|
Guest Authors
Site Search
Monthly Archives
|

Monthly Archives
September 30, 2004
Posted by David Weinberger
Bill McCloskey tells how Blue Note Records managed to destroy a loyal community of customers and fans - with a little help from the community itself - by not recognizing the community’s value. In short, there had been an active, dedicated discussion group for years around the jazz label’s offerings. But when Norah Jones became the label’s biggest hit performer, the group grew resentful, possibly in part because Norah forgot to have a penis. Because of Jones’ success, new people came to the list where they read that, according to the commuity’s most vocal participants, Jones sucks. So, Blue Note stripped out tons of posts, including ones that they thought were off topic, although they in fact were the sign that the discussion board had become a community. And it gets worse from there.
It’s an interesting study in what John Clippinger calls “social physics.”
Comments (1)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: social software
Posted by danah boyd
In checking my email this morning, i was really disturbed by a message on a mailing list that i lurk. The question was simple:
Is anyone worried about the del.icio.us community being diluted with non-geeky type people?
My first reaction was one of insult. There’s nothing like digital xenophobia to get my goat early in the morning.
First, this is the problem of all online communities. What draws people to them is homophily - birds of a feather stick together. Folks are ecstatic when they walk into a community where everyone’s like them.
In theory, people want to espouse the liberal value of tolerance and love of diversity. In reality, most people are anything but that. Ask the anti-Brazilians on Orkut. We have the language to criticize the neo-Nazis on Friendster, but how different are the anti-nongeeks? We really only know how to talk about racism, sexism and homophobia. You can’t really say “we don’t want any girls here” and get away with it now (although you may think it). [Of course, one contemporary approach is to allow a handful of token women in, but maintain the male dominance…]
Unlike the more politicized phobias, xenophobia and classism often go unchecked. It is even more culturally acceptable to want to maintain a community of others like the original community and to reminisce about when the community was closer, had more in common and when there were less problems.
Of course there are more problems in a heterogeneous community. People don’t speak the same (actual/conceptual) language. Diversity brings divergent opinions, values, ideas. Diversity requires us to broader our perspective, appreciate things where we are not superior and realize that not everyone comes about an issue from our perspective.
With community tools popping up daily, everyone’s talking about how this tool can be used by everyone in the world - won’t it be great? Yet, as soon as multiple communities use the tool in different ways, everyone flips. No one actually knows how to manage diverse communities with different values. Why? It’s a really hard SOCIAL problem that doesn’t have a simple technological solution.
[I’ve got lots more to say on this topic, but until next time…]
Comments (2)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: social software
Posted by Clay Shirky
Last year Matt Webb at Interconnected posted On Social Software, which was then picked up by Matt Phillips at drupal, who posted Incentives for online software: the 7 pieces social software must have…. Both Webb and Phillips’s pieces were riffing on Stewart Butterfield’s earlier post on the same subject. The list of attributes as posted at drupal was Identity, Presence, Relationships, Conversations, Groups, Reputation, and Sharing. [Updated 9/30, 19:40 EDT to reflect Matt Webb’s work.]
I just went through the list for this semester’s Social Software class at ITP, and re-aranged it, because the list is too big to be a subset of all social software (very few systems have formal support for Reputation or Relationships, for example), but much too small to be a superset of all interesting features (a potentially infinite list.)
I think there are in fact only two attributes — Groups and Conversations — which are on the ‘necessary and sufficient’ list (though I have expanded the latter to Conversations or Shared Awareness, for reasons described below.) I doubt there are other elements as fundamental as these two, or, put another way, software that supports these two elements is social, even if it supports none of the others. (Wikis actually come quite close to this theoretical minimum, for reasons also discussed below.)
Some of the remaining attributes are “technological signature” questions. These are not about essence so much as characterization — what kind of software is it? What are its core technological capabilities? I have four attributes that fall into this category, having added two to the drupal list: Identity and Roles, Presence, Naming and Addressing, and Valence. I think you can learn important things about any piece of social software by examining these four attributes. There are probably others.
Finally, there are three leftovers from the original seven. These are essentially optional characteristics, which only pertain to a subset of social software and which were, I believe, wrongly included in the original list out of an excitement about recent innovations. The inessential characteristics included on the drupal list are Sharing, Relationships, and Reputation. Others are of course possible: Profiles? FOAF networking? etc.
My version follows.
...continue reading.
Comments (4)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: social software
September 29, 2004
Posted by Ross Mayfield
Taran Rampersad has a wonderful essay describing his view of Wikipedia as a contributor following his mention in an Associated Press story on wikis.
Richard Stallman wrote The Free Universal Encyclopedia and Learning Resource, and it describes the Wikipedia completely - and yet, for some reason, a lot of people don’t seem to understand the implications of a Free Encyclopedia; an Encyclopedia born of and nurtured by Freedom. It’s an idealistic and moral endeavour, which apparently means that it’s perceived as lunacy by some. But it’s more than that. It’s amazingly practical…
What has changed is the level of cooperation around the world; the amount of content that has been created is amazing - the capacity of future content is staggering. The truth is that the Wikipedia has just started; nobody has said it is finished…While some say that content is missing because of biases of contributors, this content is not missing because of biases - it is missing because people aren’t contributing and submitting their own content….
Knowledge is the cornerstone of this world, and the future of our world. Maybe we should try to improve upon systems regarding knowledge instead of attempting to debase them. If it’s not perfect, make it better.
This prompted me to think about why issues of accuracy, reputation and completeness have been raised so strongly over the last couple of months.
...continue reading.
Comments (2)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: social software
September 28, 2004
Posted by Clay Shirky
We’ve written a number of times over the last two years on various attempts to fuse the use patterns of wikis and weblogs — they are appealingly different in their uses but complementary in the way their users value them.
Here are three recent entries in that category:
TiddlyWiki, a wiki-patterned note-taking app written by jeremy Ruston and designed to run entirely in the browser. No set-up at all, with the acknowledged skeleton in the closet that it can’t save things easily without access to a server. PhPtiddlyWiki is Patrick Curry’s attempt to fix that omission by tying a TiddlyWiki to a MySQL db through PHP.
The fascinating thing to me about TiddlyWiki isn’t so much the lowered set-up costs as the way a user page is built up during a session. Content creation is pure wiki, down to using CamelCase to specify new bits of content. The units of content themselves, however, are pure blog — post rather than page oriented, with multiple posts per page. And the user interaction is, I think, unique. Clicking on a post moves that post into the blog-standard central column, placing it underneath any posts the user previously clicked on, so the page is not reverse-crhonological by date but reverse-chronological by user interaction — page depth as history (though oddly it switches modes when you are clicking on content within a post in the center column — there the content opens under, rather than on top of, the most recent item.
Anyway, a lot of words to explain what is a very natural feeling but novel pattern of interaction — well worth a look.
The third item is Web Collaborator, a wiki/discussion board fusion, designed as a free collaborative space. The bet there seems to be that the free-formness of the wiki can be imporved upon by making two categories of social behaviors on wikis explicit in the tool. First, they make a distinction between discussion about and creation of shared content, and provide a discussion board for the former. Second, the provide a contact list of people on the project, with some nesting of editorial controls.
I’ve just watched student groups in this semester’s Social Software class use a wiki to coordinate group work, and most groups did both — listed their contacts as the frist thing they put on the wiki page, and shuttled, sometimes uncomfortably, between conversation and shared editing modes. And Liz will be pleased to see that it passes her “Is it ugly?” test for wikidom generally.
However, the discussion board on WebCollaborator seems badly designed, suffering from tUI issues — too much white space makes comments standalone rather than conversational — to a disconnect with the mission — the conversation is all macro, and I couldn’t see any way to tie a particular discussion to a particular piece of shared content, making it hard to focus the group on proposed edits or changes.
The overall pattern is interesting, however, and they seem to have come with an appreciation for the wiki form and a desire to make a few simple changes that support existing social patterns, rather than a wholesale makeover.
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: social software
Posted by Clay Shirky
We wrote about Microsoft’s FlexWiki project last December. Now eWeek is reporting that Microsoft is releasing FlexWiki code under an Open Source license. (Code is available on Source Forge, though it indicates that is is extensions to FlexWiki — I am not sure when or where the full codebase will be released..)
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: social software
September 27, 2004
Posted by Clay Shirky
Good Ethan Zuckerman post on systemic bias in the Wikipedia, and on a proposal called CROSSBOW (Committee Regarding Overcoming Serious Systemic Bias On Wikipedia), to address the problem:
Amazing though it is, Wikipedia is not flawless. It’s got a problem common to almost all peer production projects: people work on what they want to work on. (This “problem” is probably the secret sauce that makes peer production projects work… which is what makes it such a difficult problem to tackle.) Most of the people who work on Wikipedia are white, male technocrats from the US and Europe. They’re especially knowledgeable about certain subjects - technology, science fiction, libertarianism, life in the US/Europe - and tend to write about these subjects. As a result, the resource tends to be extremely deep on technical topics and shallow in other areas. Nigeria’s brilliant author, Chinua Achebe gets a 1582 byte “stub” of an article, while the GSM mobile phone standard gets 16,500 bytes of main entry, with dozens of related articles.
It is the hallmark of working open source projects that criticism tends to lead to better code rather than just more arguing; the Wikipedia seems to have that same pattern down.
Comments (2)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: social software
September 24, 2004
Posted by Kevin Marks
I was just told the following by Michel Valdrighi in IRC:
from a friend, happened minutes ago:
on MTV Brazil, a poll asking "What's the most annoying thing at the moment?"
The top answer (35%) ended up being "Orkut servers being too slow"
Can anyone confirm this, or is it one of those wild internet rumours?
Comments (1)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category:
Posted by Clay Shirky
Interesting guide to building social services featuring “implicit social discovery”, the pattern behind del.icio.us, Flikr, and Webjay.
The service we build will let you:
1. Publish observations or ‘stuff’ onto a website.
2. Categorize it variety of ways.
3. Pivot on yours or others observations to discover other related topics or persons.
Our work will be modelled on newly emerging services including del.icio.us, Flickr and Webjay . The code itself will be a rewrite based on what I’ve learned from developing Thingster and BooksWeLike over the last year.
Social content services have a strong emphasis on implicit social discovery. Users use these services to organize their own content for later recollection. But since the services are public, other users can peek into the collective space, and discover similar items, topics or persons. We’re going to look for opportunities in this project to stress the ‘synthesis’ aspect of social discovery; to escape from the pattern of curated collections managed and presented by one person.
It’s cool to see features become patterns become platforms, and I love the ‘implicit social discovery’ label.
Comments (3)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: social software
September 20, 2004
Posted by Liz Lawley
Maciej Ceglowski, who partnered with Joshua Schachter to create LOAF, has just announced a new tool for users of Joshua’s del.icio.us social bookmarking system.
Pasta allows you to create a web page using pasted-in text, and then add that newly created web page to your del.icio.us bookmarks. This allows you to use del.icio.us to quickly create public bookmarks to material that isn’t already on the web, but that you’d like to make available. (Examples Maciej provides are “a text message, some class notes, a recipe, an email.”) Brilliant.
The rules are simple:
1. 100K length limit
2. No more than 10 posts per day
3. Don’t be abusive
4. Everything is public
5. Everything is permanent
6. May go down at any time
7. Do not taunt del.icio.us pasting service
Comments (7)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: social software
September 18, 2004
Posted by Ross Mayfield
This week I had the pleasure of speaking at the Future Salon alongside Zack Rosen and Tom Atlee on the Tao of Extreme Democracy, a wonderful fusion of tools, practices and political activism.
Zack demoed CivicSpace, a funded continuation of DeanSpace, and showed how it was empowering Music For America to get 1 million voters registered organized by a staff of 10. He also demoed Progressive Pipes, which aggregates activist mailing lists.
Tom is the author of the Tao of Democracy and an expert in methodologies of dialogue and deliberation. He proposes that Citizen Deliberative Councils (CDCs) could be a significant feature of Extreme Democracy, to help fulfill something Joi said: "social technologies have emerged that enable citizens to self-organize more easily. These technologies may eventually enable democracies to scale and become more adaptable and direct."
Tom highlights some potential differences (which reads like Yin is to wikis as Yang is to blogs, but most ED chapters focus on blogs):
Characteristic Features of Extreme Democracy
- dynamic interactivity
- competitive, empowers partisans and interest groups
- distributed network intelligence
- participatory
Characteristic Features of Co-intelligent Democracy
- wisdom-generation
- integral, empower an inclusive We the People
- whole field intelligence
- holographic
Tom provided examples of how CDCs have worked in Canada (.PDF), Denmark and British Columbia (.PartOfCanada). Deliberative Polling has been a facet of Emergent Democracy, recognizing the strength of diverse groups to make decisions over individuals. Tom suggests broader applicability of facilitating dialog and deliberation between common and diverse participants to inform political decision making.
Social Software can address the problems inherent in CDCs today: cost, publicity and the need for self-organization to lessen the effect of framing by organizers. If you have ever had an interest in Emergent Democracy, I encourage you to contribute to the wiki page where Tom has shared his talk and deep thoughts on how to converge these practices and tools -- and consider how we can foster democratic participation after the election.
Comments (3)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: social software
September 17, 2004
Posted by David Weinberger
Why do all wikipedia articles sound the same while every blog sounds different?
You can see the answer in the current struggle over the entry on George W. Bush. It’s been frozen because people had been editing it and revising the edits way too often. If you visited the page you never knew if you’d be reading about Bush the Strong or Bush the Demonic.
There’s a discussion here. And here’s a request for mediation, part of wikipedia’s dispute resolution process, which is quite fascinating, sensible and humane.
But the problem is endemic to encyclopedias and ultimately to the structure of knowledge itself. The problem is that there can only be one wikipedia article on Bush but there isn’t only one truth about Bush. Or about anything, for that matter. So, the wikipedia community self-polices itself into a voiceless ground-up objectivism that can reduce complex matters to what can be agreed upon by consensus.
Perhaps multiple truths deserve multiple pages. Isn’t that why the Web itself has succeeded?
Comments (8)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: social software
September 15, 2004
Posted by danah boyd
Digital Street Game is a mobile social gaming project conceived by two graduated of NYU’s ITP program - Michele Chang and Elizabeth Goodman:
Digital Street Game is a hybrid game of misadventure set on the streets of New York. It’s a battle for turf, a contest of wills - in short - an excuse to explore the city.
Players compete for turf by performing and documenting “stunts” on the physical streets of New York in order to claim territory on a virtual map. Stunts are comprised of a random combination of 3 elements: 1) an object commonly found in the city (e.g. bodega) 2) a street game (e.g. stickball) and 3) a wildcard/urban situation (e.g. happy hour). Players interpret these elements as they wish, then stage and photograph their stunt in order to claim a spot on the map. The more stunts players perform the more turf they claim. But of course some players may want to compete for the same territory. In order to hold on to territory, players’ stunts must score high with the rest of the game community.
If you live in New York (or are visiting), check it out. It is a fun way to mark turf and engage in a collaborative social experiment!
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: social software
Posted by Clay Shirky
Acronym-laden craziness! Earthlink has released SIPShare, a proof-of-concept P2P filesharing network that uses Session Initiation Protocol (SIP), a tool originally designed for voice and video communications, to set up file sharing networks.
EarthLink believes an open Internet is a good Internet. An open Internet means users have full end-to-end connectivity to say to each other whatever it is they say, be that voice, video, or other data exchanges, without the help of mediating servers in the middle whenever possible. We believe that if peer-to-peer flourishes, the Internet flourishes. SIPshare helps spread the word that SIP is more than a powerful voice over IP enabler —- much more. SIP is a protocol that enables peer-to-peer in a standards-based way.
The emerging ubiquity of SIP as a general session-initiation enabler provides a rare opportunity to offer users all manner of P2P applications over a common protocol, instead of inventing a new protocol for each new P2P application that comes along.
Written in Java, with a BSD-style license, so it should be extensible in a way that Skype, Grouper, et al are not. Will be interesting to see if anyone uses this as a base for file-sharing + group communications.
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: social software
Posted by Clay Shirky
Over at Get Real, Stowe notices that Ryze is starting to charge users for access to parts of the overall network, and considers the issues that pay-for-play in social networks raises:
It’s not that [Pay for Play] is shady, since members theoretically know what they are getting into when they sign up (leaving aside the issue of changing the policies after the fact), but it starts to raise questions:
* People want to be networked and meet others with whom to do business, so it makes sense to be listed in the ‘yellow pages’ of the future, which is what these services seem to be tending toward. But if it is a ‘yellow pages’ model, shouldn’t people pay to be listed?
* If it is, on the other hand, a telephone exchange model, certainly the ones making the call (making the search) should pay.
* If it is a dating service model, people want to get hooked up with people meeting their profiled interests and (theoretically) no one else, and therefore, the service should be managing things so that unwanted contact does not happen.
So, it looks like we are evolving some scary, blendo model of business, here. I am free to join, but I don’t have the rights of the paying members who can (in some circumstances) see me when I can’t see them. This inequality is troubling, but parallels other fee-for-rights movements, like paid travel lanes in public highways. But since, in principal, I want to be contacted in some circumstances this should be ok, right? Well, only so long as I am never spammed, and it seems likely that those paying for the paid memberships are more likely to be using the service to sell, sell, sell.
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: social software
Posted by Ross Mayfield
Last week Mark Glaser wrote a great piece on Wikis in the Newsroom for Online Journalism Review that quotes Liz and myself:
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: social software
September 14, 2004
Posted by Clay Shirky
ACMs SIGGROUP has a call for papers on novel approaches to virtual community (Due date: Jan 15, 2005), with the charming title of Less of You, More of Us: The Political Economy of Power in Virtual Communities, explicitly trying to counter some of the research biases present in work to date:
For example, there are a large number of researchers inquiring into the recent blogging phenomenon, but I have heard many explicitly exclude technologies/communities such as LiveJournal.com with his 3.8 million users (1.7 active), and discount the value of teenage bloggers, who are mostly female (67% of Livejournal users). Because researchers tend to cover familiar territories, we encourage authors to explore alternatives. Our issue will provide researchers with the opportunity to expose the readership to a wider sense of virtual community and what is going on at the edges of the event horizon.
For my money, of course, the most important research bias to undo is the bias that regards the use of social software as mainly leading to virtual communities, with real-world ties between participants being regarded as an unusual occurrence. Most communities regarded as ‘virtual’ have at least some good old-fashioned face-to-face interaction among some of the members, and as Meetup et al have showed us, that trend increases as the density of internet users grows.
Nevertheless, it looks like an interesting CFP, and their interest in non-traditional source of insight could open the door for some much needed conversation between academics and practitioners.
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: social software
September 12, 2004
Posted by Clay Shirky
Grouper, a new entrant in the category of small-group P2P apps. (The N^2 problem is only a problem if N is large…) It’s the usual mix of “communications plus file sharing for small groups” that we know from Groove, Bad Blue, and WASTE, but it claims (Windows only, so I can’t test it at home) to have put a lot of effort into ease of use. It advertises thumbnailing of pics, streaming of files from remote users, and no adware or spyware.
If any M2M users have tried it, we’d love comments or pointers to other posts.
Comments (4)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: social software
September 9, 2004
Posted by Clay Shirky
Continuing the examination of the value of the Wikipedia, Ed Felten compares Wikipedia and Britannica
Overall verdict: Wikipedia’s advantage is in having more, longer, and more current entries. If it weren’t for the Microsoft-case entry, Wikipedia would have been the winner hands down. Britannica’s advantage is in having lower variance in the quality of its entries.
The thing I love about this post is that it turns the original complaint on its head. The Syracusan Critique is that the wikipedia can’t be good because it isn’t authoritative, which has a precursor assumption that Collin Brooke brilliantly glosses as “Authority/trustworthiness/reputation/credibility is something that pre-exists the research.” Falstodt the Syracusan presumes that if you cannot point to a pre-existing authority, the content itself is inherently less valuable (his phrase damning the Wikipedia is “without any credentials”.) Felten, by contrast, assumes that the value of content can be derived, rather than presumed, and begins by comparing individual articles, a process that cuts through trivial dismissals, and starts the real, and hard, work of talking about actual strengths and weaknesses.
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: social software
Posted by Clay Shirky
Two interesting posts at Life With Alacrity. First, thoughts on the growth of progressive trust in real human relations, and what it means for technology:
Computer trust rarely works the way that human trust does. It starts with mathematical proofs—that such and such a mathematical algorithm is extremely difficult, thus something built on it must also be difficult. These are then built on top of each other until a system is created. It often seeks a level of “perfect trust” that is rarely required by human trust.
One of the reasons why I chose to back the then nascent SSL (Secure Sockets Layer) Standard back in 1992-3, was that I felt that it much better mapped to the progressive trust model, and thus to human trust, then did its competitors.
At the time, the SET standard was backed by all the major players—Visa, Mastercard, Microsoft, etc. […] But SSL starts out very simple—first it just connects two parties, then it establishes simple confidentiality between them. If one party wants more confidentiality, they can upgrade to a stronger algorithm. Then one party can request a credential from the other, or both can.
Then a post, Intimacy Gradient, on architectural patterns that may have relevance to the design of social software:
Refuge and prospect come from the landscape architect Jay Appleton. Prospect is a place where we can see others, and refuge is a place were we can retreat and conceal ourselves. A specific prediction of his theory is that people prefer the edges of a space more then the middle. Often prospect and refuge are in conflict, as a prospect tends to be expansive and bright whereas a refuge is small and dark, but there are cases where they are combined in one place; this is why we value private homes with a spectacular view so much, and why we pay so much to stay at scenic retreats. So what are the edges of our social spaces? Are there ways that we can signal either prospect and refuge?
Comments (1)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: social software
Posted by Clay Shirky
Good Educause post on wikis in the academy. It includes a general overview of wikis that will be familiar to anyone reading M2M, but also some specific observations about wikis in academic settings:
Indeed, an instructor could structure and regulate interaction to such an extent that the wiki is effectively transformed into a stripped-down course management system. But doing so risks diluting the special qualities that make wikis worth using in the first place, with the result being, in the words of Heather James, “pumped-up PowerPoint.” James has described the experience of using wikis in her teaching as her “brilliant failure.” She regrets that she “changed the tool, but did not change the practice,” and failed to account for the “great potential in this tool to be completely disruptive (in a good way) to the classroom setting.” With the benefit of hindsight, she concludes that for wikis to fulfill their promise, “the participants need to be in control of the content—you have to give it over fully.”26 This process involves not just adjusting the technical configuration and delivery; it involves challenging the social norms and practices of the course as well.
Update: Ross also quotes this piece, in his discussion on anonymity and privacy in wikis.
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: social software
Posted by Clay Shirky
Great Joel Spolsky post on getting social interfaces right, with great observations about the social appropriation of small UI effects:
Usenet clients have this big-R command which is used to reply to a message while quoting the original message with those elegant >’s in the left column. And the early newsreaders were not threaded, so if you wanted to respond to someone’s point coherently, you had to quote them using the big-R feature. This led to a particularly Usenet style of responding to an argument: the line-by-line nitpick. It’s fun for the nitpicker but never worth reading. (By the way, the political bloggers, newcomers to the Internet, have reinvented this technique, thinking they were discovering something fun and new, and called it fisking, for reasons I won’t go into. Don’t worry, it’s not dirty.) Even though human beings had been debating for centuries, a tiny feature of a software product produced a whole new style of debating.
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: social software
Posted by Kevin Marks
Comments (1)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: guests | social software
September 7, 2004
Posted by Ross Mayfield
Brian Lamb has a great article on wikis in academia in EDUCAUSE Review. I didn’t interview for the piece (would have shared how academic communities in Stanford [our very first customer], Berkeley, USC and others are using Socialtext with our discounted academic and non-profit pricing), but Brian more than did his homework and sources from some of the better posts at Many-to-Many by Clay, Liz and myself. He even ends the piece with this:
Please, grant me the serenity to accept the pages I cannot edit,
The courage to edit the pages I can,
And the wisdom to know the difference
—The Wiki Prayer
The actual serenity prayer by Reinhold Niebuhr is used in every Alcoholics Anonymous meeting. I raise this point to tie issues of privacy and anonymity in wikis. Back when Socialtext started, our hard security approach caused a stir with some on Meatball, although Workspaces can be easily made public or private, something Brian covers:
Many wiki systems employ more structured architectures than Cunningham’s WikiWikiWeb and feature password protection, private spaces, IP banning, and other “hard security” measures. Socialtext (http://www.socialtext.com/), an “enterprise social software” company based in Palo Alto, is pioneering efforts to integrate open-space approaches within corporate IT environments. Socialtext CEO Ross Mayfield notes that Socialtext’s “Security and Operations Policies and Procedures meet the demands of most IT organizations.”13 It’s arguable whether such approaches are true to the original vision of Cunningham’s WikiWikiWeb, but they do suggest that moderated wiki practices can function effectively within corporate environments.
Back when Ward was an advisor, we had some good discussions about this, how it was necessary for organizations, and I can tell you it wasn’t outside his vision. I can’t emphasize the obvious enough. That without some privacy for groups, participants can’t share. Similar to how AA members are able to open themselves up to strangers provided they are anonymous to the outside world. Heck, the US wouldn’t exist if anonymity wasn’t provided for contributors to the Federalist Papers.
Chris Allen defines four kinds of privacy: defensive privacy, human-rights privacy, personal privacy, and contextual privacy. For most spaces and cases, the issue for wikis is contextual privacy, or what danah called the ickiness factor when something is socially off-kilter when context shifts.
The point of providing privacy or anonymity may be moot if there isn’t a sustainable solution to online security and trust — thrusting us into a transparent society. But we still have a choice to submit to the always on panopticon.
Of course, privacy comes at an opportunity cost for others to build upon your contributions. Negotiating context shifts over time proves to be the most difficult, socially and even legally, to let resources accrete value. Setting the mission and vision of a space requires a great deal of forward looking imagination while balancing the basic need to define a social context for sharing.
Cross-posted on my personal blog as the other M2Mers are on vacation.
Comments (2)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: social software
Posted by Ross Mayfield
The VC column in the Mercury News has a story suggesting that following Social Networking funding last fall, the harvest of the year will be Social Software. You might recall that at BlogOn I predicted there would be talk of a bubblet in about a month.
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: social software
September 6, 2004
Posted by Ross Mayfield
Comments (1)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: social software
September 5, 2004
Posted by Ross Mayfield
Comments (1)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category:
|
|