« Operation Fuck With the LJ Christians |
Main
| Townsend in Korea »
April 8, 2004
boyd on the backchannel
Posted by Clay Shirky
danah with
more on the backchannel:
The thing about the IRC backchannel is that it's *obvious* that there is a second-place to the conference. Thus, those not participating create another target of dislike in addition to the conference. One can despise the conference as well as the IRC channel. In most events, people don't hate either the actual organizers of the conference or the participants of the IRC channel (since they're friends anyhow); they simply despise the organization. With only a fraction of people participating, the IRC channel doesn't become a communication tool; it becomes a second place. And since people are in both the IRC channel and the conference simultaneously, it means that you can't just disregard that population - they are weaved too tightly. (You can disregard the conference attendees that just sit in the bar the whole time.)
This is right on -- the channel becomes the hallway conference folded back in on the formal conference, and is in many ways a parallel track. This produces both its value and its problems.
danah nails the effects created by the backchannel, though she and I (and, I think, Liz) disagree pretty strongly about whether those effects add up to net positive or net negative.
----
Follow-up from Ross
Our dear vacationing danah continues:
When i bring this up to people, everyone loves to tell me that anyone could get on the channel so get over it. This *horrifies* me because it rings of "any person of color can get on the Internet so the race divide is their fault." There are many reasons why people don't feel comfortable on the IRC channel. It's not their home domain; they don't use laptops during conferences or they don't have the skills to install the backchannel; they don't execute well with continuous partial attention; speed typing is not comfortable.... You name it. It's an environment that privileges those comfortable in it already.
Two points:
- We mix different tools within the Eventspace for different situations. IRC, web-based chat, blog, wiki, photos and video. Sometimes aiming to extend the event beyond the four walls to remote participants. Sometimes aiming to enhance participation.
- The role of event facilitator is fundamentally changing to one that leverages these tools, encourages in-room and out-of-body participation and highlights key issues and contributions. This happens to freak traditional faciltators out and not just because of their honed empathic abilities.
danah is right that there is risk of an in-room social software divide. And Clay is right that sometimes you want this to happen, sometimes you don't. Again, it depends upon the
situation.
Comments (2)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: social software
- RELATED ENTRIES
- › Spolsky on Blog Comments: Scale matters
- › "The internet's output is data, but its product is freedom"
- › Andrew Keen: Rescuing 'Luddite' from the Luddites
- › knowledge access as a public good
- › viewing American class divisions through Facebook and MySpace
- › Gorman, redux: The Siren Song of the Internet
- › Mis-understanding Fred Wilson's 'Age and Entrepreneurship' argument
- › The Future Belongs to Those Who Take The Present For Granted: A return to Fred Wilson's "age question"
1. Bill Seitz on April 8, 2004 6:59 PM writes...
Conferences already self-select on many criteria, from economic opportunity (my underfunded startup sure ain't paying my way anywhere, and my wife isn't going to let me spend our own money), to factors that affect personal ROI/enjoyment (e.g. facility with the primary language of the speakers/attendees; possible preference for the thoughtfulness that comes from asynch involvement and real interaction, vs canned spiels with Potemkin village interactions).
So maybe we should stop having them?
Why do I get the feeling that, in the land of the blind, danah would be chasing the one-eyed man with a sharp stick?
Permalink to Comment2. zephoria on April 8, 2004 9:47 PM writes...
It's important to note that danah does not want to banish the backchannel, but highlight some of its effects and implications. Specifically, danah wants to note that it doesn't work for all people all the time and it has consequences. Those consequences are important to consider.
[And agreed: there are huge economic and/or power and/or fame selection criteria for conference attending, particularly in the professional circles. In the academic world, it's a combination of merit and getting funding, but we all know that there's a huge filter already at play in universities.]
That said, i don't understand how i would be chasing the one-eyed man with a sharp stick...
Permalink to Comment