portrait:http://www.hopperanalytical.com/pictures/hidethebaldspot.jpg
Hi There.
I'm interested in online participatory networks (of which WikiTechnology? is a subset), democratized innovation, and the novel applications of web technology. Generally, I'm trying to answer the question: how can we use the web to engage people more deeply and empower them to participate in addressing meaningful problems?
Came here from MeatballWiki?. I'm relatively new to wiki. Feel free to contact me at keith [at] hopperanalytical.com
About Me
I'm an internet strategy consultant and product manager. I maintain a blog on [http://www.hopperanalytical.com user participation]. More [http://www.hopperanalytical.com/about about me].To Dos
* Learn Oddmuse editing conventions* Better grok the content scope of CommunityWiki
* Find places to begin contributing
* Put new ideas for consideration here
Messages
[new:AlexSchroeder:2006-10-11 19:05 UTC]
Welcome! The definition of "topic" on this site is a bit difficult. It was planned as a site about community stuff, basically _about_ communities. But it turned out that some of the seed content attracted people who were interested in it, who then contributed what interested _them_, and on it went. It's still community related, but I guess it's very specific to the group of people that frequents the site. I think MattisManzel? called it "jazz" somewhere. Was it on MissionStatement?? Ah, there it is. "Jam session". There you have it.
[new:LionKimbro:2006-10-11 20:39 UTC]
Welcome!
: "how can we use the web to engage people more deeply and empower them to participate in addressing meaningful problems?"
Can you put a little detail on this, for me?
It seems easy to figure out ways to empower people: Just make new technologies. There are like a bajillion to choose from, both SoftTechnology? and HardTechnology?.
Empowerment to participate in addressing meaningful problems: This one's difficult for me. I don't see the difference between technology that empowers, and technology that empowers people to address meaningful problems.
"Empowers" to me means that people are given the power to address problems that mean something to them.
Welcome! Please don't take my response as a "shoo." Please take it as an invitation to delve, and introduce yourself and your interests.
[new:sigi:2006-10-13 03:35 UTC] well... if you are new to wiki, perhaps WikiFromScratch is the right start .
the idea is to come to a big consense .
[new:MattisManzel:2006-10-13 20:01 UTC]
Hello Keith. Welcome to community-wiki. A jam, AlexSchroeder? is right, I guess. It's the most potential confguration of people coming together. Nobody rules, all jam.
[new:KeithHopper:2006-10-13 20:33 UTC]
Wow. Thanks for all the great welcomes.
Now, to attempt to unvagueify the following:
: “how can we use the web to engage people more deeply and empower them to participate in addressing meaningful problems?”
I'm using the word <i>engage</i> to suggest a certain level of relationship and commitment that is formed between the participant and the environment (or technology, or object, or product, etc.). For example, when people begin to tinker with something, they usually develop a relationship with it. It permeates their attitude and behavior. They often begin to care about it, what can be done with it, where it's going, etc. This is engagement. Reading web pages does not engage. Editing wikis does. Engagement is very powerful. If you want to do something important with other people, you need to engage them. That means we need to learn how to better engage people. Technology can be handy.
I use the word <i>empowerment</i> here to mean something like <i>excitement towards the potential</i>. If you want someone to change something, you might empower them to do it. There are lots of ways to do this. Generally, telling them to change is a pretty poor empowerment technique. However, giving them the tools and showcasing the potential impact of using the tools can be a great way to empower them. Understanding good ways to empower people is good for them, and potentially everyone else.
<i>Participate</i> means to contribute. It is entirely possible to be engaged and empowered all by yourself. This generally doesn't help move the world forward though.
<i>Meaningful problems</i> is intentionally vague.
I am now realizing that this may have clarified my thoughts, but is not pointing to any specifics. I kind of like the open-endedness. What if tomorrow someone invents a neat way of plugging your toaster into your router and it helps people collectively solve problems online? I would have unwittingly defined my way right out of recognizing this contribution.
Seriously though, I'm most excited by high-level, online construction toolkits (wikis, drupal, etc.); innovative ways of using the web collaboratively (peer lending); and new mechanisms that move existing platforms forward (online reputation systems). And clearly I'm into the psychology behind online participation.
Hopefully unvagueified.
[new:LionKimbro:2006-10-14 05:49 UTC]
HA! I love it!
Consider it un-vagueified!
It's not just hopeful, now; It's concrete. It's definitely unvague.
[new:sigi:2006-10-15 16:30 UTC]
i'm following lion . you clarified some real important points .<br>
in WikiFromScratch i wrote: "my vision is: each newbie is the center of a circle of 4 - 8 veterans, which concentrate to him, till he is ready to concentrate to the next newbie ."<br>
now this is going to happen on your home-page . all the better . each wiki-page is a sort of seed-leaf . so the first question is: what to do, if a page becomes too large?
[new:LionKimbro:2006-10-14 05:49 UTC]
Do you have a specific, narrow thing, that you want to do?
Or are you more generally soaking up ideas, and communicating them with people?
What are you thinking about? What are you doing?
Why are you here? Do you want to be informed? Do you want to submit your puzzle pieces where you can find to? Do you want to collaborate? Do you want to find something to work on? Do you want to tell us about something you work on? What's important to you?
Quite the barrage of questions. Answer only what you want to, even if it's nothing at all!
[new:SamRose:2006-10-16 19:42 UTC]
I'll be sure to come back and add more later. For now, just wanted to welcome you to CommunityWiki, Keith!
[new:KeithHopper:2006-10-18 17:47 UTC]
Sigi: I am digging this concentration. In trying to learn what helps online communities and participatory environments succeed, I am struck by the value of this supportive network. One that helps, but also pushes the newbie towards some focus, some articulation of purpose, or at least some initial goals. In most communities, this is less direct and more socially influential (e.g. hints from your family to get a job in RL, or perhaps a 'go read the FAQ' jab on a discussion board). This attention is simultaneously encouraging yet demanding. A timeless mix to be sure, but now finding its place in online community's social sphere. Sweet.
When a page gets too long, perhaps the newbie should be encouraged to 'leave the nest'. Maybe the final chapter of this Bildungsroman is to deconstruct the page (literally), self-select the important ideas and objectives, and plant them as seeds elsewhere in the wiki. Or perhaps to create a new community all together. I'm sure these are not new ideas.
[new:KeithHopper:2006-10-18 18:12 UTC]
Now an attempt to answer Lion's questions within the context of my own demand for focus.
>Do you have a specific, narrow thing, that you want to do?
# To further the impact of future /online collective action/, I would like to gather and share information around what encourages people to participate in communities, and what infrastructure components make online communities successful in aggregating value and changing the world for the better. I have begun to collect a good number of resources so far and have noodled on the problem quite a bit. It is a relatively new concept though, I think, so I'm always looking for more ideas and new sources.
# Design and build web-based user participation tools that leverage these ideas to empower the masses. I mean, what are all these kids with $100 laptops going to do with them?
>What are you doing?
# I am designing software that allows disparate groups of people to collectively design solutions to specific problems. User-led innovation is not a new concept, but there are no good tools for aggregating user-generated insights and proposals towards solving collective problems. I have some wireframes, data models, and a use case. Lots more work to go.
# I am also trying to find a business or job opportunity that is vaguely relevant to these interests and supports me financially while I explore, build, and learn.
>Why are you here? Do you want to be informed?
There is obviously a wealth of knowledge in this and related communities that I want to tap. I also want to see how this community ticks and meet some players.
[new:MattisManzel:2006-10-18 19:51 UTC]
Good anwers to questions I thought might be a bit bold, but maybe you and Lion know each other? Lion keeps surprising me with a constantly repetitive application of thunder and lightning on this wiki, know?
[new:ChristopheDucamp:2006-10-18 21:56 UTC]
[fr]Bonjour Keith et sens-toi à l'aise <br>[en]I'll try to extract and translate some nice insights in this conversation for the future WikiOhanaFr? project. Nice to hear your presence here Keith. [http://ma.gnolia.com/clevixic Your post] lets me hungry to know more about the perspective to adapt some of your contents for a french localization CommunityMarketing? project. Will come back later.
[new:KeithHopper:2006-10-19 00:51 UTC]
[fr]Bonjour Christophe. Merci pour la bienvenue. Pardon mon Français. Il est un peu faible. Je voudrais entendre plus de votre projets.
[new:ZbigniewLukasiak:2006-10-19 11:45 UTC]
Hi - I find your ideas and fields of interest very close to mine. You mention above that you design some software - is it an Open Source project? Is there some place to collaborate on this?
[new:ChristopheDucamp:2006-10-20 19:41 UTC]
Bonsoir Keith. Nice to hear you in French. Difficult to answer/describe. I'm not a programmer and just had some feeling of good and strange vibes derived from CommunityWikiBank? project added to excitation coming from PinkoMarketing? pulse. Previously entrepreneur, currently newbie in a bank, working in communication and marketing, I'm just currently searching and trying to understand strong hierarchical organizations from the inside. How to convince my boss that the WikiWay?, the network, communities is the way to follow. Let's say I'm just part of TheAudience? in french, I still feel a bit alone and would be happy to switch in a quick ThinkTalkAct? process. Currently trying to find out french expertise and consultants in CommunityMarketing?. We need them. I'll try to read you this week-end. Hunting VisualLanguage? ! It could help to seed a small french community.
[new:KeithHopper:2006-10-21 15:35 UTC]
Hi Zby. The software ideas I'm currently exploring have not made it to OSS stage yet, but we've definitely discussed that option. While the ethos feels compatible, I'm not sure the functionality is a perfect fit - OSS seems to work best for well-understood utilities (web server) or flexible frameworks (PHP). To that end, we're trying to determine whether it makes sense to build an OSS framework as the tool's underlying structure or whether to put the energy into prototyping ideas in other people's OSS frameworks (e.g. RoR?, Drupal, etc.). I'm leaning towards the latter since it's hard to build a good framework when you're not even sure how you're eventually going to use it ;-).
I'll read up on your blog and wiki this weekend. Point me to specifics where you think there is common interest as appropriate. Feel free to email me at keith [at] hopperanalytical.com.
[new:ZbigniewLukasiak:2006-10-23 10:03 UTC] So what is the other than OSS model that you want to use for building the software? Are you going to sell it? I don't want to do any judgement here - but rather evaluate how we could collaborate on this subject.
Thanks to your delicious links I've found this article: [http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue4/ling.html | Using Social Psychology to Motivate Contributions to Online Communities]. What I am interested in is using research like that as a corner stone for development of new communication/collaboration software tools.
[new:KeithHopper:2006-10-23 23:04 UTC]
>So what is the other than OSS model that you want to use for building the software?
I'm feeling right now that something needs to be hacked together as a proof-of-concept. That feels pretty squishy for starting a whole OSS project. But not too squishy for using someone else's OS framework as a starting point. I've looked at a couple tools, but I get out of my league pretty quick.
>Are you going to sell it?
While I have certainly entertained that, it is not my goal per se. I have a tentative agreement with a NP organization to put something functional in front of their userbase if I can hack something together.
As for your second comment - I've been mustering the resources to write up something big and hairy on inspiring effective participatory behavior. That article is part of my [http://del.icio.us/hopp/motivation research] on the topic. I'd love to find more sites and articles if you have any suggestions.
Perhaps we should take this conversation over to email.
[new:MattisManzel:2006-10-24 20:14 UTC]
Well. I'd prefer it here. I mean, what is a communication useful for if I can't get it?
[new:KeithHopper:2006-10-25 01:51 UTC]
OK! I was afraid this chit-chat didn't belong here. Zby and I discussed offline the desire to potentially collaborate on the software idea I've had cooking for awhile now. I've dubbed it 'Solution Engine' (for lack of a better name). The concept is as web-based social software designed to leverage user participation in collaboratively solving problems. At the risk of sounding completely over-the-top, my hope is to realize something like this to help radically decentralize organizations and make work a lot more fun and meaningful[http://www.paulgraham.com/opensource.html]. Ultimately, I want individuals everywhere to feel that opportunities abound and power to change their lives is embodied in the freedom of participatory environments (I realize we are far from this ideal today). Most importantly, I want this shift to happen while avoiding the introduction of unnecessary evilness - like, for example, these opportunities only being available to the 2%. While I have faith that the business marketplace will eventually help realize these goals with technology, I fear the speedbumps along the way.
I would love comments, questions, and feedback on the details of the Solution Factory idea, which can be found [http://www.hopperanalytical.com/files/solution-engine-overview_20061024.pdf here] (pdf). The group at CommunityWiki is uniquely suited to understand the pitfalls and strengths of these nascent concepts, so I recognize how valuable any feedback would be.
Oh, and involving others in designing and building these tools - particularly people that seem to have an understanding and commitment to this space - would be most welcome. The core ideas need some work. I have not dreamt up a perfect solution, but rather an interesting problem space.
[new:sigi:2006-10-25 14:51 UTC]
"inspiring effective participatory behavior" . what can i do to inspire you to participate in some pages as WikiFolks or CommunityWikiBank??
[new:KeithHopper:2006-10-25 17:34 UTC]
I think <i>asking</i> is #6 on the list. Sometimes new folk don't know where to aim the arrow or when to let fly.
[new:sigi:2006-10-25 14:51 UTC]
yes, but this question is your own questio from above: "how can we use the web to engage people more deeply and empower them to participate in addressing meaningful problems"
[new:SamRose:2006-10-27 13:54 UTC]
Keith, I'm really glad that you decided to jump into CommunityWiki, you wrote:
1. To further the impact of future online collective action, I would like to gather and share information around what encourages people to participate in communities, and what infrastructure components make online communities successful in aggregating value and changing the world for the better. I have begun to collect a good number of resources so far and have noodled on the problem quite a bit. It is a relatively new concept though, I think, so I’m always looking for more ideas and new sources.
Keith, I contributed to some course material for Stanford University that you might find useful. It's located here: http://www.socialtext.net/medialiteracy/index.cgi
The idea there is that people lack a "literacy" for using social software tools. These tools allow people to do things they previously could not do, and although a new generation can quickly learn how to create a blog post or myspace page, they still may not realize the full power and underlying concepts of some of this technology. They may be associating their use of many to many social media technologies with older one way broadcast media paradigms. And, they may not realize the full scope and impact of issues like things CopyRight? and NetNeutrality?. So, creating literacies about these things is essential, IMO. I talked with author HowardRheingold? about this recently, and you can read my interview with him here: http://www.bricolab.com/wiki/index.php?title=User:Srose#Interview_w.2F_Howard_Rheingold
I also started thinking about the general usage of all of some of these SocialSoftware? tools, and started branstorming some ideas at Socialsynergy:SynergizingWorkflows and SocialSynergy:SynergizeSocially and SocialSynergy:OpenValueNetwork
I have been working over the past couple of years on work very similar to what I saw in http://www.hopperanalytical.com/files/solution-engine-overview_20061024.pdf and I am very encouraged that I am not the only person thinking along these lines. I don't think that there is anything wrong with you wanted to make money off of these ideas, and I encourage you to explore business models that allow you to create OpenKnowledge? bases, and to create and develop OpenSource? software. I think that it is very possible to create sustainable business models around OpenKnowledge? and OpenSource? software. I think one key is attracting and working with an enthusiastic community. There is a lot of thinking about this going on at PinkoMarketing?, for instance.
I like your example in your solution engine paper that frames the concept in a story about a problem.
I dare to say that a lot of tools and potential background knowledge for literacies to use them already exist.
For instance: let's say we use the solution engine example problem. Let's say that we create a space online (a WikiHive?, perhaps) and that we create a local teaching program to show people how to use this space to define what they see as their local problems. So, let's say that a lot of people are signifying goose poop as a major problem. So, let's say that they use these wiki spaces, and face to face meetings, teleconferences, etc to discuss and plan. But lets say that we also give them access to other tools, like some sort of GIS geo-tagging, and other data gathering tools, and allow them to collectively create a databases of where the problem is, where the geese are, when the problem is most prevalant. Maybe they can also take pictures of the areas that are attracting the geese, and they can agree to use specific tags in their storage of different specific information on wikis or elsewhere when storing data? Let's say that they also then use a collective space to begin proposign solutions to the problems. Perhaps, with all of this collective analysis and discussion of the problem, they will find a solution that they can apply together without needing one dime from the government. Maybe someone among them will find a company that would come and collect the goose poop for free, because they are able to resell it for use as some type of fertalizer, for instance?
Let me tell you that, believe it or not, this is almost exactly the type of thing that I have been working towards implementing locally (I am in the Lansing, MI area). I have some people here who are already interested in this. I have been calling it a "civic engagement" pilot project. I am going to start with a local neighborhood group on a neighborhood scale. And when we came up with a workable system, I was then going to try and scale that up to a citywide level. This is also ties in with a planned micro-enterprise and SocialSynergy:PeerInvest project.
Right now I am working on creating inroads with local people, and designing a suite of SocialSoftware? tools together with ways of giving them literacies to use them in conjunction with other community building practices. Eventually, I am going to invite other people who are interested in similar concepts to participate in the pilot locally or remotely in different ways. The SocialSoftware? that I am working with includes a MailingListThenWiki? implementation. I will likely create an OddWiki? hive, or use ProWiki?. I plan on using the wiki mostly for joint TheoryBuilding?, discussion that is oriented towards DocumentMode? content, and co-creating plans in a useful way. I will also introduce http://webassistant.com/ software as a collaborative research and teaching platform. http://webassistant.com/ software already incorporates some of what DavidPollard? is talking about here http://blogs.salon.com/0002007/2006/10/13.html#a1673
An evolution in the design and function of weblogs from a diary format to a content composition format, so that instead of a bunch of disjointed entries, the weblog would consist of 'pieces' of content (perhaps in many different media) that could be organized, combined, indexed, formatted and viewed in different ways to suit different users. Whereas now creating a book from entries in a weblog is cumbersome (and the result is not pretty), this additional content composition functionality would let publishers produce elegant e-books and e-magazines by simply 'composing' weblog articles together (the table of contents and index would be produced automatically). And educational curricula could likewise be developed and continuously updated by 'composing' pieces from various online sites (with appropriate permissioning) into a complete online course. These compositions could then be printed out for offline use, so your corner instant printer could become your instant hardcopy publish
While both WebAssistant?, and OddWiki? wikihive setups already incorporate these elements that Pollard discusses:
Some weblog tools could morph into full collaborate environments where groups of people with common interests, practices, projects or purposes could co-develop information and entertainment 'products'. So-called 'groupware' has not been very successful largely because many groups lack sufficient shared passion, or a shared sense of urgency, or sufficient motivation to develop competence in using online tools. Co-development of a world-class compilation of ideas or expertise on a particular subject, or shared software or multimedia products (music, films, or books), on a shared space, would not suffer from this lack of motivation, and could produce collective wisdom and genius that is far more exciting than weblogs (even group blogs) can hope to offer. And there's no reason why the tool to do this couldn't be built on a blog + wiki platform, a composing environment that a lot of people have become comfortable with.
I am also incorporating ideas about PredictionMarkets?, Community-based for profit investment cooperatives loosely based around the Solari model, and SocialSynergy:OpenValueNetwork collaborative micro enterprise ideas, which also incorporate some of the thinking that can be found at places like https://coworking.pbwiki.com/ and http://pinkomarketing.pbwiki.com/
The work I am doing now is mostly small scale experiments, but I think that I see some of the exact same benefits and motivations that Keith talks about in solution engine:
1. It will (arguably) come up with the best solution to the goose problem
2. Increase the visibility, impact and buy-in to the problem from the community (and perhaps
beyond). Visibility of community issues is in fact itself a problem in many towns.
3. Get citizens involved in town problems, increasing the sense of community and efficacy
4. The town can tap the knowledge resources of their citizens – a commonly unused asset,
thereby increasing the value of the community as a whole
5. The town can get more done for less money, decreasing taxes and/or increasing the
impact of town government
6. Towns can collect information to address future, similar problems without having to hire
historians or documentarians; The solutions can be offered to the world as a valuable
resource created by this community; Could even result in infamy (“Welcome to
Springfield, home of the solution to the goose problem!”)
7. Towns can use this common problem to connect and forge relationships between its
citizens, citizens and business, and citizens and town assets (e.g. land)
8. Towns can use the emergent nature of bottom-up networks to help drive community
decision-making and solution buy-in
9. The highly visible solutions are now addressed by the same citizens who are now
invested in solving the problem (no turning back, now!)
10. Individuals can make a difference and develop a reputation within the local community –
including perhaps proprietors who want to make a name for themselves by committing $
to the best solution, etc.'
I'll be sure to keep you informed when we scale these local experiments up to a more public and larger scale.
[new:SamRose:2006-10-27 15:58 UTC]
Kieth, in SoultionEngine? you also wrote:
There is an additional
contribution mode that allows participants to endorse, tag, link, and comment on each other’s
ideas, thus encouraging the best ideas to increase in visibility and be recognized for their worth
through aggregation technology (e.g. score-based filtering).
I have a similar idea, that allows people to rate the quality of each other's knowledge and idea contributions, and also allows people to employ multi-way trust metrics. Except, my idea is not to limit it to a software environment, but make it more decentralized. Actually, it's not totally my idea, but is inspired by [http://karmainitiative.stikipad.com/wiki/ KarmaInitiative?], and MicroFormats?, and [http://openid.net/ OpenID?] server concepts. Basically, the idea is to create an IdentityCommons?, and create transparent tools that allow for Value and trust metrics to be incorporated into work and knowledge that enters into a network. As soon as I have a VPS up and running (hopefully not later than the end of November), I will have some spaces to experiment with this some more.
[new:KeithHopper:2006-10-28 18:34 UTC]
Sam, I should have known you would have much good stuff to say on this topic. I will be spending the next week reading all of your background links. ;-) One place where our thinking may diverge (which is a good thing) is that I don't think existing social/collaborative software represents a good format for collective brainstorming and problem solving. There are fantastic elements and learnings that can be extracted from user-submitted content sites, blogs, wikis, networking sites, groupware, etc. but I don't think they will work alone or together to do this problemspace justice. Of course, I have no idea what will - I'm envisoning some sort of magical new tool that is designed perfectly for collective innovation I think. Zbigniew had a good suggestion of starting with forum software as a test. We could then see where it falls down or excels and use that info to either improve or build a new system that addresses those issues. This attacks the problem with action instead of dialog. I also think zooming in on a particular type of problem, audience, and phase of problem solving makes logical sense at this point.
I of course know that my 'Solution Factory' is hardly unique - one of the reasons I'm pushing to be open about it (heck, I'm not against making $), since the benefits won't come to those who try to design this type of software in a closet. While the concept is powerful, how it is implemented is the real key to success. It is clear that tweaking the nuances of social software implementation is critical - and (more generally) the differences in problem space and audience will drive drastically different characteristics in the implementation of emergent, participatory systems.
I also want to make a distinction between social software usage literacy and social software creation literacy. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think in 5 years we'll look back at current social software tools as unfocused, hard to use, and missing critical elements (like effective reputation/identity engines and aggregate filters that actually work).
On a separate note, we now have the ThisPageIsWayTooBig? problem. Any suggestions for where/how to create a new node (or extend an existing one) on this topic? And more importantly, what to call it?
[new:LionKimbro:2006-10-28 20:41 UTC]
Sorry, I don't have enough time to reply as I'd like, but I thought I'd briefly drop off one word: SoftTechnology?.
I suspect a lot of the things we want to do are more appropriate to soft technology, than hard techology- at least to address the sorts of brainstorming and other idea things we want.
Er, I have to take that back- I do know of some HardTechnology? ideas that would substantially help. But I think the SoftTechnology? side is crucial as well. For example, using "Fish Bowl" techniques, described by Tom Atlee, rather than one-person-to-one-person debate, and so on.
And I agree; Reputation systems and the like. Will focus at the level of culture and community, rather than just the individual clique.
[new:KeithHopper:2006-10-28 23:20 UTC]
If I understand the SoftTechnology? concept correctly, it sounds a bit like Sam's Tool Literacy concept. In other words, social software is just an underlying technology - the real power is in how it is used. With the right mindset and approach, you could (theoretically) collectively solve problems very effectively using a listserv, a wiki, whatever.
I would agree with this to some extent, but add the caveat that how SS is used needs to include how it is designed and implemented (perhaps we're arguing over semantics). Take the design rule-of-thumb that "a perfectly designed object needs no user manual." In other words, the specific implementation details of a social software instance are critical in making it effective for the problem at hand - it will facilitate the most appropriate use. Slashdot, for example, is not just another threaded discussion group.
I believe strongly that as this medium progresses, we will see increasing specificity and focus in design to meet specific needs of the audience and problemspace addressed. I think most people who have spent huge chunks of their lives redirecting forum newbies would agree that sticky posts instructing users to 'just follow the rules' does not necessarily constitute good software design.
[new:ZbigniewLukasiak:2006-10-29 12:16 UTC]
I think the crucial point about Social Software is about the feedback between the technology and the social. If a feature of the software makes something easy to do, many people will do that - and this will become a social custom - and people will use this custom as part of their understanding how the software works. That is why SoftTechnology? will not always work - you can create social rules how to use some piece of software, but people will not obey them if they will conflict with their understanding.
[new:SamRose:2006-10-29 15:23 UTC]
I can really agree the points made with Lion, Keith and Zby. SoftTechnology? is related to the idea of having a "Literacy" of this or that thing. (I borrowed the word "Literacy" from HowardRheingold?. He's the one who conceptualized that language. I am trying to create real world applications for it).
My thing is, I see problems today, right in my hometown/home region (ever watch the movie [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098213/ Roger & Me], or other movies where Micheal Moore illustrates the problems in Flint, MI Detroit, and othe MI areas? Those are the types of problems I am looking at.) I find that people are already meeting in local groups, and creating local organizations, and struggling to juggle their efforts with the need to work to raise money for essential physiological survival for themselves and their families.
So, to that end, for creating and disseminating literacies of participatory media, and literacies of knowledge commons and foresight, and collective action, all augmented and supplemented by tools like wikis and blogs and Folksnonmies and social network analysis, and connecting groups and businesses and govenrments in SocialSynergy:OpenValueNetworks, I believe that processes for these people who are struggling and working collectively towards solutions can be improved with existing technologies, and with new literacies about how to use them.
Many of these existing groups are meeting face to face, and communicating by email. They have few useful ways of conencting to other groups, and few useful ways of tapping into their collected knowledge. I have found that showing a small group of people to how to use something even as simple as del.icio.us has opened whole new worlds for them.
Yet, at the same time I am equally enthusiastic about someone trying to push ahead and create a whole new technological direction that what exists now, which is what Keith is talking about doing. In fact, I want to work with, connect with, and share knowledge woth those people. Because I know that my application of current technologies can help inform their work designing new ones. also, maybe we can move this thread to SolutionFactory? and whack it out of this page?
[new:KeithHopper:2006-10-30 13:41 UTC]
Since SolutionFactory? is the name of a specific project, perhaps CollectiveProblemSolving? is a better catch-all for this discussion. When a decision is made to move a thread, is content moved? How does that work?
I've also set up a new odd-wiki entitled, oddly enough [http://www.communitywiki.org/odd/CollectiveProblemSolving/HomePage Collective Problem Solving] (Thanks Mattis for your help!).
[new:SamRose:2006-10-30 16:33 UTC]
I am new here in comparison to many of the people that you'll run across, but what I've observed is that when people want to move content, they usually just go ahead and do it. If you look at WelcomeVistors? under the "do's and don'ts", it looks like the want us to BeBold? here, and to Wiki::RefactorMercilessly?, and to try and move in the direction of DocumentMode? from ThreadMode?. So, I think you are already on the right track, because you decided on a page name that is better than the one I suggested. So, based on WelcomeVisitors?, I would say that the best way to move this discussion to [http://www.communitywiki.org/odd/CollectiveProblemSolving/HomePage Collective Problem Solving Wiki] and the CW CollectiveProblemSolving? page (which I think should link to [http://www.communitywiki.org/odd/CollectiveProblemSolving/HomePage Collective Problem Solving Wiki]) would be for us to summarize our ThreadMode? discussion into a DocumentMode? page at those two places.
[new:SamRose:2006-10-30 17:38 UTC]
also, I came across http://www.communitywiki.org/odd/CollectiveProblemSolving/Discussion and I am more than willing apply that process, which I think could easily work great.
[new:KeithHopper:2006-10-30 20:11 UTC]
...rolling up sleeves now and getting bold.
[new:KeithHopper:2006-10-30 23:04 UTC]
Will leave this discussion up for a couple days and then probably axe the lot of it. Move your comments over to CollectiveProblemSolving? if you want them spared. :-)
CategoryHomepage
back to LinkZwei