Talk:Social collaboration

Less of an essay

I attempted to make this article read less like an essay, by eliminating the seemingly opinionated and sensationalistic aspects. My goal was to make it more fact-driven. Echalhou (talk) 22:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

More Citations

I intend to improve the citations of this page and possibly incorporate some additional thoughts from those citations into the main article. Here are a list of potential citations I have collected. DarinHawley (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

• Web 2.0 at Work - Simple and Social Collaboration Between Coworkers
• Social Collaboration: Joining Forces on the Digital Frontier
• Social Collaboration Use Cases

Group-Centric & Goal-Oriented

While there is often not a clear distinction in practice, social networking tends to refer to individual-centric systems with messages being posted in a generally undirected manner and filtered into an individual activity feed. Social collaboration on the other hand is more group-centric, with messages being directed to the group and the content of activity feeds appears the same regardless of individual. The group creates a sense of place or community and the activity there is generally directed to a shared goal or objective. If this objective is time-bound, the collaboration space may be purged upon completion. Collaboration spaces with an indefinite time-frame would be more aptly described as online communities. DarinHawley (talk) 19:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

essay structure improvement

InformationGather (talk) 04:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)in "what makes collaboration work" section, there are currently six parts listed. Personally, it is little bit too much. I am thinking about cutting it short to 4 or at most 5 parts. Summarizing the related information into a bigger part is my idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InformationGather (talk • contribs) 03:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

InformationGather (talk) 04:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)hi folks, I received a notification from one of you saying that it is not really necessary to improve the structure of the "what makes collaboration work" part. I kind of disagree with this opinion. Like one of you noticed that the last three parts consist of links to other articles, I think these links should be placed in the reference part of the article instead of this section. Viewers may feel confused when they see links randomly showing in different part of an article. It is better to summarize the necessary links into one part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InformationGather (talk • contribs) 04:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Plan for improvement

I am planning to improve this article with other anonymous classmates as an assignment for the Social computing course at the University of Pittsburgh. Szd7 (talk) 23:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I am also going to be working on this assignment for my Social Computing course at the University of Pittsburgh. Here are some of the issues i noticed: 1. All of it seems to be a paraphrasing of a single source. Quite a restricted point of view. 2. There are no examples here. If we want lay users to understand what social collaboration is and how it works, we need to give them examples of Social Media they use or come across, in order for them to understand. For example, yelp is an example of social collaboration. So is gitHub. 3. We need to connect social collaboration to social computing and social navigation. 4. How related are social collaboration and crowd-sourcing? What are the differences? I really hope, we can make this a more extensive article in order to reflect the broadness of social collaboration in general. I am going to go through the article a bit more thoroughly and suggest some more improvements.

Thanks! --The.Urban.Alien (talk) 16:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

InformationGather (talk) 04:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Hi, I agree with your opinion that examples are needed to help users understand the meaning of social collaboration and the way it works. Instead of just listing the name of some social collaboration related medias, I guess it will be better to describe how these social medias utilize the technology of data analysis and data mining and apply the concepts from social computing into social connection. A few in-detailed terminology are needed to be included in the article and explanations come after that. (I post this opinion before but in the wrong place)— Preceding unsigned comment added by InformationGather (talk • contribs) 04:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Ideas of improving this article

Winola0908 (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC) Hi! I am one of the students in the course Social Computing. Here are my ideas about improving this article: (based on the good article criteria) 1.References are not enough: the latest referred article is published in 2009, there should be many articles or journalism during the 6 for social collaboration tools 3.Illustrated: I believe there should be some image or pictures for users to understand “social collaboration”

InformationGather (talk) 04:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Hi, Winola0908, it is true that there are only two references in the content part of this social collaboration article. Using plain and unauthorized words to explain what makes social collaboration work and the difference between social collaboration and social network is not persuasive enough. It is better to use some sentences or phrases from experts or writers in the related fields for explanation.

Well I went through this article and have found many issues with it: 1. Definition: The definition just says "processes that help multiple people interact and share information to achieve any common goal. Such processes find their 'natural' environment on the internet, where collaboration and social dissemination of information are made easier by current innovations". While I do agree with the fact that social collaboration is a "process", i have a feeling that with social collaboration we usually achieve more than "any common goal". It is my belief that social collaboration is any process that initially starts on the internet (but is not restricted to it in the later stages) and grows into a movement or a new phenomenon. For example, consider the Arab spring protests and Wikipedia itself. According to me both of them are examples of social collaboration. Wikipedia is built and maintained by an entirely online community of people working to deliver better, more informative content. In the case of the Arab Spring, the censorship of dissent on social media metamorphosed into a ground revolution that had far reaching consequences. I believe this to be an example of social collaboration because a) Society as a whole was involved. b) People collaborated towards achieving a common goal. The environment for the Arab spring however, was not restricted to the internet. And therefore I strongly believe that any definition of social collaboration should be broad enough to accommodate the far reaching results of social collaboration. The internet is not just an environment where social collaboration takes place. It is rather, a tool that aids social collaboration and helps it reach it's full potential. 2. Lack of examples. 3. Neutrality: Almost all of the text is from 2 sources. Moreover the article is written in a very opinionated manner. 4. References: We should include more references in order to know how the rest of the world thinks about social collaboration. I will go through more articles online and come up with some more ideas. Please do let me know what more we can do to improve this article.

--The.Urban.Alien (talk) 19:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Winola0908 (talk) 00:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC) I agree with The.Urban.Alien on the definition of social collaboration. I believe that we can read more articles and may inspire us. Secondly, there are really many examples that can be include in this article. Meanwhile, we can find some pictures or images illustrations to these examples to make readers easily to understand what the "social collaboration" means. Thirdly, according to the ideas from you, group member, I think the structure of this article needs to be revised a lot, and add more main aspects.

InformationGather (talk) 04:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Hi, I agree with The.Urban.Alien's idea on redefining the meaning of social collaboration as well, especially at what the "natural"environment applies in social collaboration. Such an environment should be a place where people get there intuitively and purposely, and that could better explain why social collaboration is set to achieve a common goal by multiple people.

Winola0908 (talk) 21:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC) Hi all. According to the talk in this page, I think we can improve this article in this three points: 1. Redefine the 'Social Collaboration'. 2. Add examples and images to illustrate better. 3. Add more references. The.Urban.Aline, InformationGather, Szd7, do you agree with me? If all of you agree, I will write these in the 'decision of changes' section. Thanks!

InformationGather (talk) 04:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Hi folks, I post my previous suggestions in the user page that you might not see. My suggestions are to improve the structure of the essay. I mentioned previously that there should be less sections in the "what makes collaboration work" part. I think the membership characters part and communication part could be combined together, since communication is probably the most representative characteristic of membership attribute.Perhaps the environmental factor part and resources part could be combined into one part as well. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by InformationGather (talk • contribs) 04:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

InformationGather (talk) 20:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)hi folks, for the decision of changes, I think we should first modify the structure of this social collaboration essay. The structure I mean is the layout format of the essay, like overview/definition in the beginning section and content after that, and references in the last section. Secondly, I guess we need to modify the content of each section. And for the references section, there definitely should be more being cited. What do you think? Winola0908 (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC) Hi, InformationGather! I agree with your ideas about improve the structure and content, and I believe that we can modify the language and format as well. About the structure, the definition always goes first and then followed by the content, and I think we can add the TemplateData area to give readers clear structure of this article. I would like to hear from your opinions! Meanwhile, do you have other ideas, The.Urban.Aline, Szd7? Thanks

InformationGather (talk) 22:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Hi Winola0908, I think we are on the same page. I think these three changes should be structure, content and format improvement. Do you guys agree with me? It is going to be due soon, we had better hurry up.

InformationGather (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Hi The.Urban.Alien and Winola0908, I think we have reached a common sense here. These these changes I think should be structure, content, format and language improvement. Why don't we specify each one of these three changes respectively? I am willing to do the structure part. Are you willing to do the content part, @Winola0908? And are you willing to do the format and language improvement, @The.Urban.Alien? For the other member, could you please respond to my proposal regarding to the final decisions?

Winola0908 (talk) 22:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC) Sure! I will write the changes for content. Could you write the structure changes clearly now? Using the language like "Our first major change is :xxxx". Thanks!

Hi guys, yeah I agree with the proposed changes: 1. Redefine social collaboration 2. Improve the structure of the article to make it more uniform. 3. Try explaining how social collaboration works and evolves with the help of examples. 4. Provide more references and sources. 5. Find relations between social collaboration, social navigation, social computing and social networking. Of these 5, i think it would be better if we concentrated our energy on points 1, 3 and 4. Of course, if we can finish these in time we can always work on implementing the remaining 2 changes. Thanks! --The.Urban.Alien (talk) 22:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

InformationGather (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Our first major change is structure. Things like definition, templatedata, content and so on will appear on the structure. Our second major change is content, could you please take care of this part@Winola0908? Our third major change is language and format improvement, could you please take care of this part @The.Urban.Alien? For the other member, if you see our posts, could you please work on the third part with The.Urban.Alien together?

InformationGather (talk) 01:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)good job @Winola0908, could you please upload your work about the third change @The.Urban.Alien?

Szd7 (talk) 02:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC) I agree with your above changes, I will help work on the language and formatting and also may include an additional section about the pitfalls of Social Collaboration when it is describing communication tools for the collaboration.

Decision of Changes

InformationGather

(talk) 23:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

First Major Change: Structure

• Definition
• TemplateData
• Contents:

   *Driving Force of Social Collaboration
   *Social Collaboration vs Social Networking
   *Social Collaboration vs Crowdsourcing
   *Social Collaboration vs E-mail
   *Applications of Social Collaboration
   *The Future of Social Collaboration
   *See Also
   *References
   *Further Reading

Winola0908 (talk) 00:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Second Major Change: Content

• Redefine “Social Collaboration”
• Add the TemplateData area to give readers a precise structure of this article
• Add more details regarding their similarities between social collaboration and crowdsourcing
• Add the comparison between social collaboration and e-mail regarding to environment of the Internet
• Add examples, like Wikipedia, Skype, Trello, in the section of “Applications”
• Generate and add the perspective of social collaboration from the published articles
• Add more Wikipedia article links in the “See Also”
• Add more references published in the recent years
• Add more links, such as news, blogs official websites of collaboration applications, for readers to understand easily

Third Major Change : Language and Format

• Language: Make content easier to understand by simplifying the concepts and examples.
• Format: Maintain coherence between sections so that readers understand the topic of Social Collaboration as they read through the article.

--The.Urban.Alien (talk) 01:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Szd7 (talk) 02:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Changes

Winola0908 (talk) 06:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC) Hi all, I have made a change in the definition. Please check it and make sure that's ok.

Looks good Szd7 (talk) 18:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Winola0908 (talk) 03:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)Hi all, I have updated the structure of this article. Please check it and make sure everything is ok.

Winola0908 (talk) 06:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)Hi, all! I have added a lot of contents in the article. Could you please help me check out if there is any language issues, because I am not a native speaker. Thank you !

Hi guys, I have made some changes to the structure, language and grammar of the text. I'm working on the examples and will have them up shortly. --The.Urban.Alien (talk) 21:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

InformationGather (talk) 01:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC) Hi, Winnola0908. I really appreciate the section social collaboration vs Email that you wrote. I guess it would be better if you could organize these bullet points in a way that could be read more easily. Thanks

Winola0908 (talk) 01:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)Hi all, I have renamed the section 5 and I added three software as examples. Meanwhile, I will reorganize the compare with email section.

Winola0908 (talk) 02:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)Hi all, I have add more examples and several further reading links. Could you please check it out to make sure those information are appropriate. Thanks.

Szd7 (talk) 02:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC) I've changed some content such as converting the advantages of crowdsourcing into a table to make the section more consistant. I've changed some sentences in the other sections. One future change we could make is change the structure of the Social Collaboration vs. Email section, using an 'advantage and weakness' of email seems to be a bit biased on its features. We should change it to explain the differences similar to the other sections.

Winola0908 (talk) 04:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)Hi Szd7, I have noticed the changes you made, that's great! And good advice for the email part, I will reorganize this. Meanwhile, do you have any idea about add some pictures to this article?

Winola0908 (talk) 04:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)Hi Szd7, I have added a table for the email part, is that what you mean?

Winola0908 (talk) 04:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)Hi all, I have added a picture of the history of Social Collaboration. Is that ok?

InformationGather (talk) 05:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)Hi Winola0908, I have looked through the article and found one place that you might need to consider revising. In the similarities part of social collaboration and crowdsourcing, the similarities could be more than that. Such as diverse opinions obtained from many workers and tasks finished by large amount of people. Please have a check

InformationGather (talk) 05:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)Hi Winola0908, for the social collaboration software part, maybe you could try to make the number of social collaboration examples less. I think it is little bit too much.

Winola0908 (talk) 05:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)Hi informationGather, ok I will have a check on this. Thank u every much.

InformationGather (talk) 05:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)Hi The.Urban.Alien, could you please spend some time to find a specific example which compares social collaboration and crowdsourcing. Thanks

InformationGather (talk) 05:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)Hi Winola0908, I have just helped you edited the similarities part, I think its pretty much all we need for that part. Lets try to find more references for our article and add them up.

InformationGather (talk) 05:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)Dear The.Urban.Alien, there is one more thing I would like to remind you about editing our article, which is a graph which depicts the similarities and differences between social collaboration and email is going to make our article more readable. If you have time, please try to make a graph and insert one into that part. I will also help you on this.

InformationGather (talk) 05:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)Hi guys, I have looked up online to see any article related with the future trend of social collaboration. I have added three so far. Please help me on this and feel free to put any new stuff you found out there.

InformationGather (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)Hi Winola0908, I have seen that you added a few references to our article, and I believe that's helpful. Thank you. And have the other two members looked up the future trend of social collaboration yet?

Winola0908 (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)Hi all, I noticed that there is someone else who are not in our group deleted the picture I added, I don't know why.

Winola0908 (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)Hi, all. I have figured out that the picture was deleted because of copyright issues, because wikipedia does not allow pictures from other networks. I am so sorry about that. By the way, I believe that we have done a good job! Thank u all! It's happy to work with you guys! Maybe it's time for us to meet in the real world and make friends!

InformationGather (talk) 00:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)It has been a long semester for me, and i guess it might also be long for some of you. I appreciate working with you guys. Good luck on the finals guys.

Fixed grammatical errors, changed language to be more neutral and general. Added paragraph in "Future of Social Collaboration". --The.Urban.Alien (talk) 03:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Assessment

I came across because a book had been used in the lead that is unreliable - it's actually copied from Wikipedia. You've put a lot of work in, but I looked further and found:

• Unusual formatting, please read WP:MOS
• Possible cut-and-pasting from a book
• Listing of software that lacks Wikipedia articles, with spammy marketing blurb probably copied straight from their websites
• In-line linking of external urls, which is not allowed
• Plenty of apparent original research, especially the Future section. You need to work from sources, not write your own opinions or conclusions.
• Too much focus on business and uncritical use of trade press and blogs.

Fences&Windows 21:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)