Defining Social Software

As I explored the social software links we were supposed to read, I first thought how funny it is to read definitions of other social software sites. Does anyone else feel uneasy when they read definitions of AIM, Urban Dictionary, or even (and this is the weirdest of all) Wikipedia's definition of Wikipedia? I'm not sure I can pinpoint what gives me this uneasy feeling. Maybe it's the concept of a site is defining itself (do print encyclopedias have entries on what encyclopedias are?). Or maybe my uneasiness springs from a point that Lulu raised at the beginning of her post and that made me laugh because it's so true: what isn't social software these days? Faceook, AIM, blogging...sometimes I feel like these are my life. Social software seems like second nature to me and, in that sense, undefinable and unable to be analyzed.

The other aspect I really enjoy reading about in terms of social software is the politics behind its creation and use. I remember in high school Googling words and sometimes finding entries in Wikipedia on them. At the time, I didn't know what the site was and thought that it was a completely factual, "real" encyclopedia (though, I must ask, who defines what's real?). Now, of course, I've been trained to call into question everything I read on the site and to never, ever quote the site in a research paper without checking the information elsewhere. But that's the beauty of the Wikipedia: it gives the "common man" a voice. Like blogs, it allows a bottom-up formation of definitions, and that outlook is refreshing.