Web 2.0 tools like wikis, blogs, and social networking are revolutionizing the way we communicate, publish information, and connect with others. A new product or idea that is just a fad can be easily analyzed for its added value, or lack thereof. With a real revolution, it is difficult to judge its net value, because the weight of the pro's and the con's are really opinionated. Some will say that the negative influence of groups like "pro-anaorexia" or "witches", and the ease with which terrorist groups can communicate these days, outweighs the gains from these new technologies. Others, such as Clay Shirkey, will argue that the ease of publishing information, the lowered transaction costs of group-forming, and the power of collaborative creation through the wisdom of crowds far outweighs the negative aspects of Web 2.0. As an example from the past, the invention of the printing press resulted in both losses and gains (the occupation and lifestyle of scribes disapeared, but literacy and historical knowledge, and journalism became widespread. In the same way, the spread of Web 2.0 tools has and is transforming the music industry, the media, communication, and many other aspects of our daily lifes.
The fact is, as Shirkey explains, the continued development of Web 2.0 tools and their use by society is more like steering a kayak than driving a car. We can't stop it, we can't reverse it, we can only try to stay upright as we navigate the path laid out before us.
These tools have drastically increased social freedoms, including freedom of speech, press, assembly, and association. With these new freedoms, come the requirement to limit these freedoms to some degree. "No effort at creating group value can be successful without creating some form of group governance" (Shirkey 283). There is an intersection between group freedom and group governance where they users are satisfied and the "basic goodness" that people have is maintained. In big groups with no governance, "behavior will decay over time" (Shirkey 284). When there are no rules, the tragedy of the commons results in the detereration of the value of the social tool because people do not use it correctly, or they purposly deface others work.
What is the biggest impact of these new social tools? They give groups the power to painlessly grow together into one body and make a forceful political impact. People can voice their opinions easier than ever before. Anyone can leverage the strength of the masses from their home computer--or their cell phone on the go. Big changes, comming from the general population and not the politically esteemed few, can and are happening. We are the web, the web is us, and and we are shaping tomorrow--the way we want it to be.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
The Promise, the Tool and the Bargin
Shirkey says that there are 3 rules to a successful social tool: 1) A plausible promise 2) An effective tool 3) An acceptable bargain. The promise convinces the user that he will like the tool, and many others will too, so it will be a worth while investment of his time. The tool has to be promoted for a specific job. Most good tools are created and manged by the wisdom of the crowd rather than a single person. The bargain is what the user can expect of others and what others can expect of the user.
The promise, tool and bargain are very important for a social tool because they are the methode for creating a growing user base. And no matter how good the tool is, without a substantial user base, they are worthless.
The bargain in wikipidia is that users can depend on the wiki for reliable information because false articles take much longer for prankters to create than for responsible users to delete. The bargain for flash mobs are that members will astonish the people around them and have a real impact.
The promise, tool and bargain are very important for a social tool because they are the methode for creating a growing user base. And no matter how good the tool is, without a substantial user base, they are worthless.
The bargain in wikipidia is that users can depend on the wiki for reliable information because false articles take much longer for prankters to create than for responsible users to delete. The bargain for flash mobs are that members will astonish the people around them and have a real impact.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Its Not How Many People You Know and the Power Law Distribution
Shirkey says that it isn't how many people you know that matters, but how many different KINDS of people you know. He says that large networks thrive from including many different kinds of people with different skills. If you know a lot of the same kind of people, i.e. the people in your department in your company but not people in the other departments, you are limited in how creative you can be.
The Power Law Distribution says that the ability of everyone to publish information on thier own blogs creates a lot of "failures", in terms of good information and valuable new ideas. But out of a majority of failures comes a few really good successes.
The Power Law Distribution says that the ability of everyone to publish information on thier own blogs creates a lot of "failures", in terms of good information and valuable new ideas. But out of a majority of failures comes a few really good successes.
Bonding & Bridging Capitol
I am at about page 250 now. Shirkey has discussed the differences and benefits of Bonding Capitol and Bridging Capitol. Organizations who work hard to foster trust within the organization between current members are building bonding capitol. Bonding capitol is important in order to make operations more efficient within a company and allow the organization to function better because people are willing to work together. Bridging captiol consists of activities that build links between people and groups to grow/expand networks. Bridging capitol is important for the success of organizations because it expands resources.
As a 4/c, we work on creating creating bonding capitol between the classmates within our company. We are kind of confined to our own little box within the company because we are so focused on memorizing meals, keeping our uniform and room looking good, and struggling to adjust to the Academic workload.
As we progress through the Academy and become upperclass, our bonding capitol becomes rich among us and our classmates, even outside our company. Eventually, we start to create bridging captiol with the other classes here at the Academy, and with the officers here, our teachers, and resources outside of the Academy. We make connections with enlisted people and officers within the Cost Guard during our summer experiences. When we graduate as ensigns and begin our careers as officers, hopefully we have a lot of briding capitol. To be a successful officer, we will need to continue to build bridging captiol within the Coast Guard and bonding capitol with our crew.
As a 4/c, we work on creating creating bonding capitol between the classmates within our company. We are kind of confined to our own little box within the company because we are so focused on memorizing meals, keeping our uniform and room looking good, and struggling to adjust to the Academic workload.
As we progress through the Academy and become upperclass, our bonding capitol becomes rich among us and our classmates, even outside our company. Eventually, we start to create bridging captiol with the other classes here at the Academy, and with the officers here, our teachers, and resources outside of the Academy. We make connections with enlisted people and officers within the Cost Guard during our summer experiences. When we graduate as ensigns and begin our careers as officers, hopefully we have a lot of briding capitol. To be a successful officer, we will need to continue to build bridging captiol within the Coast Guard and bonding capitol with our crew.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Pages 150-200
The Prisoner's Dilema: I would rather screw us both over than take the chance of letting him screw me over and get away with it.
This is true, and it applies to wikipedia. Authors don't feel the need to get paid for the articles they create, edit, or improve. But when someone decided to publish articles from wikpedia and make money off the book, then the authors want the cut or they dont' want the book published. bascially, they would rather niether of them make any money from the book than the other guy makes money and the public benefits. The best option is obviously for all authors to get proceeds from the publication of the book, but that is unlikely.
Tit for Tat is the concept that, I will help you out now because I can count on you to help me out later. By being able to count on each other, and being willing to help others out because we trust they or the community we are a part of will pay us back, we are creating social captiol. Robert Putnum addressed his idea that Social Capitol was decreasing in the United States in his book, "Bowling Alone". Some people were trying to argue that people were becomming less social in the 1990's because of the increasing popularity of relationships on the internet and the decreasing need to meet up. The fact is, transaction costs increaesed because the longer workday and more spread out communities in the United States made it more difficult for people to get together. Shirkey talks about how social networking tools like Meetup and Facebook have actually lowered these increased transaction costs. Because of these tools, social capitol is increasing again. The internet has provided a platform for obscure groups to connect and find a way to meet up in person. Because human beings are inherently social, cyberspace relationships will never be able to replace face-to-face interaction completely.
I agree with this argument that social networking tools on the internet have helped increase social captiol. Because of facebook I can keep in contact with friends that live in Florida, Utah, and even as far away as Spain and Ireland. Without the internet, I would likely have forgotten about some of these friends or atleast not keep in touch because transaction costs would have been too high (long distance telephone calls are expensive and inconvenient compared to free emails and facebook posts that can be utilzed at any time of the day or night).
This is true, and it applies to wikipedia. Authors don't feel the need to get paid for the articles they create, edit, or improve. But when someone decided to publish articles from wikpedia and make money off the book, then the authors want the cut or they dont' want the book published. bascially, they would rather niether of them make any money from the book than the other guy makes money and the public benefits. The best option is obviously for all authors to get proceeds from the publication of the book, but that is unlikely.
Tit for Tat is the concept that, I will help you out now because I can count on you to help me out later. By being able to count on each other, and being willing to help others out because we trust they or the community we are a part of will pay us back, we are creating social captiol. Robert Putnum addressed his idea that Social Capitol was decreasing in the United States in his book, "Bowling Alone". Some people were trying to argue that people were becomming less social in the 1990's because of the increasing popularity of relationships on the internet and the decreasing need to meet up. The fact is, transaction costs increaesed because the longer workday and more spread out communities in the United States made it more difficult for people to get together. Shirkey talks about how social networking tools like Meetup and Facebook have actually lowered these increased transaction costs. Because of these tools, social capitol is increasing again. The internet has provided a platform for obscure groups to connect and find a way to meet up in person. Because human beings are inherently social, cyberspace relationships will never be able to replace face-to-face interaction completely.
I agree with this argument that social networking tools on the internet have helped increase social captiol. Because of facebook I can keep in contact with friends that live in Florida, Utah, and even as far away as Spain and Ireland. Without the internet, I would likely have forgotten about some of these friends or atleast not keep in touch because transaction costs would have been too high (long distance telephone calls are expensive and inconvenient compared to free emails and facebook posts that can be utilzed at any time of the day or night).
Pages 100-150
This part of the book relates directly to our last class discussion about the wikipedia case. How could something with 1,300,000 aritcles be organized without any managers, a budget, or a formal work-flow process? The answer is spontaneous division of labor. Wikipedia somehow brings together small, individual, different contributions, by the millions, to accomplish the task of creating a valuable encyclopedia (Shirkey 118). The concept that allows wikipedia to succeed is incremental contributions. Anyone can contribute, and only as much as they want to. If someone is passionate about a subject, they can write page after page of valuable, factual content. If someone is more technical and less knowleageable, they can correct spelling errors to improve the quality of the article. "The inbalance of comtributions on wikipedia drives large social systems rather than damaging them. AKA the Power Law" (Shirkey 125).
The reason wikipedia succeeded over nupedia is that article creation on wikipedia is a process, not a product. Articles are forever being improved.
The reason wikipedia succeeded over nupedia is that article creation on wikipedia is a process, not a product. Articles are forever being improved.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Pages 50-100
Shirkey talks about how the chasm between professional journalists/photographers and amateurs has mellowed into a slope from amateur to professional due to the ease of publishing information. Now, everyone is a media outlet. This is significant for our lives at the Academy because not only can the New London day publish bad news about the Academy, but any discontented cadet can blog about the Academy and what they don't like. This is true for any American business--they have to be wary of employees publishing inside information or information that would result in bad pr.
I thought Shirkey's definition of being famous was interesting: someone that is a recipient of more attention than they can return. Oprah can't reply to all of her fan mail by herself. That is the difference between the impact of the New York Times on American readers and my private blog. My audience my instructor an classmates, I can return all the attention my blog gets, so I am not famous. The New York Times coudld not reply to every comment made by all the readers accross America.
I thought Shirkey's definition of being famous was interesting: someone that is a recipient of more attention than they can return. Oprah can't reply to all of her fan mail by herself. That is the difference between the impact of the New York Times on American readers and my private blog. My audience my instructor an classmates, I can return all the attention my blog gets, so I am not famous. The New York Times coudld not reply to every comment made by all the readers accross America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)