User:Ilya/OpenWetWare/Notes: Difference between revisions
From OpenWetWare
< User:Ilya | OpenWetWare
No edit summary |
|||
Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
**meta contributions: | **meta contributions: | ||
***reward by more authority and visibility | ***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) |
Revision as of 10:42, 10 July 2008
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, File: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)):
- 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
- early stages (basic):
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)