tag:www.zefrank.com,2009:/explicit//10 2009-01-05T22:53:51Z notes and advice to someone just like me. Movable Type 3.34 tag:www.zefrank.com,2009:/explicit//10.1299 2009-01-05T22:51:09Z 2009-01-05T22:53:51Z

What technology is required to contribute? Every layer of technology (camera, microphone, phone, software, credit card, broadband, mouse, sharpie, screwdriver…) adds a potential barrier-to-entry to your project. Can any be substituted? Is that clear? What skill sets are required to...

ze http://www.zefrank.com What technology is required to contribute? Every layer of technology (camera, microphone, phone, software, credit card, broadband, mouse, sharpie, screwdriver…) adds a potential barrier-to-entry to your project. Can any be substituted? Is that clear? What skill sets are required to contribute? Do not assume that the audience has the same degree of media literacy that you do. Many people do not know how to use image-processing software at even the most basic level. Cropping photographs, merging photographs, taking screenshots, capturing audio, compressing video are all specific skill sets that not everyone possesses, and that can potentially limit the number of contributors. Are you using specialized language in your instructions? Be aware of any specialized language that you are using in your instructions or in the description of the project. Words and phrases like “cache”, “ftp”, “social book-marking”, “beta”, “screengrab”, “firewall”, “tagging”, “tweet”, “proxy”, etc… may not be part of your audience’s vocabulary. Are you unnecessarily excluding people that don’t speak your language? Can you display your instructions in a way that is not language -dependent? If you are providing an example, does that example skew the impression of the possible range of contributions? Be aware that any example you display can be seen as a hint or piece of advice for new contributors. In some cases this is helpful if you want to guide the project in a certain direction, however it can also reduce the number of unexpected creative solutions to your rule set. Can people contribute in the same physical location as where they receive your instructions? If a majority of your audience receives your instructions while at work, they will not be able to immediately contribute to a project involving photos of their front lawn. If you send instructions via twitter and people receive instructions on their cell phones they might not be able to immediately record audio. Think of the spatial distance between the reading of instructions and the act of contribution. Can people contribute at the same time as when they receive your instructions? Is your project time dependent? Does it involve a sunset? Bedtime story? Birthday? How long will it take? Will people have that amount of time when they receive the instructions or will they have to wait? Think of the temporal distance between the reading of instructions and the act of contribution. Are you assuming your contributors have contextual information about the project outside what is included in the instructions? If someone knows nothing about you, your work, or any larger context in which the project exists, will they still have enough information to contribute? How broad or narrow is the set of possible contributions? Are there a finite number of possible contributions? Are there a limited number of categories into which all contributions will fall? Will this appear repetitive? Is the range so broad that the project won’t appear cohesive? Are the rule sets so broad that they do not supply enough boundaries to play against? For example “post your favorite Obama attack ad” has a small and finite number of possible contributions, whereas “make something out of legos” is perhaps too broad and lacks significant boundaries to inspire contribution. Continued tomorrow… ]]> tag:www.zefrank.com,2008:/explicit//10.1291 2008-12-30T22:50:07Z 2009-01-02T22:02:11Z

1 - These are my definitions, sort of. They are not trivial or merely formal. I use them to Figure Things Out. They might not stand the test of time. But that test is a bitch. And if I pass...

ze http://www.zefrank.com 2 – Here I am interested in the experience of the person participating or contributing. 3 – Participation is the experience of oneself in relation to a group or system. Its focus is a verb related to self-definition. Participation is a “state of being related to a larger whole”. 4 - From the outside, participation can be invisible. It does not require hand raising or button pushing or jersey wearing. It is a perspective shift in the mind of an individual. 5 - “Passive consumption” can be participation. The passive consumer can place himself into the meaning of what is consumed. As he unpacks the images, the text, the sounds, he can extend the mythology of what he perceives, comparing moments to memories, and joining into the narratives of inclusion and exclusion. If there is no narrative he can make one. 6 – Participation can also be visible from the outside. But the point of participation is not how it is perceived from the outside. 7 – While participation is about a “state of being”, focused on the internal, contribution is about the external, the making of a thing to be perceived by someone (or something) else. 7.5 - There are unintentional contributions and intentional contributions. Here I am interested in intentional contributions. 8 – Intentional contribution is made of 1) an intention, 2) a thing to be perceived, and 3) an internal representation of an audience that will perceive it.** 9 – An actual audience may not exist. 9.5 - The audience can be non-human, for example a system or a deity. 10 – The audience can be the contributor herself, as long as the idea of herself as audience is thought to be separate from herself as contributor; for example “an older me”, or a “happier me”. 11 – But that gets Complicated. 12 – It is possible to contribute by Doing Nothing. In this case the contributor must intend that the Doing Nothing be a thing that will be perceived by someone else. The Silent Treatment is a contribution to an argument. 13. The same action by an individual can be participation or contribution depending on whether the individual intends for the action to be perceived by someone else. 14 – It is possible to participate without contributing. 15 – It is possible to contribute without participating.** ]]> That was pretty. It makes me have many questions. Perhaps that is participation. But there were no questions there. Or maybe all that made a really big question. Hard to talk of intention within the analytical. To define and categorize, as a means, is usually an effort to escape intention, or to move beyond it, into a truth. But as that is far away, and intention is often sneaky, even to ourselves, I just have to wonder what we're left with. I could poke at stuff. Like #3. I don't know if participation is a "state of being related to a larger whole". Is participation the state of being? Or the relation? Perhaps participation is simply being related to some larger group? I think, it's more like, twiddling around with that larger group. Particularly since you say you're interested in the perspective of the person contributing or participating. I don't know if you can participate simply by experiencing something. I think you participate if something is reflected back, even something very minor. In this sense, inaction can be participation, if you if you must actively hide, repress, dodge out of the way, willfully ignore, scream in terror, or cry with joy, etc. Obliviousness is not participation. I suppose just an internal response could be considered participation. But I don't like that. It has to be done in the context of others. There must be a two-way connection to that larger group. You cannot participate in isolation, even reading what somebody wrote, by yourself. But you are, perhaps, participating, if you acted in ways that were a result of that reading. And you're certainly participating if you wrote it. What an odd thing to be thinking about. Beautifully odd. And imagining how this helps you decide anything is even stranger. Good stuff in the basement, though. :: :: From me: Thanks Mark. I think you are hitting on the distinction that I am trying to make. I should mention that the definition of participation as a "state of being related to a larger whole" was taken from Miriam Webster, which was quite convenient for me. With "contribution" however, I more or less hijacked the definition to suit my needs and have since run into a few snags that inevitably come with re purposing a thing. What I am trying to get at is two ways that an individual can relate to a group, a system or an audience. Participation is an experience of being a part of - it is an extension of self. A Three Musketeer can participate in Three Musketeer-edness even when alone in the shower, he is in a state of being a Three Musketeer - imagining future rescues, wondering who is the better Musketeer. This does not require a two way connection. In a sense there is no two, there is just a one that you are part of. Reading a book can result in the same, as long as the reader experiences himself as part of some whole. Same with someone listening to a conversation. The active placement of oneself into a thing is in my view participation, even if it only exists in the mind. As you point out - participation can not be oblivious and it cannot be passive. Participation is not the "feeling of belonging", it is what what was done to create that feeling. To me contribution represents a different way of relating to the world. The definition for "contribute" supplied by Miriam is "to play a significant part in bringing about an end or result" or to "to give or supply in common with others." This gets me into a bit of hot water, since I am mainly interested in the experience of person contributing. Miriam's definition allows for the contributor to be oblivious. As a previous commenter pointed out - it would be possible to contribute to global warming without any awareness whatsoever. Lacking a better word, I created the awkward phrase "intentional contribution". What I am trying to get at is a shift of focus, from the experience of me as part of a whole, to something to be perceived by an outside element. Participation flows through you, it is part of you. Contribution is the creation of something not you, and in a way an acknowledgment of separateness. There is an awareness of the other, which i believe is different from what happens in participation. Of the three parts i mentioned: the intention, the thing to be contributed, and the internal representation of audience, it is the representation of audience that is particularly interesting to me. I think this is one of the biggest challenges in a networked world - imagining those that are connected to you when you are creating something to be experienced. In the Creative Act, Marcel Duchamp tries to get at these relationships, but from the point of view of the artist. In the age of authorship, the social age, this thinking applies to the creation of almost all media by a population growing larger than anything Duchamp had experienced. ]]> tag:www.zefrank.com,2008:/explicit//10.1288 2008-12-22T23:34:09Z 2008-12-23T01:58:53Z

Usually there will be a few contributions that are outliers in technical merit and scale. There is a temptation to reward these contributions by drawing specific attention to them while the project is running. This can sometimes have the effect...

ze http://www.zefrank.com Usually there will be a few contributions that are outliers in technical merit and scale. There is a temptation to reward these contributions by drawing specific attention to them while the project is running. This can sometimes have the effect of damping the project as a whole, since potential contributors will measure their work against an artificially high standard. Alternatively, only displaying the most recent contribution allows the tonality of the project to be at the whim of the last contributor. Instead of only focusing on technical ability, draw attention to qualities that can be expressed by anyone: simplicity, individuality, and humanity. Allow there to be a feeling of “Hey, I could do that too”. tag:www.zefrank.com,2008:/explicit//10.1285 2008-12-19T17:44:22Z 2008-12-19T17:45:18Z

The creation of all media is accompanied by a wish: to experience and to be experienced by another human mind. Above all this means to feel and to be felt....

ze http://www.zefrank.com The creation of all media is accompanied by a wish: to experience and to be experienced by another human mind. Above all this means to feel and to be felt. tag:www.zefrank.com,2008:/explicit//10.1284 2008-12-19T01:36:48Z 2008-12-22T23:36:14Z

Virtual communities are often bound by a platform: some sort of place where the community is represented. This is not to say that every platform is a community, or that every virtual community must be represented in specific place. But...

ze http://www.zefrank.com Virtual communities are often bound by a platform: some sort of place where the community is represented. This is not to say that every platform is a community, or that every virtual community must be represented in specific place. But technologies like message boards, vlogs, blogs, media sharing sites, social book marking sites, and traditional social networks (to some degree) often serve as a representation of the community, both as a proxy for geographical proximity and as a display of community actions and affiliations. These representations of community are often presented as lists: what happened recently, who recently acted, what is popular, who is worth paying attention to, and what place the community holds in the world (press, lawsuits, taunts). These lists give members of the community a shared history and culture, they create heroes and villains, and they help members to place themselves within the overall structure of the community.** In order for these representations to work effectively, community members need to have some understanding (true or not) as to how the representation is created: what sort of mirror is being used to reflect the community back to them. There are two main models of understanding. One is that the representation is created by an algorithm, and the other is that the representation is created by a central persona or central personae. These models are at two extremes of a continuum. Algorithm, in this sense, is a set of rational, non-emotional rules that is seen to determine the mirroring of the community (most diggs, newest, word filters, page rank). On the other hand, a community might imagine that a central persona is doing the mirroring. A central persona is imagined as a human mind that is both rational and irrational. It thinks and feels. It can be angry, unjust, jealous, or benevolent. It can make mistakes and it can apologize. It can represent the community by selecting what is cool, what is lame, what is weird, what is hopeful and what is touching. These models are at two sides of a continuum; most often the representation of a community is seen as a mixture of the two. tag:www.zefrank.com,2008:/explicit//10.1281 2008-12-17T19:06:30Z 2008-12-18T00:44:30Z

There are four main levels on which a central persona can communicate with a community or a subset of its members. Broadcast Level Generally this is top level, one-to-many communication around which the community is naturally organized. The broadcast level...

ze http://www.zefrank.com Broadcast Level Generally this is top level, one-to-many communication around which the community is naturally organized. The broadcast level often consists of a blog, TV show, video blog, a welcome message, announcements, mailer, or a splash page. The broadcast level is the primary place where a central persona expresses opinions and shares information. It is also where a central persona can reflect a simplified image of the community back upon itself. Structural Level The structural level includes the organization, format, rule sets, design and layout of anything within the boundaries of the community. Changing any of these elements can be considered communicating on the structural level. Communication on the structural level can be used to: :: signal new opportunities for community activity (opening a “current events” forum, adding voting, comments, etc..) :: alter the framework of community identity (creation of sub groups, rankings, private areas) :: accommodate wide spread requests or complaints :: co-opt rogue sub groups (creation of new labels/ status to accommodate the group) :: intervene in a crisis situation with a small group of members (changing status, modifying avatars, banning) Structural communication is the most direct display of power available to a central persona... e.g. “Playing God". Community Level The community level includes all the tools that the community uses to communicate: threads, comments, reviews, gallery uploads, response videos. A central persona should avoid communicating at this level if it is possible to use a structural approach. For example it is better to append an existing comment/thread with a remark than it is to post a new/separate comment under the moniker of the central persona. In my opinion the central persona is not a member of the community, but rather is part of the structure of the community. Personal Level The personal level includes any direct communication with a member or small group of members that is not visible to the rest of the community. This is best used as a means to organize high level community members, or to reach out to valued community members in times of crisis. A central persona should avoid using any personal level communication beyond valued/trusted members. ]]> tag:www.zefrank.com,2008:/explicit//10.1279 2008-12-16T23:58:33Z 2008-12-22T23:36:31Z

ze http://www.zefrank.com tag:www.zefrank.com,2008:/explicit//10.1278 2008-12-16T23:00:26Z 2008-12-22T23:36:48Z

ze http://www.zefrank.com tag:www.zefrank.com,2008:/explicit//10.1276 2008-12-16T22:46:47Z 2008-12-22T23:37:24Z

When addressing a group that is unaware of its membership (a blog, a BCC, a mailing list), it is often best to use a personal voice and address the group as if it were an individual. Avoid phrases like “all...

ze http://www.zefrank.com When addressing a group that is unaware of its membership (a blog, a BCC, a mailing list), it is often best to use a personal voice and address the group as if it were an individual. Avoid phrases like “all of you”, “sorry for the mass mailing”, or “some of you may know”. These phrases tend to distance the recipient from the message, and make it harder to convey emotional content. On the other hand, do not try to intentionally trick recipients into thinking that the message was only sent to them and no one else. In some cases (blogs, message boards) the platform itself will make that obvious. In other cases (BCCs, mailing lists) use subject lines and headers to hint at the one-to-many nature of the message. Reply one to one to follow up conversation to the extent that is possible, even if the reply is brief. Extend the personal voice to these conversations as well. Avoid referring to other people's responses with phrases like “You are the tenth person to say that”. This sort of language breaks the promise of the personal voice.