|
|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
datruss
Posts:13
 |
| 11/13/2006 3:13 PM |
 Alert
|
Hello to all,
I have a number of ideas here, but as my subject suggests, this post will mainly be about the concept of tagging which everyone involved in a social web2.0 network knows about.
As I read the chapters, comments, and discussion forums it is occurring to me that if I truly wanted to be a contributor to this book, I would essentially end up reading a good portion of it over a dozen times, sometimes to discover that changes have been minimal, other times to discover whole new wonderful, exciting, scary, funny, thoughtful, wacky, or profound ideas. I would need to read much of it over and over again because of the linear nature of these posts.
By tagging ideas a number of positive results can occur. For instance, I am interested in 'shared leadership', 'Group Process' and 'Facilitating Communities or Groups'. Already I can see reasons to read and comment on, and potentially write sections in Chapters 8, 10-14, and many of the suggested chapter titles. Where do I put my post? What if it is relevant to more than one chapter? Should the idea be shared somewhere else? Has the idea already been contributed by someone else? These questions pose legitimate challenges... especially as the site grows!
If I were able to tag my contribution as 'shared leadership' then I could click on this tag and see what other people are saying about 'shared leadership' and where they are saying it. In essence, I can be part of a facilitated topical discussion, rather than a contributor to a comment in a linear stream of thinking.
At first the tagging would be messy, note my third interest 'Facilitating Communities or Groups'- this could be tagged as 'facilitating communities and groups', 'facilitating communities', 'facilitating community', facilitating groups', 'facilitation', etc. But these would self regulate eventually with people choosing tags that are used more frequently.
Tags can be listed by volume so that topics most people are talking about and writing about are recognized and weighted appropriately in the final copy of the book. This is a legitimate way for the community to decide what is important to them and what they want to read or know about! (See how de.licio.us.com uses a "cloud")
Furthermore, if you really want this to be a community effort, then you need to trust the community... have a comment/contribution rating system that lets people choose how much they like/dislike an idea. (See the 5 star rating system at Google Video). Of course this could seem nasty, no-one wants to see their ideas belittled, but quite honestly, if I write something that many people think came out of my rear-end rather than my brain, I'd rather find that out before it is published.
If the community is respectful as well as honest, this rating system will allow the best parts of "group think" to surface, and it would weed out the frivolous content that can detract from a meaningful/useful final product.
I think that the rating system would be very powerful in a community such as this because this community has a shared common goal, and anyone taking the time to contribute would, for the most part, be thinking of the benefit to the whole group... and numbers count... in the current method, the squeaky wheel gets the grease- a selfish writer can put their fingers everywhere in the pot to make sure their opinions count. With a voting system only ideas that many people consider useful gain momentum.
Well there you have it, I said I was interested in shared leadership and I have suggest a way that the community could mutually focus their efforts and share in the direction that this book may lead. I hope this helps.
- - - - - - - - - -
And now for something completely different... Community books have been written before. Many edited books have individual chapters written by different authors on a theme... Think "Chicken Soup for the Soul". I know this is different, but it brings rise to another interesting point about sharing the writing... Some sections cannot be shared! If someone writes a case study or tells a metaphorical story to prove a point, editing by others can diminish the meaning. There should be some form of facilitated discussion about biography vs information. If editing is permitted anywhere then the individual charms that a community member can add to a group may be stripped away.
- - - - - - - - - -
And finally,
Where are the women? They understand community far better than men do... I learned this during my years of coaching both boys and girls competitive sports teams. If this is a community of men writing this book then we are truly missing out on some very insightful diverse points of view. (This is the worst part of "group think").
- -
These last two ideas are just add-ons that I thought were important to think about. I would rather they became their own posts, if others want to champion them. I hope that this discussion topic can be dedicated to the point of ‘tagging’ only.
What do people think about tagging?
Are there people with technical knowledge that can make this happen?
How would this change the book?
Is it worth doing?
|
|
|
|
|
joe_flum
Posts:151
|
| 11/13/2006 9:51 PM |
Alert
|
I whole heartedly agree David. Tags are extremely powerful in their simplicity, and are integral to building a taxonomy for the site. Hopefully, it is within the technical possibilities for the project team to consider.
In my personal experience, there are two behaviours that tags facilitate (amongst others):
1) Tags provide the ability to move towards a semantic understanding of content. Through the use of free-form, user-defined tags, we allow individuals to describe content as they understand it. This personal perspective is extremely valuable in providing the unexpected cross-pollination of ideas. Perhaps an example is in order. Consider that I have written an article on dog walking (off the top of my head). One entrepid reader picks up on the social aspects of my article and tags it with 'dog owners' or something like that. A second reader, sees the same article and focuses in on the excersize angle. This can only occur when a diverse set of perspectives review the same content. But in tagging my article, both readers have now enriched my work and helped to gleen meaning for future readers. While the example isn't the best, being able to create a taxonomitry for this project would help us all better understand what we are talking about and more importantly, how it all relates.
2) Tagging facilitates the ability to match reader's interest with content. I think we can all agree that in general, people write about things that are important to them. As you mention, tags provide us with a method for finding that content. Another related technology that plays very nicely with tags is that of RSS. I know this may be very 2.0 of me, but I find it strange that we have no feeds for this community.
RSS could be implemented relatively simply and could really aid in the flow of ideas. One possible way, could be the ability to subscribe to the chapters or tag concepts that I am most interested. The feed would be updated everytime a change occured in one of my "watch-lists". Think of the dynamics it would create if I received notification on the changes made to the wiki chapters. I could maintain myself up-to-date on the current strains of discussion and so, even if my time is limited, I would be able to jump in without having to play too much back-up.
Remember, that many of these technologies will not only enrich the overall result of the book, but will also reinforce a strong creative process and promote the greatest degree of participation.
What other ways could tagging or semantic tools be used (and perhaps implemented) in the context of this project? What holes would they fill in?
From my experience the organizing team of WASTM has been great in listening to ideas and trying to make them happen. I think it's just a matter of making a good argument and balancing that with time and resources available.
Cheers,
joe
PS: Good to see some west-coast presentation David. I'm orginally from Vancouver ;) |
|
|
|
|
datruss
Posts:13
|
| 11/14/2006 3:35 AM |
Alert
|
Thanks for the reply Joe,
Anyone reading this might be interested in your post on evaluation and rating (voting) found at:
http://www.wearesmarter.org/communitytools/discussthebook/tabid/80/forumid/3/postid/177/view/topic/Default.aspx
(your 3:17am entry- your time zone?)
Here is the scoop for me- and I shared this in an e-mail to the Community Manager.
Without these tools, the project will get too big for anyone to add anything meaningful. Fact is, this format is too linear for anyone to synthesize ideas and add value. Look at the size of the entries now and imagine another 2-3 thousand people contributing... overwhelming! Like the internet without a search engine.
The fact is that I don't think I could meaningfully add to this if it stays in this format. But I would continue to help if I believe that I could add value.
- - -
Currently I am a teacher, and I can tell you a few things about social projects that might be insightful from that perspective:
For people to work well in groups, individuals must:
-Clearly know the goal
-Clearly know their roles
-Feel like they have ownership of the task
-Feel like they have a voice, that they are heard
-Be interested in the task
-Be motivated to contribute (this goes back to having a voice)
-Be rewarded for positive contributions
-Understand how to be socially responsible to the group
Tagging and rating provides the voice, the motivation, the ownership, and the reward... it gives people specific roles and increases interest when people can find like-minded contributions and contributors (through tagging).
It also lets people know how to act- very little has been said here about the etiquette around deleting ideas in the chapters, or changing the text others have written... expectations around behavior need to be set- not rules, but expectations/responsibilities. Rating of posts can really help the group self regulate in a way that is not apparent here, reducing the need to clarify my current concerns in this area.
One final thought about this process. I think the best way that this project can be put together is to have this group be the writers and the editors, but in a different way. Reading Joe's writing so far, I have no right to edit his work. However, I certainly agree with some of his thoughts more so than others. Let me, let us, vote!
I think that there should be a series of themes rather than chapters- for now. Choose a theme that you are interested in and make a contribution to that theme (a post in a blog or wiki). Tag it and put it online for all to see. Everyone else can vote and/or comment, but not edit the contribution.
As tags develop it will become apparent that some tags fit well with some themes, some themes should be combined, or some tags should be their own theme. Laying out chapters now is too controlling- TRUST THE GROUP. Case in point, many people would initially want to say, "Posts should be anywhere from 3 paragraphs to 3,000 words," or something like that, but why would we do that? (Teachers can be control freaks at times, but how many bosses do you know that you can say the same about. My spin on the length of a good piece of writing is that, "It needs to be as long as it needs to be"). Trust the group. If someone writes a 12 page entry that engages us and we can't stop reading, why stop them. If someone writes one profound quote, who are we to prevent them from sharing it. My point is that if you really want the power of 'we' don't put restrictions down- size of contribution, chapter titles, number of contributions, etc. Voting will determine if it is worthy- we will decide.
After a given time period ask the community what themes should become chapters and then collect all the contributions as a collection of essays and thoughts within the chapters. Some contributions might fit well in two or more chapters. Ask the group how we should determine this... see a theme here? Also, there should be a meta-post area for feedback and reflections of the process. I know as I write this that if I put 10 of us on task design 'we' would come up with much better ideas than me alone.
Now here is where the bosses come in (the We Team or Advisory board). There is nothing wrong with bosses having a role, especially when it is clearly outlined in advance as I am attempting here. Their first job- do the last minute editing of individual posts, and deciding where some posts fit best, when there are tough choices to make.
Next, they choose one or two (or three) of the contributors for the chapter to read the chapter and write an introduction/conclusion/reflection, etc.- A synthesizing piece that adds meaning to the collection of thoughts. They can ask just one person, or 3-4 and have the community decide which one(s) are best.
They (the bosses) can write it themselves... if one of their contributions is in the chapter- (they are a 'we' too).
This would be a good book that I would want to read. Short, thoughtful essays and insights neatly packaged into thoughtful themes... about community, by community.
I hope that the format changes... I would love to offer my contributions to the community.
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
joe_flum
Posts:151
|
| 11/14/2006 12:05 PM |
Alert
|
Dave,
I think this thread has done a good job in defining the benifit and reasons for using tags. In your latest reply, you begin to touch on a number of key issues (of which I am in total agreement) regarding the best method for presenting and building up the content of the book. I would like to move the discussion into another thread that I have going which discusses the use of themes:
Go to:
http://www.wearesmarter.org/communitytools/discussthebook/tabid/80/forumid/6/tpage/1/view/topic/postid/248/Default.aspx#254 |
|
|
|
|
Firehose
Posts:7
|
| 11/24/2006 2:37 PM |
Alert
|
‘Tagging needed.’ That’s a fact. The question is not the ‘what’ but the ‘how?’ Here are some synonyms for ‘tagging:’ cataloging, classification, taxonomy, ontology, etc. Anyone using libraries knows that they can get to a specific book via either the Dewey Decimal System (DDS) or the Library of Congress (LOC) catalog. But one is not compatible with the other.
There are basic questions to consider:
(1) What is the minimum size of concepts or terms to tag? Should single words be tagged?
(2) What type of structure should the tags have? Hierarchic? Tabular? Amorphous? Spiral? Linear? ..
(3) Should tags be ‘words’ only or a combination of ‘codes + words?’ (Codes only won’t work unless one hires a professional staff.)
(4) Who does the tagging? The author of piece? a committee?
(5) As the numbers of items proliferate, will some search-engine be applied to the tags?
(6) Can any search-engine handle these tags?
(7) Should tagging be a formal process that applies to ALL entries? or only some? If the latter, how is it decided?
(8) Is tagging a real-time as-it-happens process? or can be done hours, days, weeks later?
(9) How/who maintains the tagging?
(10) How are mis-taggings corrected?
(11) Are there any forbidden concepts or terms which will not be tagged? (This is to avoid offending some ethnic, religious, political, social, .. groups.)
Any tagging should be done under a single standard, by a small group of persons with written flexible guidelines.
|
|
|
|
|
1ofus
Posts:103
|
| 11/24/2006 6:24 PM |
Alert
|
I am glad I stumbled into this discussion - happened due to Firehose message was among latest when I logged on!
First, tagging - I soooooo need it! Please do it - let us agree the easiest and fastest way to make it happen.
Two, Dave, your idea of rating is good. However, it should not be the only criteria. Sometimes crowds are too focused on what they want to see. So, we need to b careful not to lose gems because they are not 'popular'! And, we should be aware that community of writers may not be necessarily representative of the book buyers.
Dave, love the idea of evolving themes. If the rating and amount of contributions to themes are reviewed regularly by some representative group - perhaps with rotating membership to add variety - and the timetable for specific milestones clearly posted, then we can really see what the large and interested community can produce.
BTW, I am a woman! And there are a few of us here who have contributed so far.
Joe, how does RSS differ from tagging? Which would be simpler here? Which offers more flexibility?
Firehose, you seem to have experience with tagging - would you be abl to help?
Best to all here who are celebrating Thanksgiving!
Lilly
|
|
|
|
|
joe_flum
Posts:151
|
| 11/25/2006 1:18 PM |
Alert
|
Lilly,
I'll be responding to all of this in greater detail in a bit, but with regards to RSS vs Tagging:
Tagging deals with the semantic organization of content. I relate this set of key-words to this content so that I may provide a more detailed description of the content and allow for relations to be identified with similarly tagged content.
RSS is a method for syndicating content. As in, being notified as to the latest content. It is inherently a time-based technology that works best when there are regular updates that a user want to be made aware of.
The two work in tandem to allow for specific subscriptions 'based-on' tags. For example, I could have an RSS feed that allow me to view all posts that are related to the tags "technology, group-dynamics" etc. Then whenever anyone writes with regards to my area of interest, I would recieve notification of changes. This is in many ways an alternative to the email notification that we have currently.
With regards to getting the tagging running. I am currently working on a "Supplemental site" for the We Are Smarter community. I have yet to get it into a completely viewable state but, the initial site will offer the following collaborative applications:
1) A taggable and open knowledge base with comments and built in support for RSS feeds, to allow for free form creation of categories/sections and articles/pages. I see this as more of a testbed for playing around with structures and writing help pages, tutorials etc. It is essentially a content publication system. I do not think that it should replace the current wiki, I hope that members will be able to play around more with the supplemental app, and then transfer content into the book-wiki.
2) File Archive for the organization of media files (images, movies, audio files, documents), that will allow for us to upload and navegate a database of shared files. Since the app integrates RSS and tags, it will be possible for tracking of specific types of files. One of the possible uses for this application will be to upload audio files of discussions or relvant seminars and have the audio files automatically accesible in the form of a podcast.
3) Work Clusters is an application that is specifically focused on creating semantic groupings of users. Registered members will be able to freely create groups, tag those groups. Other members will be able to join the groups and conduct online real-time chats in order to explore the themes of the group and to provide a more active interaction for the members. The Groups auto-organize themselves based on the tags of the groups and has a tag searchig mechanism for finding the groups that are talking about the topics of interest to the user. Chats will be stored as transcripts within the group so that we can have access to previous conversations between members.
4) Idea Market is an application that focuses on the generation and evaluation of ideas. I've outlined the general premise of the app in another post in this forum called "An Alternative Methodology...". The basic idea is that the members place bets as to the value of an idea and through a collaborative process we can identify and vote on the concepts and texts that we want to include in the book. I'm still working on the trading mechanisms to allow for results to occur rapidly and with a variable amount of participation. In the end, I would like the tool to be a useful "work" related tool and not to degenerate into a general prediction market toy. I'll try to keep you guys posted as to my progress.
One of my concerns is that I do not want to contribute to splitting the community into too many sites. While I'm going to be able to produce most of these tool in the coming week. I'll need to sit down with the SharedInsights team and present the ideas to them first. This is in the end, "their baby" and I would like my contributions to assist the project, not hinder it.
Isaac, Once I have the working prototypes online, I will be sending you a link and a briefing of the goodies that I've implemented. I'd like you guys to then look it over and present it to the board, so that I can fully understand you're position on it. I have certain concerns with regards to how much of the "We Are Smarter" branding that I will be able to use and if in fact the project is something that the core team supports. Hopefully, once you've got a clear prototype to look at, you will be able to provide some feedback.
Well, I'm going to be continuing to work on this. Any further ideas for functionality that you guys would like me to consider, or if you have comments on the applications that I've outlined, please feel free to let me know.
cheers,
joe |
|
|
|
|
1ofus
Posts:103
|
| 11/25/2006 4:04 PM |
Alert
|
Joe,
thanks both for explanation (shame on me, should have realised the difference myself - penalty fo working so late at night) and all the hard work you are doing to create what sounds like a wonderful 'next generation' platform.
Perhaps one way to test it is to run it as a pilot in parallel with the existing site for say 30 self-nominating contributors (first come, first served basis of choice).
Regard
Lilly |
|
|
|
|
joe_flum
Posts:151
|
| 11/25/2006 8:23 PM |
Alert
|
well the system can be opened to any number of users to get feedback, but since it is largely based on technology that I've been developing now for quite some time, it is fairly stable and ready to scale up. I think that the best way to move forward would be to get a few of the apps up and running, then work on releasing the prototypes as I get them finished.
In general the entire system is built with social software in mind, to date, I already have applications for:
1) Article publication (wiki CMS)
2) Blogs
3) Discussion Forums
4) Event Calendars
5) Media Galleries (image, video and audio)
6) Contacts and Location (for location based navegation of members)
7) Group/Chat (the work cluster prototype that I'm working on)
8) Idea Market (prediction market / collaborative filtering / wiki system)
Each of them can be skinned and adapted to We are Smarter in about a week's time per application (maybe less depending on the customization we require).
I will be donating these apps free of charge in exchange for the valuable feedback that the community could offer me with regards to the applications. I am hoping that the framework itself will be ready for an open-source launch during 2007. To help with the rapid prototyping of 2.0 style applications.
I'll keep you guys posted as soon as a working version is up on my server for testing.
cheers,
joe |
|
|
|
|
Firehose
Posts:7
|
| 11/27/2006 1:20 PM |
Alert
|
I can help in tagging. But be aware that good tagging is both labor intensive and depending on the group of people involved, can be highly contentious.
For example, the name Osama bin Laden (OBL) refers to a person. The federal gov't name for this same person is Usama bin Laden (UBL). No computer search function will find
'Osama' as equal to 'Usama.' Of course any human can map one to the other once told these are equal. Having 2 or more terms for a single item doubles the work. When thousands of terms and their variants are involved, this gets messy real fast.
Google searches BILLIONS of webpages because it has no tagging. The Semantic Web, something touted since the late 1990s, suppose to make things fast and easy to search on the Web. Like Artificial Intelligence (AI), it is more dream than reality.
Aside: I am assuming that this 'community written' book will be done in the English language? If done in more than one language, the tagging difficulties get multiplied. Although codes for tags usually crosses human languages sufficiently well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|