Archive for the 'online community' Category

Scholarly Identity 2.0: Matrix, Concept Model, and Presentation

As mentioned in my previous post, my first Belgrade lecture focused on the concept of Research 2.0.  The second lecture focused on Scholarly Identity 2.0, which is increasingly important because of the wealth of online identity information created by Research 2.0.

The Scholarly Identity Matrix below is adapted from a general identity matrix concept pioneered by the founders of ClaimID. It is meant to display the different types and components of a researcher’s online identity.
Scholarly Identity Matrix

The Scholarly Identity 2.0 Concept Model below displays how the different components from the Matrix fit together.
Scholarly Identity 2.0 Concept Model

The black text is content types. The blue are the characteristics of identity these content types best represent. The green is who is responsible for managing this information. The Scholarly Identity 2.0 Concept Model takes the series of concept models one step farther, but with a slightly different twist.

The spectrum is more specific than in past models with one end being entirely user-generated content (UGC) and the other traditional scholarly communication. My hypothesis is that scholarly identity online, or Scholarly Identity 2.0, is a combination of these two information types held together by a unique identifier. For example, the combination verifies not just topical expertise through peer-review of articles, but also personality verified by LinkedIn recommendations.

Please share your thoughts on the accuracy of this model in the comments below or on FriendFeed.

The below presentation covers each quadrant of the Matrix culminating in the Concept Model as a summary.

Scholarly Identity 2.0:
What does the Web say about your research

(Update: The videos of the lecture are now available here.)

I would like to give special thanks to Adam Sofronijevic at the University of Belgrade Libraries for all his hard work in arranging the lectures and for his hospitality during my visit.

Research 2.0 Concept Model and Presentation

Research 2.0 Concept Model
The above is an evolution of the Academic Library 2.0 Concept Models developed for my Master’s PaperWhile the original model primarily focused on academic library services for students, the new model focuses on services for researchers.

Like in the original models, the top represents communication spaces grounded in physical space, while the bottom mirrors this in the online realm.

Two ends of the spectrum are informal communications and formal communications. My argument is that Research 2.0 falls somewhere between these extremes.  I developed the model for the presentation below.

(Update: A video of the presentation is located here.)

This model is meant to capture Research 2.0 as concerns scholarly communication and not research conducted through 2.0 methods such as Galaxy Zoo.

I am eager to receive feedback on how well this model represents the concept of Research 2.0.

  • Where is it limited?
  • Where is it right? Wrong?
  • Please feel free to leave comments below (or on FriendFeed)

I had the opportunity to revisit my concept models and develop this variation when preparing for recent lectures hosted by the University of Belgrade Libraries with support from the Serbian Ministry of Science and Technological Development and the Serbian library consortium KoBSON. While there, I also had the opportunity to visit the Institute of Technical Sciences Library and the National Library of Serbia; both of which are working on a number of interesting projects.

The first of these lectures is above, the second lecture (and another new model) will follow in a separate post that explores the concept of Scholarly Identity 2.0.

I would like to give special thanks to Adam Sofronijevic at the University of Belgrade Libraries for all his hard work in arranging the lectures and for his hospitality during my visit.

Presentation: Scholarly Reputation Management Online

Scholarly Reputation Management Online : The Challenges and Opportunities of Social Media
Session 6: Wissenschaftskommunikation 2.0
Social Software @ Work

Schloss Mickeln, Düsseldorf, 29. September 2009
Abstract: Social media provides scholars with unprecedented opportunities to promote their accomplishments and expertise. Conversely, social media creates more identity information to for scholars to manage. Different facets of scholar identity online will be introduced. Within this framework, new types of identity content produced by social software and the challenges this creates will be discussed. Lastly, opportunities for using social software to manage scholarly reputation will be explored.
#sosoft09 Wordle

#sosoft09 Wordle

links for 2009-07-13

Justifying a Bill of Rights for Online Communities – Part 1: Facebook and Shopping Malls

A little while back Facebook got a lot of slack for refusing to ban some particularly reprehensible hate speech groups. While Facebook’s representative employed the cause of free speech in their defense, many commentators have pointed out that, as a private company, Facebook has complete control of the speech on their site. (I wrote most of this series when this event was still playing out, but chose to take some time before completing it and posting.)  I believe, it is important to take a historical perspective when dealing with issues like this. Luckily, the Supreme Court has something to say on this issue. At least they do if you consider Facebook to share legal characteristics with a shopping mall.

Shopping mall owners have a tendency to go overboard in banning speech they personally disagree with. For example, t-shirts with such slogans as “Give Peace a Chance” have often been considered unacceptable by mall owners.

While a mall is used in roughly the same way as main street used to be, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that as private property the First Amendment doesn’t apply. Facebook too remains private property, which can be easily forgotten as, like a mall atrium, it is increasingly used as a public space. Given this precedent, it stands to reason that Facebook has no legal obligation to allow hate speech.

However, is it desirable that Facebook take it upon themselves to censor hateful viewpoints such as those in question? As the central online community space for a whole generation at least 2.5 generations, one could argue that it would be more desirable for Facebook to install their own First Amendment.

Why? This makes Facebook less likely to abuse their power to ban whatever they feel like. A lot of legitimate activism takes part on and through Facebook, including a lot of political activity. If Facebook is to remain a platform for such activity, a freedom of speech policy is critical.

For example, Facebook technically could have banned all speech favorable of the Obama campaign leading up to the recent election. Cries of censorship wouldn’t matter from a legal perspective. However, given Obama’s popularity on Facebook, such an action could have skewed the results in favor of McCain

It could be argued that, like for public spaces, the best safeguard against abuse of power in a public-like space like Facebook is an absolutist policy on freedom of speech.

Specifically because there are no legal First Amendment protections inside Facebook, this question becomes more urgent. This is not a question the courts can answer for us.   It is a question we need to answer for ourselves.  Whatever paths Facebook and the other big social networks choose now will set the precedents for later.

In this series of posts, I will argue that online communities share more in common with universities, libraries, and newspapers than they do with shopping malls.