« Stowe on Social Tools |
Main
| M2M Authors on Parade »
June 10, 2004
Internalizing socialization
Posted by David Weinberger
In Stowe's column, discussed by Ross, Stowe says: "...the tools that we will use to make sense of the world must be far more socialized than today's solutions..." I believe from the context that Stowe is referring to social tools, but it raises an interesting question: Are individualistic tools adding social components, and are we using those components?
For example, Word lets you do a bunch o' social things with documents, but what sort of uptake has there been? My guess - and, as always, all facts I mention are guaranteed to be wrong - is that the most widely used social tool in Word is rev tracking, and that's only social serially. Am I wrong yet? (Do we count "Save as HTML" as a social tool?)
Photo albums and editors are a class of tools likely to move rapidly from individual to genuinely social for two reasons: Photos often are about shared memory, and by sharing them we can distribute the too-onerous task for tagging them with metadata so they are findable and understandable.
What else?
Comments (2)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category:
- 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. Max Weber on June 10, 2004 11:33 AM writes...
The most widely used social tool in word is character entry. Writing is social; reading is social; there comes a time when the empty market hype completely swamps any value and we're just about there with "social". Move on to something else please, and let people get their work done in peace.
Permalink to Comment2. Todd Richmond on June 11, 2004 12:49 PM writes...
There is a danger is trying to label all of the bits as "social" or "individual". In the end, pretty much all media is both: I imagine two sliders from 0-100 for individual and social (this is part of my object theory for media, but that's another rant), but in this case, neither can go all the way to zero. Even the most social tool and media element has individual components, and in fact the "final" meaning is determined by the individual's engagement. And the most individual element has some social aspect, even if it is just shared between multiple personalities of the same person (we're all Sybil at heart).
Permalink to Comment