Baustellenschild

Diese Seiten befinden sich im Aufbau.

Sie können unvollständige, veraltete und/oder sich widersprechende Informationen enthalten.

Towards a Sustainable Online Community: Unterschied zwischen den Versionen

Aus Erlebnisraum Nachhaltige Entwicklung
Zur Navigation springen Zur Suche springen
(Beginning to add formatting.)
K (Final proofreading, all PM content added and organized.)
 
(4 dazwischenliegende Versionen desselben Benutzers werden nicht angezeigt)
Zeile 3: Zeile 3:


Wait for it. ;)
Wait for it. ;)





== Goal: To build a sustainable online community. ==
== Goal: To build a sustainable online community. ==
=== What is a Sustainable Online Community? ===
==== What is a Sustainable Online Community? ====
*Comprises a diverse audience concerning gender, age, location, interests, etc.
*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.
*Sustains for a significantly longer time than what could be expected when it was created.
Zeile 13: Zeile 12:
*Not driven by the consumption of external input, but it is productive by itself in some field/s of art and/or science.
*Not driven by the consumption of external input, but it is productive by itself in some field/s of art and/or science.


=== Using Sustainable Tools for a Sustainable Community ===
==== 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)=====
=====Free Software (Open Source Software)=====
*Not reliant on a single company
*Not reliant on a single company
Zeile 24: Zeile 36:
:*Company receives data on users, users not privy to company actions
:*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)
:*Information stored there by users liable to be lost with site closure (not sustainable)

=== Basic Steps to Create the Community ===

*Create the software tools
*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




Zeile 48: Zeile 51:
*Managed by the users themselves
*Managed by the users themselves
*Sustainable: multiple user-editors means multiple avenues for content addition
*Sustainable: multiple user-editors means multiple avenues for content addition
*Logically entralized: all users working together on a single resource in one location
*Logically centralized: all users working together on a single resource in one location
*Good for lists
*Good for lists
:*Project priorities, needs
:*Project priorities, needs
*Display pertinent information immediately (vs. a forum thread)
*Display pertinent information immediately (vs. a forum thread)
:*Useful to display the current state of subjects
:*Useful to display the current state of subjects
*Challenge: Not the best tool for general community discussion
*Potential challenge: Not the best tool for general community discussion
:*Potentially scattered conversations in a variety of locations
:*Possible scattered conversations in a variety of locations
:*Difficult for any one user to locate it all
:*Difficult for any one user to locate it all
:*May be avoided with clearly designated comment sections
:*May be avoided with clearly designated comment sections
Zeile 82: Zeile 85:
::*More freedom
::*More freedom
::*Easily mangled
::*Easily mangled

==== Combination of the above ====


==== Additional tools ====
==== Additional tools ====
Zeile 89: Zeile 90:
:*Having a file-sharing service in the same Internet domain as a phpBB forum would simplify the use of images in the forum
:*Having a file-sharing service in the same Internet domain as a phpBB forum would simplify the use of images in the forum


==== Conclusion ====
==== Conclusions ====
*Some combination of the above is most likely
*The best long-term solution will be gateways connecting both worlds
*The best long-term solution will be gateways connecting these worlds
:*all types of users can participate using their favorite tools
:*All types of users may participate using their favorite tools
*The best short-term solution is to use something like phpBB
*The best short-term solution is to use something like phpBB
*In the long term, my favorite platform would be one where everyone can participate using xe's favorite tools
:*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
*In the short term, as long as we don't have gateways, we must not confuse the users by too many competing platforms.
:*once they do no longer compete, we still must not confuse them by allowing too many choices



----------
-On "Centralization"
--we want to 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
--everyone can contribute to the infrastructure by setting up xer own server
--Criticism: this “decentralized” approach would make it more difficult to access these platforms
---it is more complicated to contribute to the infrastructure of a decentralized platform than to access Facebook
---it is just as easy to access it, however
--having all resources physically distributed among serveral servers doesn't conflict with having them logically centralized
---the user experiences them as a single resource
--To summarize: We want to have a logically centralized platform
---And we want to have it physically decentralized
---Both goals do not conflict

-Within the community
--Raise the awareness of sustainability

-Names
--Sustainable Online Platform
--Eierlegende Wollmilchsau
---Very useful, but quite ambitious


-Questions
--How can we get those sustainable tools?
---Start with current tools, move to initial platforms, move to more sustainable resources
--How can we attract people there to form an online community?
---Social Media Group willing to introduce new students to the sustainable platforms
--How can we keep them there and make the online community sustainable?
--How can we raise awareness of sustainability in that community?
---Community feeds itself with art and science
---Focus on a topic of sustainability for these projects


== Analysis of Existing Internet Communities ==
-Why is the OTT sustainable?
==== Why is the OTT sustainable? ====
--Traditions that keep the community together
=====Traditions that keep the community together=====
---Versus potentially alienating newcomers (why?)
:*As opposed to traditions that tend to alienate newcomers
--Friendly population
=====Friendly population=====
---Creative, intelligent
:*High levels of creativity, intelligence
---Not what created the OTT, but rather a result of it
:*The thread didn't spring from this particular userbase; the individual users were attracted to the community
--Use of Wiki
::*As evidenced by OTTer activity in the rest of the forums
---Links from signatures in the thread to it
=====Use of a Wiki=====
---Well-written
:*Interconnectivity: Signatures in-thread link to the wiki
---Kept up to date
:*Well-written
---Used to further understand the thread
:*Kept up to date
---Centered around community rather than artwork
:*Used to further understand the thread
--Blitzing
:*Centered around community rather than artwork
---Newcomers encouraged to start at beginning
====="Blitzing" or "Reading it ''all''"=====
---Read entire content
:*Newcomers encouraged to start at beginning, read entire content
---Experience formation of community personally
:*Experience formation of community personally
---Help and motivation from the Present community
:*Means of accessing community history
----Blitzer tools (Example: mrobdex)
:*While reading, help and motivation offered from the community
---Means of accessing community history
::*Tools for consumption of the thread (Example: mrobdex)
---Artistic reward while blitzing (the ONGed OTC)
:*Artistic reward while blitzing: the frames of the comic
--Willingness to assimilate weird new things
=====Willingness to assimilate new ideas=====
---User presentation (avatars), communication formatting (footnotes), manner of speech
:*Extends to user presentation (avatars), communication formatting (footnotes), manner of "speaking" (slang)
---Perhaps result of competing tensions: desire to follow OTC and onset of Madness
:*Perhaps result of competing tensions: desire to follow OTC and onset of The Madness
----Created core set of users not dissuaded by unexpected changes
::*Created core set of users not dissuaded by unexpected changes
----Easier to welcome new traditions
::*Easier to welcome new traditions
----Flexible community
::*Flexible community
-----Flexibility fosters sustainability
:::*''Flexibility'' fosters ''sustainability''
---Commmunity knowledge that all users have opportunity to contribute own traditions
:*Common knowledge that all users have opportunity to contribute their own traditions
----More apt to participate in others' traditions
::*More apt to participate in others' traditions due to this knowledge


==== Why is Drawception problematic in terms of sustainability? ====
-Sustainable community conclusions
*Very young (in age) community based around a game
--Be willing to experiment, hear new ideas, adapt to the unfamiliar
*Arguments over procedurals (gameplay)
---Don't be afraid chasing away some of the people in the community by exposing them to new challenges
:*Reminiscent of heated OTT discussions over "how to blitz"
---Necessary for distilling out the core set of users who will become the solid rock to build the sustainable community on
*Game site attempting to also be a social media site
---there must be something to bring back those who flee the Madness
:*Tension between game and social aspects
--Promote individual creativity and recognize user contributions
::*Results in a split userbase
--Optional traditions rather than mandatory
::*Opposing "sides" with differing goals
--Sustainable Online Platform must provide tools to ease blitzing everything.
::*Community fights self rather than fostering self
---Search functions
:*Social tools inadequate
---Filters
::*Lack of private messaging system: users have to seek secondary communities like Facebook to connect
---Blitzer scripts, as in the OTT
::*Unmoderated forums
---Hyper-Threading
::*Hundreds of tiny, scattered comment sections that are difficult to find
----inserting searchable headlines into our email
:::*Near impossible to read it all
----an email archive which could handle them, display them online, and maintain them while sending new emails through a web interface
*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 ====
-Why is Drawception not sustainable?
*Be willing to experiment, hear new ideas, adapt to the unfamiliar
--Very young (in age) community based around a game
:*Don't fear chasing away the community by exposing them to new challenges
--Arguments over procedurals (gameplay)
:*Perhaps necessary for distilling out the core set of users who will become the solid rock to build the sustainable community on
---Reminiscent of heated OTT discussions over "how to blitz"
:*There must also be something to bring ''back'' those who flee the Madness
--Game site trying to be social media site
*Promote individual creativity and recognize user contributions
---Tension between game and social aspects
*Optional traditions rather than mandatory
----Results in a split userbase
*A sustainable online platform must provide tools to ease blitzing everything
----Opposing "sides" with differing goals
:*Search functions
----Community fights self rather than fostering self
:*Filters
---Social tools inadequate
:*Blitzer scripts, as in the OTT
----No private messages
:*Hyper-Threading
----Unmoderated forums
::*Insert searchable headlines into communications like email
----Hundreds of tiny, scattered comment sections that are difficult to find
::*Create an archive to handle them, display them online, and maintain them while sending new emails through a web interface
-----Impossible to read it all
--Little sense of heritage
---More focused on current games and daily trends
--Potential fix: remove the dichotomy?
--Potential fix: providing a Hotdog Interface in our platform




Misc
-Creation of appropriate forms of expression for furthering awareness of sustainability
-Non-technical maintenance of international online communities
-catalog of requirements for the implementation of the online platforms according to the goals of the project


== Miscellaneous ==
Also known as: creating the "artistic design" of the community


==== What about "Decentralization"? ====
-Methods to avoid
*Set up a “decentralized” alternative to Facebook such as Diaspora and/or Friendica
--Spread students among too many disparate social media platforms with no clear recommendation
*“Decentralized” means, in this context, that the infrastructure isn't controlled by a single company
---Results in factions that have few intercommunity exchanges
*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 ====
Order
*Sustainable Online Platform
--The active discussion comes first. Otherwise there is nothing to blitz.
*Eierlegende Wollmilchsau
:*Very useful, but also very ambitious


====More Challenges====
-Potential setbacks
*Students may be spread among too many disparate social media platforms with no clear recommendation
--Differences in language
:*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