Thematic Perspectives of Virtual Communities with regard to Social Networking

The internet today is regarded as regarded as a utility for some and a necessity for many of its worldwide users. Thanks to the internet Social Networking Sites SNS’s were born. Looking back at the early days of the introduction of SNS’s, it comes by no surprise that nine out of ten of these sits had a slow start. Orkut and Facebook for instance, who had a few hundred users initially. Facebook was restricted to students of Haward then. However as the popularity of these sites began to grow, increased the number of users, these sites opened the doors of access to more and more countries across the globe. Today SNS’s are being pronounced as a ‘phenomenon’ with many million users, who little do realize they have created a virtual platform where many alike do beyond just keeping in touch.


Objective of study
      This thematic paper brings together a collection of articles that analyze a wide spectrum of SNS’s using various theoretical and analytical approaches. This paper aims at bringing out a comparison between social and virtual networking. We understand better the process of socialization that takes place among individuals in the society with the networking theory. The phenomenon of virtual networking is compared to the same networking theory. More over the goal of this paper is to compare the virtual world with that of the social world.
      Since their introduction, social network sites (SNSs) have attracted millions of users, many of whom have integrated these sites into their daily practices. As of this writing, there are hundreds of SNSs, with various technological affordances, supporting a wide range of interests and practices. While their key technological features are fairly consistent, the cultures that emerge around SNSs are varied.


Social Networking Sites SNS
      Social Networking websites give people an online identity–and an online space to call their own. These websites are more nuanced than sharing whole personalities that focus on connecting people through certain media and interests offer specialized value to users.
We define social network sites as web-based services that allow individuals to
(1) Construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system,
(2) Articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection,
(3) View and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system. The nature and nomenclature of these connections may vary from site to site.

Characteristic features of SNS
      Social networking sites generally have two primary components: a user profile and a network of friends. The friends’ network, however, is he real key to social networking sites–the crux of what differentiates them from blogs, online journals, personal Web sites, and other means of personal communication on the Web. However the characteristic features of Social Networking Sites can be classified as follows:

• Users’ profile
• Security
• Networking Feature
• Search Option
• Help and Support
• Legitimate Friend Focus

      Resent survey points out that Social Networking Sites are regarded as the in thing, next to beer and i-pods. Frequent users of SNS’s when surveyed revealed that they are logged into these sites, not just to keep in touch with their friends, family and co workers, a majority of users agreed that these SNS’s are the best way to keep in touch with the developments in the word as and when they do happen. Take Twitter; a user can follow other users of his choice and can have other users follow him as well.


      This way a user can express himself, his views on a topic of his choice or simply reveal a personal information about himself using up to 140 characters. Staying in touch with fellow humans apart, the followers of the user are in touch with the latest happings across the globe, thanks to the tweets. Twiter apart Facebook, Orkut and Myspace users agree that they use the same not just to keep in touch. Little do they realize that they have created a virtual space in the world wide web.


Social (Virtual) Networking Online and Social Networking Offline (in Society)
      Social networking websites provide users a platform enabling them to socialize online, what we term as virtual networking. This socializing process and virtual networking have been related to the networking theory


History and Orientation
      The idea of socializing and the notions of sociometry and sociograms appeared over 50 years ago. Barnes (1954) is credited with coining the notion of social networks, an outflow of his study of a Norwegian island parish in the early 1950s. 

Core Assumptions and Statements
Statements: Rogers characterizes a communication network as consisting of “interconnected individuals who are linked by patterned communication flows” (1986). A communication network analysis studies “the interpersonal linkages created by the shearing of information in the interpersonal communication structure” (1986), that is, the network.
Network analysis within society
Scope: In general, network analysis focuses on the relationships between people, instead of on characteristics of people. These relationships may comprise the feelings people have for each other, the exchange of information, or more tangible exchanges such as goods and money. By mapping these relationships, network analysis helps to uncover the emergent and informal communication patterns present


 The Social Networking theory
Theory Name: Social Network Theory
Acronym: SNT
Alternate name(s): Network theory, network analysis
Main dependent construct(s)/factor(s): Node size, density, link strength
Main independent construct(s)/factor(s): Nodes, links


Concise description of theory 
      Social network theory views social relationships in terms of nodes and ties. Nodes are the individual actors within the networks, and ties are the relationships between the actors. There can be many kinds of ties between the nodes. In its most simple form, a social network is a map of all of the relevant ties between the nodes being studied. The network can also be used to determine the social capital of individual actors. 

Online Networking - Virtual Networking
      The rise of SNSs indicates a shift in the organization of online communities. While websites dedicated to communities of interest still exist and prosper, SNSs are primarily organized around people and interests. Early public online communities such as Usenet and many public discussion forums were structured by topics or according to topical hierarchies, but social network sites are structured as personal (or "egocentric") networks, with the individual at the center of their own community. This more accurately mirrors unmediated social structures, where "the world is composed of networks, not groups" (Wellman, 1988, p. 37). The introduction of SNS features has introduced a new organizational framework for online communities, and with it, a vibrant new research context.


      What makes social network sites unique is not that they allow individuals to meet strangers, but rather that they enable users to articulate and make visible their social networks. This can result in connections between individuals that would not otherwise be made, but that is often not the goal, and these meetings are frequently between "latent ties" (Haythornthwaite, 2005) who share some offline connection. On many of the large SNSs, participants are not necessarily "networking" or looking to meet new people; instead, they are primarily communicating with people who are already a part of their extended social network. To emphasize this articulated social network as a critical organizing feature of these sites, we label them Social Network Sites SNS’s.

Bridging Online and Offline Social Networks
      Although exceptions exist, the available research suggests that most SNSs primarily support pre-existing social relations. Ellison, Steinfield, and Lampe (2007) suggest that Facebook is used to maintain existing offline relationships or solidify offline connections, as opposed to meeting new people. These relationships may be weak ties, but typically there is some common offline element among individuals who friend one another, such as a shared class at school. This is one of the chief dimensions that differentiate SNSs from earlier forms such as newsgroups.


      Research in this vein has investigated how online interactions interface with offline ones. For instance, Lampe, Ellison, and Steinfield (2006) found that Facebook users engage in "searching" for people with whom they have an offline connection more than they "browse" for complete strangers to meet. Likewise, research found that 91% of those who use SNSs do so to connect with friends.

      Given that SNSs enable individuals to connect with one another, it is not surprising that they have become deeply embedded in user's lives. In Korea, Cyworld has become an integral part of everyday life—Choi (2006) found that 85% of that study's respondents "listed the maintenance and reinforcement of pre-existing social networks as their main motive for Cyworld use". Likewise, Boyd (2008) argues that MySpace and Facebook enable U.S. youth to socialize with their friends even when they are unable to gather in unmediated situations; she argues that SNSs are "networked publics" that support sociability, just as unmediated public spaces do.

Conclusion
      Social networking sites do have an impact on user’s life, especially with respect to how users present and hide aspects about themselves (from others) and connect with others. The fact that participation on social networking websites leaves online traces offers unprecedented opportunities for researchers. Keeping watch of the increasing numbers of social networking website users, leaves one to imagine, if everyone is virtually networking who is actually socially networking? Social networking services comprise a large part of today’s Web and show no sign of releasing their hold on the world’s psyche any time soon.