User:Ilya/OpenWetWare/Notes

From OpenWetWare

< User:Ilya | OpenWetWare(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Current revision (03:36, 21 November 2008) (view source)
(Ideas)
 
(3 intermediate revisions not shown.)
Line 17: Line 17:
===The developmental arc of massive virtual collaboration===
===The developmental arc of massive virtual collaboration===
-
*Kevin Crowston & Isabelle Fagnot, Syracuse University School of Information Studies, 2007-04-13
+
*Kevin Crowston & Isabelle Fagnot, Syracuse University School of Information Studies, 2007-04-13, [[Image:070413_MIT_presentation.pdf]]
*[http://floss.syr.edu/ Free/Libre/Open Source Software Research]
*[http://floss.syr.edu/ Free/Libre/Open Source Software Research]
 +
*Why do people contribute to open communities (massive virtual collaboration)?
 +
**Helpful to design attractive systems or to estimate likely success of projects
 +
**benefit > cost
 +
***cost: opportunity cost of time
 +
***benefit: job offers, ego gratification - in theory; self-determination, human capital - in practice
 +
**students are motivated differently from workers
 +
**motivation in Wikipedia ([[doi:10.1145/1215942.1215943|Kuznetsov 2006]], [http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~aforte/ForteBruckmanWhyPeopleWrite.pdf Forte & Bruckman 2005]) same as in OSS plus reciprocity (expectation of matching contributions)
 +
***need for other people's articles
 +
***anonymity affects peer recognition
 +
*individual roles in project: passive users -> active users -> co-developers -> core developers
 +
*stages of participation (early stages(1) -> sustained contribution(2) -> meta-contribution(3)):
 +
*#most people, regular users, attracted by visibility of the project (curiosity)
 +
*#received feedback, "helping behavior", social movement; groups become homogeneous over time (attraction -> selection -> attrition)
 +
*#very small number - the "long tail" (list of wikipedians by number of edits (stats.wikimedia.org): 54% once or twice, 25% >= 10x, 5% >= 100x); based on voluntaristic and helping nature, group identity; provide feedback to previous stages: enable more basic contributions
 +
*practical implications for encouraging contributions:
 +
**early stages (basic):
 +
***project is visible enough to attract attention
 +
***reduce barriers to entry
 +
***positive feedback -> exponential growth
 +
**sustained contributions:
 +
***meaningful tasks
 +
***shared values
 +
***sustained contributions increase visibility of project
 +
**meta contributions:
 +
***reward by more authority and visibility
 +
 +
==Ideas==
 +
* important to provide feedback to users
 +
* one big channel to ask questions to get max exposure
 +
* find the right person to talk to (find collaborator)
 +
* talk to that person (communicate within project)
 +
* (from Sean Moore): I recently entered a [[Moore:Chemiluminescent|protocol]] under my lab protocols section that I would like to also have listed on the mail protocols page under "proteins" and "Westerns".  Is there a way to use key words so the protocol wil automatically be added to related groups?

Current revision

Contents

Talks

Shaping the Age of User-Generated Content

  • Speaker: Amy Bruckman, Electronic Learning Communities (ELC) lab
  • Date: 2007-11-02
  • small diffs in usability change user experience dramatically
  • diffs in policy make interesting differences in user behavior
  • allow local groups to establish editorial guidelines
  • challenge: lack local enforcement policies (wide policies are used instead)
  • decentralization happens as a necessity of scale

Apple OSX server wiki

  • seems to be written from scratch, not based on any existing wiki engine
  • cool web interface - may be useful for lab notebook
  • interesting way to make new entries: click new entry, enter title box appears then the editor opens with title and content in separate edit boxes
  • calendar is built in but apparently doesn't work with google calendar

The developmental arc of massive virtual collaboration

  • Kevin Crowston & Isabelle Fagnot, Syracuse University School of Information Studies, 2007-04-13, Image:070413 MIT presentation.pdf
  • Free/Libre/Open Source Software Research
  • Why do people contribute to open communities (massive virtual collaboration)?
    • Helpful to design attractive systems or to estimate likely success of projects
    • benefit > cost
      • cost: opportunity cost of time
      • benefit: job offers, ego gratification - in theory; self-determination, human capital - in practice
    • students are motivated differently from workers
    • motivation in Wikipedia (Kuznetsov 2006, Forte & Bruckman 2005) same as in OSS plus reciprocity (expectation of matching contributions)
      • need for other people's articles
      • anonymity affects peer recognition
  • individual roles in project: passive users -> active users -> co-developers -> core developers
  • stages of participation (early stages(1) -> sustained contribution(2) -> meta-contribution(3)):
    1. most people, regular users, attracted by visibility of the project (curiosity)
    2. received feedback, "helping behavior", social movement; groups become homogeneous over time (attraction -> selection -> attrition)
    3. very small number - the "long tail" (list of wikipedians by number of edits (stats.wikimedia.org): 54% once or twice, 25% >= 10x, 5% >= 100x); based on voluntaristic and helping nature, group identity; provide feedback to previous stages: enable more basic contributions
  • practical implications for encouraging contributions:
    • early stages (basic):
      • project is visible enough to attract attention
      • reduce barriers to entry
      • positive feedback -> exponential growth
    • sustained contributions:
      • meaningful tasks
      • shared values
      • sustained contributions increase visibility of project
    • meta contributions:
      • reward by more authority and visibility

Ideas

  • important to provide feedback to users
  • one big channel to ask questions to get max exposure
  • find the right person to talk to (find collaborator)
  • talk to that person (communicate within project)
  • (from Sean Moore): I recently entered a protocol under my lab protocols section that I would like to also have listed on the mail protocols page under "proteins" and "Westerns". Is there a way to use key words so the protocol wil automatically be added to related groups?
Personal tools