Gilad Lotan’s field of study is data and information flow. He is the Vice President of Research Development His main focus is Social Flow. Social Flow is company that analyzes Twitter interaction to try to determine patterns and gather demographic information on Twitter users, the effectiveness of Twitter, and the most influential people on Twitter. Erhardt Graeff, Ian Pearce, and Devin Gaffney’s main project are Web Ecology. The web ecology project “asks questions of Internet culture, analyzes data, and otherwise engages with Web 2.0 phenomenon”.
Mike Ananny’s studies “how institutional, social, technological, and normative forces both shape and reflect the design of the online press and a public right to hear.” Ananny and Danah Boyd’s main project is Microsoft Research, which looks at the way Twitter interacts with the corporate world.
The Revolutions Were Tweeted: Information Flows During the 2011 Tunisian and Egyptian Revolutions investigates the impact that Twitter had on the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions in 2011. Number of re-tweets and information flow were analyzed in conjunction with the “actor type” of the tweets. The main aim of the article was to discern the role of different sources in information spread, and the impact of the information shared. This topic was of particular interest because of the impact on mainstream media on revolution changes. The researchers were curious to find whose information was viewed the most and retweeted the most. Tweets that are most retweeted are thought to be determinations of the trust other people put in the accuracy of the Tweets.
It was discovered that the most influential media source on Twitter varies depending on the country the media is received in. For example, bloggers’ tweets were retweeted the most in Tunisia, and non-media organizations in Egypt had the most retweets. The mainstream media, journalists, and activists were the most engaged in the information flows in Egypt. In Tunisia there were more journalists than bloggers that initiated information flow, however, bloggers participation in information flow was much larger.
Overall, this information is valuable because it shows that the source of information that is most valuable and trusted depends on the country and the people. With each different culture there is a different media system and a different perception of media. Therefore, one type of “actor” or reporter on Twitter is not more influential or valid. Especially in the midst of a revolution, information is often spread without sourcing the original vender-instead it is simply linked to the last person who tweeted on the subject.
This is a great summary of the article. I agree that it is difficult to make a translation about which type of information and actor-type is most valued; I believe it is situational . Good Images, Good Links, Well Written.
You do a great job of summarizing the work of each of the contributors as well as their combined research. You pulled out a good point, that valuable information depends on the source, for which culture is an important aspect. Your images are very well-placed and the white backgrounds look good.