Towards a Sustainable Online Community: Unterschied zwischen den Versionen
Zur Navigation springen
Zur Suche springen
(Die Seite wurde neu angelegt: „On this page you will find the first results of our investigations about sustainable online communities. Wait for it. ;)“) |
K (Final proofreading, all PM content added and organized.) |
||
(7 dazwischenliegende Versionen desselben Benutzers werden nicht angezeigt) | |||
Zeile 3: | Zeile 3: | ||
Wait for it. ;) |
Wait for it. ;) |
||
== Goal: To build a sustainable online community. == |
|||
==== What is a Sustainable Online Community? ==== |
|||
*Comprises a diverse audience concerning gender, age, location, interests, etc. |
|||
*Sustains for a significantly longer time than what could be expected when it was created. |
|||
*Has substantially less personal conflicts (“flame wars”) than in other online communities with comparable diversity. |
|||
*Not driven by the consumption of external input, but it is productive by itself in some field/s of art and/or science. |
|||
==== Steps to Establish a Sustainable Community ==== |
|||
*Create the software tools |
|||
:*Social Media Group willing to introduce new students to the sustainable platforms |
|||
*Attract user interest |
|||
::*Ongoing public art and/or projects |
|||
:::*Decentralized approach, no single creator |
|||
*Maintain the international online community |
|||
::Continue to welcome newcomers, ease the transition into the fold |
|||
*Raise awareness of sustainability in the community |
|||
:*Community feeds itself with art and science |
|||
:*Focus on a topic of sustainability for these projects |
|||
:*Appropriate forms of expression for furthering awareness of sustainability |
|||
==== Sustainable Tools for a Sustainable Community ==== |
|||
=====Free Software (Open Source Software)===== |
|||
*Not reliant on a single company |
|||
*Available to all users |
|||
*Freedom to study, modify, redistribute the software |
|||
*Example: phpBB |
|||
=====Benefits===== |
|||
*User-controlled content and information feel more secure/comfortable |
|||
*Prevents the one-way data relationship many companies have with their userbase |
|||
:*Company receives data on users, users not privy to company actions |
|||
:*Information stored there by users liable to be lost with site closure (not sustainable) |
|||
== Potential Software Tools == |
|||
Platforms that house, inspire, and connect the community. |
|||
==== Email List (with public archive) ==== |
|||
*Good for readable resource rather than in-the-moment community |
|||
*Ability to scan and skim content |
|||
*Potential Challenge: Sorting everything and keeping the overview is up to the user |
|||
:*Easy for email to be lost in the shuffle |
|||
==== Wiki ==== |
|||
*Managed by the users themselves |
|||
*Sustainable: multiple user-editors means multiple avenues for content addition |
|||
*Logically centralized: all users working together on a single resource in one location |
|||
*Good for lists |
|||
:*Project priorities, needs |
|||
*Display pertinent information immediately (vs. a forum thread) |
|||
:*Useful to display the current state of subjects |
|||
*Potential challenge: Not the best tool for general community discussion |
|||
:*Possible scattered conversations in a variety of locations |
|||
:*Difficult for any one user to locate it all |
|||
:*May be avoided with clearly designated comment sections |
|||
:*One intermediate solution could be to redirect discussions from the wiki to a forum |
|||
::*for instance by placing an URL to the thread on each “discussion” page |
|||
::*Best if not enforced |
|||
::*Fruitful discussion can die immediately if it is forced from one platform to another |
|||
:*Long-term solution could be a wiki whose “discussion page” (or “talk page” in Wikipedia) is a thread in a forum, automagically. |
|||
==== Discussion Forum ==== |
|||
*Easily bring new users into the ongoing conversation |
|||
*Challenge: Less skimmable, harder to find information |
|||
:*May be mitigated with outside resources that direct the user to the appropriate locations |
|||
:*Still blitzable |
|||
*Posts added chronologically |
|||
:*Easier to follow conversation |
|||
:*More difficult to sort by subject |
|||
::*Mitigated by good organization of subforums |
|||
*Provide ordering and searching tools which can help to keep overview |
|||
*Potential markup languages |
|||
:*phpBB |
|||
::*Fairly widely used |
|||
:*Markdown |
|||
::*Possibly difficult to jump into |
|||
::*Some similarities to MediaWiki's markup |
|||
:*User-entered HTML |
|||
::*More freedom |
|||
::*Easily mangled |
|||
==== Additional tools ==== |
|||
*Something like Dropbox, file-sharing source |
|||
:*Having a file-sharing service in the same Internet domain as a phpBB forum would simplify the use of images in the forum |
|||
==== Conclusions ==== |
|||
*Some combination of the above is most likely |
|||
*The best long-term solution will be gateways connecting these worlds |
|||
:*All types of users may participate using their favorite tools |
|||
*The best short-term solution is to use something like phpBB |
|||
:*In the short term, as long as gateways are absent, too many competing platforms could potentially confuse users |
|||
:*Once platforms no longer compete, too many choices might still lead to confusion |
|||
== Analysis of Existing Internet Communities == |
|||
==== Why is the OTT sustainable? ==== |
|||
=====Traditions that keep the community together===== |
|||
:*As opposed to traditions that tend to alienate newcomers |
|||
=====Friendly population===== |
|||
:*High levels of creativity, intelligence |
|||
:*The thread didn't spring from this particular userbase; the individual users were attracted to the community |
|||
::*As evidenced by OTTer activity in the rest of the forums |
|||
=====Use of a Wiki===== |
|||
:*Interconnectivity: Signatures in-thread link to the wiki |
|||
:*Well-written |
|||
:*Kept up to date |
|||
:*Used to further understand the thread |
|||
:*Centered around community rather than artwork |
|||
====="Blitzing" or "Reading it ''all''"===== |
|||
:*Newcomers encouraged to start at beginning, read entire content |
|||
:*Experience formation of community personally |
|||
:*Means of accessing community history |
|||
:*While reading, help and motivation offered from the community |
|||
::*Tools for consumption of the thread (Example: mrobdex) |
|||
:*Artistic reward while blitzing: the frames of the comic |
|||
=====Willingness to assimilate new ideas===== |
|||
:*Extends to user presentation (avatars), communication formatting (footnotes), manner of "speaking" (slang) |
|||
:*Perhaps result of competing tensions: desire to follow OTC and onset of The Madness |
|||
::*Created core set of users not dissuaded by unexpected changes |
|||
::*Easier to welcome new traditions |
|||
::*Flexible community |
|||
:::*''Flexibility'' fosters ''sustainability'' |
|||
:*Common knowledge that all users have opportunity to contribute their own traditions |
|||
::*More apt to participate in others' traditions due to this knowledge |
|||
==== Why is Drawception problematic in terms of sustainability? ==== |
|||
*Very young (in age) community based around a game |
|||
*Arguments over procedurals (gameplay) |
|||
:*Reminiscent of heated OTT discussions over "how to blitz" |
|||
*Game site attempting to also be a social media site |
|||
:*Tension between game and social aspects |
|||
::*Results in a split userbase |
|||
::*Opposing "sides" with differing goals |
|||
::*Community fights self rather than fostering self |
|||
:*Social tools inadequate |
|||
::*Lack of private messaging system: users have to seek secondary communities like Facebook to connect |
|||
::*Unmoderated forums |
|||
::*Hundreds of tiny, scattered comment sections that are difficult to find |
|||
:::*Near impossible to read it all |
|||
*Little sense of community heritage |
|||
:*Population focused on current games and daily trends |
|||
*Potential fixes |
|||
:*Remove the dichotomy? |
|||
:*Provide a Game Interface in the platform |
|||
==== Conclusions ==== |
|||
*Be willing to experiment, hear new ideas, adapt to the unfamiliar |
|||
:*Don't fear chasing away the community by exposing them to new challenges |
|||
:*Perhaps necessary for distilling out the core set of users who will become the solid rock to build the sustainable community on |
|||
:*There must also be something to bring ''back'' those who flee the Madness |
|||
*Promote individual creativity and recognize user contributions |
|||
*Optional traditions rather than mandatory |
|||
*A sustainable online platform must provide tools to ease blitzing everything |
|||
:*Search functions |
|||
:*Filters |
|||
:*Blitzer scripts, as in the OTT |
|||
:*Hyper-Threading |
|||
::*Insert searchable headlines into communications like email |
|||
::*Create an archive to handle them, display them online, and maintain them while sending new emails through a web interface |
|||
== Miscellaneous == |
|||
==== What about "Decentralization"? ==== |
|||
*Set up a “decentralized” alternative to Facebook such as Diaspora and/or Friendica |
|||
*“Decentralized” means, in this context, that the infrastructure isn't controlled by a single company |
|||
*All users can contribute to the infrastructure by setting up their own servers |
|||
*Criticism: this “decentralized” approach would make it more difficult to access these platforms |
|||
:*However, it is more complicated to ''contribute to the infrastructure'' of a decentralized platform than to ''access'' Facebook |
|||
:*Yet just as easy to ''access'' the platform |
|||
*Having all resources physically distributed among several servers doesn't conflict with having them logically centralized |
|||
:*The user experiences them as a single resource |
|||
*Summary: Need for a logically centralized platform |
|||
:*Physically decentralized |
|||
:*Goals do not conflict |
|||
==== Potential Names ==== |
|||
*Sustainable Online Platform |
|||
*Eierlegende Wollmilchsau |
|||
:*Very useful, but also very ambitious |
|||
====More Challenges==== |
|||
*Students may be spread among too many disparate social media platforms with no clear recommendation |
|||
:*Results in factions that have few intercommunity exchanges |
|||
*Differences in language |
Aktuelle Version vom 16. September 2014, 07:15 Uhr
On this page you will find the first results of our investigations about sustainable online communities.
Wait for it. ;)
Goal: To build a sustainable online community.
What is a Sustainable Online Community?
- Comprises a diverse audience concerning gender, age, location, interests, etc.
- Sustains for a significantly longer time than what could be expected when it was created.
- Has substantially less personal conflicts (“flame wars”) than in other online communities with comparable diversity.
- Not driven by the consumption of external input, but it is productive by itself in some field/s of art and/or science.
Steps to Establish a Sustainable Community
- Create the software tools
- Social Media Group willing to introduce new students to the sustainable platforms
- Attract user interest
- Ongoing public art and/or projects
- Decentralized approach, no single creator
- Maintain the international online community
- Continue to welcome newcomers, ease the transition into the fold
- Raise awareness of sustainability in the community
- Community feeds itself with art and science
- Focus on a topic of sustainability for these projects
- Appropriate forms of expression for furthering awareness of sustainability
Sustainable Tools for a Sustainable Community
Free Software (Open Source Software)
- Not reliant on a single company
- Available to all users
- Freedom to study, modify, redistribute the software
- Example: phpBB
Benefits
- User-controlled content and information feel more secure/comfortable
- Prevents the one-way data relationship many companies have with their userbase
- Company receives data on users, users not privy to company actions
- Information stored there by users liable to be lost with site closure (not sustainable)
Potential Software Tools
Platforms that house, inspire, and connect the community.
Email List (with public archive)
- Good for readable resource rather than in-the-moment community
- Ability to scan and skim content
- Potential Challenge: Sorting everything and keeping the overview is up to the user
- Easy for email to be lost in the shuffle
Wiki
- Managed by the users themselves
- Sustainable: multiple user-editors means multiple avenues for content addition
- Logically centralized: all users working together on a single resource in one location
- Good for lists
- Project priorities, needs
- Display pertinent information immediately (vs. a forum thread)
- Useful to display the current state of subjects
- Potential challenge: Not the best tool for general community discussion
- Possible scattered conversations in a variety of locations
- Difficult for any one user to locate it all
- May be avoided with clearly designated comment sections
- One intermediate solution could be to redirect discussions from the wiki to a forum
- for instance by placing an URL to the thread on each “discussion” page
- Best if not enforced
- Fruitful discussion can die immediately if it is forced from one platform to another
- Long-term solution could be a wiki whose “discussion page” (or “talk page” in Wikipedia) is a thread in a forum, automagically.
Discussion Forum
- Easily bring new users into the ongoing conversation
- Challenge: Less skimmable, harder to find information
- May be mitigated with outside resources that direct the user to the appropriate locations
- Still blitzable
- Posts added chronologically
- Easier to follow conversation
- More difficult to sort by subject
- Mitigated by good organization of subforums
- Provide ordering and searching tools which can help to keep overview
- Potential markup languages
- phpBB
- Fairly widely used
- Markdown
- Possibly difficult to jump into
- Some similarities to MediaWiki's markup
- User-entered HTML
- More freedom
- Easily mangled
Additional tools
- Something like Dropbox, file-sharing source
- Having a file-sharing service in the same Internet domain as a phpBB forum would simplify the use of images in the forum
Conclusions
- Some combination of the above is most likely
- The best long-term solution will be gateways connecting these worlds
- All types of users may participate using their favorite tools
- The best short-term solution is to use something like phpBB
- In the short term, as long as gateways are absent, too many competing platforms could potentially confuse users
- Once platforms no longer compete, too many choices might still lead to confusion
Analysis of Existing Internet Communities
Why is the OTT sustainable?
Traditions that keep the community together
- As opposed to traditions that tend to alienate newcomers
Friendly population
- High levels of creativity, intelligence
- The thread didn't spring from this particular userbase; the individual users were attracted to the community
- As evidenced by OTTer activity in the rest of the forums
Use of a Wiki
- Interconnectivity: Signatures in-thread link to the wiki
- Well-written
- Kept up to date
- Used to further understand the thread
- Centered around community rather than artwork
"Blitzing" or "Reading it all"
- Newcomers encouraged to start at beginning, read entire content
- Experience formation of community personally
- Means of accessing community history
- While reading, help and motivation offered from the community
- Tools for consumption of the thread (Example: mrobdex)
- Artistic reward while blitzing: the frames of the comic
Willingness to assimilate new ideas
- Extends to user presentation (avatars), communication formatting (footnotes), manner of "speaking" (slang)
- Perhaps result of competing tensions: desire to follow OTC and onset of The Madness
- Created core set of users not dissuaded by unexpected changes
- Easier to welcome new traditions
- Flexible community
- Flexibility fosters sustainability
- Common knowledge that all users have opportunity to contribute their own traditions
- More apt to participate in others' traditions due to this knowledge
Why is Drawception problematic in terms of sustainability?
- Very young (in age) community based around a game
- Arguments over procedurals (gameplay)
- Reminiscent of heated OTT discussions over "how to blitz"
- Game site attempting to also be a social media site
- Tension between game and social aspects
- Results in a split userbase
- Opposing "sides" with differing goals
- Community fights self rather than fostering self
- Social tools inadequate
- Lack of private messaging system: users have to seek secondary communities like Facebook to connect
- Unmoderated forums
- Hundreds of tiny, scattered comment sections that are difficult to find
- Near impossible to read it all
- Little sense of community heritage
- Population focused on current games and daily trends
- Potential fixes
- Remove the dichotomy?
- Provide a Game Interface in the platform
Conclusions
- Be willing to experiment, hear new ideas, adapt to the unfamiliar
- Don't fear chasing away the community by exposing them to new challenges
- Perhaps necessary for distilling out the core set of users who will become the solid rock to build the sustainable community on
- There must also be something to bring back those who flee the Madness
- Promote individual creativity and recognize user contributions
- Optional traditions rather than mandatory
- A sustainable online platform must provide tools to ease blitzing everything
- Search functions
- Filters
- Blitzer scripts, as in the OTT
- Hyper-Threading
- Insert searchable headlines into communications like email
- Create an archive to handle them, display them online, and maintain them while sending new emails through a web interface
Miscellaneous
What about "Decentralization"?
- Set up a “decentralized” alternative to Facebook such as Diaspora and/or Friendica
- “Decentralized” means, in this context, that the infrastructure isn't controlled by a single company
- All users can contribute to the infrastructure by setting up their own servers
- Criticism: this “decentralized” approach would make it more difficult to access these platforms
- However, it is more complicated to contribute to the infrastructure of a decentralized platform than to access Facebook
- Yet just as easy to access the platform
- Having all resources physically distributed among several servers doesn't conflict with having them logically centralized
- The user experiences them as a single resource
- Summary: Need for a logically centralized platform
- Physically decentralized
- Goals do not conflict
Potential Names
- Sustainable Online Platform
- Eierlegende Wollmilchsau
- Very useful, but also very ambitious
More Challenges
- Students may be spread among too many disparate social media platforms with no clear recommendation
- Results in factions that have few intercommunity exchanges
- Differences in language