Advertisement

Understanding massive artistic cooperation: the case of Nico Nico Douga

  • Remy Cazabet
  • Hideaki Takeda
Original Article
  • 420 Downloads

Abstract

Many online social networks have been studied in the last decade, giving us insights into the way people diffuse information, communicate, and organize themselves. In this article, we focus on the emergent organization in massive artistic cooperation. We study the creation process of complex music videos in a platform called Nico Nico Douga. We give insights into three aspects of emergent organization:
  • The relation between popularity (in terms of view) and influence on the cooperation process.

  • The specialization of creators.

  • The organization of the network of citation.

Keywords

Social network analysis Massive cooperation Artistic cooperation Nico Nico Douga Peer production Online social networks 

References

  1. Amaral LAN, Scala A, Barthelemy M, Stanley HE (2000) Classes of small-world networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci 97(21):11149–11152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bakshy E, Hofman JM, Mason WA, Watts DJ (2011) Everyone’s an influencer: quantifying influence on twitter. In: Proceedings of the fourth ACM international conference on web search and data mining, pp 65–74, ACMGoogle Scholar
  3. Benkler Y, Nissenbaum H (2006) Commons-based peer production and virtue*. J Political Philos 14(4):394–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cazabet R, Takeda H (2014) Understanding mass cooperation through visualization. In: Proceedings of the 25th ACM conference on hypertext and social media, pp 206–211, ACMGoogle Scholar
  5. Cha M, Haddadi H, Benevenuto F, Gummadi PK (2010) Measuring user influence in twitter: the million follower fallacy. ICWSM 10:10–17Google Scholar
  6. Clauset A, Shalizi CR, Newman ME (2009) Power-law distributions in empirical data. SIAM Rev 51(4):661–703MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Davis JA, Leinhardt S (1967) The structure of positive interpersonal relations in small groups. Darthmouth CollegeGoogle Scholar
  8. Duguid P (2006) Limits of self-organization: peer production and “laws of quality”. First Monday 11(10) (2006). http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1405/1323
  9. Forte A, Lampe C (2013) Defining, understanding, and supporting open collaboration lessons from the literature. Am Behav Sci 57(5):535–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hamasaki M, Goto M (2013) Songrium: a music browsing assistance service based on visualization of massive open collaboration within music content creation community. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on open collaboration, p 4, ACMGoogle Scholar
  11. Haythornthwaite C (2009) Crowds and communities: light and heavyweight models of peer production. In: HICSS’09. 42nd Hawaii International Conference on system sciences, 2009, pp 1–10, IEEEGoogle Scholar
  12. Leskovec J, Lang K, Dasgupta A, Mahoney M (2009) Community structure in large networks: natural cluster sizes and the absence of large well-defined clusters. Internet Math 6(1):29–123MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Ley M (2002) The dblp computer science bibliography: evolution, research issues, perspectives. In: Laender AHF, Oliveira AL (eds) String processing and information retrieval. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  14. Morales A, Borondo J, Losada J, Benito R (2014) Efficiency of human activity on information spreading on twitter. Soc Netw 39:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Remy C, Pervin N, Toriumi F, Takeda H (2013) Information diffusion on twitter: everyone has its chance, but all chances are not equal. In: 2013 International Conference on signal-image technology & internet-based systems (SITIS), pp 483–490, IEEEGoogle Scholar
  16. Riehle D, Ellenberger J, Menahem T, Mikhailovski B, Natchetoi Y, Naveh B, Odenwald T (2009) Open collaboration within corporations using software forges. Softw IEEE 26(2):52–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Savage D, Zhang X, Yu X, Chou P, Wang Q (2014) Anomaly detection in online social networks. Soc Netw 39:62–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Shannon CE (1951) Prediction and entropy of printed english. Bell Syst Tech J 30(1):50–64CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Tang J, Zhang J, Yao L, Li J, Zhang L, Su Z (2008) Arnetminer: extraction and mining of academic social networks. In: Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, pp 990–998, ACMGoogle Scholar
  20. Toriumi F, Sakaki T, Shinoda K, Kazama K, Kurihara S, Noda I (2013) Information sharing on twitter during the 2011 catastrophic earthquake. In: Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on World Wide Web companion, pp 1025–1028. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering CommitteeGoogle Scholar
  21. Wilkinson DM (2008) Strong regularities in online peer production. In: Proceedings of the 9th ACM conference on electronic commerce, pp 302–309, ACMGoogle Scholar
  22. Yang J, Counts S (2010) Predicting the speed, scale, and range of information diffusion in twitter. ICWSM 10:355–358Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Institute of InformaticsTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations