|
|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
jspector
Posts:38
 |
| 11/30/2006 1:36 AM |
 Alert
|
Hello:
This is Jon Spector, Barry's colleague and co "founder" of the project (and Vice Dean of The Wharton School). You are, quite precisely, "pushing the boundaries big time". It's intersting how this discussion mirrors how the faculty here are discussing this project.
I (we) all realize that we need to provide exactly the sort of structure you are requesting. We have been discussing how to provide this - we are not debating the structure as much as how we can involve MIT and Wharton in the activity of providing this "oversight", or explanations for how people can jump in and contribute.
I suspect we will need a little time - not weeks, but more than one day - to come up with an approach and roll it out. It's unfair, I supose, to those of you who have been contributing and are probably a bit weary of the process. We have a conference call on friday morning at 10 am (East Coast time) during which I will explain to our colleagues the rising frustration which, hopefully, will allow us to move ahead faster rather than finding the perfect solution.
As input to the discussion, let me ask the group a question. If as a starting point, we were to define some moderator/oversight roles and appoint various (non Wharton/MIT) members to volunteer to play these roles - and then later, if we recruited a new faculty member, we asked the appointed member to step aside in favor of the faculty member, would you be pissed off? Or would you see it as a natural progression?
Your input would be helpful for our discussion on Friday.
I'll provide a further update by Friday afternoon, after our meeting.
-Jon Spector |
|
|
|
|
joe_flum
Posts:151
|
| 11/30/2006 1:47 AM |
Alert
|
Jon, I don't think "pissed off" would be the case. In general, it makes sense to recruit actively from the members of the community to fullfill specific roles in how the community is managed. There are currently various members who are un-officially playing that role.
What I do think you and your collegues should seriously consider is how to evolve the state of the project. Drastic changes can happen but it needs to be in line with the natural progression of the community itself. I would personally just ask that we move forward not backwards.
looking forward to hearing your comments around the end of the week.
cheers,
joe |
|
|
|
|
datruss
Posts:13
|
| 11/30/2006 4:21 AM |
Alert
|
I've been off of this site for a bit as my real life has impinged on my virtual life. However a few discussions including this one are e-mailed to me when updated.
I speak only for myself here, but I think that a 'moderator' could be a move backwards. The people that you will choose for this role, (by chapter???), would probably be keen to contribute and it is difficult to 'wear the hat' of a moderator while being involved in the moderated 'conversation'. It can be done, but will there be training or specific guidelines? This is not an easy thing to do well!
The online communities that have proven successful have not moderated the space, but provided a means- tagging, rss, voting etc., for the community to decide what is valued and what isn't.
I have harped on this, but the structure here needs to change! Note my post on page 1 of this thread... I have also posted here...
http://www.wearesmarter.org/communitytools/discussthebook/tabid/80/forumid/3/postid/256/view/topic/Default.aspx
My first 2 comments in this thread are what I was going to talk about next but for some of you this is 'old news'.
I see great difficulty in 'sharing the writing' when we can edit each other's words. I really think the format should be one where people write individual 'articles' that the community votes on- I wrote about this in the post mentioned above (my 2nd contribution in the thread). For instance, although I did not write this for the book...
http://elgg.net/dtruss/weblog/138103.html
With some editing there are elements to this story that I think would be worthy of being in the book - The concept written about in the very dry book "Bowling Alone" (sorry for the reference without a link).
To fit a contribution such as this into a chapter- in the current format- alongside others' contributions would be challenging. To then have it edited out of context would be annoying (but this is totally possible in the current format).
But I don't pretend to have all the answers.
Here is some fuel for thought.
http://www.inc.com/magazine/20060901/column-freedman.html
Opinions on this article- point/counterpoint - (by different contributors) would be something I would pay to read.
Dave. |
|
|
|
|
jspector
Posts:38
|
| 11/30/2006 7:32 AM |
Alert
|
Joe and datruss:
Thanks for your ideas - both very helpful. I need to reflect on this and will get back to you tomorrow afternoon. If others have thoughts as well I'll monitor the discussion but probably won'thave a chance to respond before then ...
Regards,
- Jon Spector
|
|
|
|
|
rmykita
Posts:9
|
| 11/30/2006 8:39 AM |
Alert
|
All,
I suggest that we trust Jon right away, to meet with his colleagues, and suggest a role structure within a few days. This means pausing the discussion for now, and waiting for him to come back to us with what his team see's as the first phase of responsibilities to be assigned. From here, we can conduct another round of responsibilities, and edit organically, rather than theoretically. I will wait for you Jon, I appreciate the initiative, and I hope the community has similar patience!
Thank you,
Ryan Mykita
ryan.mykita@gmail.com
1 949 485 5083 |
|
|
|
|
kazebi
Posts:2
|
| 11/30/2006 12:25 PM |
Alert
|
| I would ejoy bieng given the title of underdog in this ongoing topic. Here is my opinion, as of people and the way we function, I believe that certain roles to certain people would be wise in such a large project. Order and function, to a comunity, are the gears that allow it to work at its maximum thus producing its best results. As of where people are to be put that should be governed by others then one such as me. |
|
|
|
|
Firehose
Posts:7
|
| 11/30/2006 1:16 PM |
Alert
|
If this is to be 21st Century’s First Intellectual Cathedral (FIC), someone had better start getting some order here. Large structures, like cathedrals, need a plan. FIC, even if not physically large, is certainly intellectually so. But without some clear goal, the placement of words, phrases, sentences and paragraphs in all this will create confusion fast.
For example, in building a cathedral, the placement of a large block of stone at a place, once done, becomes fixed. A mason, later in the construction, cannot independently decide to remove that stone and put it elsewhere. In this FIC project, individual participants can presumably change down to the level of individual words. For a competent editor, that is his job. But if anyone can willy-nilly change ‘principal’ to ‘principle’ or ‘cite’ to ‘site’ or ‘sight,’ we will witness a new form of chaos theory right quick.
To indirectly answer the JSpector’s question: appointing an overseer is not necessarily bad so long as participants are aware that this will happen. Perhaps more important is the need to focus on common or strategic goal. If this is well defined and understood by all, then a change in overseer or editor may have little impact. The point here is that ‘continuity’ towards the same goal must be maintained. Without a plan or blueprint, maintaining continuity—especially in an abstract endeavor—will be exceedingly tough. Again, the cathedral analogy: some of them took centuries to finish. If we expect a cast of thousands to help finish FIC, a roadmap, a plan or a blueprint will be mandatory.
I repeat: So, for a start, we have two challenges: (1) What—writing a book that is worth reading, and (2) How—getting a cast of thousands to write it and still retain some unity, clarity and coherence.
|
|
|
|
|
rmykita
Posts:9
|
| 11/30/2006 1:35 PM |
Alert
|
Kazebi & Firehose,
Please understand that diversions, although informative and fun, are going to overwhelm and discourage people - we do not need more content on this thread, only a decision (product). And in this case, further comment only obfuscates the discussion, and may undermine the forthcoming work. You will have your chance to talk, but it is clear to me and several others who have commented, this discussion must take a pause. Everyone lets try not to each throw water on the fire until Jon Specter returns to us with the results of his conversation. I re-suggest...
All,
I suggest that we trust Jon right away, to meet with his colleagues, and suggest a role structure within a few days. This means pausing the discussion for now, and waiting for him to come back to us with what his team see's as the first phase of responsibilities to be assigned. From here, we can conduct another round of responsibilities, and edit organically, rather than theoretically. I will wait for you Jon, I appreciate the initiative, and I hope the community has similar patience!
Thank you,
Ryan Mykita
ryan.mykita@gmail.com
1 949 485 5083 |
|
|
|
|
joe_flum
Posts:151
|
| 11/30/2006 1:42 PM |
Alert
|
Just a word of caution Ryan. While I understand you're desire to "pause" and see what comes out of Jon's meeting. It's important not to close the door on other members who may feel that they have something to contribute. While Jon will be meeting with a number of the project organizers, it is important to reinforce that this community has a voice and that voice should be heard.
Patience is key, yes, but the power of collective inteligence lies in the fact that the probabilities of a large group of people identifying the best strategy for moving forward is much more likely than a few board members doing it.
I only ask that you also have patience with the other members and that you exercise tolerance with differing points of view.
thank you,
joe |
|
|
|
|
rmykita
Posts:9
|
| 11/30/2006 1:54 PM |
Alert
|
Good point, Joe.
Thank you - let's all show that patience and tolerance. I think we are right in thinking that with the forthcoming structure, and organized collective intelligence, that we will have the capacity to show both. Thats a great goal and I am sure the results of Jon's meeting will point us in that direction. Thanks again, I eagerly await Jon's word,
Ryan Mykita
ryan.mykita@gmail.com
(1) 949 485 5083
|
|
|
|
|
melaclaro
Posts:17
|
| 11/30/2006 2:37 PM |
Alert
|
Nice addition, Joe, to the point about patience. Besides, I don't think it'll hinder Jon to see the dialog here before his Friday meeting.
For my part, I'm actually *encouraged* with all this "confusion". I see it as natural progression for all groups. Bruce Tuckman's 4-stage model "Forming, storming, norming and performing - Developmental sequence in small groups" comes to mind. (http://www.infed.org/thinkers/tuckman.htm). (Leave for a moment that he later added a 5th stage.)
The way I see it, in just 2 short weeks (since "official launch"), we've jumped from the first stage, through the second and are rapidly clawing our way -- as a community -- toward stage 3. Many groups implode long before even getting to stage 3. So, for my part, seeing us "Storm" is a necessary milestone. :-)
Having said that, I have no delusions about the train derailing at any point along the tracks. To keep it on course (and I think it still is on course albeit a little hazy at this point) my input for Jon's Friday meeting is that our community will now require: 1) active facilitation (call it 'oversight' or 'moderated facilitation' if you want); 2) structure; 3) seamlessness of the communication tools we use and 4) conscious agreement about our "community identity".
On Moderators. Yes. We need it. While I *do* believe Jon's suggestion of a moderator is right on the mark, I don't think I'm necessarily at odds with Dave's position about it possibly being a step backwards. A small step back is probably appropriate. I think it's worth mentioning that we've each essentially already agreed, by the act of joining this community to be subjected to moderators. The Advisory Board page (http://www.wearesmarter.org/contributors/advisoryboard/tabid/91/Default.aspx) speaks of a group of personalities where "Book chapters will be moderated and led by illustrious faculty from the Wharton Business School and MIT..., as well as leading private sector professionals...." So, in this sense, we already have them -- or at least the roles. I respectfully submit that what's needed is for those personalities -- or delegated representatives -- to participate *more actively* in their role as moderators of: Structure, Seamlessness of Tools and Community identity. (Keep in mind, it's likely that an element of Bruce Tuckman's model is also playing out in the Advisory Board's circle. [I'd love to be a fly on the wall during your recent "Storming" sessions. ;-) ] But, I'm equally confident that there's enough commitment that the Advisory Board will very quickly move through their own "Norming" stage and into "Performing.")
I'll reserve my discourse about Structure and Communication Tools for Chapter 10. But, I feel I do need to chime-in on Community Identity.
Despite our community ideals of 'equal participation from all,' my perspective is that I don't think it's a realistic position *if* our goal is to write a compelling book. Dave very appropriately referenced the Freedman article "The Idiocy of Groups" (http://www.inc.com/magazine/20060901/column-freedman.html). Despite its theme, it does lend support
for the argument that community is defined by the community's goals.
If our community were a social networking group with the goal of "networking," then unfettered participation by everyone will probably work just fine. Even the Freedman article, despite its mantra about the "idiocy of groups," posits that in "certain well-defined circumstances," it makes sense to tap into the masses. Such as when it's more important to get buy-in to a decision, or when you need to get many ideas.
As we consider how our community should emerge during this next Norm(ing) stage, I think it'll be important to specifically define our objective (our mission?). Is it to "...*DETERMINE* whether a community of authors can write a compelling book..."? (As mentioned in the first point on the FAQs page.) Or, is it, in fact *TO WRITE* a compelling book?
If our goal is the former, then my vote is to just stay "unfettered" and see how the hypothesis plays out.
(Maybe we write a compelling book, maybe we don't. Either way we'll be successful because we will have "determined" it one way or the other.) But if our goal is the latter, then I respectfully submit that we allow moderators to take charge. We should agree as members of this community to have rules, structure and "rulership" by a "few" over the "many" for the good of the many and it's objective. With that, I'm also for allowing a community culture to evolve that rewards those who choose to align with the community goals and which turns away those who don't.
I'm for WRITING a compelling a book. Jon, you have my support
for moderators and oversight roles. I won't be "pissed-off", as you say. ;-)
Mel Aclaro
mel@melaclaro.com
714.606.1435
skype: melaclaro |
|
|
|
|
1ofus
Posts:103
|
| 11/30/2006 7:58 PM |
Alert
|
Jon,
I am really heartened to see your speedy and honest response followed by offers and comments from the community members. Hope this contribution comes to you in time for action.
I am not quite clear how can we provide you with best input in preparation for your conference tomorrow morning. Hence, I will have to guess beyond your questions at the start of this page. I should warn you, this is a longish note. Hope it as helpful. Best of luck tomorrow and enjoy the ride!
I will be straight and direct - that is the least you deserve as one of initiators and ultimately person co-responsible for the quality of this whole book undertaking. All that follows comes from the deep desire to see this really exciting opportunity achieve amazing success!
My first observation is that the contributors here are not all speaking the same language. I do not mean by this obvious fact of the truly international membership, and thus English being for possibly half of the members second or even third language. What I mean is the language of the communities vs language of current organisations differ in substance. For instance, you state that founders will “come up with an approach and roll it out”. Sorry, but there is no roll out in a community! It is a term that conjures up all the wrong images, the ones I am sure you do not intend. Yet, is shows the limits of thinking bounded by conventional organisational experiences. In the communities members engage in participation. We try to listen to what goes on in the community as a whole and endevour to understand each contribution.
To this end, I have a question for you and your colleagues in the conference. How many of you have created a community or actively participated in one through its’ lifecycle? For those that have done so, listen to what worked for them, why it worked (if it did) and how it ended. This should help you all to get into the spirit of the enterprise you have kick off here. And do this before getting down to business at 10am as a ‘check in’ exercise for all participants. Limit each to 1 minute talking and ask them to be specific.
Back to the book effort. Current purpose is quite broad. “The central premise of We Are Smarter Than Me is that large groups of people ("We") can, and should, take responsibility for traditional business functions that are currently performed by companies, industries and experts ("Me").” However, this is really WHY you are doing this, not the rallying call for the community itself.
Your opening to the community in the Invitation Letter is that “We're seeking from our authors real examples of companies who are trying — successfully, or unsuccessfully — to harness the power of "community." And we're looking to develop and share insights about why these approaches work or don't work; and what companies have to do to make them work better.” Put yourself in our position here. As it stands, we are asked to be reporters of current reality. As I read it, you want our specific narratives to take on board in addition to the Community Reference list. Thus, I am confused by your use of ‘we’ – is it ‘you’ or ‘us’ or ‘the whole community’? This is a CRUCIAL distinction in any community – when US becomes WE (as any subcategory of ‘us’) without clear RELATIONSHIP definition, it spells community decline and end.
So, the first task of your conference has to be to come up with clarity on
WHAT KIND OF CONTRIBUTIONS ARE REQUESTED,
and then
DEFINE THE WAY WE =THE FOUNDERS (and/or ADVISORY BOARD) WILL HANDLE CONTRIBUTIONS (RELATIONSHIP with US).
This is an experiment. I suggest you treat it as such. Given so many software development people here, there is good familiarity and capability to actively participate in Rapid Prototyping. This gives you several options. Before you embark on any of these, all of you have to agree:
- WHAT is the Specific Hypothesis you are testing at this point,
- HOW will you measure progress and when will you check up the result (no more than a month between stages, please)
- WHAT will you do in case of:
o SUCCESS
o FAILURE
So, the options I see are:
- Run a single version of this experiment at any one time. Watch how it develops and at each point of intervention by Advisory Board / Founders DECIDE whether to carry on as is, make changes – including environment for writing, or stop the experiment and carry on writing by yourselves.
- Run several parallel experiments. These could differ in a number of ways:
- Each uses different software platform
- Each aims for a different version of end product
o Book as we know it
o Multitude of Chapters that byuers choose to incorporate in ‘their book’ at the point of purchase
o Mixture of the two: Core book – sold as normal and choice of Chapters that did not get included
o Living Cases Platform: Book of most relevant / most popular / best written (you choose) available in printed for on annual basis, with other Chapters online
- Each has different governance structure between WE and US
o Wharton, MIT, Pearson, Shared Insights define scope, participation rules and focus of the book and provide all necessary community functions (from moderator onwards)
o Founders share governance with community in a fashion similar to that employed by Wikipedia.
- Compare and contrast the outcomes of different experiments and decide which will be THE BOOK.
Along with all others here, I look forward to hearing the outcome and wish you all a good conference.
Lilly
|
|
|
|
|
annepk
Posts:2
|
| 11/30/2006 9:31 PM |
Alert
|
I am a new-bee to this venture, having just learned of it the other day on NPR; so forgive my naivete.
Jon, I think you're on the right track here. It seems to me that, similar to other sorts of team efforts, it will be hard to feel the group is moving forward without greater clarity of what the "vision" is. Personally, I think that getting more clarity on this point would really help.(Those of you who have been involved with this since Day One probably have a better conceptualization of this than comes through in this site to the uninitiated reader.)
Shifting and re-assigning roles makes a lot of sense. Seems to me that the nature of a community of "we" means that "me" can't get too bent out of shape if roles shift as the project evolves and needs emerge.
- Anne Pauker-Kreitzberg, anne@cognetics.com |
|
|
|
|
datruss
Posts:13
|
| 12/01/2006 12:14 AM |
Alert
|
Great discussion and great discourse Mel (melaclaro), I appreciate that you saw the value in the Freedman article as I did...
"despite its mantra about the "idiocy of groups," posits that in "certain well-defined circumstances," it makes sense to tap into the masses. Such as when it's more important to get buy-in to a decision, or when you need to get many ideas."
I think the chapters need to be a 'sharing of many ideas', not a 'single shared contribution' that gets pared down to the lowest common denominator (the worst part of group-think).
To be clear, I am not against having a moderator... but if that moderator is not selected by the group, and that moderator is also a contributor to the chapter, then I see it being a complicated situation. Perhaps moderators can moderate chapters they are not contributing to? Perhaps my concerns could be addressed by clearly defined roles?
The thing I am appealing for is a different structure. If the structure changes, the role of the moderator changes to one that I believe is far more meaningful... suggesting common tags be merged (easy to do, ask a contributor to edit their contribution/post such that it includes an additional tag that makes it easy to search/find with common ideas), asking contributors to combine their ideas, requesting contributors to fill a void in content, moderating the discussion about which contributions will end up in the book...
However, note the amount of times 'I' used the word 'I' in this text... I am fully aware that there are many valuable contributions to this thread, and I'm fully aware that what evolves may look very different than what I envision, and can still be a great step forward! The dialogue is indeed moving 'us' forward.
I look forward to Jon's next entry.
|
|
|
|
|
jspector
Posts:38
|
| 12/01/2006 7:18 AM |
Alert
|
Thank you all for your input over the past two days. There is no question that we need to make some significant changes that (a) provide a clearer vision for the community and the purpose of this initiative, and (b) provide a structure that reinforces that vision and allows it to proceed as effectively as possible.
The different comments nicely highlight the "push and pull" of any community-based initiative - namely, how much (or how little) structure and direction to provide, and exactly how to do it (among the various options that are possible).
I'll bring these issues to our meeting this morning - with full credit for the ideas to all of you - and report back by the end of the day today. Let's see if my colleagues agree with all of this ...
- Jon Spector |
|
|
|
|
1ofus
Posts:103
|
| 12/01/2006 7:24 AM |
Alert
|
Jon,
thank you for being the main link between core team and this community.
Best
Lilly |
|
|
|
|
datruss
Posts:13
|
| 12/01/2006 1:54 PM |
Alert
|
| Any way you could podcast the meeting... now there is a way to make the decision-making transparent!:) |
|
|
|
|
1ofus
Posts:103
|
| 12/01/2006 2:27 PM |
Alert
|
David,
I think it was a conference across at least two and possibly more locations. Guess podcasting would have required setting up. Incidentally, University of California at Berkley is experimenting with making some of their lectures available as podcasts!
Lilly |
|
|
|
|
jspector
Posts:38
|
| 12/01/2006 5:17 PM |
Alert
|
To all:
Thanks again for your input and ideas - they turned out to be very valuable in influencing our thinking. We had our weekly conference call this morning (yes, across multiple locations - Pearson, Wharton, MIT and Shared Insights) and agreed to a new approach to the book wiki. We think this approach will provide a very clear way for community members to engage in the writing and the book structuring process, and also provide a level of community moderation and guidance that is clearly needed and has until now been lacking due to limited resources.
Here's what we are proposing, described for now in very broad terms (more detail to come soon, see below):
1. We will create a new structure for the book wiki that is built upon the concept of chapter "sections". A section is a small piece of a chapter - maybe a page, or two or three - that is created by a member of the community and "owned" thereafter by that member. A section might include some specific examples of how a company has used community to perform a function, and draw some conclusions from this; or a section might hypothesize a new way of using community in the future; or a section might describe the implications of the community movement on business in general. These are just examples; in fact we won't limit the content or length of sections in any way.
The important thing to note is that the creator of a section is its owner. As such, the owner has the right to write the section alone; or to invite in specific colleagues to join in the writing; or to allow the entire community to write along with him or her. The owner naturally has the right to edit, and to edit out, the contributions of anyone.
Since a section is a coherent little piece within a chapter, and since the creator is the owner, we think it will be easier for someone to sit down at the keyboard, create a section that represents their perspective on an issue, and be confident that their contribution will remain a single, coherent piece that (unless they approve) won't be changed by others.
2. We will institute a voting system to allow all members of the community to evaluate sections. As a result, over time we'll end up with highly regarded, and not so highly regarded, sections.
3. We will create a SINGLE "chapter outline" within each chapter. The chapter outline will contain a narrative and will show the points at which individual sections will be inserted into the storyline. The narative will flow around the sections - introducing one or two (perhaps) and then folowing the sections with some synthesis (perhaps). Sections, however, will not be editable in the chapter outline - a section will either be included in its entirety, or excluded. So some sections will end up being included and some may not. Hopefully, the sections that are included int he chapter outline will correspond to the sections that are highly rated.
All members of the community will be able to edit the chapter outline at all times, to add or delete sections (from the outline), and to change the narrative that weaves the sections together.
4. We will ask for volunteers from Wharton/MIT/Pearson/Shared Insights, and also from the community at large, to serve as chapter moderators. The job of the moderator will be to make sure contributors know how to contribute; to remind people that section creators are the ownews of their sections and participants should not be upset if the owner doesn't like their changes ("if you don't like it, go create your own section..."), and in general to help enforce civil discourse and a productive writing environment. The moderators will also be asked to monitor the relevant discussion groups and to bring forward issues that need to be resolved (see #5 below).
5. We will institute monthly conference calls for all chapter moderators, as a live forum to bring forward critical issues that need to be resolved, and where the community itself does not seem to be resolving them on their own. Our basic philosophy will be to let an issue simmer for a while, in the hopes that the community will resolve it, but the conference calls can serve as a last resort if some issues get out of hand.
We believe strongly in the approach above - but not so strongly that we want to proceed without your input. So we would like to invite you - actually, ancourage you - to join our next weekly meeting (Friday, December 8) to discuss this, refine it if needed, as a last step before we institute it. In preparation for that call, we are drafting a more detailed explanation of the approach I described above. That should be ready for distribution by the middle of next week, so you will have a chance to review it prior to the conference call. But the basic concepts will be as I;ve described them here.
We'll send details about the call as soon as we have them, but it will be sometime between 8 am and 5 pm east coast time, for about an hour.
Of course, I don't expect this group to be silent until then. So please feel free to comment as you see fit, and tell us what the weaknesses in this approach are, what issues we'll have to address, etc. (one issue, for example - what do we do with the content that is written thus far? We have a proposal for that...)
- Jon Spector |
|
|
|
|
1ofus
Posts:103
|
| 12/01/2006 9:57 PM |
Alert
|
Jon and the We Team,
Thank you for a very clear and detailed report of meeting decisions. It looks a really big step forward, both wrt treatment of book content and the suggested process. The distinction between ‘sections’ owned by subject expert and ‘chapter narrative’ open for contribution and change by all is a very elegant solution – I look forward seeing how it plays in action.
While you were in the meeting, I was following up on any relevant lessons that may help us in this endevour. This search produced two articles which I believe are highly relevant at this moment.
First of these is HIVE, published in September 2006 in Atlantic Monthly by a trained historian and addresses ‘How an attempt to build an online encyclopedia touched off history’s biggest experiment in collaborative knowledge’ (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200609/wikipedia)
Second one comes in two parts, as an article and a series of comments. It was published in The Edge (online Third Culture magazine) on 30 May 2006 under title
On "Digital Maoism: The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism" By Jaron Lanier and written by musician, writer, and technological visionary. The article and subsequent responses provide a lively exploration of the deep issues we have just started to touch upon here.
Both show that decisions have often unexpected side effects and that best interventions are not necessarily those that come from deeply held guiding values. Please let me know whether providing a precis with Lessons Learnt would be helpful.
Have a good weekend
Lilly Evans
lilly.evans@gmail.com
UK (GMT timezone) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|