[Air-l] I'm researching virality in social networks : suggested papers?

[elw at stderr.org]

> From: James Whyte <whyte.james at yahoo.com>
>
> John Veitch <jsveitch at ate.co.nz> wrote:The questions Tom Shelly asks are 
> far too difficult to understand. Online Social Networks are too new, and 
> too fragile and too different for research into the questions asked to 
> be possible. There are just too many variables.


Folks could take a peek at

http://www.blogninja.com/vsw-draft-paolillo-wright-foaf.pdf

for one method of dealing with variance and the polysemous nature of 
online social networks.

We were able to extract and label 20+ kinds of interpretable 
relatedness/difference for LiveJournal accounts;  I posit that one could 
take this kind of quantitatively-driven extraction approach with other 
sites, as well.  LiveJournal just happens to have particularly clearly 
specified data about every user...... and it kind of helps to have quant 
methods feed qualitative interp.  ;)


>  As I interpret the research, I have come to the conclusion that the 
> bulk of social networks are reflective of the offline origins.


Yes, I think you're right in generalizing.  Clearly there will be *some* 
differences due to the change in the nature of the medium, but clearly 
*much* of the way in which things work is related to the capacities and 
needs of the human social animal.


>  Newness is not indicative of difference. If one accepts general process 
> it leads to the lawfullness of human behavior whether online or offline.

I don't understand the last sentence of this.  Particularly the use of the 
word lawfulness.

--e