[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]
Aesop's Executive Version
[/FONT] [FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]
The Ant and the Grasshopper
[/FONT]
In a field one summer's day a Grasshopper was hopping about, chirping and singing to its heart's content. An Ant passed by, bearing along with great toil an ear of corn he was taking to the nest.
"Why not come and chat with me," said the Grasshopper, "instead of toiling and moiling in that way?"
"I am helping to lay up food for the winter," said the Ant, "and recommend you to do the same."
"Why bother about winter?" said the Grasshopper; "We have got plenty of food at present." But the Ant went on its way and continued its toil.
When the winter came the Grasshopper had no food and found itself dying of hunger - while it saw the ants distributing every day corn and grain from the stores they had collected in the summer.
Then the Grasshopper knew: It is best to prepare for days of need.
----------------------------------
[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]
Free 'ebook' by [/FONT]
Dan Gillmor[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]
http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596007331/toc.html
We Media Remixed[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, Helvetica, Sans-Serif]
By kpaul in Media
Wed Jun 01, 2005 at 07:56:56 PM EST
Tags: Books (all tags)
[/FONT][FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]
This is a review of Chris Willis and Shayne Bowman's great online book 'We Media.' An earlier version was published here. In this piece, I use the terms participatory journalism, grassroots journalism, citizens journalism to all describe basically the same thing - journalism as conversation, or what Dan Gillmor has called the read-write web. [/FONT]
[snip]
[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]
Chapter 4: The rules of participation
Willis and Bowman wrote:For media organizations and businesses to understand how to engage their empowered audience, we must consider what motivates the audience to take on their new roles and what kinds of rules yield the most fruitful participation. Finally, we look at reputation systems and the balance of trust that's struck between buyers and sellers or content creators and their online peers.
This is a very important piece of the puzzle. On the one hand, you want to encourage people to participate. On the other hand, you don't want participation just for participation's sake. That is, you want the citizens to add valuable content. So, why do people participate in online communities? (This, again, is a question that has come up again and again recently - how to get people to continue participating...
See Graphic of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs in Online Communities...
Why are citizens motivated to contribute? To gain status or build reputation in a given community; to create connections with others who have similar interests, online and off; sense-making and understanding; to inform and be informed; to entertain and be entertained; to create.
Willis and Bowman say the first may be the biggest influencer in getting people to participate - ego. That is, knowing that a lot of people look to them as an expert in any one field. The thing with traditional journalists is that while some may have a specialty, most have a very shallow understanding of a lot of various topics. By inviting 'amateurs' into the mix, journalism gains better access to lots of experts that can sound-off on various issues.
For the second reason, they admit that a lot of information on the internet is junk, so called noise, but people need to understand that what is noise for one person is signal for other people. Grassroots journalism offers the ability for people interested in a niche to reach out and communicate with others that share their interests. This fact alone will get people to contribute.
As for the third reason - a lot of people see traditional media as so much spin. Sure, they're going to get spin in online communities as well, but it's from their peers rather than people (journalists) who think they're above and better than the common man. People will contribute to help put the pieces of the puzzle together for themselves and, in doing so, they'll be helping other people as well.
The fifth reason, to entertain and be entertained, shouldn't be taken lightly either. Willis and Bowman wrote:According to the authors of [ame="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0738204315/hypergene-20/"]The Cluetrain Manifesto[/ame], the Web is not a natural vehicle for prepackaged entertainment. "Unlike the lockstep conformity imposed by television, advertising and corporate propaganda, the Net has given new legitimacy -- and freedom -- to play. Many of those drawn into this world find themselves exploring a freedom never before imagined: to indulge their curiosity, to debate, to disagree, to laugh at themselves, to compare visions, to learn, to create new art, new knowledge."
Online participation is simply fun -- whether a political riff by a deeply committed weblogger, a casual forum discussion, or a one-off album review posted on Amazon. As futurist Paul Saffo notes, "In the end, much of what passes for communications actually has a high entertainment component. The most powerful hybrid of communications and entertainment is 'particitainment' -- entertaining communications that connects us with some larger purpose or enterprise."
If it's seen as 'fun' and not work, people will voluntarily participate. Finally, the simple act of creation is a big part of why people will participate. By creation, one gains self-esteem, which, hopefully, will get people to continue to participate even more.
The last section of this chapter deals with another big topic - moderation. With anonymity, people tend to 'let loose' and say and type things they'd never say to other people in person or if other people knew their real names. (I believe here we call that the blackboard effect.) In old media models, this wasn't a problem because a system existed where editors, down a chain-of-command, looked over all content that was published. With the changing landscape, though, new rules need to be formed for content that is published.
This is a real tricky part to Participatory Journalism. In my experience on a newspaper forum, you have to walk a fine line between letting things go and clamping down. If you give the readers too much freedom, they'll abuse it and see how far they can 'take it' before there are any consequences. On the other hand, if you clamp down too tightly, people will be less apt to participate. The magic is in finding a good medium between the two extremes.
Willis and Bowman go into great detail about different types of policing that happen in online communities. This is probably one of the more important sections of 'We Media.' Instead of dissecting it, though, I'll let you go read what they've come up with. Read it slow. Read it carefully. It's important.
Additional Reading:
Community Building on the Web : Secret Strategies for Successful Online Communities - (Amy Jo Kim, 2000)
Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution - (Howard Rheingold, 2002)
Virtual Connections: Community Bonding on the Net - (Stuart Golgoff, 2001)
Online Communities: Networks that nurture long-distance relationships and local ties - (John Horrigan, 2001)
Consumers and Interactive New Media: A Hierarchy of Desires - (Paul Saffo, 1992)
Reputation Systems: Facilitating Trust in Internet Interactions - (Paul Resnick, Richard Zeckhauser, Eric Friedman and Ko Kuwabara, 2000)
[/FONT][FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]
Top Ten Trends for Online Communities - (Jim Cashel, 2002)
Symbiotic Media - (Glenn Harlan Reynolds, 2002)
Puzzling Out Google's Blogger Acquisition - (Chris Sherman, 2003) [FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]
Brain Trust: Mining the Community Mind - (Sylvia Lacock Marino, 2001)
RIP THE CONSUMER, 1900-1999 - (Clay Shirky, 2000)
[/FONT][/FONT]
