A nice side-effect of tracking the blogosphere’s reaction to my Mashable post on Social Media Jobs has been a debate on the definition of Social Media. What the hell is it?
I agree – the definition is vague and sometimes completely idiotic. So let’s finally put this question to rest and get a consensus. What is Social Media?
I’m going to define it in the most basic way possible – by breaking down the term into its core parts:
Social:
First line of Wikipedia: Social refers to human society or its organizations.
The social in social media refers to human society and human organizations. Broad, but it’s a start.
Media:
First line of Wikipedia: Media are the storage and transmission tools used to store and deliver information or data.
So Media is about communication and communication tools. Alright. Still too broad, but we’re getting somewhere. We’re talking about primarily electronic media – you haven’t seen someone use a chisel or a pen to Tweet, have you?
So now we’re talking about using electronic communication storage and transmission to deliver information or data. Because we have “social,” that means it’s the transmission of data to other people and other social groups.
So far, social media is the use of electronic tools by humans to communicate with one another.
Closer, but we’re not there yet.
The vein that flows between FriendFeed, Facebook, Digg, Twitter, etc. is sharing. The sharing of experiences, of information, of Rick Astley to unsuspecting YouTubers. Traditional media presents information to you for you to digest. Social media allows you to pick, choose, comment, parse, and retort – all at the same time.
Now we have it to this: Social media is the use of electronic and Internet tools for the specified use of sharing and discussing experiences and information with other human beings.
But doesn’t a general website do that?
Sort of but, social media tools do it more effectively and they do it faster. That’s the point of Digg – you can share something you found with a lot more people than your IM buddy list. It’s more efficient.
Social Media:
First line of Wikipedia: Social media is an umbrella term that defines…
Enough.
From our deduction, here’s a standing definition:
Social Media is the use of electronic and Internet tools for the purpose of sharing and discussing information and experiences with other human beings in more efficient ways.
One too many “ands”, but oh well – I’m very happy with this definition. If you disagree with me, please debate it in the comments. Otherwise, someone change the first paragraph of the Social Media article on Wikipedia, because I’m tired of the ambiguity.
Excellent post. I love how you come up with the definition of social media.
Excellent post. I love how you come up with the definition of social media.
Hi Ben,
I appreciate your effort on this so far but don't you think it's a bit of a “first draft” to cite on Wikipedia? Much less when you are citing yourself?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socia…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mystalic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ATT#Citi…
I did notice the effort on the Talk page here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Social_media#…
The previous definition was completely myopic but I think you're jumping the gun a little. There are many books about the economics of information and the history of media industries that may give you more perspective on what “social media” actually is and inform a stronger definition.
If I were you, I might begin by trying to answer the question: what are the economic differences between a blog with no ads on it and a newspaper company? Your definition focuses on the subjective and relative; I hope that the science and econ of information will lead you to the objectivity demanded by a proper definition.
Hope this helps,
Ethan
Hi Ben,
I appreciate your effort on this so far but don’t you think it’s a bit of a “first draft” to cite on Wikipedia? Much less when you are citing yourself?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_media&diff=next&oldid=232136984
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mystalic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ATT#Citing_yourself
I did notice the effort on the Talk page here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Social_media#Proposal_for_Definition.2Fnew_first_paragraph_for_Social_Media
The previous definition was completely myopic but I think you’re jumping the gun a little. There are many books about the economics of information and the history of media industries that may give you more perspective on what “social media” actually is and inform a stronger definition.
If I were you, I might begin by trying to answer the question: what are the economic differences between a blog with no ads on it and a newspaper company? Your definition focuses on the subjective and relative; I hope that the science and econ of information will lead you to the objectivity demanded by a proper definition.
Hope this helps,
Ethan
Social media is much more than electronic and internet tools. Social media provides context, pictures, words, shared meaning and a number of other opportunities for people to gain understanding, and create relationships.
While you may not agree with the previous definition, it was created by a number of people on Wikipedia through discussion and debate on Wikipedia. There's a process that is meant to be inclusive, so as to create opportunities for debate on Wikipedia and to allow for social constructivism in the creation of meanings. While your definition has merit, you neglected to use the very format that you provide in your definition. Why not post this definition in the discussion section, see what sticks, and then make changes.
Social media is much more than electronic and internet tools. Social media provides context, pictures, words, shared meaning and a number of other opportunities for people to gain understanding, and create relationships.
While you may not agree with the previous definition, it was created by a number of people on Wikipedia through discussion and debate on Wikipedia. There’s a process that is meant to be inclusive, so as to create opportunities for debate on Wikipedia and to allow for social constructivism in the creation of meanings. While your definition has merit, you neglected to use the very format that you provide in your definition. Why not post this definition in the discussion section, see what sticks, and then make changes.
So Ben et. all: Perhaps the definition below begins to capture the spirit of where social media is going, and at the same time works to define the perceived ambiguity that you mention. I've also posted on Wikipedia under social media. I'm interested in your and all's thoughts. See below:
Social media is the combination of activities that come together in a medium using one or more senses of sight, sound, or motion to create visual displays, picture-sharing opportunities, and the creation of shared-meaning through words and pictures by people.
And so the discussion moves forward. 🙂 This cites some of the work by Zuckerberg and Team (Facebook) as a social utility, discusses some of the developmental psychological principles by persons like Dan McAdams (The Stories we Live by), Steven Johnson (Everything Bad is Good for You), and (The Wisdom of Crowds) identified by James Surowiecki. Finally, much discussion has occured regarding the economics of social media in Tapscott and Williams' book, Wikinomics. Don Tapscott and Anthony Williams talk about the future of social media as an interconnected collaborative tool that allows for people to come together and create shared-meaning with expertise and precision.
So Ben et. all: Perhaps the definition below begins to capture the spirit of where social media is going, and at the same time works to define the perceived ambiguity that you mention. I’ve also posted on Wikipedia under social media. I’m interested in your and all’s thoughts. See below:
Social media is the combination of activities that come together in a medium using one or more senses of sight, sound, or motion to create visual displays, picture-sharing opportunities, and the creation of shared-meaning through words and pictures by people.
And so the discussion moves forward. 🙂 This cites some of the work by Zuckerberg and Team (Facebook) as a social utility, discusses some of the developmental psychological principles by persons like Dan McAdams (The Stories we Live by), Steven Johnson (Everything Bad is Good for You), and (The Wisdom of Crowds) identified by James Surowiecki. Finally, much discussion has occured regarding the economics of social media in Tapscott and Williams’ book, Wikinomics. Don Tapscott and Anthony Williams talk about the future of social media as an interconnected collaborative tool that allows for people to come together and create shared-meaning with expertise and precision.
I like what you had to say about the definition of social media..but someone on twitter posted this lnk and it has an interesting point about 'media' http://blog.clickz.com/081117-154114.html
I like what you had to say about the definition of social media..but someone on twitter posted this lnk and it has an interesting point about ‘media’ http://blog.clickz.com/081117-154114.html
I like what you had to say about the definition of social media..but someone on twitter posted this lnk and it has an interesting point about 'media' http://blog.clickz.com/081117-154114.html