Identity is not important for some communities?!

I've just watched very interesting talk by Michael S. Bernstein about 4chan and /b/ discussion boards where more than 90% of users are anonymous. The threads in the boards are not archived but deleted after sometime (~3,9 minutes). Although the anonymity of users and very short life of threads, communities have their culture and policies.For example, if somebody posted without using a settled slang, he gets a "Lurk further" reply.

Such kind of communities haven't been researched a lot. It is interesting that in communities like 4chan nobody looks for a reputation of a user. Even so some posts have "long" life (~ 39 minutes) when other users reply. In the boards it is going only about posted content and not about who has posted.


 
 
4chan and /b/: An Analysis of Anonymity and Ephemerality in a Large Online Community

Science as well as analysis of Science: both require accuracy. #ectel11

Because of pleasant personal reasons i can't attend the EC-TEL this year. Nevertheless i'm following what is happening in Palermo this year. Regretfully it is not easy. The WiFi seems to be very weak for enormous number of TEL researchers that are usually hanging in the Internet days and nights like Internet junkies.

I would like to sum here minor things that EC-TEL participants manage to post on 19 and 20 of September. Thanks for the tweets!

The EC-TEL seems to extremely interesting domain for Science 2.0 approaches. At least two posters at the conference are investigating the previous publications at the EC-TEL.  I'm embedding both of them later here. It is interesting to see how differently the researchers explore and present the same topic of the posters. The most interesting question is to know who is the most important member in the community. In the "author-community" poster the list of key community members is presented in the table. In the "analyzing EC-TEL"  poster there is no remark about key community members. However the poster includes the co-author network that highlights some of the EC-TEL participants. It is weird that a lot of names mentioned in the list of the first poster can't be seen in the second poster. Moreover, the co-authorship network of the first poster doesn't look like the co-authorship network of the second poster. In the first case the network has less disconnected clusters and the biggest cluster looks for me as it has more than 75 authors as it is presented in the second case. There are some more differences which i propose the readers to find.

i can imagine that the posters provoke a lot of discussions at the EC-TEL

Update: Thankfully to the discussion with Michael Derntl the difference is clarified. The first poster uses all papers from proceeding and workshops. The second poster uses only proceedings papers.
The EC-TEL Author-Community

Analyzing EC-TEL 2006-2010