Editing Social software (section)

== Debates or design choices ==
Social software may be better understood as a ''set'' of debates or design choices, rather than any particular list of tools. Broadly conceived, there are many older media such as [[mailing list]]s and [[Usenet]] fora that qualify as "social". However, most users of this term restrict its meaning to more recent software genres such as [[blog]]s and [[wiki]]s. Others suggest that the term ''social software'' is best used not to refer to a single type of software, but rather to the use of two or more modes of [[computer-mediated communication]] that result in "community formation."<ref>Stowe Boyd, [http://www.stoweboyd.com/message/2006/10/are_you_ready_f.html "Are You Ready for Social Software?"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061112084039/http://www.stoweboyd.com/message/2006/10/are_you_ready_f.html |date=2006-11-12 }}</ref> In this view, people form online communities by combining one-to-one (e.g. [[email]] and [[instant messaging]]), one-to-many ([[Web pages]] and [[blogs]]) and many-to-many ([[wiki]]s) communication modes.<ref>Clay Shirky, [http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html "A Group is Its Own Worst Enemy"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050114020135/http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html |date=2005-01-14 }}</ref>  Some groups schedule [[real life]] meetings and so become "real" communities of people that share physical lives.

Most definers of social software agree that they seem to facilitate "bottom-up" community development. The system is classless and promotes those with abilities. Membership is voluntary, [[reputation]]s are earned by winning the [[Trust (sociology)|trust]] of other members and the community's missions and governance are defined by the members themselves.<ref>Matt Webb, [http://interconnected.org/home/2004/04/28/on_social_software "On Social Software"]</ref>

Communities formed by "bottom-up" processes are often contrasted to the less vibrant collectivities formed by "top-down" software, in which users' roles are determined by an external authority and circumscribed by rigidly conceived software mechanisms (such as [[access control|access rights]]). Given small differences in policies, the same type of software can produce radically different social outcomes. For instance, [[Tiki Wiki CMS Groupware]] has a fine-grained permission system of detailed access control so the site administrator can, on a page-by-page basis, determine which groups can view, edit or view the history. By contrast, [[MediaWiki]] avoids per-user controls, to keep most pages editable by most users and puts more information about users currently editing in its recent changes pages. The result is that Tiki can be used both by community groups who embrace the social paradigm of MediaWiki and by groups who prefer to have more content control.{{Citation needed|date=June 2019}}

By design, social software reflects the traits of [[social network]]s and is consciously designed to let [[social network analysis]] work with a very compatible database. All social software systems create links between users, as persistent as the identity those users choose. Through these persistent links, a permanent community can be formed out of a formerly [[epistemic community]]. The ownership and control of these links - who is linked and who is not - is in the hands of the user. Thus, these links are [[Asymmetry|asymmetrical]] - one might link to another, but that person might not link to the first.<ref>Trustlet, [http://www.trustlet.org/wiki/Trust_network Definition of trust network] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080303161017/http://www.trustlet.org/wiki/Trust_network |date=2008-03-03 }}</ref> Also, these links are functional, not decorative - one can choose not to receive any content from people you are not connected to, for example. [[Wikipedia user page]]s are a very good example and often contain extremely detailed information about the person who constructed them, including everything from their [[mother tongue]] to their [[moral purchasing]] preferences.

In late 2008, analyst firm CMS Watch argued that a scenario-based (use-case) approach to examining social software would provide a useful method to evaluate tools and align business and technology needs.<ref>CMS Watch, [http://www.cmswatch.com/Feature/187-Social-Software "A Scenario-based Approach to Evaluating Social Software"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100311052623/http://www.cmswatch.com/Feature/187-Social-Software |date=2010-03-11 }}</ref>

Methods and tools for the development of social software are sometimes summarized under the term [[Social Software Engineering]]. However, this term is also used to describe lightweight and community-oriented development practices.<ref>S. Lohmann and T. Riechert, [http://www.dei.inf.uc3m.es/slohmann/publications/SSE2010-lohmann.pdf "Adding Semantics to Social Software Engineering: (Re-)Using Ontologies in a Community-oriented Requirements Engineering Environment"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100918144453/http://www.dei.inf.uc3m.es/slohmann/publications/SSE2010-lohmann.pdf |date=2010-09-18 }}</ref>