Talk:Social software

message: :"In this understanding of the term, the social is understood to also have a political and aesthetic sense, not simply acting as a kind of glue for a collection of normatively understood 'agents' whose inter-relations are formatted by software."
Say what? A bit jargony for the casual reader. Wikipedia is intended for a general audience, not an academic one. Rewrite, please!
--Bo-Bo Belsinger 00:02, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: CLARITY, PLEASE!

message: This is an important concept, and we need to work together to get it right. Rather than fight over the definition, I've written a lead paragraph that builds the definition uncertainty into the discussion from the get-go (I believe this accurately reflects the multiple ways in which the term is used).  
I moved the following paragraph here:
::The term also arose in the late nineties to describe software emerging out of alliances between programmers and social groups whose particular kinds of cultural intelligence are locked out of mainstream software.  In this understanding of the term, the social is understood to also have a political and aesthetic sense, not simply acting as a kind of glue for a collection of normatively understood 'agents' whose inter-relations are formatted by software.  What both positions share is an understanding that particular design decisions and the grammar of interactions made possible by each piece of software is socially significant.
This sounds fascinating, but (as Bo-Bo Belsinger observed, supra), it's "a bit jargony." I'm not sure I understand what the author is getting at. Still, I think there's an important point here. How about this for a translation?
::In the late 1990s, as more software developers grasped the significance of social software, efforts to build prosocial features into software gained momentum.  
Examples? Bryan 16:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "prosocial" is jargon.   It also misses the point of the original paragraph, which is that a kind of consciousness developed among some software developers about the insularity (and elitism) of their software, and they made an effort to solicit/design for new groups of users.  However, as simple as that sounds, there's a LOT of history that's being left out.  How they got to that point is significant, because it's a confluence of technical, political, economical, and philosophical factors.  -johnk 66.245.192.245 10:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes on Lead Paragraph Cleanup

message: the anonymous ip address did not provide any argument for the merge.  i removed it. --Buridan 16:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: feel free to return them if you haven't then.  if you make the argument as an anonymous, that would've been cool, but without any post... a random merge tage looks very much like spam. --Buridan 23:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge 

message: Hi. I started editing an article someone started called social searching but then I thought that it might be good to merge it with this article. Any opinions or advice? (Toritaiyo 17:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social Search 

message: I have suggested that the article History of social software be merged into this article.  The "History of social software" article is actually more of an essay, but there may be enough sources and additional information there to constitute the basis of a short "History" section in this article.  -- Black Falcon 23:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section 

message: I'm not clear on what the original writer means by communication tools v. interactive tools. The way the paragraphs go, they sound almost identical. Anyone have an idea what these paragraphs are supposed to communication? RedPen
:I also don't see why we need ot have such a loong list and such wordy descriptions for each of the supposed "tools". First of all, not all online communication tools are necessarily "social software". Second, if each has its own article, why do we need to repeat descriptions here. If anything, this should just be a list of wikilinks. Angrysusan (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Tools for online communication

message: There is no Wikipedia entry (or search result) for "socialware" which is now the topic for entire conventions of Webstuff.
Love26 (talk) 04:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguationally speaking 

message: Since March, this article "Social software (computer software)" is one of a pair with Social software (social procedure). That article is interesting in itself, but as an academic field it's still minor, whereas the topic of this article is major and getting more important all the time. I think almost everyone looking for "Social software" will want this article, so I don't really see the need to distinguish it from the academic field. So if no one objects, I will move this article back to simply "Social software" after a couple of days. Leaving the hatnote to Social software (social procedure), in case anyone really does want that topic. -- Margin1522 (talk) 08:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  OK to move back to original title? 

message: Removed the entire paragraph since of all examples mentioned in there only Collanos actually operates peer-to-peer.
Most of them are social applications in a client/server architecture, which may deserve a paragraph, but written with more knowledge, please.
Actual peer-to-peer social networks hardly exist yet (see also Talk:distributed social network). Since according to this document anything that involves several people is somehow social, a link to private peer-to-peer would probably be appropriate.
The suggestion to merge with distributed social network is misplaced as that document actually describes the federated social web (all of them are web services interacting in a federated, not distributed way) and should therefore be mentioned in the lower part of the Social network services paragraph.
If I encounter no objections I'd be performing appropriate clean-ups in the coming days, but feel free to do them yourself.  --lynX (talk) 17:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer-to-peer social networks 

message: In section 28.1 Timeline there's a sentence:
:In the same year, Dale McCuaig presented the initial concept of a global information network in his series of memos entitled "On-Line Man Computer Communication," written in August 1962.
But I can't find any references anywhere else about Dale McCuaig and I think On-Line Man Computer Communication was written by JCR Licklider and Welden Clark, as cited here: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1460847. Might this work have been erroneously attributed to Dale McCuaig?
Thanks for your help.
Prescottindigo (talk) 18:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is Dale McCuaig? (28.1 Timeline) 

message: I'm proposing these updates to make the page stronger. 
 
# Content edits and organization of the first paragraph.
# Add more content on the ‘Types’ section. Some of the social software types only have a sentence or two as a description.
# Update ‘Emerging technologies’ section by adding a more modern definition.
# Update ‘Groupthink and Conformity’ section by adding content. This section contains no description.
# Citation updates: There are several citations needed.
# Article cleanup: Section organization. 
# Add content to cyber bullying. A introduction paragraph.  
Mek135 (talk) 16:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvement of the Social software article