Dovester (was: Ancient Social Networks)
From TrustLet, a free, collaborative project for collecting and analyzing information about trust metrics.
Copied from a web archive copy of this blog post that seems not reachable now. The license was Creative Commons by-sa.
Title: Dovester (was: Ancient Social Networks)
Credits and mad props for the new title go to Cocoa-God and all around cool guy, Buzz.
The recent launch of Orkut.com, and the flurry of sign-ups, partially powered by its “exclusive” model of invitation based membership, has brought discussions about “social networks” and sites like Friendster, Tribe, and LinkedIn back into the spotlight of discussions.
Social networking isn’t new (see Methods and Measures for the Analysis of Corporate Wikis). It is, in fact, as old as institutions and organizations are. Not just since the fundamental writings by Sociologists such as Coleman in 1964 have groups and circles attempted to harness the social capital inherent in structures, using tools to rate and evaluate individuals within a social grouping, and to facilitate communications amongst the members.
The oldest club in Europe, an exclusive French society of dove breeders, used social networking tools since the late 17th century to connect its members via a handwritten newsletter, circulating from member to member, and being amended along the way. A special trust metric had been established, which allowed each breeder to rate his peers, a process in which each vote carried weight based on the casters own ratings. In addition to the mailing, which took roughly one year to travel each of the members, shortcut routes were established, usually between counties, through which smaller groups could reach other groups. To create the shortcuts, each breeder was required to name at least two “sponsors” and four breeders he sponsored. Communications between unlinked individuals had to be established by finding a connection via ones own sponsor. Sponsors could, similarly, only communicate with their sponsors or sponsored individuals, making the initial contact a matter of knowing and being known. Once an initial contact was established, the following newsletter circulation was amended to reflect the newly linked breeders, who now were free to communicate and refer directly.
Acceptance of communications of bird purchases and sales based almost entirely on the ratings found inside the newsletter and contacts initiated by sponsors.
If this sounds even vaguely familiar, it does so, because it is reflected, in part, by today’s “social networking” software.
It hasn’t changed much. What did change, are the tools. And their names. And the hubris surrounding them. While most of the hurdles have fallen, including the sometimes mind-numbing wait for another circulation of the newsletter, and initiation has become much easier, the same basic ideas are still at work.
Even the pranksters, fakesters, and bogus friendship links aren’t new. The Count of Villechy, in 1889, was expelled from the club for posing as two breeders in an attempt to boost his ranking. The attempt failed due to the elaborate trust metric (which is closely related to the metric used at Advogato (and was calculated by hand, no less)), and because of his estranged mistress’ relationship to another, influential, club member.
See also this
