wisdom of crowds

The credibility and validity of the wisdom of crowds is very volatile. While some crowds may consist of the brightest intellects across various fields, it is important to understand that not all crowds are wise. With that being said, I think the true potential utilization of the wisdom of crowds comes from diversity and independence of opinion, specialization, and appropriate aggregation of content. The ability of Wikipedia to have various authors contribute allows an increase in insights to occur. Similarly, instead of having just one author's knowledge on a matter, a multitude of people from various backgrounds can contribute the knowledge they have amassed. The key features in establishing the credibility of Wikipedia as a preliminary source are undoubtedly the references and further reading components. Encyclopedia Britannica is often seen as a scholarly, credible source in comparison to Wikipedia. However, I really question whether or not this opinion is valid, or will remain valid. With Encyclopedia Britannica, it is often one author contributing an article, or a small group of authors with similar mindsets and experiences. These authors contribute to other articles across different fields as well, and are thus not necessarily as passionate in a specialized field as Wikipedia contributors. Encyclopedia Britannica does not have the framework or structure to beat this potential of the wisdom of crowds, which is why I think Wikipedia will most likely be the more successful and most popular source in coming years.

Growing up through elementary and middle school with a serious hatred for writing papers, like everyone else my first resource was wikipedia. Even though we had presentations by the librarian about how much they hated wikipedia, and how you cannot trust anything, I would still use it, all the time, but why? Because of sheer convenience. Also, I never bought into the idea of "anyone can post anything they want, so you cant trust it", I feel that someone would have to be either really bored and really strange to completely make up almost a whole page about the war of 1812 with very detailed dates and info. The type of person that gives that information about the war of 1812 to wikipedia is obviously an enthusiast and most likely knows their stuff, so bassically its a great starting point. Plus, any real "prank" entries get resolved almost as quick as they are posted...
10 years from now, I feel wikipedia is just going to grow an expand its wealth of information and any competitors will most likely be non existent. However, I do feel enyclopedia brittanica will still be around, but I think they will start focusing more on their other options that wikipedia currently does not have, like access to magazine articles, ebooks, and primary sources.

Relevance in 10 years

When I was told to blog about the relevance of Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia, I had thought to myself "I haven't used Encyclopedia Britannica in years" because I had forgotten all about it. When I was younger and in middle school I remember using Britannica all the time for any information I couldn't find on AskJeeves, which was my search engine of choice at the time. Now a days to get information I just google it and the first or second thing that comes up is a link to the wikipedia of the topic I search. This is the first time in years that I've been to the Britannica's website in years and me being so used to Wikipedia's site I think that Britannica's site has unneeded information on its home page, but when you search for something like my topic "Cognitive Dissonance", the information is less compared to Wikipedia's result. So in 10 years I see Wikipedia being more relevant than Encyclopedia Britannica mostly because of its easy usability and accessibility.

Wikipedia vs Britannica

At the speed that new information is created, it is hard for anyone to keep up with it. Even Encyclopedia Britannica falls behind now. However, with Wikipedia being a site created with mostly user generated information it does not falter in this way. "Between 2008 and 2010, articles in medial and scientific fields such as pathology, toxicology, oncology and pharmaceuticals comparing Wikipedia to other professional and peer-reviewed sources found that Wikipedia's depth and coverage were of the same high standards."

Of course that last quote came from wikipedia itself, but wikipedia is found to be more accurate on a constant basis than Encyclopedia Britannica because of the rate it is updated and reviewed, and subsequently changed to contain correct information. Whereas if Britannica is wrong, it tends to stay incorrect for a much longer period of time in relation to Wikipedia. In 10 years there will no doubt still be people who go into Wikipedia and put in incorrect information, purposely or not, but I suspect that more professional people will be adding correct information faster and there will be stricter policies to try and stem false information from entering their databases.

The collaborative intelligence

The world has significantly changed in the past decade. Especially the growth of internet has brought a considerable effect on people’s lifestyle and thinking. Talking about this weeks’ topic, Wikipedia has changed the education style. There was a time, when students would take a pile of books from library or seek information from teachers, professionals and friends to do a research work. But Wikipedia provides  all these facilities on one page, including the list of related sources and links for further research.

But how much can one rely on Wikipedia, has always remained a concern. While one may rely on encyclopedia for its reliability, an article(http://news.cnet.com/Digg-continues-to-battle-phony-stories/2100-1025_3-6144652.html) shows that the errors caused by encyclopedia on various topics are quite close to that caused by Wikipedia. Encyclopedia has 100 fulltime editors and 4000 contributors and on the other hand Wikipedia has been written collaboratively by volunteers around the world. It has around 90,000 regular active contributors. This helps Wikipedia to make a broad review of information along with details known only to local or expertise of that field. Some of the information is not available in books and Encyclopedia.  It is for this and some other reasons that personally, I am more comfortable with Wikipedia. For example: When I gave the search of Philadelphia in both Wikipedia as well as Encyclopedia, I got the information of climate, cuisines, history , tourism, people and other details all   on one page in Wikipedia whereas in case of Encyclopedia I only got a little information of  Geographic details, leaving upto me for advanced research.  Most people love user friendly websites and articles that save time and give a quick overview of the subject.

Moreover,  as far as reliability is concerned, then Wikipedia is one of the most visited site so even if the information contains errors , it would be edited or deleted by other users. Moreover people follow the trend. Talking about the reliability of information, there is so much information available on internet which people rely upon not knowing its actual source.  Of course, the information cannot be used for medical purposes or other extremely important stuffs. I prefer the use of Wikipedia- the collaborative intelligence to get an overview of subjects rather than getting precise information. It is difficult to say who will gather accurate information in coming ten years. Even if Encyclopedia Britannica gathers accurate information, it will still lack the broader review…..given by collaborative users all over the world. 

crowd's play

Before talking about what will happen after 10 years, lets look into how much influence does wikipedia and encyclopedia britannica has. I typed "Princess Diaries" in Encyclopedia Britannica and a single line description showed up. When I typed the same in wikipedia, all the details about the movie showed up. Not everybody needs all the details. But atleast a few of them are looking for it. We know that the information provided might be wrong. But we still look into wikipedia for information. This is mostly because they are constantly being updated.

Sometimes, pranksters enter the wrong information as a part of their fun. I believe that is one of the reasons why wiki stays popular. Wikipedia might be at the top after 10 years if they figure out a way to make sure that all the information provided in it are true.

Who knows! There might be some other pedia evolving right now while I am typing this that might be at the top in 10 years!

Wisdom of Crowds, Wiki > EB

The article about phony stories on the Digg website is expected to happen in the online community. When I read reviews I try to look for spelling errors to show some kind of honest input, or articles that contain some complaints. When I purchase a product I look for the cons on different website reviews. I know that if it’s a good buy, with a small problem, I can make it work. I feel that if there are phony reviews posted about the product I’m buying, I can find better information especially on sites that stack reviews, like Google shopping. It’s super easy for companies to infiltrate a product review and post 5 stars to it. The bigger my review search, the better feedback I’ll receive about the product.
As far as what will be more accurate in 10 years, Wikipedia or Encyclopedia Britannica, I feel that Wiki will be the champ, only because of how easy and direct the information is linked through the site. Wiki pops up first on my searches; it usually has credible sources, and every time I’ve edited an article incorrectly on purpose to see the correction response time, it was fixed pretty fast. EB is strict, while Wiki is usually stacked with more links, examples, and history. After listening to the recording I agree that experts should be writing the encyclopedia, but people want information now, and a preview for what they’re searching for asap. I typed in Conspiracy theory in EB and links of historical conspiracy populated, but no regular definition. As long as there are credible sources on Wikipedia, I’d use wiki over EB.

Power of the people?

Does society and the collective intelligence really have the power and the accuracy to provide us with useful information? Can it give us a more well rounded and unbiased view of events? These are all just a few of the questions I present to myself every time I make use of a Wiki. How can I trust the content if I know everyone can add or dispute it? I think the one calming thing I have noticed is the power corroborating facts or the improved pressure to substantiate facts by the common collective. I have seen evidence that when someone posts poor information or facts that aren't supported, the collective of the internet will call those facts in to question and almost immediately force a change in the misrepresented fact.

This collective "correction" does bring me some confidence in the information and facts that I find on Wiki. It helps when you can pool so much knowledge from so many sources that it brings confidence to the information presented. You can find more points of view from more sources then you can with a conventional encyclopedia. I like to see the opposing sides of theories and historical events. It gives me more of an overall global view of what has happened.

Does it mean I have complete confidence in Wiki's? Not at all, but I am more comfortable with what I find and feel even better when I can view links for resources and facts that are posted. Hopefully in the future the power of the collective intellect will continue to police itself and remain a voice of true facts and not the personal soap box to someones agenda.

The Wisdom of Crowds

I am choosing to blog about The Wisdom of Crowds written by James Surdowiecki.   I had to read this book for a Group Dynamics class that I took in 2005—the Professor (who was excellent) used this as a springboard for the entire semester and the class had to work through creating instances for the main arguments throughout the book. 

There are two points that I remember in depth--mostly because they are the two items I reported on.  The first is Surdowiecki’s notion that under the right circumstances groups are extraordinarily intelligent, and are smarter than the smartest person in the group (I think in the video he spoke of this as even if a person knows less than someone else in the group, what they know is different).  I used the example of the show Survivor –the power of the “tribes” was most effective when everyone shared small bits of knowledge about a lot of things, and/or they shared a lot of knowledge about one thing and someone else shared another piece of knowledge about something else.  The power was in the group dynamics, not in one person.

The second idea I remember from his book was a little later in the book when he spoke about the importance of cooperation and trust.  I chose to focus on trust as a key element for a group’s success.  When individuals come together for a certain purpose, they bring their individual experiences and knowledge, but they also may carry uncertainty, insecurities, and fear to the group.  These aren’t necessarily negative features because they may lead to cautious awareness’s that need to be considered for success.

So, how do I apply all of this with online communities and social networks?  I think they are very similar in such instances such as Wikipedia and Facebook but an important difference is that people may be using the information to reach different goals and writers of the information do not know what these goals are.  Knowing where you wish to go and what you need to accomplish is an important element for success that should be considered from the very beginning, not made up as you go along. 

You Can't Delete Your Facebook

So oddly timed with this blog post was me reactivating my Facebook(I find it funny auto-correct on the computer says Facebook should always be capitalized)  after deactivating (Can't delete) it about a year ago. Immediately I was lost, about 10% of the page was similar to what I remember. Even adding friends was different, I did not grasp the concept of close friends being a sort of parallel to old school myspace top friends. Well theres a whole fire pit Facebook is trying there, but thats besides the point  . Facebook's strong assist is there development system, which is what has made them the site they are today.

Design, Ship, Iterate

Last year a speaker from Facebook came in to describe this system they use to improve their site. Down to the heart it ends up the users make a lot of what comes out new of Facebook. A great example is the languages, which were all inputted by users using a application Facebook put out. Why put out a product that you think is 100% knowing the users are going to no matter what complain about something. Well Facebook puts there stuff at launch out 50% done and lets the public start tearing at the product. They can then from there fix the issues and build from a fixed platform

Facebook's other strong asset is how they invest and partner. Things like games, forums, and other login bases things can now use your Facebook's login, so no need for a million logins. Also partnering with thing like Spotify, a up and coming popular program. This allows Facebook to keep riding the cool train forever.

Facebook

I found an article from Time Magazine Online (from 2007) about how Facebook is the future of the internet. The general idea of the article was about how Facebook was in a sense, another net within the internet; everything that the internet is not. Anonymity has been a large portion of internet interactions between people. Since Facebook has taken on a set-in-stone factual nature (for the most part), people feel more invested in it and upload all the possible information about themselves, that they feel comfortable sharing including their age, sexual orientation, relationship status and even their current location. Keeping up with a personal image can even become a large portion of some people's time.

With social networks and blogs now being the 4th most popular kind of online activity, 67% of the world online population is visiting these sites. Social media sites are growing at three times the speed of the internet. According to Neilson online, social media sites are checked more often than email and if Facebook were its own country, it would be the fifth largest (based on population) in the world.

Facebook to me has been more of a way to network for things to do rather than a social "this is what i'm/we're/they're doing" kind of site. My news feed is almost entirely from companies and websites rather than the people on my friendslist. I don't feel like it is a substitute for face to face interaction and i don't feel like it ever should be.

"Twitterers" or "tweeters"

I know many people who do not have a Twitter account is because they they think its, unnecessary or too much information about yourself to the general public, but the people who already have a twitter account may beg to differ. Today twitter has a little over 200 million accounts and users range from politicians to reality tv stars. This form of social media is a great way to promote and market almost anything and everything and a great way  to reach the general public. 

After reading an article about Twitter in the New York Times I've learned a couple things about Twitter, like how people of Iran had used it to communicate with each other to protest against their government since the government blocked cell phone signals. Even though some tweets from wittier can be a little too much information for the public and unnecessary, it still serves a purpose within society. 

I wanted to write about Twitter and society because I've had a twitter account for about a month now because I got talked into it by friends of mine. I was very skeptical of twitter for years and swore up and down that I wouldn't get one unless it  was a professional one (i still intend it to soon be one) but I finally signed up because at times I did feel left out it certain situations and dissuasions about conversations on twitter. I still think that some tweets are very unnecessary but I still seem to go on it everyday because like Facebook, it can become addicting to keep up with everybody. I don't tweet much, and not at least half as many as my friends do daily or weekly, but I still use it. (And I still cant believe that I caved)

New York Times Article: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/twitter/index.html?scp=1-spot&sq=twitter&st=cse

Social Networks

I feel like I have a love-hate relationship with the social networks. Though there are many ways to communicate, I couldn’t imagine a better way to connect with my friends other than facebook. I get to see their latest pictures, their review on new releases, etc. It also helps in sharing our views and getting an opinion on something, get updates on sports, music, politics, companies, etc just by liking their official page. Getting all the updates in one page is way better than visiting their website. On the other hand, because facebook is so good, it has become indispensable and addictive. This takes away most of my time! In my view, Twitter is a lot healthy than facebook.

I read an article that focussed solely on how a social network helps the people in arts field. Ms. Merlino, 26, senior marketing manager at the Guggenheim museum says:
“We use Twitter to not only to connect with one another, but to share what we feel brings value to a larger online arts community, It has enabled us to form both professional and personal relationships that has provided countless opportunities for learning and collaboration.”

It is good that the Social networks exist. But keeping the usage under control is in the user’s hand.

Innovation vs revenue

Like almost everyone else I had a myspace page, multiple actually, that I would use almost everyday. I had my own personal page, and like three other ones for bands or music projects I was a part of. The thing I liked most about myspace, at least in the earlier years, is the concept of customization. This can be a double edged sword however. It gave people individuality as far as their page went, honestly this is how I started to learn about html in the first place. The negative part being going onto peoples pages that were just ridiculously filled with image upon image and crappy .gif's that seemed like it would never end. This led to poor usability in my opinion.

The article I read was titled "Why myspace really lost to facebook" One reason they listed is that facebook was just better at spotting trends and better at finding ways to implement them into something a user would want to use: aka the news feed. The average myspace user probably wasnt concerned with how cool their classmates page layout was, they wanted to know what they were up to and see the new pictures they posted, and myspace I feel didnt capitalize on this well enough. "While Zuckerberg and friends at Facebook were continuing to innovate, “Myspace had become too concerned with revenue…” writes Adegoke." When Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp bought myspace in 2007, the focused changed dramatically to revenue growth and aimed to hit $1 billion dollars. So it really comes down to trying to make as much money as possible , or making something that users want to use even if it wont make you rich (at first).

Facebook > myspace and Twitter

The article I read for this week’s blog posting was from CNN, titled “Can once-cool MySpace stage a comeback?”. The article was published back from June 2009, and talked about the beginning of the end for Myspace. It talked about its decline in popularity, and the rise of competition from Facebook, especially when Myspace was bought by News Corp. The article also mentions Myspace decided to focus its site more on the user’s music and entertainment. It also pointed out that Myspace users were usually younger, and advertisers weren’t interested.
When I first started using social networks I felt that MySpace was the best site. Users didn’t have to get verified, names could be changed, and users were able to customize their pages. I feel MySpace’s biggest weakness was the amount of spam that started to infiltrate comment pages. Facebook’s “tag”, and “like” features were the weapon that helped Facebook dominate the World Wide Web. The best deterrent Facebook used for spammers was requiring users to have a school email address. As of right now I can’t see Twitter beating out Facebook, because Twitter is a public away message. At the end of the article it basically stated that Twitter is the new network, and Facebook users will begin to convert to Twitter accounts. This article is 2 years old and I don’t see any chance of Facebook being taken down any time soon.
Throughout the article it mentions that users usually have a life span of 2 years on these social network sites. My Facebook account was made in 2006, and 5 years later I see more users, and advertising on this site than I ever would have expected. I made the account out of curiosity, and thought it was boring.
Even though 2 years is the average life span for users, the amount of pictures, friends, and events that users post is what keeps them glued on. They have too much time vested in Facebook, and any rival to them would need to find a new way to win users over.

facebook and confidence.

While casually thumbing through the November issue of Cosmopolitan magazine, I came across an article entitled, "How to Survive a Confidence Crash" by Anna Davies. Normally I would continue flipping through the pages, but I noticed the editorial image was of a woman with Facebook open on her laptop. Upon further reading the article, I realized it was totally pertinent and relevant to this week's blog assignment, especially as I fit the demographic the article described (essentially 20-early 30s women with Facebook accounts). A good majority of the article focused on the negative effects of social media, and the added pressures it may add to its user's lives. I found it to be very interesting that while the main article summary simply said social media, every negative aspect of social media mentioned was exemplified by Facebook. In fact, one sentence stated in a round about way to stop using Facebook altogether, and to use only LinkedIn and Google+ instead. But I digress... The article essentially described three aspects of what they referred to as "The Facebook Effect". The first is the pressure of my generation to create and present flawless images of themselves (mainly for others to stalk). This pressure includes worrying about unflattering or humiliating photos or posts sometimes beyond your control, that will be there essentially for all of eternity. The second, and perhaps most common, is that Facebook enables/encourages constant comparison between oneself and others. Seeing constant feeds of others succeeding in their school/work or appearing to have great times can inspire feelings of inadequacy and self- doubt. The last aspect of the spectrum, and perhaps most commonly humored, is that, as Jane Buckingham(founder of a Millennial-focused research firm) said, "so many young women treat life as a constant status update. It's as if they're more concerned with how their lives look than how their lives feel."


I definitely think that this article and its description of the "Facebook Effect" are definitely valid. Many of the articles or news pieces I have read or seen related to the negative aspects of social media tend to deal with the younger demographic of users, and how it has become the quintessential bullying tool. It is intriguing to see an article focused on a demographic more so relevant to my peers and me. I have pictures of myself on Facebook that required untagging, and was especially wary of how my profile appeared while applying to be and working as an RA on campus. I certainly am guilty of stalking people I knew in  high school, and becoming envious of how amazing their lives seem to be as a result of their photos, status updates, and college/work information. Therefore, the description matches my experiences to an extent, although I do not particularly identify with the last aspect. While I definitely have felt that underlying, embarrassing feeling of posting something because it will let others see like how totally awesome I am (exaggerated sarcasm), it is definitely not an everyday concern of mine.  I do however know quite a few of my peers who fit, or seem to fit, perfectly into that aspect.  


Ultimately, I think it is interesting to see how specific avenues of social media have affected our culture and psychology to such a drastic extent in such a few years' time.

Fall of the Myspace Empire

I know some might consider it macabre but I find it interesting to find out what causes the demise of any once great corporation. From the massive steel corporations that dominated the regional landscape to ever expanding realm of the internet there are lessons to be learned for every collapse of any major entity. Myspace was at the pinnacle of the social media boom, at one point being the largest and most used of any of the social media networks. So what happened to this fore father of the social boom?

I found a nice bullet point article one http://socialmediatoday.com/jasonbaer/176830/6-lessons-learned-demise-myspace It was nothing fancy just nice succinct points that the writer felt were the overall cause of its down fall. The first point was one that I wasn't sure I agreed with at first till I gave it some thought. Myspace lacked authenticity is what the author felt. Hmm interesting point to bring up. The site allowed users to use specialized screen names that he felt made it lack any credibility. Internet trolls could hide behind their persona and if they needed they could just start all over again if they got found out. The lack of real names being used just kept the site in the realm of the internet chat room.

The next two points I will combine into one as they both deal with development and implementation. While it was great to be able to customize your own page with grpahics and custom fonts; this made for nightmares not only for users but the site overall. Pages would crash and users would be come frustrated and look for other avenues to continue their social networking. The other was a lack of a mobile application. This was one of the biggest mistakes in my view. People love to be mobile and like to stay in contact no matter where they are. If you don't' cater to this desire then you will be left in the dust in this new era.

A lack of vision can be the down fall of many great companies. This was very true for Myspace. They stayed too focused on their roots (music being the primary) and neglected the value and potential of what they had created. People just didn't want to be connected by a common like of a topic but to extend beyond that and deal with the real people around them. They needed to embrace business and the "formal" world to ensure their continued exsistance, yet the ignored the value in both of those and forged ahead to their slow implosion.

I did hunt around for a few more articles about the down fall, but most echoed this writers sentiments. Getting to look back at my own experiences on the site and the power of hindsight, I can see how all of the authors points are very valid and should be studied if you want to begin to have the clout that Facebook now has.

The Facebook

Facebook is the world's largest social network, with 800 million users worldwide as of September 2011. Founded by Mark Zukerberg, while he was  in his sophomore year, initialy it was accessible to only Harvard students and then it expanded to other colleges, high schools,  countries and now presently accessible to anyone who is above 13 years of age. Well, a study shows there are more than 7.5 million children under 13 having facebook account.The countries with highest facebook accounts are United States, United Kingdom and Indonesia. Acccording to a survey in the year 2006, facebook was the second most popular thing, followed by ipod among the undergraduates. Release of statistics by DoubleClick showed that Facebook reached one trillion page views in the month of June 2011, making it the most visited Website in the World outstanding even Google.

The use and popularity of facebook is not alien to anyone. It has taken a quick growth in the increase of its users ever since it was founded. It has made the social media easier than before. Moreover, it has formed a social media site on an international base. When I came to USA in August 2010, I heard many people talking about My Space. But it is not so famous social media site in India. Strangely, facebook helped me to contact with many students and get a review of Philadelphia University while I was in India.  I know this could have happened the other way also. But chatting with students of Philadelphia University made me feel comfortable before I actually came to USA. Even after I came here, facebook has been a real help to me to be in contact with my friends and family members back in India on a regular basis. It is not possible to call everyone daily, but the news feed feature is a real convenience to know what are my friends and relatives up to. 

The simplicity in designs and user experience is one of the prime feature of facebook. Whenever, the thought of using multi-colors in my webpage designs comes to my mind, I think of facebook and its popularity with only two colors, color- scheme. I cannot deny the fact that facebook has become an integral part of my life, done almost on a regular basis. It has helped me find out my school friends departed for more than 15 years,  helped me to make new  friends, given a voice to share my opinions and feelings about something. Another good factor of social media website like facebook is it helps to spread information rapidly. There was an act of anti-corruption going on in India in August 2011 on a wide base.  Facebook was used as medium by public to show their support and share thoughts. 

But as every coin has its both sides, facebook has its cons too. The overuse of facebook has declined the work efficiency of people. These days most corporate companies are banning the use of facebook among its employers. Moreover, there are many issues regarding the privacy concerns of facebook. In my opinion, everything has its pros and cons.  On the whole, facebook is a huge success in a very short period of  time.




Source:1. http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/facebook_inc/index.html            2.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook

Check out "Social Media Examiner"

I like statistics, and while statistics can be skewed to represent a certain biased, for the most part, if presented well, they are what they are.  So in preparing for this blog assignment I searched for stats as they relate to social networking.  To my surprise I can across this awesome site and comprehensive study (I think they have a new fan):

http://www.socialmediaexaminer.com/social-media-marketing-industry-report-2011/

You can download the Media Marketing Report, which is really interesting, but I also went through a few of the categories and literally spent hours looking through the wealth of information.  I think you’ll find it interesting, too.  (Check out under expert interviews, “Attacking the Myths of Social Media: An Interview with Jason Falls”)

            I certainly believe that social media is beneficial for many reasons, and I love Jason Falls comment about the use of social media for business reasons, “if all you think social media is about is joining the conversation, engaging, holding hands in a circle and singing “Kumbaya,” then you’re not going to be in business very long.”  I really think this sums up the power of social media well, BUT like anything else, if we become slave to it, it can also have its downfalls.  We are all aware of the tragic effects social media has had on youth, through events such as cyber bullying—they are nearly impossible to regulate—so we must be prepared to take the bad with the good.   So many times this semester the word “balance” has come to mind, and so I remind us of the importance of balance when it comes to social media.