It captured my imagination because I recently labelled the entire contents of my Gmail inbox (groan) and I struggled to define a useful naming approach. I’d have liked to have been able to select some off-the-shelf labels to get me started.
Either way, my labels are forever in ‘beta’ and there will be plenty more hours spent re-labelling everything when I come up with a new genius way of managing my mail (delete button is probably the best option).
‘Folksonomic’ doesn’t quite describe what I’m interested in however (which is a shame cos ‘folksonomic interface development’ sounds really good!).
What I’m interested in is the notion that users of software might be able to alter the user interface and then share their changes with a community. The key word here is ‘users’. I’m not describing open-source development by software creators.
Imagine if in your favourite piece of software you can re-arrange functions and buttons. You can add and remove functionality. You can skin the interface to make it look pretty. Then you can publish your version of the UI for others to use.
That’s about it for now. Most of that thinking was done on the 159 bus on the way to work this morning. There is much more to be done.
Embedded buzzdaq
Frustratingly, I can’t see a way to embed it into this post…
Refreshed Media unveil their latest digital breakthrough called Buzzdaq, which … allows visitors to see, at a glance the most mentioned words from hundreds of specially selected blog and news articles.
All feeds are taken from the blogs or news items of sites relevant to the internet community… These are drawn from an RSS feed and displayed through the Buzzdaq application which can then be bookmarked to share with others.
We Think explores how the web is changing our world, creating a culture in which more people than ever can participate, share and collaborate, ideas and information.
The talk was entitled ‘We think: will the web be good for us?’ (here it is on Upcoming) and it focussed on how creative expression is changing in light of social media, open-source, creative commons etc.
It was an extremely interesting evening and it complemented the recent Clay Shirky talk beautifully.
Here are the (edited) scribbles from my notebook:
Innovation
Innovation happens in groups – most innovation is the result of a far more collaborative process than it may at first appear. The technology behind the iPod was developed around a century ago (Me: eh?).
ilovebees ilovebees.com was used as an example of group innovation. It’s too complicated to explain in detail here but please consult wikipedia for the full low down.
The gist is that a website was created as a viral marketing tool promoting the Halo 2 video game.
The website contained GPS co-ordinates but no explanation as to why or what. People visiting the website worked out that there were a series of payphones at the GPS co-ordinates. What began was a treasure hunt involving these payphones and the web. Eventually payphones located all around the world were involved in the game. People were given messages down the phone line and they had to communicate them to the other people playing the game. Sometimes in only a few seconds messages had to be circulated round the globe.
What’s remarkable about this example – and the reason it was mentioned – is because of the complexity of the organisation of the group. There was no leader, nobody told people they had to figure out the GPS co-ordinates even, it just happened.
Craftsmanship
The web may represent a mass return to ancient ways of working. The notion of work as creative expression is actually a pretty archaic approach as a general approach in the work place.
If you consider Linux coders for example, they are a bit like bee keepers or iron mongers – these are specialist crafts that require specialist skills but also these people LOVE what they do; their jobs are their craft, their vocation.
Me: My work has always been my vocation so it’s hard for me to see how this is something new
Collaboration and creativity
Notions of artistic creativity are brought into question when creation is collaborative. Some things cannot be created collaboratively. Imagine open source poetry – ‘it would be awful’.
Me: Actually, open source poetry could be really interesting. Hmmm [hear those cogs begin to whir]
Is this kind of collaborative creativity a predominantly first-world thing? It’s certainly possible that the most radical experiments involving collaborative tools (via mobile phone of course) could take place in the developing world (this is one example of that, are there any others?).
Don’t make me think
The web doesn’t appear to be a place for people to think together because we tend to join together with like-minded people. I wonder what we can do about that?
Content free for all or lock down?
The question we are going to face on every project from now on is should this be opened up (open source)? Or should it be locked down?
The corporation approach is to keep their work locked down, unavailable to the masses. But ultimately this approach probably won’t succeed. Brian Eno agrees.
Brian Eno: We are much less informed now than we were in the 60s.
Clay Shirky: We’ve replaced planning with co-ordination.
e.g., ‘txt me when you’re nearby’
Brian Eno: Surely the government is spending millions figuring out online communities, assessing the risks and generally monitoring them.
Me: [chuckle]
Clay Shirky: In high-freedom environments, people use social tools for fun. In low-freedom environments they use them for political action.
Me: This is the stuff that gets me really excited. I’m going to write a dedicated post to do it justice. Watch this space
Clay Shirky: ‘Everyone knows that everyone knows that everyone knows’ is the key to producing a political movement…
‘Everyone knows’ = well, I know about it at least
‘Everyone knows that everyone knows’ = wow, other people DEFINITELY know it too
‘Everyone knows that everyone knows that everyone knows’ = now it’s in the public domain we’d better do something about it!
Brian Eno: The Microsoft model will fail. The Linux model will succeed.
Clay Shirky: A new corporate law is required. One that follows the creative commons principal that defines groups that are not commercially motivated.
Me: Also, a new approach to the concept of shareholders. Shareholders as taking a creative rather than financial interest somehow perhaps.
Brian Eno: We live in a much more dangerous and oppressive climate than we think. In a few years we will expect for Government to have access to our Facebook profiles.
Me: [more chuckles]
Clay Shirky: ‘Transparent conspiracy’ is a political tool of the future. In other words, you may as well announce collective action on a blog cos the authorities will find out anyway.
Me: Love the phrase ‘transparent conspiracy’.
Clay Shirky: The Masai all carry two things: a spear and a cell phone.
Me: !!!
Both agreed that the BEST thing about the web is it gives people a voice.
Before the mid-late 90s if you wanted to say something in public you couldn’t. There was no voice for the citizen. Now there is. So there.
It’s tools like lgSHOUT! that will open up geek concepts like micro-blogging to a mainstream audience, making web 2.0 truly accessible to ‘normal’ people.
Good one Dave.
I want it ALL (in one place)!
As anyone in the tech world who hasn’t been under a rock for the last few days will know, the SXSW tech love-in is currently taking place.
I’m not there but I’m trying to keep abreast with what’s going on. Fortunately, this is a lot easier to do than ever before. Twitter and Seesmic are updating me with observations from people who’s opinions I respect and my rss reader is busy gathering feeds. There are also a number of tools I can use to ‘manually’ find content – digg, del.icio.us, hashtags etc.
But sifting through the gossip, chatter, informed opinion, official texts, party videos etc etc to identify key themes, opinions and zeitgeist is a daunting task.
Established publishing channels such as Wired seem to be doing a good job of recording key moments and general observations. But I’m not totally certain their reporting is accurate. What if they are completely failing to notice the Twitter buzz around a new application?
What I’m faced with is my perception of trust and authority in the recording of this event. I need to employ a number of methods to build a complete picture of the conference as there isn’t one source to do that for me. I trust that I’ll be presented with well informed, intelligent, crafted commentary from the Wired blog, and I also trust my Twitter and Seesmic friends to reflect zeitgeist and offer their expert opinion.
What I need is a website where I can get a roundup of what the Twitterverse is buzzing about, what’s being discussed on Seesmic, what’s being blogged, rated, bookmarked and so on.
I’d still like to read ‘professional’ editorial and interpretation but this and the user generate content would complement each other in order to present a holistic vision of – in this case – SXSW.
I wonder if this is the approach established news publishers will need to move towards in order to survive changing perceptions of authority and the inevitable mainstream establishment of user generated content?
What do people think? Does anything like this already exist?
Blogging is good for you
Blogging can help you feel less isolated, more connected to a community and more satisfied with your friendships, both online and face-to-face, new Australian research has found.
I’ve been thinking about how you might go about taking the free-form nature of barcamp and merging it with ‘static’ industry-expert panel discussions.
Very much in response to discussions after Chinwag’s measuring social media event on Monday.
So…
How about a panel event where there is a set subject and fixed set of panellists – but the areas of discussion are worked out on a wiki by the attendees in the run up to the event?
The agenda would have to be managed to the extent that there could only be, say, 4 or 5 areas of discussion in order to stick to the time frame. You could open up the wiki for general suggestions and comments and then a week or so before the event someone arranges the suggestions into logical groupings in order to form the agenda. (For the panellists’ sake you’d probably want to fix the agenda about a week before the event.)
What do people think?
Is social media inherently useless?
There have been a couple of posts commenting on the apparent uselessness of web 2.0/social media web apps recently.
None of these tools (Twitter, Jaiku, Tumblr etc) actually adds anything… All of these tools do add huge amounts of noise, but to me none of them add signal… they’re not doing anything useful for me.
And then godofbiscuits79 commented that Google Reader is ‘not bad though fairly pointless’.
The last comment I’ll put down to web 2.0 naïvety (godofbiscuits79 is my little brother – it would be wrong of me not to take the opportunity to tease him a little about this) but both these comments got me thinking.
Genuine human relationships are essentially useless. Most of us don’t form connections with people because of a transactional value (apart from some business contacts perhaps). My relationships with my friends are based on shared interests or opinions or outlook on life. Sure, some of those relationships come with benefits (like knowing music industry people who can source tickets to sold out gigs ), but these relationships still only last if there is some genuine connection between the parties involved.
At the moment, most of the ‘friends’ I have in online social networks fit into the description above – they are people I share interests, opinions or outlook with. This means social media for me is essentially useless as it facilitates relationships that are essentially useless. But that’s what I like about it the most.
The concept of ‘folksonomic interface development’ was discussed briefly at yesterday’s Creative Coffee Club.
), but these relationships still only last if there is some genuine connection between the parties involved.
