Combining sentiment analysis and discursive network analysis, this article looks to answer which sentiments characterize YouTube comments discourse, with a specific focus on how-to videos. What are the differences between comments to various types of videos, and which discursive contexts seem to promote positive sentiment and a participatory climate? Furthermore, the aim is to map out a variety of existing user strategies in terms of their degree of participation. What various modes of taking part and/or giving support are made discursively possible, and what degrees of detachment or engagement are expressed through these identified strategies?
AlexanderBLevineA (2008) Web 2.0 storytelling: Emergence of a new genre. Educause Review43(6): 40–48.
2.
BaronNS (2005) The future of written culture: Envisioning language in the New Millennium. Ibérica9: 7–31.
3.
BenklerY (2006) The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
4.
BondR (1999) Links, frames, meta-tags and trolls. International Review of Law, Computers and Technology13(3): 317–323.
5.
BourdieuP (1977) The economics of linguistic exchanges. Social Science Information16(6): 645–668.
6.
BourdieuP (1991) Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity.
7.
BrunsA (2008) Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage. New York: Peter Lang.
8.
BurgessJGreenJ (2009) YouTube: Online Video and Participatory Culture. Cambridge: Polity.
9.
ChengXDaleCLiuJ (2008) Statistics and social network of YouTube videos. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Workshop on Quality of Service. Enschede: IWQoS, pp. 229–238.
10.
DonathJS (1999) Identity and deception in the virtual community. In: SmithMKollockP (eds) Communities in Cyberspace. New York: Routledge, pp. 29–59.
11.
EllisonNBBoydD (2007) Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication13(1): 210–230.
12.
FuchsC (2008) Internet and Society: Social Theory in the Information Age. New York: Routledge.
13.
GauntlettD (2011) Making is Connecting: The Social Meaning of Creativity, from DIY and Knitting to YouTube and Web 2.0. Cambridge: Polity Press.
14.
GeeJP (2005) Semiotic social spaces and affinity spaces: From the age of mythology to today’s schools. In: BartonDTustingK (eds) Beyond Communities of Practice: Language, Power and Social Context. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 214–232.
15.
GrusinR (2009) YouTube at the end of new media. In: SnickarsPVonderauP (eds) The YouTube Reader. Stockholm: National Library of Sweden, pp. 60–67.
16.
HerringSJob-SluderKSchecklerRBarabS (2002) Searching for safety online: Managing ‘trolling’ in a feminist forum. The Information Society18(5): 371–384.
17.
JenkinsH (2006a) Fans, Bloggers, and Gamers: Exploring Participatory Culture. New York: New York University Press.
18.
JenkinsH (2006b) Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New York University Press.
19.
JenkinsHPurushotmaRKatherineC. (2009) Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
20.
JonesGMSchieffelinBB (2009) Talking text and talking back: ‘My BFF Jill’ from boob tube to YouTube. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication14(4): 1050–1079.
21.
JonesQ (1997) Virtual communities, virtual settlements and cyber-archaeology: A theoretical outline. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication3(3): 35–49.
22.
LangeP (2008) Publicly private and privately public: Social networking on YouTube. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication13(1): 361–380.
23.
LangeP (2009) Videos of affinity on YouTube. In: SnickarsPVonderauP (eds) The YouTube Reader. Stockholm: National Library of Sweden, pp. 70–88.
24.
LévyP (1999) Collective Intelligence: Mankind’s Emerging World in Cyberspace. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.
25.
LindgrenSLundströmR (2009) Discursive networks: Visualising media representations of crime victims. In: LimJ (ed.) Computer-Aided Qualitative Research 2009, CAQR2009 Proceedings. Utrecht: Merlien Institute, pp. 68–85.
26.
MaiaMAlmeidaJAlmeidaV (2008) Identifying User Behavior in Online Social Networks. New York: ACM, pp. 1–6.
27.
MüllerE (2009) Where quality matters: Discourses of the art of making a YouTube video. In: SnickarsPVonderauP (eds) The YouTube Reader. Stockholm: National Library of Sweden, pp. 126–139.
28.
OsarehF (1996) Bibliometrics, citation analysis and co-citation analysis: A review of the literature. Libri46: 149–158, 217–225.
29.
PaolilloJC (2008) Structure and network in the YouTube core. In: Proceedings of the 41st Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2008), p. 156.
30.
RotmanDPreeceJ (2010) The ‘WeTube’ in YouTube – creating an online community through video sharing. International Journal of Web Based Communities6(3): 317–333.
31.
RheingoldH (2002) Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution. Cambridge, MA: Perseus.
32.
RouseR (1991) Mexican migration and the social space of postmodernism. Diaspora1(1): 8–24.
33.
SharmaASElidrisiM (2008) Classification of multi-media content (videos on YouTube) using tags and focal points. Unpublished manuscript.
34.
SulerJ (2004) The online disinhibition effect. CyberPsychology and Behavior7(3): 321–326.
