Local Interactions and the Emergence of a Twitter Small-World Network

The small-world phenomenon is found in many self-organising systems. Systems configured in small-world networks spread information more easily than in random or regular lattice-type networks. Whilst it is a known fact that small-world networks have short average path length and high clustering coefficient in self-organising systems, the ego centralities that maintain the cohesiveness of small-world network have not been formally defined. Here we show that instantaneous events such as the release of news items via Twitter, coupled with active community arguments related to the news item form a particular type of small-world network. Analysis of the centralities in the network reveals that community arguments maintain the small-world network whilst actively maintaining the cohesiveness and boundary of the group. The results demonstrate how an active Twitter community unconsciously forms a small-world network whilst interacting locally with a bordering community. Over time, such local interactions brought about the global emergence of the small-world network, connecting media channels with human activities. Understanding the small-world phenomenon in relation to online social or civic movement is important, as evident in the spate of online activists that tipped the power of governments for the better or worst in recent times. The support, or removal of high centrality nodes in such networks has important ramifications in the self-expression of society and civic discourses. The presentation in this article anticipates further exploration of man-made self-organising systems where a larger cluster of ad-hoc and active community maintains the overall cohesiveness of the network.

[1]  Stanley Milgram,et al.  An Experimental Study of the Small World Problem , 1969 .

[2]  James J. Kay,et al.  Order from Disorder : The Thermodynamics of Complexity in Biology , 2007 .

[3]  Stanley Wasserman,et al.  Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications , 1994, Structural analysis in the social sciences.

[4]  A. Wilhite,et al.  Bilateral Trade and ‘Small-World’ Networks , 2001 .

[5]  Béla Bollobás,et al.  Random Graphs , 1985 .

[6]  P. Holland,et al.  Transitivity in Structural Models of Small Groups , 1971 .

[7]  Melanie Mitchell,et al.  Complexity - A Guided Tour , 2009 .

[8]  D. R. White,et al.  Structural cohesion and embeddedness: A hierarchical concept of social groups , 2003 .

[9]  M E J Newman,et al.  Finding and evaluating community structure in networks. , 2003, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[10]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  Internet: Diameter of the World-Wide Web , 1999, Nature.

[11]  H. Leavitt Some effects of certain communication patterns on group performance. , 1951, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[12]  Sharon L. Milgram,et al.  The Small World Problem , 1967 .

[13]  Duncan J. Watts,et al.  Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks , 1998, Nature.

[14]  Joan Saldaña,et al.  Body sizes of animal predators and animal prey in food webs , 1993 .

[15]  Jean-Loup Guillaume,et al.  Fast unfolding of communities in large networks , 2008, 0803.0476.

[16]  Jie Wu,et al.  Small Worlds: The Dynamics of Networks between Order and Randomness , 2003 .

[17]  M. Kochen,et al.  Contacts and influence , 1978 .

[18]  Per Bak,et al.  Small Worlds: The Dynamics of Networks between Order and Randomness, by Duncan J. Watts , 2000 .