Online Collaboration and Formation of Online Communities - Coursework Example

Online Collaboration Customer Inserts His/hers Name Customer Inserts Grade Course Customer Inserts Tutor’s Name 28, 01, 2012 Introduction Information needs for the various people vary with their business and environment. In order to ensure that the insatiable demands are consistently met, collaboration tools and platforms have been established so that various user needs are met. There are varied groups engaging diversified social networking platforms. The online communities objectives vary based on their composition and projected life span of the group. In this paper, a discussion on two chosen collaboration case studies is undertaken where their similarities and differences are analyzed. Formal online collaborating communities of practice vary widely with informal short lived groups whose objectives are narrow and almost concentrated on information sharing and communication. Networking and collaboration have been used interchangeably but in reality they are absolutely different with the later meaning a dynamic group that have mutual goals and share information, resources and ideas while the former narrowly indicating a scenario where community members on exchange contacts. The traditional boundaries defining the limitations to various functional systems have been broken by the incorporation of social networking technologies where location is not the challenge so long as there is a consistent internet connection. This paper also analyses the theoretical framework on the formation of online communities and also learning processes within the same communities. It further relates the theoretical framework to the two case studies of Egyptian revolution and Wikipedia. The paper therefore provides a holistic view of the online networking and collaboration communities, therefore providing insights into the concepts resulting to the development of these communities. The Egyptian Revolution on Twitter Social networking technology and tools are critical communication tools for any social group. The Egyptian revolution consisted mainly of a people who are pro democracy and had been oppressed for a long time so they indeed were strangers to one another but certainly had a common goal of changing governance in Egypt. The number of twits from Egypt surrounding the tag revolution increased substantially during the revolution period indicating that its use was on the increase especially in directing demonstrators and sharing of the day to day goals. Egypt’s government blockage of internet access was mainly driven by their need to reduce the surging pro democracy demonstrations rallied through social media and especially twitter during this period (Kamel, &Wheeler, 2007). The main use of the twitter during the revolution as the engine of the revolution may be challenged in that revolutions have always occurred and historically several governments have been toppled via a revolution, but the main contributions of twitter just like other social networking platforms were as follows; It provided a networking and a collaboration platform for many Egyptians tired of the then the government of Mubarak. The revolution spark after a continued collaboration where there was increase in outreach and membership sharing enraging information regarding the then government of Mubarak(Kamel, &Wheeler, 2007). It enabled the people of Egypt to identify their fellow pro democracy members by numbers online hence creating a feeling togetherness and common perspective. This further enhanced the information sharing relating to the revolution. It created a platform for faster communication amongst members hence facilitating activity coordination and protests. Communication was very importing during the Egyptian uprising since the sense of belongingness(Kamel, &Wheeler, 2007). For the case of Egyptian revolution, the collaboration provided by the social media was fast and more reliable compared to the other media controlled or under the influence of the government. Therefore this informal networking type of collaboration endeared itself much to the young and educated few who were the key drivers in the revolution(Kamel, &Wheeler, 2007). The social networking created by twitter in Egypt resulted in crowd pulling and grouping of an informal community, their main agenda being introduction of democracy and removal of Mubarak from office. The informal twitter group only shared information relating to ouster of Mubarak but no more knowledge creation was encouraged within the group. Twitter platform does not provide an open content system where group information could be shared hence there is no track of correction relation to prior tweets (Romero, & Molina, 2010). Decentralized Knowledge Construction in Wikipedia Wikipedia collaboration mechanism is founded upon the open source philosophy and wisdom of the crowd concepts. The online collaboration upon which Wikipedia is anchored upon is very formal where diverse authors contribute their articles to Wikipedia where other authors will contribute on it therefore resulting on a well researched and high quality articles(Romero, & Molina, 2010). The wisdom of the crowd concept argues that with the large numbers of contributions and diversity of opinions, large number of authors and a very good platform or mechanism for content management; Wikipedia and other open content systems will always result in a high quality documents and articles. Wikipedia is not a purely formal organisation but rather a decentralised and social technical system hence has the ability to keep large number of authors globally. Unlike other online social networking technologies and platforms, wikis, Wikipedia and other open source platforms are cognitive environments that will always encourage creation of new knowledge and creativity (Romero, & Molina, 2010). This is encouraged where knowledge and information that is freely shared leading use and reuse by other people consequently leading to creation of more knowledge and transformations to new ideas. This has further enhanced the social belief that creativity and intelligence are always incremental consequently making platforms like Wikipedia a knowledge processing and a knowledge base for most intellectuals. The participation of various contributors in Wikipedia is for their own mutual benefits making them partake in long term collaboration endeavours unlike networking where there is no capacity building of the participants, no resource sharing and altering activities (Barton, & Tusting, 2005). This further makes collaboration form of social networking very resourceful and ensuring a high quality articles. The driving principle of the wisdom of the crowd driving Wikipedia is a very fundamental framework in that the ensured that Wikipedia’s quality work has been maintained. Wisdom of the crowd principles argues that Wikipedia’s large author and contributor bases coupled with great diversity of ideas and opinions within a platform supporting open content system; there is bound to be a high quality knowledge creation. This therefore further and irrefutably confirms that aggregate knowledge of many contributors will always outweighs the knowledge of a few think tanks and experts(Romero, & Molina, 2010). Unlike other networking and collaboration systems open content systems and open source architectures have been knowledge to revolutionize technology, knowledge creation and social interactions. Decentralised knowledge construction by Wikipedia is one of the formal online collaboration involving diverse author-base where they are free to publish and modify articles. The authors always indicate high level commitments and levels of trust since their main goal is capacity enhancement to their fellow collaborators(Romero, & Molina, 2010). Similarity and divergence Both the Egyptian revolution and Wikipedia are based on social networking platforms encouraging several strangers to interact and exchange ideas and information. The social boundaries have been broken in both social interaction but the driving points for both are divergent in that the main objectives in the revolution is information sharing for mutual benefit only unlike the formal Wikipedia information sharing which involves the altering activities, sharing resources and enhancing members capacities(Kamel, &Wheeler, 2007). The Egyptian revolution on twitter had a minimal time commitment by their respective members and has limited levels of trust therefore was an adhoc social networking organisation whose main agenda was information sharing. On the contrary Wikipedia is forma l organisation where members have extensive time commitments publishing, reviewing and editing articles(Kamel, &Wheeler, 2007). Wikipedia members have high levels of trust while their main aim is enhancing each other’s skills and capacity. In the case of Egyptian revolution there was no resource sharing apparently since their agenda was information sharing relation to the happenings of the pro democracy protestors. On the other hand Wikipedia involves extensive resource sharing from different online collaborators. Also the platform on which Wikipedia is founded in based on open content systems which include an integrated data systems and knowledge resources unlike twitter which is mainly a social networking site (Kamel, &Wheeler, 2007). Online Collaboration theoretical framework Analysis Online collaborations have much been explained in the communities of practice, CoP model which explains a scenario where a group of people sharing a common problems concerns, issues and passion on a given area deepen their understanding and knowledge by interacting and sharing information on daily basis. As noted by Kamel & Wheeler (2007) the Cop model indicates that for the communities of practise to hold together their must be a joint enterprise, mutual engagement and shared storage of information and data. Further these three aspects translated for an online community includes the existence on an online domain or meeting point for the members, the sense of belongingness to the community and their passion for the community interest or a joint sense of purpose. Domain in social networking refers to the common meeting point where participant meet and share their ideas and stories. This is where aggregation of ideas is done and the community is able to develop and own its knowledge base (Kamel, &Wheeler, 2007). The existence of the community in social networking is critical as indicated in this model since this the basis on which a sense of belonging and communal responsibility is derived from. Community attributes of information and ideas sharing meets the social needs of social networking members hence are able to dialogue based on their past experiences and future expectations thereby create some life for the social network. Practise being a cardinal core attribute in the model refers to their main objective or aspirations of the social network hence the main reason for their existence. It is therefore the main information shared within the community or knowledge owned and further developed by the community(Kamel, &Wheeler, 2007). For the case of Egyptian revolution the communities of practise model fits much into the scenario where a group of pre democracy demonstrators were able to share information via twitter. Democracy and governance was the domain area of the network where twitter and other social networking platforms provided a communication area upon which the community were able to share the same information (Kamel, &Wheeler, 2007). The removal of Mubarak from office was the practise of the community though; a very short term objective provided the necessary impetus for the group to exist and the revolution to be undertaken. The ability of the community to share information relating to the revolution was supported by twitter a platform for social networking. For the case of Wikipedia, Cop model can be very shallow in elaborating its implications and the operating mechanisms but further theories on knowledge creation can explain the details on aggregation of knowledge by diverse experts in order to generate new and creative ideas and knowledge. Communities of practice model therefore will provide the overall and general understanding of the Wikipedia where the domain will be in the area of knowledge sharing and the communities consisting mainly of writers and online article contributors. The practise mainly will be article sharing, editing and reviews. According to Pokharel (2011) the communities of practice model therefore lacks the details relating to how knowledge is generated in wikis since sharing of ideas is not enough, alteration and corrective engagements ensure that quality work is delivered by Wikipedia. A learning process in a social network therefore can be explain in a theoretical framework that will define the processes that will ensure that learning will surely takes place in a community of practice (Pokharel, 2011). Without further adherence to the processes that will ensure learning and knowledge creation takes place CoP can always exist as a network without tangible learning or knowledge creation. For leaning to take place especially in the open content systems like Wikipedia, it is necessary that networking is further expounded to discourse, action, reflection, reorganisation and socially mediated metacognition; the epitome of knowledge creation (Kozlov, & Johansen, 2010). The learning framework for CoP therefore consists of; Context: This collective agreement to participate in knowledge creation by community members especially in the wikis setup and open source platform. This creates the urge to be part of the group. Discourse: the processes of agreeing on the meaning of particular concepts within a Cop Action: This occurs where community members agree on the learning goals and further develops and assign responsibilities and deliverables to members. Members voluntarily agree on the tasks to be delivered and their related timelines (Driscoll, 2000). Reflection: This is the integration of personal encounters and group think therefore problem solving and choices relevant for decision making(Driscoll, 2000). Reorganisation: where community members have reflected on their individual experiences and group think, necessary adjustments to group objectives are done in order to reflect on the new found knowledge. Community members understanding of their environment changes as they adjust the meanings and content within their respective places as a result of continuous reflection (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002). Socially mediated metacognition: the awareness of thinking and self regulatory behaviour associated with social networking. It is the highest level of understanding associated with much appreciation of social collaboration medial and platforms. It ensures that the group members adhere mutual gains, respect and cognition on the subject matter to an extent to which their understanding is one and high quality(Driscoll, 2000). It is the goal of each learning community of practise to ensure that members attain the socially meditated metacognition. Conclusion Expanding knowledge creation by building networks with individuals with similar goals is no longer a challenge with the establishment of various collaboration tools. The knowledge driven social communities and the information sharing platform all have their platforms well done according to their requirements. Social networking therefore is not just a social event or activity rather collaboration has currently been engaged productive areas like Wikipedia and other encyclopedia development. Collaborative research on a given subject matter can nowadays be facilitated via social network other that face to face teams. The breakthrough in removing boundaries which have been a limitation to the development of knowledge and communication of social communities has further stretched the sphere supported by online collaborations. Some of the leading online collaborations like Wikipedia have the global market as its source of the various contributions. In order to ensure social networking is used positively, it is necessary that policies on their use are done in relation to the fundamental human rights so that it does not infringe on other people’s rights too. References Barton, T., & Tusting, K. (2005). Beyond Communities of Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press. Driscoll, P. (2000). Psychology for Instruction. (2ns ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Kamel, N. &Wheeler, S. (2007). The emerging Web 2.0 social software: an enabling suite of sociable technologies in health and health care education, Health Information and Libraries, 24. 2-23. Kozlov, M. D. & Johansen, M. K. (2010). Real Behaviour in Virtual Environments: Psychology Experiments in a Simple Virtual-Reality Paradigm Using Video Games. CyberPsychology, Behaviour & Social Networking, 13(6), 711-714. Pokharel, S. (2011). Stakeholders’ roles in virtual project environment: A case study. Journal of Engineering & Technology Management, 28 (3), 201-214. Romero, D. & Molina, A. (2010). Virtual organisation breeding environments toolkit: reference model, management framework and instantiation methodology. Production Planning & Control, 21 (2), 181-217. Wenger, E., McDermott, R. & Snyder, M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Read More