2.0 Framework

But this core we don’t have to forget is made by different and various

components, that here in the graph are divided by their characteristics like

social/technical, and their main use destination like internal/external.

To continue in the are of social and internal tools, after wikis solutions we have:

Collaboration 2.0: it refers to tool more complicated than wikis and built around

workflow; SharePoint, ClearSpace provide structure where user generated

content can be accumulated and leveraged to achieve specific outcomes. All

collaboration 2.0 products have one thing in common: they are simple, because

complexity kills collaboration and people contribution; that’s way tools for

innovative collaboration use the wiki format.

Collective Intelligence and Prediction Markets: this component may merit the first

position in the Web 2.0 framework, because its importance and power. The

term refers to turning a mass o people into a collective intelligence driver,

220

directed to built the best products or solution in the market. Companies started

to use this approach by using people daily use of software for example, the first

test base by which start to provide solutions, upgrades and better products on

the market.

Emergent backbone: the use of technologies such as tagging, hyperlinks,

syndication is creating a sub-structure which enable a better use, search and

discovering experience of information and data. Tagging is not nearly

appreciated inside companies but the time and potential returns in its

introduction will not wait to emerge.

Let’s continue to stay in the limited environment inside companies and look at

the technical components which let the social part exist and emerge.

Enterprise Mash-ups: these business applications built on the fly to satisfy

particular purposes or situation start to be called “situational software” and it’s

in this overlap that solutions like QEDWiki of IBM are positioned. Most

mashups are created just copy-and-paste components and desirable

applications inside personalized canvas; users can create real value simply

access the open web for applications using what satisfy their needs in a

particular moment.

Rich User Experience: the Web and in particular the browser held such important

position thanks to its ability to be adapted and enriched by let a ever more easy

and efficient use of it by users. When we talk about a rich user experience, we

can proof their existence inside web pages which allow interactivity and an

immersive time spent on theme; thanks to technologies such as AJAX or

221

Silverlight, today users’ experience using web as a platform to run software,

application and updated tools represent an astonishing result.

Data Aggregation: companies are over flooded by data and information, many of

theme kept inside firewalls and segregating data warehouses, difficult to be

reached by employees. Following Web 2.0 stream, data need to be let be free,

used daily and that its value is used and leveraged by every product or service

exiting companies buildings.

Perpetual Beta: every application, every software and technology is in a

perpetual and continuum “BETA” phase, in the way that the product is

continually changed, adapted and co-evolved by the use and collaboration of

million of users: products seem to be never finished. Companies which are

branded in their logo with the word “Beta”, innovate faster and attract more

developers and community interest in keep things going, and better!

Syndication: content is ever more not located in a single place and thanks to this

technologies like RSS started to be introduces in a useful way. With all this

content around the world, warehouses, databases the most intelligent way to

get this content ever available but more important updated is to let the content

come straight to. RSS solve in an excellent way this process using feeds and

dedicated web software called “Feed-reader” to get a more easily and

everywhere access to content.

SaaS: say goodbye to the installed software era, typical to the ‘90s and early

2000. Now software is used simply like a product or better a service, it runs on

the network, it is available on the web and on your browser. This is known as

222

“Software as a Service” ( SaaS ), a new model of doing software and also

business thanks to low costs of promotion, distribution and positioning.

SOA and WOA: service oriented architecture represent the top of a vision of an

integrated enterprise. SOA is largely based on web technologies, but the

supposed integration with the open web is already on working. We can say that

Web 2.0 applications and in general its approach to software and user

experience, put a face to SOA in the way to feed situational applications, assist

on-the-fly integration and in the end bring to the “People, Process,

Information”267 vision typical of the SOA.

Now we shift to the other side of the destination use of components and

technologies, going out company’s doors looking at what is accessible in same

cases or anyway that faces its life externally.

Customer Communities: often people passionate about some product or company

build their own community, and start to share ideas, opinions, comments on

company activities and news. This kind of dynamic will represent for company

a bridge for an innovative and powerful customer-company interaction.

Network effect: linked to the collaboration 2.0 and the collective intelligence, the

network effect is reflected in the fact that a “2.0 product” is better and has more

value as more people use it or have it. A more formal definition of the term is

“networked applications that explicitly leverage network effects”268

267 youtube.com/watch?v=63qIq9t9Gqs (QEDWiki Video Demo and introduction) 268 near-time.net/home/whitepaper (Neartime, the Enterprise Web 2.0 Engine)

223

Push vs. Pull: also mentioned above in the chapter, a shift is happening; we are

moving form a top-down control and decision model where company “push”

down information, strategies, rules to a model where decisions, control and

value move from the bottom to the top: here the idea of a “pull” content,

information and leveraging people power are in the way.

Product development 2.0: companies are deploying ever more to people and users

the development of products and services. Company renounce to a bit of

control but receive back an incredible amount of information, tests, data and

customers opinions, comments all things vital to arrive in the market with a

successful product.

Architecture of participation: peer production and previous entry about product

development boost a richer and direct user participation in designing pattern

for enterprise success and products’ quality.

Also here in the external view of our Enterprise 2.0 framework we have

technical aspects to mention, and here they are.

Open APIs: open up data of a site or software and let other people access and

use theme. APIs transform a product into a platform, and giving a product

associated with its API can only let to a great business result.

Mashable Products: here reside the open APIs success, by allowing people cut-

copy-paste string of code simply dragging widgets and applications in existing

canvas such as blogs, wikis or a website. Google Gadgets is one good example

of the mashed content phenomenon and it can be proved by you simply look at

224

how many Google Maps based application, software services exist outside. The

answer: a lot and everyone provide a useful and more complete service.

Ajax, Flash, Silverlight: a big battle is starting and contenders are the open-

standards based AJAX and the Adobe and Microsoft solutions. The run for the

last Rich Internet Application (RIA) started.

Office 2.0269: it is a new software category, completely web-based and an

evolution of the SaaS configuration. Office 2.0 leverage all the Web 2.0

characteristics starting form the collective intelligence, peer collaboration, real

time interaction arriving until the use of RIA interfaces.

Lightweight platforms: how many time we mention the term “simplicity”.

Keeping software and products simple, let enterprise to be focused on

productivity aspects of the solution and on the idea of innovate and continue

developing in a cheaper way.

Mobile: is ever more the “Mecca” for the software and in particular for the

majority of web applications; the opportunity to address a multibillion mobile

users market is not so simple as sending a SMS or an email. Going mobile

means the idea of being close to people 24 hours a day, close to customers and

social trends; companies are watching at the mobility trend and some are

working on the right direction, but the market is composed by many essential

and key players ( mobile producers, protocols, carriers, service providers,

limited bandwidth connection…) and also a common path of development will

keep things going for everyone in the right way.

269 itredux.com/blog/2006/01/25/rules-for-office-20/ (Ismael Ghalimi, January 25th 2006)

225

5.3.3 Benefit and future issues to address

Managing such a great and complex mechanism particularly inside a company

is because there are remarkable benefits driving innovation deployment, but

also problems and issues to solve and address also need to be considered.

Let start form the good news, as usual. In the graph I highlight some of the

major benefit of the introduction of the Enterprise 2.0 platform, and with theme

the relative outcomes generable by their use. From the bottom to the top the

level of value and richness of both benefits and outcomes will increase.

Figure 27: Benefits and Outcomes of Web 2.0 processes and technologies

We find at the bottom the “Open communication”, which stand for the fact that

all conversation and communication patterns can be visible and accessible by

users in the way to gather interaction on the go simply entering relevant

conversation or simply be updated by theme. As outcome, transparency across

enterprise and awareness will spread around employees creating a positive

226

feedback loop by which built interesting and usable analysis. Going up in the

value ladder, the “Shared knowledge” happening thanks to such technologies

let people create, mashingup and use content created by others; this point

underscore the collective intelligence consequence and the important

knowledge retention consequence. Now with this configuration, “Anyone can

participate” at the success of the wisdom of crowds; authorships increasing

level and democratization of communicative processes are the outcomes. Here

now we find one of the best valuable benefits that is the “Network effect”, a

extremely powerful dynamics which leverage the collective intelligence

configuration arguing that a product or a service is better as more people use it.

At the top of our graph, remains the dominion of blogs, wikis and mashups;

people are continually increasing their ability to work, manage and create

content with Web 2.0 tools and technologies. The continuous share of content

presents in blogs, wikis the awesomely use of applications and mashups all

around means definitely that a new era has begun: power came back to people’s

hands and enterprise needs to manage fast this shift.

From the technologies and processes analyzed before emerge the incredible

benefit which companies can leverage to enter in a new business era, where

dynamics and forces are completely changing business models, strategies,

internal and external assets.

We saw before how introducing these kind of innovations needs a strong and

unitary effort of every components of the company; form the employee daily

work until arriving to the top management strategic choices.

If we can suggest a potential path companies may follow, we surely start from

outlining main issue to solve before make things more complicated.

227

State of mind – Enterprise 2.0 is more a state of mind, a way to think about

people, processes and solutions, than a product to purchase. From a Forrester

research emerges that CIOs would prefer to but a single-ready to use Web 2.0

solution, but also the better Enterprise 2.0 suite is still missing key

characteristics. The idea to buy a single or more ready to use solution and suites

is possible, but also inside company things need to start changing beginning

form a good enterprise search of information and data, platforms to create

situational applications and Mashups easily even by employees.

Control - The big problem for the future of the Enterprise 2.0 is represented by

the fear of the company to loose and give up some control to users; nowadays

the web is in the hand of user generated content and in the collaborative

peering work and activities of users. Companies can loose everything, but the

worst thing to leave is control and in particular the one related directly with the

so amused company brand. The message is clear: companies need to start

dealing with this issue because all the forces are driving in that direction.

ROI - Another issue which keep management wake up at night, is for sure ROI

on the innovation investment. With Web 2.0 technologies, lightweight software

platforms developed harnessing crowd intelligence and peering collaboration

will deliver better and regular results in term of ROI, but also in term of

productivity and efficiency of the solution they provide. BU give time to time.

Return on investment came form better and more efficient processes, and

processes cam from a better use of time, knowledge and organizational habits:

here things will take a time, not so long, to be formed because the processes

behind the simple introduction of a new collaborative tool involve actors and

aspects which need to be coordinate in the development.

228

Educate employees – Companies will need in most of the cases to educate

workers about the use of new Web 2.0 tools and techniques. The big issue is not

to teach people how to entry a blog post or a comment in the social network,

but the significance, the meaning of such actions in term of internal and

potentially external impact on company brand and responsibility.

Keep what works – Enterprise 2.0 doesn’t mean to throw old PCs form he

window and old IT systems out of work. It seems strange but Enterprise 2.0

works better when it reside close to existing IT systems than alone and isolated.

Old IT infrastructure can provide connection between information and data

with Enterprise 2.0 tools, in synergic work and collaborative effort. Result can

be a blog post where financial data can be viewed, than the table of data can be

visualized also in a RSS feed and let everyone employee updated.

5.4 A survey and “what’s next” for Web 2.0 in 2008

Before conclude the Enterprise 2.0 chapter with an interesting outlook for 2008

innovation trends, I conducted a survey to test the perception among people

about Web 2.0 technology and processes. The survey was taken in the period

from the 1st until the 20 of January 2008, and it includes more than 70+

respondents; question screenshot can be seen on the appendix. The survey

purpose was to understand and highlight how Web 2.0 is perceived among

different typologies of players in the business market, from employees to

entrepreneurs; people were asked to answer using their point of view but also

to refer to their company’s strategies and feelings on the new 2.0 trends. The

229

survey has bee taken using a free 2.0-ish web service for surveys management

called surveymonkey.com and the link where people can find and fill in the

survey has been sent to emails of direct acquaintances and friends of friends.

The result was interesting because the relevant topic but also because the

amount of email in add I received of people want to going deeper in the

discussion. The survey, as mentioned before, received more than 70 answers

with a complete percentage of 80% of the surveys; people interviewed age was

from 20 to more than 60 years old, because the idea to cover the more vast,

differentiated and generational spectrum. I followed a “Prediction Market”270

approach conducting the survey, in the way that if you want to catch the

wisdom of crowds you have to satisfy three simple conditions: diversification,

independence and decentralization of respondents; sending and inviting people

form around the world, of different ages and covering different work positions

to fill in the survey was the right way to follow.

Respondents profile: people answering the survey was aged from 20 to 60+ years

old and the position covered by these people vary from people working mainly

as analyst and employees (46,2%), entrepreneurs (23,1%), professor and

researchers (15 %) but also senior job position levels of with managers (8%).

Roles where differentiated and positions covered belong most to Marketing

and Sales (31%) followed by Finance and IT (15% each); other minor roles in

percentage mentioned were about customer service areas, strategy and business

development. Allocating the survey invites, I keep in mind the idea of being as

most as differentiated also in term of geographic position of respondents; most

of surveys where filled form people working in West Europe (35%), Easter

Europe (15%), Latin America (20%) and finally North America (30%).

270 See note 70

230

The profile of respondents cover partially the purposes to achieve the “wisdom

of crowds” but the industry information part asked in the survey provide a

complete frame of differentiated respondents.

Company information: industries targeted with the survey belong mainly to IT

and Technologies (46%) and of Financial Services (30%) but series of small

people groups representatives work in other industries such as Manufacturing,

Energy and Natural Resources, Public Sector, Telecoms, Automotive and

Retailing. Now to understand the action area of industries involved in the

survey, organization’s global annual revenue in US dollars were so composed: a

big part of companies also because the percentage of entrepreneurs inside the

pool of respondents, gain less than $10 million (41,7%); than we have two main

target kinds of companies which are positioned in the are included between $10

and $500 million (25%), than in the area between $500 million and $1 billion

(8,3%) and finally a remarkable percentage in the are over $1 billion (25%).

Company frame gives back us a differentiated potential spectrum of what will

the meaning of Enterprise 2.0 and the impact of such technologies inside

company boundaries. We pass from the small startups, to the medium/small

cap company until the multinational giants; results will give us a general idea

of “what’s now and what’s next” condition of innovation Web 2.0 trends.

Results: first answer to underscore in the survey and in particular in this

dedicated part about Web 2.0 inside company’s boundaries, is the one about the

concept people associate most with Web 2.0 environment. People questioned to

select the at least three term which express at best the idea of Web 2.0, emerges

that social network is the most selected in addition with the RSS technology.

This verify the fact that Social Networks are “The trend” most known between

231

business people; in addition the fact that RSS is the most associated technology

with the Web 2.0, probably refers to the fact that business people do a massive

use of blogs, wikis and news reader in the way of being ever informed and

updated, also because business people do a intense use of emails thanks with

PDAs and Blackberry devices. At the second place, respondents choose the

collaborative production linked with the resulting outcome of the user

generated content (UGC). The third concept is more than an idea but according

to me is a consequence of the previous two other concepts: web 2.0 dynamics

leverage the power of crowds, the collective intelligence which allows to

products and services to be developed better as more people use theme, for

only cite the famous network effect. Than the survey went deeper in the sense

to understand, after if people know or think are the concepts which characterize

most the Web 2.0, if such tools and technologies are used or not inside

companies and the results was interesting. Blogs, Wikis and online

communities are the main platforms to be used in companies: approximately

50% of companies under $10 million annual revenue already use these

platforms and the same scenario is observable in the second level of companies,

the ones which are in the level under $500 million. This observation is

interesting because can be interpreted with the fact that majority of

small/startups company leverage their success and sustainability from

innovative platforms of communication. In the multi billion company category

seems that the process to integrate employees’ work and management decision

with 2.0 platforms need a little more time because dimension, complexity and

variety of components in such giants.

The main functions will use most the Web 2.0 solutions, according to

respondents are represented in the Figure above are Marketing and Sales, IT

and Strategy which are and will be shortly the main recipients of Enterprise 2.0

232

revolution. To conclude the brief survey, I wanted to taste people feeling on

future increased revenues and cutting cost thanks to Web 2.0 solutions

introduction. The most efficiencies were found in three main areas: reducing

costs of acquiring new customers and leveraging new technologies to increase

revenues determined by new customers acquisition; cutting costs in marketing,

advertising and customer service, summarizing the way how companies talk to

people is significantly changing in the way to leverage viral and more user

centred communicative patterns; increasing revenues in the online sales and

online services, thanks to more traffic to company website or related

distributors and most ability of people to harnessing collective intelligence in

the way to find the better solution at their needs.

Conclusions

It would be pretty challenging to finish this chapter by describing the coming

trend for Enterprise 2.0 in next year, because things change so fast and rapidly

that Web 2.0 can change our workdays in every single day, hour and minute.

Information production is huge and uncountable, near 1 billion people are

creating content daily by posting on their blogs or by tagging some pictures or

adding a comment to someone video on YouTube and the number is counting.

Managing such a great change like this is extremely difficult but at the same

time essential for the sustainability if companies, business models and the

whole market; here the first issue to address is the fact that Web 2.0 is

happening now, with or without you it will shake existing organizations and

233

structures, so be ready to change. The story of Enterprise 2.0 many think will

become in a close future (starting now) a standard, an adopted approach

common to all the companies to embrace innovation and driving trends among

organization rules, strategies and result achieving. Enterprise 2.0 will face

inevitably problems but also triumphant experiences, and will be in this peak of

opposite feelings that a standard and an adopted innovative way to think about

business model and at the company environment will emerge.

After this brief intro I want to introduce, really, six trends I expect for the

coming new year will characterize enterprise efforts.

One: Information and Search

The amount of information present nowadays inside companies and the other

amount coming in next periods, will increase monstrously so this will drive the

demand for solutions to manage, consolidate and organize this daily flood of

content and data. Mass of wiki pages, blog entries all for sure incorporating

precious information like products information, teams status, project progress

will continue to grow. The demand about information is related to the aspect of

get effective and off course to organize all this content. This under-leveraged

area of corporations composed by information warehoused somewhere, will

need to be covered by search engines inside companies and finally get all the

power of this aspect. Also an emerging trend in this way, will be the one

composed by applications of social media data mining which will try, for

companies which have been early adopters of Enterprise 2.0, to centralize,

normalize and aggregate social media information and content flow.

Two: Social Networks

234

In this year many intranets will enabled to get social networking capabilities in

the way to leverage and take the value back inside companies of employees’

connections; the number of company driven and employee driven social

networks will increase drastically in their number in 2008, thanks to integration

of existing consumer social networking platforms into mobile operators and

mobile devices. Mobile Business Social Network in this way are entering the

Enterprise 2.0 scene; their potential impact on sales force, travelling managers

and all activities requiring periods away form office and colleagues will be

massive.

Three: Security

Key aspect will addressed by companies will be the one about security and

identity verification tools and processes. People are intensively and all round

involved inside company strategies and key issues, so the chance to get an open

window where blogs and wikis can be transformed into gun pointed to the

heart of the organization. Saas and applications extend the surface of the

company, its opportunities and off course its frailties; more and more

employees will start self-servicing their need by importing inside companies

firewalls applications and mashups coming from the open web. Enterprise

information will be ever more visible and exchanged in the web, ever more the

frontier between data coming form inside and the one coming from outside

company will demand security solutions for next generation Enterprise 2.0

platforms.

Four: SOA and Mashups

235

SOA will represent in 2008, the core of IT departments thanks to its evolved

characteristics of being (finally) lightweight and web oriented.

Design principles will be addressed in the way to create new and more

effective solutions also to satisfy the increasing demand for ROI of companies in

their SOA investments. The same light approach will be followed, in particular

by early adopters, in the use of mashups inside companies; mashup building

will be slimmed down but for a complete or heavy use by a critical mass of

employees we need to wait. Situational applications this year will face their

evolution to become “personal business applications” and their road to change

people working’s habits.

Five: Collective Intelligence

Platforms which leverage collective intelligence and applications for

management decisions, will see important adoptions. For example the rocketing

“Prediction markets” will represent the first real Web 2.0 application

introduced in companies, because its capacity to harness collective intelligence

leveraging the power of the networks.

Concluding, Enterprise 2.0, but also in general Web 2.0 are not a merely product

or a ready-to-buy solution: they represent a continue evolution, a continue

innovative path in the way to give people more power, more tools and more

sense to let theme enjoy better their and others lives.

237

Bibliography

3Guppies.com

Ackerman, M.S. Cranor, L.F. and Reagle, J. Privacy in e-commerce: examining user scenario and

privacy preferences ACM Conference of Electronic Commerce 1999, 1-8

Airg.com

alexbarnett.net/blog/archive/2007/08/17/closed-is-still-the-old-closed.aspx and 2007/09/06/my-

data-let-me-use-as-i-choose.aspx

alphaworks.ibm.com/demo/flash/qedwiki (QEDWiki)

Anderson, C. La coda lunga Codice Edizioni, 2007

Andreessen, M. Analyzing the Facebook Platform, three weeks in 12 June 2007 on

Andrei, D., Preece, J., and Turoff, M., A conceptual framework for demographic groups resistant to

on-line community interaction International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 6, 3 ( spring 2002),

pp. 9-24

anshublog.com/2007/08/identity-crisis-in-land-of-social.html

apple.com/downloads/dashboard/

Axup, J. Methods of Understanding and Designing for Mobile Communities Information Technology

and Electrical Engineering Ph.D. Thesis July 2006

Balasubramanian, S. and Mahajan, V. The Economic leverage of the virtual community

International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 5, 3, (spring 2001), pp. 103-138

Bales, R.F. Task roles and Social roles in problem-solving groups In E.E. Maccoby & T.M. Newcomb

&E.L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in Social psychology, pp. 437-459 New York: Holt, Rinehart &

Winston

Ballard, J. G. Millennium People Feltrinelli Editore, 2004, pp. 215

Barley, S.R. On Technology, Time and Social Order: Technically Induced Change in the Temporal

Organization of Radiological Work in F.A. Dubinkas ed. Making Time: Ethnographies of High-

Technology

Organizations, Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 1988

Barthes, R. Commet vivre ensemble: cours et seminaires au College de France (1976-1977). Paris, Suil

(2002)

battellemedia.com/archives/001220.php

238

Blanchard, A.L. and Horan, T. Virtual Communities and Social Capital Social Science Computer

Review, 16, 3 (1998), pp.293-307

blog.broadbandmechanics.com/2007/08/the-chess-game-of-social-networking

blogs.osafoundation.org/mitch/000812.html

blog.plaxo.com/archives/2007/09/there_is_now_a_1.html

blog.wirearchy.com/blog/_archives/2005/1/27/286582.html

blog.hbs.edu/faculty/amcafee/

Blumstein, P. and Kollok, P. Personal Relationships Annual Review of Sociology, 14 (1998), pp.

467-490

bokardo.com/archives/the-delicious-lesson/

boston.com/business/globe/articles/2005/06/13/are_you_a_prosumer

Boyd, D. and Ellison, N. "Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship." Journal of

Computer-Mediated Communication, October 2007

Boyd, D. Friendster and Publicly Articulated Social Networks Conference on Human Factors and

Computing Systems (CHI 2004), Vienna: ACM, April 24-29, 2004.

Boyd, D. Friend, Friendsters and top 8: writing community into being on social network sites First

Monday, Vol. 11, No. 12, (December 2006)

Butler, B.S. Membership Size, Communication Activity, and Sustainability: A Resource-Based Model of

Ondine Social Structures Information System Research, 12 (4), 2001 pp. 346

c2.com/cgi/wiki?WikiHistory

Cachia, R. Compano, R. and Da Costa, O. Grasping the potential of online social networks for

foresight European Commission, Joint Research Centre - Technological forecasting and social

change, 74 Elsevier 2007

Capobianco, F. Mobile data is not killing SMS Mobile Open Source Blog 18 July 2007

Castells, M. 1996-1998 The information age Oxford: Blackwell

Castell, M. The Rise of the Network Society Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1996, pp. 469

ccmixter.org/

Charron, C. Favier, J. and Li,C. Social Computing: How Networks Erode Institutional Power, And

What to Do About It Forrester Research of February 13, 2006

Clark, H. and Brennan, S. Grounding in communication In R.M. Baecker (Ed.), Groupware and

coe.sdsu.edu/eet/articles/wikis/index.htm

computeruser.com/articles/daily/8,10,1,1011,04.html

competeinc.com/news_events/pressReleases/168/

239

Computer-Supported Cooperative work, pp. 229 San Francisco, CA: Morgan

corante.com/amateur/articles/20030211-3564.html

Corcoran, C. Shopping Online Now More Social WWD: Women's Wear Daily 01495380, May 2007,

Vol. 193, Issue 104

Cummings, L.L. and Bromiley, P. The organizational trust inventory (OTI): Development and

Validation pp.303 In M.R. Kramer and T.R.Taylor (editions), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of

Theory and Research Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage 1996, pp. 302-330

Comscore Social Network Worldwide Research on mashable.com July 2007

davidcrow.ca/article/708/web-20-as-modularity

De Marco, Lister Peopleware: Productive Projects and Teams New York; Dorset House, 1987

De Souza, C. and Preece, J. A framework for analyzing and understanding online communities

Interacting with computers, The interdisciplinary Journal of Human-Computer Interaction,

2004

digital-web.com/articles/web_2_for_designers/

divedi.blogspot.com/2004/10/web-20.html post by Dimitar Vesselinov

Dodgeball.com

Du Gay, P. Hall, S. Janes, L. Mackay, H. and Negus, K. Doing cultural studies: The Story of the

Sony Walkman, London: Sage Publications, 1997

economist.com/surveys/displaystory.cfm?story_id=6794220 - September 2006

educause.edu/FirstStepsTowardUnderstandingtheNetGeneration/6058

electronics.howstuffworks.com/80s-tech.htm

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_user_interface

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_networking_websites - Remixed

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User-generated_content

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_application

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wui

Engstrom, J. Object of Sociality on Bokardo – Joshua Porter Blog 22 September 2007 (

bokardo.com )

Eric S. Raymond, The Cathedral & the Bazaar O’Reilly, 2001

Facebook.com

Fernback, J. and Thompson, B. Virtual Communities: abort, retry, failure? Computer Mediated

Communication and the American Collectivity. May 1995 on

rheingold.com/texts/techpolitix/VCcivil.html

240

firstmonday.org/issues/issue3_3/raymond/

Fitzpatrick, B. Personal Communication 15 June 2007

foaf-project.org/

FocusMagazine, Second Life June 2007 - Related data of April 2007

Friendstribe.com

Garton, L. and Haythornthwaite, C. and Wellman B., Studying online social networks In S. Jones

(ed.) Doing internet research 1999, pp. 75-105 London: Sage Publications

Gefen, D. Karahanna, E. and Straub, D.W. Trust and TAM in online shopping: and integrated model

MIS Quarterly, 27, 1 (2003), pp. 51-90

Gerosa, M. Second Life Ed. Melteni, 2006

gilbane.com/search_blog/2007/02/which_would_you_have_software.html (Gilbane Group

Research about blogs inside companies)

Gladwell, M., Punto critico: I grandi effetti dei piccoli cambiamenti Bur Scienza (2006)

Gotzapp.com

Granovetter, M.S. The strength of the weak ties American Journal of Sociology, Vol.78, 1973, pp.

1360-1390

Groovr.com

Hall, E. The Hidden Dimension New York NY: Anchor Press, 1962

Haythornthwaite, C. Tie Strength and the Impact of New Media in Proceedings of The 34th Hawaii

International Conference on System Sciences ( HICSS 34 ), Maui, Hawaii, 2001, IEEE

Hinchcliffe, Dion. Enable richer business outcomes: Free your intranet with Web 2.0 ZDNet (July

26th, 2006)

Hinchcliffe, Dion. Enterprise 2.0 Redux blogs.ZDNet.com ( 19 November 2006 )

Hummel, J. Lechner, U. Social profiles of Virtual communities. In R.H. Sprague Jr. (ed.),

Proceedings of the Thirty-fifth Annual Hawaii Int. Conference on System Sciences. Maui: IEEE

Computer Society Press 2002

Humphreys, L. Out with my mobile – exploring social coordination in urban environments Receiver

Vodafone 2006

InfoTrends Releases Camera Phones Account for 87% of Mobile Phone Shipments in 2010 Mobile

Imaging Study Results, 18 January 2006

ifindkarma.typepad.com/relax/2004/12/weblications.html

Ippolita, Gruppo Luci e Ombre di Google Nuova Serie Feltrinelli, 2007

itredux.com/blog/2006/01/25/rules-for-office-20/ (Ismael Ghalimi, January 25th 2006)

241

Jaiku.com

Jarvenpaa, J.S. Knoll, K. and Leidner, D.E. Is anybody out there? Antecedents of trust in global

virtual teams Journal of Management Information Systems, 14, 4 (Spring 1998), pp. 29-64

Jarvis, J. Who owns the wisdom of crowd? Buzzmachine.com, 26 October 2006

Jumbuck.com

Kalakota, R. and Robinson, M. M Business: The Race to Mobility McGraw Hill (2002)

Kietzmann, J. Mobile Communities of Practice Department of Information Systems LSE London

(2005)

Kharif Olga businessweek.com/technology/content/may2006/tc20060530_170086.htm

Kirkpatrick, D. Facebook's plan to hook up the world on Fortune Magazine 29 May 2007

Kleinrock, L. Inventor of the internet technology UCLA Computer Science Department (2003)

Klenirock, L. Nomadicity: Anytime, Anywehere in a Disconnected World Mobile Networks and

Applications, vol. 1, 1996, pp. 351-357

Koblas, Jane Oltre Wikipedia Sperling & Kupfer Editori 2007

Koh, J. and Kim., Y.G Sense of Virtual Community: a conceptual framework and empirical validation

International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Winter 2003-4, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp 75-93

Kopytoff, V. Social Networks on sfgate.com, 16 June 2004

Kyte.tv

Lampe, C. Ellison, N. and Steinfield, C. A Face(book) in the crowd: Social searching Vs Social

browsing CSCW ’06, November 4-8, 2006, Banff, Alberta Canada

Lessig, L. Creative Commons and the Remix Culture (mp3). Talking with Talis Retrieved, 7 April

2007

Lessig, L. Free Culture New York: Penguin Press 2004 chapter 8

Leuf, B. and Cunningham, W. The Wiki Way - Quick Collaboration on the Web Boston, MA,

Addison-Wesley 2001

Levinson, Paul. Cellphone: The Story of the World’s Most Mobile Medium and How It Has

Transformed Everything! Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2004

Licoppe, C. and Smoreda, Z. Are social networks technologically embedded?How networks are

changing today with changes in communication technology Social Networks 27 (2005) pp. 317-335

Elsevier

Lieberman, H. Fry, C. and Weitzman, L. Exploring the web with reconnaissance agents

Communication ACM 44, 8, 2001, pp. 69-75

Ljungberg, F. and Sorensen, C. Overload: From Transaction to Interaction in K. Braa, C.

242

Loopt.com

Lyytinen, K. The Next Wave of the IS Research Design and Investigation of Ubiquitous Computing in

Panel presentation on “Mobile Interaction and Pervasive Social Technologies” Panel at ECIS,

Naples Italy (2003)

M:Metrics Weather information is most popular among american mobile subscribers, while europeans

prefer browsing sports information on mobile web Press Release 24 July 2007

Makimoto, T. and Manners, D. Digital Nomad Chapter 4, Chicester: John Wiley & Sons, 1997

martinandalex.com/blog/archives/2004/10/initial_thought.html

mashable.com/2007/08/08/social-shopping-2

Mayer, R.C. Davis, J.H. and Schoorman, H.D. An integrative model of organizational trust

Academy of Management Review pp.712, 20, 3, 1995, pp. 709-734

McAfee, Andrew P. Enterprise 2.0: The Dawn of Emergent Collaboration Management of

Technology and Innovation, Reprint 47306, Spring 2006, Vol. 47, No. 3, pp. 21-28

McKnight, D.H. Cummings, L.L. and Chervany, N.L. Initial trust formation in new organizational

relationships. pp. 474 Academy of Management Review, 23, 3 (1998), pp. 473-490

Mc Mullan, J. Richardson, I. The Mobile Phone: a hybrid multi-platform medium In Procedings of the

3rd Australasian Conference on interactive Entertainment. ACM International Conference Proceeding

Series, vol. 207, 103-108.

microformats.org/wiki/social-network-portability

Mishra, A.K. Organizational responses to crises In R.M. Kramer and T.R. Tyler (eds.) Trust in

organizations: Frontiers of Theory and research. London:Sage, 1996, pp.261-287

Mklix.com

Mobango.com

Mobilemo.com

Mol, A. and Law, J. Regions, Networks and Fluids: Anemia and Social Topology Social Studies of

Science, vol.24, 1994, pp. 641-671

Morfmobile.com

Mozes.com

msnbc.msn.com/id/9929332/site/newsweek/

near-time.net/home/whitepaper (Neartime, the Enterprise Web 2.0 Engine)

Negroponte, Nicholas Being Digital Sperling & Kupfer, 1995

newparadigm.com/default.asp?action=category&ID=88

news.netcraft.com/archives/2004/03/26/of_blogs_and_wikis.html

O’Hara, Perry Dealing with Mobility (2001) ACM Computer Human Interaction, pp. 323-347

243

O’Shea, William New Economy; The online journals known as Web logs are finding favor as an efficient

way to communicate within the workplace New York Times, Published: 7 July 2003

OECD, Communication Outlook Paris: OECD 2005

openlinksw.com/blog/%7Ekidehen/index.vspx?id=373

opensocialweb.org/2007/09/05/bill-of-rights/

opensocialweb.org/2007/09/05/bill-of-rights/

oreilly.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html

oreillynet.com/lpt/a/251

Ostrow,A. A guide to Google’s APIs on mashable.com/2007/08/09/google-apis/

Partysync.com

Pearson, Ian Wikipedia and the new dark age btinternet.com, December 2005

Plickert, R. Cotè, R. and Wellman, B. It’s not who you know, it’s how you know them: Who exchanges

what with whom Gabriel – Elsevier 2007

Preece, J. Online Communities: designing communities, supporting sociability New York: Wiley 2001

Preece, J. Supporting community and building social capital Special Edition of the ACM, 45, 4, pp.

37-39

Preece, J. Thriving Online Communities: Usability and Sociability John Wiley & Sons, 2000

Putnam, R.D. Bowling Alone: the collapse and revival of American Community New York:

Simon & Schuster 2000

Rabble.com

Radar.com

radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/02/data_is_the_int.html

radicati.com/enterprise2 ( July 2007 )

rashmisinha.com/archives/05_09/tagging-cognitive.html

readwriteweb.com/archives/web_20_definiti.php

readwriteweb.com/gems/jeff_bezos_web2.txt

Reinacker, G., Founder and CTO of NewsGator Technologies

Release Magazine Cyber or Human March 2007 Milan

Resnik, P. Beyond Bowling Together: Socio technical capital in Caroll J., ed. HCI in the New

Millenium. Addison-Wesley, 2001

Reynes Goldie, K. and Fono, D. Hyperfriendship and beyond: friendship and social norms on

LiveJournal Association of Internet Research ( AOIR-6) Chicago 2005

Rifkin, Jeremy L’era dell’accesso: la rivoluzione della new economy Oscar Mondatori, 2000

244

riverdeep.net/current/2000/10/100400_netgen.jhtml

Robert Peck, Bear Stearns Internet analyst What should Yahoo! do regarding Social Networks? Bear

Stearns Report August 2007

rossdawsonblog.com/weblog/archives/2007/03/post_12.html

rossdawsonblog.com/weblog/archives/2007/04/the_state_of_so.html

rossdawsonblog.com/weblog/archives/2007/05/launching_the_w.html

rossdawsonblog.com/weblog/archives/2007/08/openness_networ.html

Rothaermael, F.T. and Sugiyama, S. Virtual Internet communities and commercial success:

Individual and community-level theory grounded in the atypical case of Timezone.com Journal

of Management, 27, 3, 2001, pp. 297-312

Rotter, J.B. A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust Journal of Personality, 35, 4

(1967), pp. 651-665

Schmidt, K. and Simone, C. Coordination Mechanism: An approach to CSCW Systems Design

Computer Supported Collaborative Work: An International Journal, vol.5, No. 2 & 3, 1996, pp.

155-200

secondlifeblog.it/index.php/2006/11/19/virtual-architecture-intervista-con-mario-gerosa/

Shneidermann, B. Designing the User Interface: strategies for effective Human-Computer Interaction

(Third Edition) Reading, M.A.: Addison – Wesley, 1999

Shoemaker, P.J. Hardwired for news: Using biological and cultural evolution to explain the surveillance

function Journal of Communication, 46 (3), 1996

Sms.ac

Socialight.com

Sole 24 Ore, Nova 5 July 2007

Sorensen and B. Dahlbom eds., Planet Internet, Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur, 2000, pp. 125

Sorensen, C. Kakihara, M. Mobility: An Extended Perspective Proceedings of the Hawaii


Sorensen, C. Digital Nomads and Mobile Services available on receiver.vodafone.com (2002)

Sorensen, C. and Gibson, D. Ubiquitous Vision and Opaque Realities: Professionals talking about

mobile technologies The Journal of Policy, Regulation and Strategy for Telecommunication,

Information and Media, vol.6, no.3, pp: 188-196

Sorensen, C. Instant mobile connections as a way of teenage life The Mobile Life Youth Report 2006

Shirky, C. Power Laws, Weblogs, and Inequality on Networks, Economics, and Culture published

February 8, 2003

245

Sundén, J. Material Virtualities: Approaching Online Textual Embodiment New York: Peter

Silverstone, R. and Sorensen, K. Towards the communication society In: R. Silverstone (editor)

Media, technology, and everyday life in Europe: from information to communication London: Ashgate,

pp.213-222

Surowiecki, J. The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter than the Few and How Collective

Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations Doubleday 2004

Tapscott, D., The digital economy: promise and peril in the age of networked intelligence NY: McGraw

Hill, 1996

Tapscott,D. and Williams, A.D. Wikinomics Portfolio Penguin 2006 pp.196

Tarveen, L. and McDonald, D.W. Social Matching: a framework and research agenda ACM

Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, Vol. 12, No. 3, September 2005, pp. 401-434

techcrunch.com/2007/06/15/the-rise-of-the-prosumer/

techcrunch.com/2007/08/05/virtual-world-hangouts-so-many-to-choose-from

technorati.com/pop/blogs/

technorati.com/pop/blogs/ August 2007

theobvious.typepad.com/blog/2007/03/the_100_guarant.html

Thrift, N. Remembering the technological unconscious by foregrounding knowledges of position

Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 22 (1), pp. 175-190

Twitter.com

usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?SoftSecurity MeatballWiki

Vascellaro, J. Social Networking goes professional on

online.wsj.com/article/SB118825239984310205.html - 28 August 2007

Vipera.com

Vise, D. and Malseed, M. The Google Story EGEA 2005, pp. 33-45

VisiblePath.com

Wagner, C. WIKI: a technology for conversational knowledge management and group Department of

Information Systems City University of Hong Kong, Communication of IAS, 2004, Vol.13, pp.

256 -289

Wagner, C. Wiki: Technology for Conversational Knowledge Management and Group Collaboration

Communications of AIS, Vol. 13, 19

Wasserman, S. and Faust, K. Social Network Analysis Cambridge University Press 1994

Weber, Steven The Success of Open Source Harvard University Press, 2004

weblog.infoworld.com/udell/

246

webmonkey.com/webmonkey/06/12/index4a_page8.html

Weinrich, A. Personal Communication 11 Jul 2007

Weiser, M. Ubiquitous Computing on ubiq.com/weiser

Weiser, M. The Computer of the 21st Century Scientific American Ubicomp Paper, September 1991

Wellman, B. Physical Place and Cyberplace: The Rise of Personalized Networking. International

Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 2001, 25(2), pp.227-252

Wellman, B. Hogan, B. with Berg, K. Boase, J. Carrasco, A. Cot, R. Kayahara, J. Kennedy,

T.L.M. and Tran, P. Connected lives: the project In: P.A. Purcell (editor). Networked

Neighbourhoods: the connected community in context London: Springer, chapter 8, pp. 161-216

Wellman, B. Boase, J. and Chen, J. The networked nature of community: online and offline It and

Society, vol. 1, No. 1, 2002 pp. 151-165

Wellman, B. and Gulia, M. Virtual Communities as communities: net surfers don’t ride alone In M.A.

Smith and P. Kollok (eds.), Communities in Cyberspace. London: Routledge, 1999, pp.167-194

Wenger, E. Communities of Practice Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (1998)

McGrath, J.E. Groups: Interaction and Performance Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Morgan Kaufmann

Publishers, Inc. (1984)

Wireless Federation Research Mobile Social Communities March 2007

wired.com/software/webservices/news/2007/08/open_social_net

wired.com/software/webservices/news/2007/08/open_social_net

worldwidewords.org/turnsofphrase/tp-pro4.htm

wp.netscape.com/newsref/pr/newsrelease385.html

Yochai Benkler, Linux and the nature of the firm Yale Law Journal vol.112, 2003

Yong Yeol Ahn, Seungyeop Han, Haewoon Kwak, Sue Moon and Hawoong Jeong Analysis of

topological Characteristics of Huge online Social Networking Services,– WWW Conference 2007, May

18-22

youtube.com/watch?v=63qIq9t9Gqs (QEDWiki Video Demo and introduction)

Zucker, L.G. Production of Trust: institutional sources of economic structure, 1840-1920. In N.B.

Staw and L.L. Cummings (eds.), Research in Organizational Behaviour. Greenwich, CT:JAI Press,

1986, pp. 53-111

247

List of Figures Figure 1: The Web 2.0 Structure 27

Figure 2: Typology of content different user categories access 30

Figure 3: Top 10 most viewed Italian Blog 54

Figure 4: Top 10 most viewed Blog Worldwide 55

Figure 5: Domestic vs. International traffic on MySpace and Facebook 58

Figure 6: Web 2.0 Landscape and categories of different 2.0 Companies 63

Figure 7: Wiki Design Principles 66

Figure 8: Wiki vs. Conventional Web Pages 71

Figure 9: Article Growth on Wikipedia according different languages period 01-07 73

Figure 10: Social Networks Platform worldwide diffusion in countries 96

Figure 11: Social Networks Platforms popularity per continent 97

Figure 12: Social Networks Total Unique Visitors June 2006 – June 2007 98

Figure 13: Msn vs. Facebook Daily Pageviews (Percent) 100

Figure 14: Virtual Hangouts Platforms with relative characteristics 113

Figure 15 : Mobile Social Network Categories 138

Figure 16: Online Community Framework - Policies, Purposes and Actions 171

Figure 17: Computing categories according to variables of Mobility 180

Figure 18: Comparison of connectivity technologies 182

Figure 19: Mobile Phone with camera/not growth during period 2004-2010 184

Figure 20: Three dimensions of human interaction 189

Figure 22: From the “Web 1.0” to the “Web 2.0” for the Enterprise 205

Figure 23: Forces Influencing Enterprise 2.0 adoption 211

Figure 24: FLATNESSES, stands for SLATES evolution 213

Figure 26: Enterprise 2.0 Framework 219

Figure 27: Benefits and Outcomes of Web 2.0 processes and technologies 225

248

Appendix 1

249

Appendix 2

Total

Internet MySpace.com Facebook.com Friendster.com Bebo.com HiS.com

Unique Visilors (000)

178,839 70,478 27,965 1,667 4,083 2,914

Total

Audience 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Persons

12-17 10.1 6.6 15.2 6.8 27.2 11.1

Persons

18-24 12.0 18.0 26.9 11.2 9.7 16.1

Persons

25-34 16.0 19.4 11.5 21.2 13.6 21.1

Persons

35-54 38.9 42.3 34.4 44.8 34.8 37.9

Persons

55+ 14.8 10.0 6.6 10.7 7.1 8.2

250

Appendix 3

Name Description/Focus Registered

Users Registration

43 Things Tagging 1,007,433 Open

Advogato Open Free Software and

Open Source

developers

11,000

Amina - Chechen Republic Online Chechens 3,500+ Open

aSmallWorld European jet set and

social elite

150,000 Invite-only

Bebo Schools and colleges 34,000,000 Open

BlackPlanet.com African-Americans 16,000,000 Open

Blue Dot Link sharing 80,000 Open

Bolt General (music and

video)

4,000,000 Open

Broadcaster.com Video sharing and

webcam chat

26,000,000 Open

Buzznet Music and pop-culture 500,000+ Open

CarDomain Car enthusiasts 1,600,000 Open

Care2 Green living and

activism

7,151,375 Open

Classmates.com School, college, work 40,000,000 Open

251

and the military

Consumating "Consumeetings" 21,000 Open

Couchsurfing "Couchsurfing" 192,000 Open

Cyworld Young South Koreans 15,000,000 Open

Dandelife Collective narratives

or "shared

biographies"

Unknown Open

LiveJournal Blogging 490,310 invite or

payment

Dodgeball.com Mobile Status Upload Unknown Open

DontStayIn Clubbing (UK) 235,000+ Open

Doostang Careers 173,000 Invite-only

Ecademy Business 100,000 Open

eSPIN Teens 4,400,000 Open

Facebook Started for colleges,

then high schools, and

now everyone.

34,000,000 Open

Faceparty British teens and 20-

somethings

5,900,000 Open to

people 16 and

older.

Flickr Photo sharing 4,000,000 Open (Yahoo!

login)

Flirtomatic Flirting/Dating 265,000 Open to

people 18 and

older.

Fotki Photo sharing 1,000,000 Open

Friends Reunited School, college, work,

sport and streets

12,000,000 Open

Friendster General 29,100,000 Open

Frühstückstreff General 11,600 Open

Gaia Online Anime and Games 7,000,000 Open

Geni.com Families, genealogy 100,000 Open

252

GoPets Virtual pets 400,000 Open

Graduates.com School, college, and

work

650,000 Open

Grono.net Poland 1,000,000 Invite-only

Hi5 General 50,000,000 Open

Hyves General Dutch social

networking website.

3,266,581 Open

imeem IM Unknown Open

Infield Parking United States NASCAR fans 36,000 Open

IRC-Galleria Finland 400,000 Open

iWiW Hungary 1,500,000 Invite only

Joga Bonito Football (soccer) Unknown Open

Last.fm Music 15,000,000 Open

LibraryThing Book lovers 214,425 Open

LinkedIn Business 11,000,000 Open

LiveJournal Blogging 12,900,000 Open

(OpenID)

LunarStorm Sweden 1,200,000 Open

MEETin General 72,000 Open

Meetup.com General 2,000,000 Open

MiGente.com Latinos 3,600,000 Open

Mixi Japan 9,830,000 Invite-only

MOG Music Unknown Open

Multiply "Real world"

relationships

5,000,000 Open

My Opera Community General (blogs, photo

albums, forums,

groups, etc.)

834,753 Open

MySpace General 189,000,000 Open

myYearbook General 950,000 Open

Netlog EU young adults (14-

24) known as Facebox

18,000,000 Open

253

Nexopia Canada 1,019,372 Open

orkut Owned by Google 57,431,788 Open Google

ID

OUTeverywhere Gay Unknown Open

Passado General 4,700,000 Open

Piczo Teenagers, Canadians,

photo sharing

10,000,000 Open

Playahead Swedish teenagers 530,000 Open

ProfileHeaven British teens 100,000 Open

RateItAll Consumer ratings +

social networking

Unknown Open

Reunion.com Locating friends and

family, keeping in

touch

28,000,000 Open

Ryze Business 250,000 Open

Searchles Social Search + Social

Networking ( hybrid )

Unknown Open

Sconex American high schools 500,000 Open

Shelfari Online community for

book lovers

Unknown Open

SMS.ac Mobile users Unknown Open

Soundpedia Web 2.0 based music

community

1,500,000 Open

Sportsvite Recreational Sports 18,000 Open

Studivz University students,

mostly in the German-

speaking countries

Unknown Open

Stumbleupon Websurfing 2,750,000 Open

TagWorld General (tagging) 1,850,692 Open

TakingITGlobal Social action 145,000 Open

The Doll Palace Cartoon dolls and

dress up games

2,500,000 Open

254

The Student Center Teens and colleges 800,000 Open

Threadless Custom T-shirts 364,474 Open

TravBuddy.com Travel 420,000 Open

Travellerspoint Travel 90,000 Open

Tribe.net General 602,876 Open

Twitter Update friends with

your status (SMS, IM)

Unknown Open

Vampire Freaks Gothic industrial 1,020,500 Open

Vox Blogging Unknown Open

WAYN Travel & Lifestyle 8,000,000 18 and older

WebBiographies Genealogy &

Biography

Unknown Open

Windows Live Spaces Blogging (formerly

MSN Spaces)

120,000,000 Open

(Windows

Live ID)

Xanga Blogs and "metro"

areas

40,000,000 Open

XING Business 2,000,000 Open

Xuqa Colleges 1,000,000 Open

Yahoo! 360° Linked to Yahoo! IDs 4,700,000 Open to

people 18 and

older

(Yahoo! login)

Yelp United States adults Unknown Open

Zaadz Social consciousness 76,474 Open

Zooomr Universal Photo

Sharing

Unknown Open

(OpenID)

Innovation Trends: Web 2.0

Business

Transcript of Innovation Trends: Web 2.0