| |
Shirky: Group as User: Flaming and the Design of Social Software
by dmv at 10:37 am EST, Nov 15, 2004 |
] The design gap between computer-as-box and
] computer-as-door persists because of a diminished
] conception of the user. The user of a piece of social
] software is not just a collection of individuals, but a
] group. Individual users take on roles that only make
] sense in groups: leader, follower, peacemaker, process
] nazi, and so on. There are also behaviors that can only
] occur in groups, from consensus building to social
] climbing. And yet, despite these obvious differences
] between personal and social behaviors, we have very
] little design practice that treats the group as an entity
] to be designed for.
]
]
] There is enormous value to be gotten in closing that gap,
] and it doesn't require complicated new tools. It just
] requires new ways of looking at old problems. Indeed,
] much of the most important work in social software has
] been technically simple but socially complex. This is a strong essay that I couldn't quite find the right hooks to quote to convince you to read it -- but you should. It nicely summarizes -- in a way I haven't seen before -- why some of the new group stuff works, and why some of the common group phenomina is endemic to the mediums as presented. We talked to Clay on our radio show one day -- and he was great. We at least mentioned Memestreams, and it would be interesting if he's familiar with it and how it would be positioned within this essay. This also adds ammunition to the design of one of my future works, collaborative desktops -- graphical wikis, kind of. Imagine your desktop as a virtual desktop, your various friends a spacial scroll away -- look at what they are doing right now, what their environment looks like, place things in their attention, onto their desktop... |
| |
RE: Shirky: Group as User: Flaming and the Design of Social Software
by Decius at 12:32 pm EST, Nov 15, 2004 |
dmv wrote:
] This is a strong essay that I couldn't quite find the right
] hooks to quote to convince you to read it -- but you should.
] It nicely summarizes -- in a way I haven't seen before -- why
] some of the new group stuff works, and why some of the common
] group phenomina is endemic to the mediums as presented. I think this essay is essentially correct. MemeStreams has been a process of experimentation as well. Its a little frustrated right now because we're re-writing the code, and so small tweaks cannot be made, but its coming along. The algoritms we use are really ones we've learned about over time. Its a science really. You can't learn to do this right without actually doing it and seeing what works. No, MemeStreams doesn't deal with flames well. Part of that is a scale problem. MemeStreams is designed to find good content rather then eliminate bad content. The idea there is that there is so much content that its not worth concentrating on the bottom stuff. You want a high pass filter and not a low pass filter, if that makes any sense. Unfortunately, there isn't enough content here for that to really work. You still tend to see everything if you read frequently. Another thing is that MemeStreams forces you to see replies that people have made to your posts, so it has a way of engaging you in arguements even if you want to ignore them. This is what is interesting about this project going forward once we get the new code out. Tricking out the details of how you filter the threads once they get too big to read... How you combat flames, and mismoderation. Thats going to be fun to explore. ] We talked to Clay on our radio show one day -- and he was great. Wow, I'm sorry I missed that. Shirky has made a number of valuable observations about the internet. You guys should post your upcoming show contents before the show! ] This also adds ammunition to the design of one of my future
] works, collaborative desktops -- graphical wikis, kind of.
] Imagine your desktop as a virtual desktop, your various
] friends a spacial scroll away -- look at what they are doing
] right now, what their environment looks like, place things in
] their attention, onto their desktop... This is an interesting experiment, but it raises two questions:
1. Do I really want other people to be able to see what I'm doing on my computer at their leisure.
2. Do I trust people to put valuable things in my attention. This kind of connection between two workspaces approaches the intimate... |
|
| |
RE: Shirky: Group as User: Flaming and the Design of Social Software
by Lost at 3:27 am EST, Nov 17, 2004 |
] This also adds ammunition to the design of one of my future
] works, collaborative desktops -- graphical wikis, kind of.
] Imagine your desktop as a virtual desktop, your various
] friends a spacial scroll away -- look at what they are doing
] right now, what their environment looks like, place things in
] their attention, onto their desktop... This would be a new and powerful way to introduce my friends to gay porn, by slipping innocuously titled mpegs on their desktop... hmmmmmmmm... a powerful technology indeed! |
|
Shirky: Group as User: Flaming and the Design of Social Software
by k at 11:54 am EST, Nov 16, 2004 |
] The design gap between computer-as-box and
] computer-as-door persists because of a diminished
] conception of the user. The user of a piece of social
] software is not just a collection of individuals, but a
] group. Individual users take on roles that only make
] sense in groups: leader, follower, peacemaker, process
] nazi, and so on. There are also behaviors that can only
] occur in groups, from consensus building to social
] climbing. And yet, despite these obvious differences
] between personal and social behaviors, we have very
] little design practice that treats the group as an entity
] to be designed for.
]
]
] There is enormous value to be gotten in closing that gap,
] and it doesn't require complicated new tools. It just
] requires new ways of looking at old problems. Indeed,
] much of the most important work in social software has
] been technically simple but socially complex. [ Worth a read... ] This also adds ammunition to the design of one of my future works, collaborative desktops -- graphical wikis, kind of. Imagine your desktop as a virtual desktop, your various friends a spacial scroll away -- look at what they are doing right now, what their environment looks like, place things in their attention, onto their desktop... [ ... that's very intriguing. I like the concept of maintaining a public space naturally... and having the ability to metaphorically step into a buddies office and hash something out. -k] |
Shirky: Group as User: Flaming and the Design of Social Software
by Rattle at 1:09 pm EST, Nov 16, 2004 |
] This tension in outlook, between 'flame war as unexpected
] side-effect' and 'flame war as historical inevitability,'
] has two main causes. The first is that although the
] environment in which a mailing list runs is computers,
] the environment in which a flame war runs is people. You
] couldn't go through the code of the Mailman mailing list
] tool, say, and find the comment that reads "The next
] subroutine ensures that misunderstandings between users
] will be amplified, leading to name-calling and vitriol."
] Yet the software, when adopted, will frequently produce
] just that outcome. Another good article out of Clay Shirky.. |
Shirky: Group as User: Flaming and the Design of Social Software
by noteworthy at 12:55 am EST, Nov 19, 2004 |
Individual users take on roles that only make sense in groups: leader, follower, peacemaker, process nazi, and so on. There are also behaviors that can only occur in groups, from consensus building to social climbing. Actually, I've found that process nazis and social climbers can be surprisingly vigorous in these pursuits, regardless of the presence or absence of a group. Of course, when it comes to mailing list software, a few clever, well-placed lines of code can be made to work miracles. Unfortunately, we still have a lot of face-to-face meetings. If only we had a Real World equivalent of Perl. |
|
|
